The letter, whose other signatories included the celebrated Israeli novelist David Grossman, said: “We never imagined that individuals on the left, advocates of equality, freedom, justice, and welfare, would reveal such extreme moral insensitivity and political recklessness.”
Not that you’d need to imagine it, since they show it at every possible opportunity.
A few years ago, when I was still getting to grips with the vagaries of Twitter, I inadvertently took part in a social media pile-on. Someone well known said something stupid and I enjoyed tweeting to that effect.
Of course you did. It's great to be part of a mob, isn't it, whether that's physically, or via the safe medium of social media.
But mobs are fickle things, and suddenly your side is targeted, and it's far too late to say 'Hang on..!' isn't it?
Some people are desperate to see the world cast in black and white. Clanchy’s worst crime is not to fit this mould. Of course she doesn’t: none of us can rise above the imperfectly human. Look at her in the round and it’s obvious she’s done more good than most. This is why the strand of anti-racist thinking that is obsessed with the blame and shame all white people should bear for structural discrimination is so corrosive to common cause and understanding. White people who do nothing to challenge racism are terrible, but white people who trip up when trying to do something about it are even worse. The societal misogyny that infects this movement means it sees older white women as the very worst of all. Any expression of distress is the weaponisation of “white women’s tears”. The witch is not permitted to have feelings; they distract from her role as lightning rod for anger at all of society’s ills.
That's the thing when you call down lightning, Sonia. It doesn't care who gets scorched.
What has happened to Clanchy is a sad tale for our ages. No individual is to blame: it is the product of brittle and cowardly institutions, and the collective social media frenzy that prizes heads on a platter over change.
The very 'brittle and cowardly institutions' that you've spent your career at the 'Guardian' railing against? That's like beating a dog for years and then complaining that's it's cowering in the corner...
Feeding birds is hard-wired into our national psyche. The apocryphal Victorian “tuppence a bag” for seed for the Trafalgar Square pigeons has morphed into a national pastime, with an estimated 17m households spending £250m a year on more than 150,000 tonnes of bird feed – enough to feed the entire breeding population of the 10 most common feeder-using bird species year-round three times over.
Good for us, doing our bit gor nature! Strange to se a good news article in the 'Guardian', though?
This was brought into sharp relief during the pandemic, with many of us discovering the joy of attracting birds to our own gardens after losing access to wildlife and wild spaces.
Oooh, I don't like where this is going. 'Joy'? We can't have that!
So we know that bird-feeding can be good for humans, but what about for birds?
We could ask them? But...what could possibly be wrong with it?
Blue tits, nuthatches and great-spotted woodpeckers have never had it so good. These species have something else in common though: they are all dominant species that can monopolise resources such as food and nesting sites.
Ah. Of course. No socialism to ensure sparrows and swallows go equally hungry!
Marsh and willow tits, lesser-spotted woodpeckers, several migrant flycatchers and warblers have been slowly disappearing from the British landscape since the 1970s, as one woodland area after another has lost cherished members of its dawn chorus choir.
Look! It's even affecting migrants! No wonder the 'Guardian' is worried!
Forced to develop strategies to survive, they have become more innovative and have diversified the ways they interact with the landscape. Unlike blue and great tits, the drabber and less obtrusive willow tits excavate their own nest holes, meaning they don’t have to wait until a natural cavity forms, which a more dominant species would probably take. This means they can occupy new sites, like young woodlands, which are unsuitable for their more imposing relatives. Similarly, the marsh tit collects and catches food and stores it for a rainy day – or a harsh winter. It is faster to find new food resources and has a stronger bill to deal with harder food items.
Hurrah! Innovation and adaptation saves the day...but wait. That can't be the answer, surely?
But these fancy tactics are rendered null and void by bird feeders providing food 24/7; it is gobbled up by the dominant species, sending their numbers up, and increasing the threat to subordinate species.
See? It's all our fault, of course. Does the 'Guardian' have any suggestions?
We badly need a better understanding of the consequences of bird feeding and, armed with this information, there is one clear piece of advice we can give for those concerned with bird populations. Where possible, improving habitat amount and quality in our gardens is a vastly more important gift to nature than any bird seed handouts.
That's if you have a garden. But what am I saying? Guardianistas always assume everyone lives like they do...
“I know one thing that we found in our analysis is that 60% of our emissions come from … residential heating and passenger vehicles,” said David Ismay, Massachusetts, undersecretary for climate change, during a virtual meeting with the Vermont Climate Council.
“Let me say that again: 60% of our emissions that need to be reduced come from you, the person on your street, the senior on fixed-income. Right now, there is no bad guy left, at least in Massachusetts, to point the finger at and turn the screws on and now break their will, so they stop emitting. That’s you. We have to break your will.”
A rare flash of the real iron fist in the velvet glove there.
But Ismay also admitted his remarks would not be popular. “I can’t even say that publicly,” Ismay said.
Unfortunately, as you know by now, you just did. Very publicly.
That prediction seemingly came to fruition when the state’s Republican Gov. Charlie Baker got wind of the statements, which he insisted “no one who works in our administration should ever say or think.”
You can certainly stop them from saying it - or at least, make sure there are consequences when caught - but I don't think you're going to get very far trying to stop them thinking it...
