This story — involving some inspired detective work from Twitter’s resident crazed genius threadmeister Thomas Wictor — is probably the best thing you’ll find anywhere on the internet all day.
The reason it’s so deliciously satisfying is that it’s one of those rare moments when the regressive left is caught red-handed engaging in one of its favorite tricks: lying through its teeth in order to make conservatives look bad.
In this case, the conservative being victimized is Candace Owens.
And the victimizer — posing as just a concerned ordinary member of the public — is a liberal activist who works for none other than George Soros.
Owens’s initial tweet, as you’ll see, was provocative and undoubtedly designed to annoy liberals. Had they responded in kind that would have been entirely legit.
When Winston Churchill was at the nadir of his career, he wrote a biography of his ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough. In his wilderness years he needed to be reminded that even the greatest men of destiny go through periods when it all seems pretty hopeless. ‘Every taunt, however bitter; every tale, however petty; every charge, however shameful, for which the incidents of a long career could afford a pretext, has been levelled against him,’ Churchill wrote. Those Blenheim Palaces and Finest Hours: they don’t just give themselves away, you know.
I wish someone had told me this when I was younger. Unfortunately, like many of us, I suffered the misfortune of having parents who kept telling me how very special I was.
What kind of mother takes her baby to a conflict zone where rocks and bullets are flying and tear gas chokes the air?
Why, a Palestinian mother like the one pictured weeping over her dead baby in lots of newspapers today. (Including, I note, the former conservative imprint the Daily Telegraphwhich has put it on the front page…)
“Palestinian officials said the baby died in an Israeli tear gas attack, a claim disputed by Israeli forces” says the Telegraph.
But if a picture is worth a thousand words then that caption is meaningless.
All most people are going to see is a pretty young mother, flanked by two older female relatives, desperately hugging the shrouded corpse of her baby.
What are we to make of this?
Well it’s theoretically possible, I suppose, that everything the Palestinian propaganda industry is telling us is true: that this young woman called “Mariam” just happened to be innocently wandering past with her eight-month-old Leila al-Ghandour when, lo!, the evil Israelis struck with their wanton tear gas and poor Leila died.
Fashion chain New Look is reviewing its prices after an outcry that some larger-sized clothes were more expensive than those in smaller sizes.
The High Street retailer said it was hoping to “ensure pricing differences like these” did not happen in future.
It comes after a shopper saw trousers in its Curves range cost 15% more than a pair in the main collection.
Can anyone explain to me what the problem is here?
The first and most obvious point is that clothes for fat people inevitably require more fabric. People who work in the “plus-size” industry admit this:
However, Anna Scholz, a plus-size fashion designer, told the programme there was a limit to the size range that could be produced for the same price as it can take twice the fabric to make the same shirt for a larger size as a small one.
“As a company we sell from size 16 to 28 – if I had smaller sizes as well I would have to price them differently.”
Charging a premium which reflects this difference is no injustice.
The knives are out for Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt. We expected this from the Green Blob—if you’re taking flak it means you’re over the target. But now even the conservative media is joining in calls for his head.
Here is the Weekly Standard in an unsigned editorial:
Pruitt’s use of public money for non-essential purposes has become a pattern. He’s used taxpayer dollars to purchase lavish dinners and accommodations in five-star hotels; a new, expensively retrofitted Chevrolet Suburban; first-class flights, domestic and foreign, for himself and his security detail; a massive security entourage; “special hiring authority” pay raises for favored staff; and costly office renovations (this last violated two laws, according to the Government Accountability Office). None of these profligacies, taken by itself, would present a major political problem. But together, they present a major one.
Even red-meat, Trumpophiliac Red State kinda, sorta thinks it might be time Pruitt went:
A study of the future global economy has concluded that the standard worst-case scenario used by climate scientists is actually not the worst case.
