Who Do You Trust?(bhorowitz.com) |
Who Do You Trust?(bhorowitz.com) |
And sure enough:
54) human hair, fake hair or hair-extensions
which says a lot about the industry.
(Note in looking this up just now, I found its only in the UK prohibited businesses, not the US list, which is also somewhat interesting)
Hair (and probably fingernails, were there a market for them) is relatively easy to clean compared to other body parts, but it is still a potential biohazard. Having regulations and restrictions around it makes sense - And I'm a die-hard libertarian saying this.
And on a post about the craziness and bad experience in a wasteful business area that shouldn't exist? The entire concept of African American women buying Indian hair is just a continuing piece of systematic racism taken to its fullest by the victims themselves. This entire system from the hairdressers lacking capital for inventory to the women buying the hair is all disgusting waste.
The whole "this garbage (capitalism like this) is the best possible option" is pathetic learned helplessness.
We can find a source for this particular topic though: the long disgraceful history of racism that leads people to think that Indian hair (being straight like lots of European hair) is more beautiful than curly African hair.
There are so many problems, socially, economically, etc. with this situation; and I'm annoyed at anyone who describes the situation as something other than messed up. It's messed up that many black women think their natural hair isn't attractive enough; it's messed up that many black men think black women's natural hair isn't attractive enough; it's messed up that capitalists figure out how to continue promoting those views and profiting off of this; it's messed up that there's still enough economic inequity that black hairstylists work on tight margins and credit… and it's messed up that the jerks who wrote this article are brainwashed into thinking this sort of capitalism is the best economic system we could ever have. It's also messed up that they think it's reasonable to publish something that says effectively "X is the best we can have, except that it is horrible" without any sense of irony or other nuance.
it is an overly hostile comment imho, but i can sympathize.
Woman: Ha! These are not my hair. I covered my hair with someone else's hair. So technically, I'm in the clear.
God: Wow! Totally did not see that loophole.
See also: "selling" Chametz during Passover.
edit: changed movie name [Bad Hair]
Maybe once India becomes a developed country and quality of life will increase for ordinary Indians then they will stop trying to please god.
The entry level is polyester, with colors not normally found in nature. The mid-grade polyester (what I got) normally sells in the $180-230 range. Natural hair starts at $400, and obviously looks the most realistic.
Most of the hair is sourced from outside the US, from India and Asia. So the colors are usually very dark. They will bleach it to produce lighter shades, but if you need/want true Blonde, you'll have to buy either a bleached darker shade and hope for a good match, or spend significantly more for northern-European sourced hair.
Hair length is an issue - waiting for your hair to grow long before selling it obviously takes a while, so it sells for a premium.
And now I know a lot more than I ever thought I would about aftermarket hair supply. :)
[0] I went as Lucius Malfoy (Draco Malfoy's father) from Harry Potter: http://nebula.wsimg.com/773ae27d6ab68c28500b6986588b0da2?Acc...
From Mayvenn's site. Does this seem insulting to anyone else?
I’m into distribution, I’m like Atlantic
I got them mutherf**ers flying across the Atlantic
http://www.lamag.com/features/freeway-rick-is-dreaming/
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/06/05/188908281/freew...
My reading of the linked article was the issue with hair was a question of credit, in that stylists did not have the money, nor the credit to be able to hold inventory, and not that the hair itself was bad.
Wow.
That song has had many covers but my favorite is a local band, The Woolies, that had a Billboard top 100 hit with it in 1966:
In both "to whom is the message addressed" and "whom do you trust", "whom" is an object, not a subject.
All that being said, it is increasingly a common and acceptable practice to use "who" as both an object and a subject, so it's probably not worth losing too much sleep over.
Who made this? He made this. Whom do you trust? I trust him.
This mnemonic is predicated on answering in complete proper sentences. I realize that in current colloquial English, "Who made this? Him." is certainly an exchange one might encounter.
It's rude to misquote something. The rapper known as Rick Ross didn't say "mutherf ASTERISK ASTERISK ers", he said "motherfuckers". It's right there in the song if you hit play.
Why does he edit the text of the song but not the audio?
What the fuck is wrong with Americans thinking that some words are "bad" and should thus always be misspelled?
If they're bad, stop using them. If you're going to use them, spell them right. Spelling it "mutherf ASTERISK ASTERISK ers" doesn't keep my brain from thinking "fuck".
PS: HN's markdown doesn't let one escape an asterisk to get a literal asterisk.
If you take the article at its word, the state of the art is a distributed collection of small-time suppliers offering goods for sale without refunds for installation by third-party integrators -- the consumer's stylist.
Mayvenn improves the distribution story by integrating the stylist into the supply chain while providing customer service and inventory at zero risk to the stylists who can't afford to carry inventory themselves.
Could you elaborate?
Most global supply chains, some for super luxurious products have these three countries involved... I dont know how that automagically qualifies for a horrible experience
Um, that's a pretty ringing indictment of capitalism, not an endorsement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Yiddi...
A part oft this problem is that the health system is also an economic system. It shouldn't be, but they're trying to make and save money in every aspect.
There are few things that I wish were more strictly regulated by the state. Health care, with health as the primary goal, is one of these things.
Since this indeed seem like a pretty insulting way to address a business owner, maybe a more reasonable explanation is that Mayvenn earlier paid commissions in store credits and not actual money? An alternative would be that they pay in some sketchy way that can eventually be turned into normal money. Both alternatives would create a need to reassure prospective clients that they will indeed get real money at the end of the day.
Simple example, the reward points I get on my credit card are not cash. They can be redeemed on my mortgage, but not on shoes.
A product that is trying to differentiate itself from such programs would certainly want to really emphasize that they are giving you cash.
For example: Dasko, a brand commonly worn by nurses seem to be in the $120-$140 range. http://www.zappos.com/dansko-shoes/CK_XAVICuAPiAgIKAQ.zso
Insulting? Not really.
So obviously what's "proper" or not depends on what dialect you're trying to conform to. I can believe that if you're part of that narrow, elite sliver that would naturally use 'whom do you trust', the "incorrect" use of "who" as the object of a sentence must seem garish, but to the rest of us, trust me, "whom do you trust" sounds ridiculous.
Live and let live?
(1) "Whom do you trust?" http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2012/04/grammar
The British and Dutch started it with the opium wars and now America took a page from their book and does it too. This is the real issue behind the war on drugs. They create a black market and then own that market, makes for tons of money that's unaccountable to congress (eg perfect for black budget ops).
Opium production in Afghanistan was almost nil before we invaded, and now Afghan heroin is getting shipped straight to America and business is booming! Similar things happened in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.
Gosh, this shit really does camouflage over human-imperceptible timescales.
It's not just a coincidence.