The House Natural Resources Committee has got Patagonia’s number.
No, Patagonia is not the savior of America’s protected wild spaces. It’s just another greedster corporation with an overpriced logo, trying to make a fast buck by jumping on the anti-Trump bandwagon while parading its ‘eco’ credentials.
“The assertion that ‘the president stole your land’ is designed to mislead and terrify the uninformed. Their deception speaks volumes about their contempt for rural Americans in Utah,” the committee said in a statement.
“Of course, Patagonia, a self-interested corporation like any other, knows the truth, but they don’t care. Lies and distortions are better for their bottom line,” the statement said.
It has backed up its message with this tweet:
This was in response to an earlier tweet by Patagonia:
Read the rest at Breitbart.
President Trump has offended pretty much the entirety of Britain’s political and media establishment up to and including the Prime Minister, the Mayor of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury. As a result, the Special Relationship is once more in jeopardy, and Trump has decided to cancel a planned working visit to the United Kingdom.
In a moment I shall explain why the president is right and his critics are wrong. But first a brief recap of what the fuss is all about.
Trump’s critics objected violently – or so they have publicly claimed – to three of his Twitter retweets.
These retweets showed videos, purportedly of members of the Religion of Peace (TM) behaving less than peacefully.
One depicted a bearded Muslim destroying a statue of the Virgin Mary.
One showed an Islamist mob pushing a teenage boy off a roof and then beating him to death.
One showed a white Dutch boy on crutches being gratuitously beaten up by a man described in the video caption as a “Muslim migrant”.
Prime Minister Theresa May; Mayor of London Sadiq Khan; and many other politicians professed themselves to be appalled by this. As was BBC news, which made this horror its lead story.
But it wasn’t the sadistic brutality on any of the videos that bothered them. It was the fact that the person whose tweets the President had retweeted, Jayda Fransen, is the deputy of a nationalistic, anti-immigration political party highly critical of Islam called Britain First
Read this tweet. Then weep for the future of Western Industrial Civilization…
The tweet, let me explain, comes from the corporate communications department of a popular UK chain of stationers called Paperchase. There are Paperchase outlets on every high street in Britain. Sometimes you go in to buy stuff you need — a pen, a notebook, some glue, a birthday card; too often, you end up leaving with a pile of stuff you didn’t need because, damn it, it’s all so bright and jolly and breezy and seductive and you never realized a box of paperclips could look quite so much fun, fun, fun!
That, more or less, is Paperchase’s business model; and it explains why it is so especially popular in this season of wrapping paper, gaudy stocking fillers and cards.
But now, as you see from the tweet, Paperchase has done a terrible thing for which it has felt compelled to apologize.
Like pretty much every male I know of my generation — I’m tail-end Boomer — I’m fascinated by the history of Nazi Germany.
I grew up in the shadow of the Second World War. Many of my teachers had fought in it. As a child, I played with toy Eighth Army and Afrika Korps soldiers. I read the collected works of Sven Hassel. I watched every classic WWII movie there is to see from The Longest Day and Patton: Lust for Glory to The Great Escape and Cross of Iron.
Later, I interviewed numerous war veterans — commandos, paratroopers, RAF bomber pilots — for a couple of novels I wrote. I also joined a group of re-enactors one frozen December at Bastogne, where I met genuine Battle of the Bulge veterans who thanked us for help keeping the memory of what they did alive. And I often took my children to the Imperial War Museum in London to gawp at the Jagdpanther, the Focke-Wulf, and the 25-pounder, so that they too would understand both the excitement and the sacrifice experienced by the “Greatest Generation.”
But now some silly girl from Cambridge University thinks this interest is dangerously offensive — and actually tried to get me fired for it.
No. I couldn’t believe it either. But here’s what happened.
Special Forces veteran Dr. Mike Simpson isn’t impressed by the way the Niger incident is being exploited by liberals like Congresswoman Frederica Wilson as a cheap way of attacking Donald Trump.
Simpson’s thoughts on Niger are attracting a lot of attention on Twitter. Here’s what this ex-Green Beret has to say about his fallen comrades:
I am going to speak for all veterans for just a moment.
1) We didn’t enlist because we were poor, stupid, or lacked opportunities. You like to think that, because it makes you feel superior, but that’s not the case. We enlisted because we have a love of country and a willingness to sacrifice.
After the (Democrat) Harvey Weinstein scandal and the (Democrat) George Clooney scandal and the (Democrat) Ben Affleck scandal and the (Democrat) Roy Price scandal and the (Democrat) Oliver Stone scandal and the (Labour) Sam Krissscandal, progressives everywhere have sought high and low for an equivalent conservative villain…
….someone, anyone, who is guilty of vaguely inappropriate sexual behavior, but who isn’t either a registered Democrat or a card-carrying socialist.
Finally, they think they have found one.
His name is Rupert Myers, a self-claimed “conservative”, sacked as Political Editor of British GQ after what the publisher Conde Nast euphemistically calls “some allegations.”
If you’re interested in the grubby details you’ll find them here. (Nothing anywhere near in the Weinstein league. Just general pestering, while drunk, at parties and so on, pursued with perhaps a bit too much fly-like persistence.)
Personally, though, I’m much more interested in defending the conservative movement from the outrageous slur that Rupert Tentacle Hands is, or ever has been, one of us.
Do you remember that scene in Harry Potter and the Saucer Full of Surrender Monkeys where the staff and pupils at Hogwarts finally decide to abandon the struggle against the forces of evil?
Voldemort, they’ve realized, is just too darn scary; the Death Eaters are too ruddy devious, what with all their lies and ruses and shape-shifting antics; and besides, who is anyone to judge, be they witch, wizard, mudblood, or muggle, whether the forces of light really are morally superior to the forces of darkness?
“Perhaps it’s just a matter of perspective,” Hermione tells an enthusiastic, jazz-handing audience at the United Nations of Wizardry. “Maybe what we’ve been taught by our chauvinistic, patriarchal, judgmental society — that the Avada Kedavra curse is wrong; that the Cruciatus is cruel; that the world would be a better, freer, happier place if it wasn’t ruled by sinister cloaked figures who want everyone to submit to their domineering, intolerant religious death cult — are just a reflection of our white wizardry privilege.”
What happens next, of course, is the famous scene where — under the supervision of Dolores Umbrage and the Ministry of Magic — all the staff and pupils at Hogwarts hand in their magic wands and burn them on a huge pyre.
The world’s sixth mass extinction apocalypse is due to begin around 2100, claims a professor at MIT.
According to Daniel Rothman, professor of geophysics in the MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and co-director of MIT’s Lorenz Center, we are fast approaching “thresholds of catastrophe” in the carbon cycle which make doom almost inevitable.
In a paper published today in Science Advances, he proposes that mass extinction occurs if one of two thresholds are crossed: For changes in the carbon cycle that occur over long timescales, extinctions will follow if those changes occur at rates faster than global ecosystems can adapt. For carbon perturbations that take place over shorter timescales, the pace of carbon-cycle changes will not matter; instead, the size or magnitude of the change will determine the likelihood of an extinction event.
Taking this reasoning forward in time, Rothman predicts that, given the recent rise in carbon dioxide emissions over a relatively short timescale, a sixth extinction will depend on whether a critical amount of carbon is added to the oceans. That amount, he calculates, is about 310 gigatons, which he estimates to be roughly equivalent to the amount of carbon that human activities will have added to the world’s oceans by the year 2100.
If we get a repeat of the Great Dying, 275 million years ago, what this means basically is that we are all going to die. Even you.