Just in case any of you were worried about this, don’t be. As we learn further down this is based on a yet another study by parti-pris alarmists ramping up the climate change scare narrative using dodgy computer modeled projections of what might happen if all their parameters are correct (which they aren’t).
Results from this study suggest a greater than 35% probability that emissions concentrations will exceed those assumed in the most severe of the available climate change scenarios (RCP 8.5), illustrating particular importance for understanding extreme outcomes.
To which the only intelligent response is: so what?
Climate scientists are giving science a bad name, says a leading atmospheric physicist in an essay on the global warming debate.
Professor Garth Paltridge, formerly a chief scientist with Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Division of Atmospheric Research, says that the behavior of certain members of the climate science establishment is “seriously threatening the public’s perception of the professionalism of scientists in general.”
Many climate scientists are much less sure about man-made global warming than they will admit in public, he says. But rather than reach out to skeptics in order to open up the debate and explore the uncertainties, they have instead closed ranks and rubbished anyone who disagrees with them:
Some of the more vocal of the establishment climate researchers have fallen into a mode of open denigration of climate sceptics (“deniers” is the offensive popular terminology of the day). They insist that only researchers directly within the climate-change community are capable of giving authoritative advice. They insist that one can find true and reputable science only in peer-reviewed climate literature. But most significantly, they seem to have evolved a policy of deliberately excluding sceptics from climate-change forums of one sort or another, and indeed of refusing to take part in any forum where sceptics may share the podium.
Their high-handedness, Paltridge says, is redolent of “medieval religion”:
It is still a matter of debate whether climate change will increase the number of hurricanes, but it is more and more clear that human-caused heating of the planet will boost their severity.
This is absolute rubbish. “Junk scientists weaponising weather”, as the great Paul Homewood puts it. But perhaps we could have guessed this, given that the paper’s lead author is none other than Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth.
Trenberth, a moustacheoed alarmist and IPCC lead author who works at the Climate Analysis Section at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, is powerfully invested in the great climate change scare story.
In 2009 he sent the infamous email – exposed during Climategate – lamenting the fact that global temperatures weren’t playing in accordance with the alarmists’ computer models:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
More disturbingly, in 2005 as an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Lead Author, he misrepresented the views of one of his contributing expert authors, Chris Landsea, in order to ramp up the scare story. Landsea, a hurricane expert, had said that recent hurricane activity had not been made more severe by “global warming.” Trenberth, not a hurricane expert, overruled Landsea and held a press conference declaring the opposite. As a result Landsea resigned from the IPCC. (For more details, see my previous article here)
Of course I can see why governments are keen to be seen responding to this terrible threat. If you’re as desperately useless as Theresa May’s UK government, for example, it makes perfect sense to try to distract everyone from your incompetence by launching bold anti-plastic initiatives which get you a big thumbs up from national treasures like Sir David Attenborough and which don’t cost the public purse much money.
But I wish they wouldn’t bother. As this article from Inside Sources demonstrates – and it really ought to be required reading for all those bansturbators out there working themselves into a righteous frenzy about just how Medieval they’re going to get on plastic’s ass – these plastic bans, in the West at any rate, are a complete waste of space.
Here he is on a video in 2014 declaring that “climate deniers have no place in public life.”
He was also one of the lead instigators of a scheme by liberal Attorneys General to use lawfare to harass fossil fuel companies such as Peabody Energy and Exxon Mobil. In 2016, he hosted 16 fellow Democrat AGs and former Vice President Al Gore to launch a coalition called AGs United for Clean Power.
“With gridlock and dysfunction gripping Washington, it is up to the states to lead on the generation-defining issue of climate change. We stand ready to defend the next president’s climate change agenda, and vow to fight any efforts to roll-back the meaningful progress we’ve made over the past eight years,” said Attorney General Schneiderman. “Our offices are seriously examining the potential of working together on high-impact, state-level initiatives, such as investigations into whether fossil fuel companies have misled investors about how climate change impacts their investments and business decisions.”