Hypocrits Undone

"Show me the man or woman and I'll show you the hypocrite" said someone or other, and by the Lord Harry they were right. Everyone can carry the name, unfortunately, as we are all only human and prone to frailty. But most ordinary people (not me, of course: I am extraordinary) keep their very small hypocricies very small and do not attract the attention of the media or the uniforms. Yeah, even I. No excuse for mine but nothing remorse, repentance and Confession can't put things aright. Not so some more egregious people.

We had a couple of instances brought to the attention of customers today, and frankly there was little excuse and a good measure of mirth. But that's what the Pin & Balloon bar is all about. Sticking a sharp end into some fatuous balloons.

One concerned a secular, media 'saint'. Yes the left in particular not only like to claim the high moral ground but elevate their own smutty and grubby heroes to that august role. 

Another pointed the accusing finger at the BBC - surely a worthy cumuppence: and even a chain coffee-shop felt the scalding. 

Let's start there first. We do a fine line in Tasmanian coffee (not grown here though) in the Tavern and my best lady, on special occasions brings in fine Louisiana brew too. But we are a minor provider compared to Starbucks, which seems to bring all sorts of brown stuff onto their own heads. They are not so kind to staff or customers as we are. They are so up themselves that it wasn't long before they'd be taken to task.... and for a ride.

Will Gensert brought it up:

Was the Starbucks Incident a Setup?

I think what happened at the Starbucks in Philly doesn't pass the sniff test.  Two black men went in, sat down, and apparently went unnoticed for a period of time until one got up and asked to use the restroom.  When told it was only for customers, he declined the opportunity to purchase something and returned to his associate at their table.  

 https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/was_the_starbucks_incident_a_setup.html

After another unspecified period of time elapsed, the manager, a woman named Holly, asked them to either purchase something or leave.  They said they were waiting for someone, did not want to buy anything, and wouldn't leave.  More time passed, the option was again proffered, and the double-refusal was again the response.  

That's when Holly called "the man."

The "screws" arrived and made the same offer as Holly, three times.  And just as many times, it was refused.  

As they were slipping on the cuffs to take them to the "big house," the ever-elusive "friend" magically appeared.  

You get the picture: it was a setup.  

Why wouldn't the "friend" just buy a cup of Joe so they could all sit down and chant, "No justice, no peace"?  How did he already know not to?  How did he know to soldier on for the cause?

It was a win-win for the unprivileged.  Getting arrested was the goal, but if they weren't arrested when the friend came in, it would validate the claim that white people are treated better than blacks.

The only things I would have done differently are, I would have put one in a suit and have the other dressed as a woman – but tastefully, you know, flats with perhaps a below-the-knee summer dress and some nice hoop earrings.  A little intersectionality would have created a bigger payout.

But hey, it worked out great anyway.  

That million dollars each of them will get from the settlement will come in handy.  

I would, however, watch the bank accounts of the friend.  I have a feeling his accounts will see a large deposit once the inevitable lawsuit is settled – and that would be the "smoking gun" the left is always seeking but can never seem to find.  I would wager that the left won't find it here, either.

Yet I can't get out of my mind all the times something like that really happened back when nobody cared.

Yet again, it's stunts like this, perpetrated by an immoral left with the purpose of keeping and widening the racial divide for all time – while getting rich in the process, of course.  They always get rich.

The saddest thing is what their stunt did to poor Holly.  So afraid that the world was going to deck the halls with boughs of Holly, she quit her job.

Those on the left willingly sacrificed one of the little people for their cause.  Remember when people sacrificed themselves for their cause?

Oh, the hypocrisy!

Yep. Hoist on a green-labelled petard. And how do we come to confirm the suspicion that hypocricy rules the day in Starbucks? Well it was not long ago that something of the like happened. But with a twist. Dan Sobieski was next on his feet to tell us while I pulled the pints.

Hardly a Stir When Starbucks Denied a Cop

Kudos for Sheriff David Clarke for reminding us of the double standard practiced by the self-righteous guardians of social justice such as Starbucks, who flagellate themselves in public over the injustice of denying non-paying patrons use of their facilities – patrons who happen to be black:

    "Not too long ago a Philadelphia Starbucks refused to let a police officer use the restroom telling him it was for paying customers.  

Don't remember Starbucks closing 8000 stores for sensitivity training toward police."

 https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/hardly_a_stir_when_starbucks_denied_a_cop.html

In 2015, an unnamed Philadelphia police sergeant entered a downtown Philadelphia Starbucks and asked to use the restroom.  He might have been the one who would have responded if that Starbucks were being robbed or its employees or customers were assaulted.  He was told in no uncertain terms that he could not and should find a restroom down the street.  The unnamed officer's story was posted on Facebook by Joe Leighthardt, another Philadelphia officer: He said.....

