Self-Destruction

Victor Davis Hanson delivers an almighty spanking on America’s well-deserving backside:

Our enemies abroad, particularly China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, are watching all this woke, comic madness with absolute glee.

They are delighted the United States is diverting trillions of dollars and man-hours away from production to ideological witch hunts, woke cannibalism, green virtue-signaling, spendthrift consumption, racial and gender fixations, warped science, suicidal surveillance, and commissariat indoctrination.

Woke means that Americans have less money, labor, and time to hone their military readiness. They will produce less competitive energy, but more pseudo-science, non-meritocratic advancement, and unsound investment—all the reasons why America will no longer dominate the world.

As with all VDH’s musings, you must read them all.

That Awful Colonialist Elizabeth

A whole bunch of racist assholes (and disaffected Argies) have been rejoicing at the death of Queen Elizabeth II, as a “colonialist” and all that rubbish.  Accusing Elizabeth of colonialism is the same as accusing (for example) Joe Biden of slavery — i.e. it happened a long time ago and in Elisabeth’s case, was an inherited legacy.

That nitwit in the first link says that “we should examine the role of Queen Elizabeth in colonialism.”

Okay, let’s.

Why don’t we see what happened to all those British colonies in Africa, for example, following Elizabeth’s coronation in 1953:

Sudan: 1956
Ghana: 1957
British Somaliland (Somalia): 1960
Nigeria: 1960
Sierra Leone: 1961
Tanganyika (Tanzania): 1961
South Africa: 1961
Uganda: 1962
Kenya: 1963
N. Rhodesia (Zambia): 1964
Nyasaland (Malawi): 1964
Gambia: 1965
Bechuanaland (Botswana): 1966
Basutoland (Lesotho): 1966
Swaziland: 1968

The dates following the countries’ names refer, of course, to their full independence from Britain and becoming thus fully-fledged nation-states.

And all happened during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II.

Some colonialist.

Calling Bullshit

While I’m all over the idea of some stout patriot bringing down a modern jet with a hunting rifle, this one just flat-out didn’t happen:

VLADIMIR PUTIN will be left fuming after a Ukrainian pensioner shot down a SU-35 fighter jet over the skies of Chernihiv, according to claims. Marketed as “world-beating”, the plane costs a whopping £74 million to manufacture. The jets have been deployed to Ukraine and have flown many sorties during the current war. They boast all the qualities associated with the best modern fighters in the world, such as super-manoeuvrability and supersonic speed.
Yet despite these advantages, a humble Ukrainian pensioner was allegedly able to shoot down one of the jets with his hunting rifle – leaving the Russian President incandescent with rage.

Read the article, and study the photographs to understand my skepticism.

That’s Gotta Sting

Forgive me for chuckling. but this story is just too rich:

A vegan restaurant has decided to put meat on the menu after being hit by the cost of living crisis – angering many customers who are ‘saddened’ by the change. The Mango Tree in Taunton, Somerset, closed its doors on Saturday to undergo renovations including an updated menu which will include meat. They are not the only vegan restaurant to struggle in recent years due to a lack of uptake, but those who loved the plant-based values have hit out saying ‘selling meat is worse than closing’.

Yeah, easy to say when it’s not your livelihood.

‘Veganism isn’t a business venture. It’s an ethical philosophy that does the best for the animals, the planet, and public health.’

The owners, however, have the proper perspective:

The restaurant, however, insisted they were left with ‘no choice’ and said: ‘The only other option was to close permanently.  Ethics extend to the jobs and welfare of our wonderful team, to whom we owe a great deal, and another chance.’

Exactly.  Good for them, and a pox on the fanatics.

Disrespect

So this young couple got married, in a church, even.

The priest looked priestly, the bride looked lovely, and the groom:

…looked like a complete twat.

Seriously:  at some point this moron looked at all the clothing choices he had available for his wedding day, and decided on the Sunday Brunch Outfit?

I’m not a believer in the “body language” thing, but it’s no wonder the bride is leaning towards the priest rather than her poor choice of a husband.

Big Girls Don’t Cry

…but bad ad campaigns do:

Abercrombie & Fitch faced so much backlash over an image it posted of a plus-sized woman modeling the brand’s shorts that it decided to delete the image from its Instagram page.

The photo was posted late last week and quickly went viral, with critics accusing the fashion retailer of promoting unhealthy lifestyles and glorifying obesity. This is a complete turnaround from a company that was once shunned for discriminating against women of average weight.

“New Abercrombie & Fitch ad just dropped…. This season they are featuring diabetes and heart attacks,” one person responded on Twitter to the original photo.

Don’t follow the Twitter link in the article unless you have a seriously strong stomach.

The larger [sic] point, though, is this.  Every business has the right to offer its product to a self-defined sector of the market:  Big & Tall stores don’t have an “XS” or “petite” selection of clothing, and should face no opposition from the Skinnies for doing so.  How, then, is that any different from A&C’s prior positioning statement:

Meanwhile, in 2013, the CEO of Abercrombie went viral for making comments about overweight customers wearing the brand after the retailer was accused of refusing to sell XL- or XXL-sized clothing.

Robin Lewis, author of “The New Rules of Retail,” explained the CEO’s thoughts on the brand, Elite Daily reported.

“He doesn’t want larger people shopping in his store, he wants thin and beautiful people,” Lewis said of then-CEO Mike Jeffries. “He doesn’t want his core customers to see people who aren’t as hot as them wearing his clothing. People who wear his clothing should feel like they’re one of the ‘cool kids.’”

Nothing wrong with that.  But as the Terminally Obese Set finds this “insulting” just because they have bodies that show evidence of multiple trips to the buffet bar and therefore can’t find “fashions” to suit their bloated frames, stores now have to change their policy?

It’s ironic that I come to Abercrombie’s defense here, because one of the real (and rare) shopping pleasures I experienced when moving here in the mid-80s was finding a store that catered to mature (in outlook) men, and sold quality clothing for grownups.  (I know, they used to sell guns, even, but that was in a different time.)

So I was furious when they changed from a man’s store to a yuppie-kids’ outlet, and their real safari gear changed to fashionable (i.e. not real) clothing.  I’ve not set foot in one since, oh, about 1990, but while I hated their new policy, I just accepted it and moved on.

As should the Fatties — although the very fact that Abercrombie now markets clothing for the Elephantine Set means they’ve moved far from Mike Jeffries, and closer to Lane Bryant.

Idiots.  Maybe they should go back to selling clothes and accessories for men.

Guns, too.