    "So I walk into the Starbucks at 13th and Chestnut in full uniform and ask the young blonde liberal behind the counter if I could use their public bathroom for which you need a key code and she states, in a loud voice so all the other customers can hear that the bathroom is for paying customers only. 

I then ask in a very polite manner if I could please use it. 

She then states in the same loud manner and a smirk "Are you a paying customer?" It was at this point that I realized what she was doing. As I walked out with my hand up and while she continued loudly to tell me about the bathroom down the street, I was even more astonished that the many customers and other employees said nothing and seemed indifferent. 

This is the world cops live in anymore. It's hip for this generation to berate and totally disrespect cops in front of the public and praise cop killers as the heroes of they're [sic] time. I never post things but I hope my fellow brothers and sisters in blue see this and know that we have each other… and not to patronize that Starbucks."

Starbucks did somewhat apologize for the incident, but there was no national mea culpa by the executive officers of Starbucks or the shutting down of its 8,000 stores and turning them into temporary re-education camps for employees who for the most part probably don't have a biased bone in their bodies and who depend on police for their safety inside and outside their stores.

Closing 8,000 stores is a big financial hit, money that could have been spent to help inner-city kids get an education, or a meal, or clothes for school or to fight gang crime and drugs. 

The closures cost the company an estimated $6 million, according to Schultz's 2011 book "Onward: How Starbucks Fought for Its Life without Losing Its Soul."  However, Schultz maintained that it was worth the financial cost and the mockery the company endured to put Starbucks back on the road to recovery. 

Self-survival and political correctness are prime motivators for Starbucks, but not the indignity and disrespect shown a Philadelphia officer in 2015.  No grandiose mea culpas, no mass closings, and no employee re-education.  

Starbucks's social conscience did not extend to those who risk their lives for the safety of its employees and customers.

And clearly Starbucks did not learn its lesson. They can hypocritically take the high moral ground by disrespecting the police and then do it again with black, homeless chaps. But this time someone was waiting to call them out and put them through the extortion wringer. 

But hey, it is hard to direct such a widespread workforce to do the right thing. But what about one man, directing himself. You will likely have heard of Dr David Suzuki. He is a big lefty Green wheel in the firmament of  Canadian hypocrites, and he was taken to task by Ezra Levant a while back. 

The two Suzukis: 

There’s Saint Suzuki, the one you see on CBC, and Secret Suzuki, the capitalist millionaire

There are two David Suzukis.

Most of us know one of the Suzukis. Let’s call him Saint Suzuki. That’s the Suzuki whose TV show on the CBC constantly lectures us about our lifestyle. He says we need to.... 

consume less, buy less and use less fossil fuels.

But then there’s another Suzuki. Let’s call him Secret Suzuki, because he’s far less well-known.

 http://torontosun.com/2013/10/11/the-two-suzukis-theres-saint-suzuki-the-one-you-see-on-cbc-and-secret-suzuki-the-capitalist-millionaire/wcm/41e5eca5-3efa-4a1f-91c7-e4445e4dc367

Secret Suzuki is the one who lives on Vancouver’s elite Point Grey Road, on a double lot, overlooking English Bay, right above the exclusive Kitsilano Yacht Club. The City of Vancouver assesses the land value alone at over $8 million. 

And that’s just one of Secret Suzuki’s properties.

He has another million-dollar home in Vancouver. And then there’s another home on Quadra Island. That’s three homes right there, if you count the double lot on Point Grey Road as just one property.

But then there’s his large property holdings on Nelson Island. What’s so fascinating about that one is that he co-owns the property with an oil company, Kootenay Oil Distributors Ltd. They don’t plan to drill for oil together. It’s a beautiful tourist spot — maybe perfect for a nice big condo development.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with co-owning any property along with an oil company. 

But isn’t Saint Suzuki against fossil fuel companies — especially oil companies?

Saint Suzuki tells us that the world is desperately overcrowded, that we’re overpopulated, and that we’re going to run out of things.

But in his own life, Secret Suzuki has five children.

There’s nothing wrong with having five children. It’s a blessing. 

But then why does he think other people should have fewer kids?

Saint Suzuki rails against corporations and profits. He even gave a well-received anti-capitalist speech at the Occupy Vancouver protest.

But Secret Suzuki himself has several corporations. One of them, the David Suzuki Foundation, took in a whopping $9 million last year and has $12 million in assets. More than 10 million of that is invested in stocks and bonds.

Saint Suzuki despises lobbyists, and says they have a disproportionate control of political power in Ottawa. But Secret Suzuki himself has nine paid lobbyists registered in Ottawa’s lobbyist registry. 

Not one. Nine.

Saint Suzuki despises politicians, and says they can’t be trusted. Secret Suzuki starred in a Liberal party TV ad along with former Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty.

Saint Suzuki says corporations have to be less obsessed by profits, and do more for the public good. They need to especially think of the interests of the next generation, our children.

But Secret Suzuki has made a tidy profit off young people. His standard speaking fee at universities in Canada is $30,000 plus expenses. He billed Quebec’s John Abbott College a cool $41,000 to visit them.

Saint Suzuki speaks in the language of tolerance and equality and liberalism — utterly politically correct.

But Secret Suzuki engages in conduct that should cause feminists to raise an eyebrow. When he visited John Abbott College, his assistant called with special requests to go along with his speaking fee. 

Here is an internal e-mail from the college’s Mary Milburn: “We have learned, via Dr. Suzuki’s assistant, that although the Dr. does not like to have bodyguards per se, he does not mind having a couple of ladies (females) that would act as body guards.” 

The college’s Jim Anderson got involved in selecting the coeds, too: “Please be certain that the women are nicely dressed, we don’t want them in evening gowns, but definitely NOT Police Tech uniforms.” All of this bizarre selection of girls, dressed just so, was the result of Secret Suzuki’s special request. 

If he were a conservative, he’d be called a dirty old man. 

But he’s a saint. So the college went along with it.

David Suzuki is not a criminal. 

But he is not a saint. 

He’s a real man — a capitalist millionaire, a politician, a man with a staff of lobbyists, a prolific father, a wealthy landlord. 

If only he’d stop scolding the rest of us for aspiring to do the same.

The Green sorts have done sterling work in the past, not least the environmental arm of the BBC. 

Who can overlook 'the Bro', Sir David. 

His wildlife films created a genre and educated billions. But was everything 'kosher'? One has to wonder about the 'cheats' and even the odd bit of denigration of reputations. 

Like as happened recently to someone who has the smallest of reputations such that you will not have even heard of the chap.  That is no excuse though and neither is the insufferable holier than though attitude that puts whales above humans in the great scheme of things.  

The BBC builds its own tall tales.  Anita Singh spoke about it:

Scandal: 

Tall Tales.

BBC’s Human Planet Series Withdrawn After Faking Scenes

The BBC has withdrawn Human Planet from distribution after admitting that the series faked scenes of an Indonesian hunter harpooning a whale.

The natural history programme is currently available on Netflix but will be withdrawn within 24 hours while the corporation conducts an “editorial review”.

 https://principia-scientific.org/scandal-bbcs-human-planet-series-withdrawn-after-faking-scenes/

It is the second Human Planet fakery story this month. It emerged that film-makers had staged scenes of a rainforest tribe supposedly living in a treehouse 140 feet from the ground.

The opening episode of the 2011 series visited the Indonesian island of Lembata and focused on a young man named Benjamin Blikololong. He was shown jumping into the sea during a sperm whale hunt, and viewers were told he had succeeded in harpooning it.

A voiceover from John Hurt said: “Benjamin’s moment has arrived.” After he leapt into the water brandishing the weapon, Hurt said: “He’s got it.” Viewers are then Blikololong received a larger share of the whale meat because he “struck the decisive blow”

But a journalist writing a book on the whale hunters, who live on the tiny island of Lembata, met Blikololong and heard that he had not harpooned the whale. He then contacted the BBC.

In a statement, the corporation said: “The BBC has been alerted to a further editorial breach in the Human Planet series from 2011.

“In Episode 1, Oceans, a Lamaleran whale hunter named Benjamin Blikololong is shown supposedly harpooning a whale. On review, the BBC does not consider that the portrayal of his role was accurate, although the sequence does reflect how they hunt whales.

“The BBC has decided to withdraw Human Planet from distribution for a full editorial review.” 

In all, there have been four fakery stories surrounding the series.

In 2015, the corporation admitted that it had used a semi-domesticated wolf in one episode because..... 

the crew were unable to find a wild one.

And shots of a tarantula, purporting to be taken in the Venezuelan jungle,..... 

were actually taken in a studio.

At the beginning of this month, it was revealed that a 140-foot high treehouse said to be a home to the Korowai people in Papua New Guinea was built for the benefit of the cameras.

Writer and adventurer Will Millard went to the village to film another BBC series, My Year With The Tribe, and learned the truth.

The BBC said standards had been raised since Human Planet was made. “Since this programme was broadcast in 2011, we have strengthened our training for the BBC’s Natural History Unit in editorial guidelines, standards and values.”

I am happy to say that the Ale in the Tavern is Real Ale and of the very Highest quality. Tasty too.

The customers are all exemplary (apart from some who are not), honest (mostly) and kind (some only to their mothers).

We can forgive those who tresspass against us, but there are consequences that are unavoidable, I'm afraid. 

So, drink up. Think.

Pax.