The True Face of the North Face

 

It started with a nice gesture. Adam Anderson, the CEO of Innovex Downhole Solutions, wanted to buy his employees a Christmas gift. So he ordered 400 North Face jackets and asked that their corporate logo be included.

Then came the bad news. The North Face company would sell Innovex the jackets but wouldn't include the energy company's logo. The reason? Innovex was an oil and gas company, and it would be a bad thing for North Face's public image to associate itself with the industry.

Not happy with that answer, Anderson struck back with some public relations of his own. It turns out the vast majority of North Face's apparel—its hoodies, snow pants, coats and many other items in its product line, like backpacks and tents—are made with polyester, polyurethane and nylon, all of which come from petroleum. Even its fancy fleece jackets are made of polyester.

 

The North Face is the new king of environmental hypocrisy

The North Face has managed to make millions by billing itself as an environmentally conscious eco-friendly company. It even went so far as to refuse to sell clothes to a small business in the oil and gas industry. In reality, however, its business is predicated on selling clothes, shoes, and outdoor gear made of petroleum-based synthetic materials and then shipping those products around the world on fuel-guzzling ships and airplanes.

Earlier this month, it turned into the Grinch for Innovex Downhole Solutions, a West Texas oil- and gas-well developer. Innovex wanted to buy 400 North Face jackets customized with the company’s logo as a Christmas present for its employees. The North Face, however, would not sell the jackets to the small business, even though Innovex had previously purchased clothing directly from the company in the past without issue.

The outdoor-clothing giant claimed Innovex did not meet the clothing maker’s brand standards.

“North Face would not sell us the jackets because we [are] an oil and gas company,” wrote Innovex CEO Adam Anderson in an open letter to The North Face’s parent company, VF Corporation.

As Anderson points out in his letter, “The irony … is your jackets are made from the oil and gas products the hardworking men and women of our energy produce.”

The North Face, like most clothing makers, depends on fossil fuels. About two-thirds of clothing is made from synthetic materials derived from fossil fuels. The use of synthetic fibers has doubled over the past 20 years, and synthetics are particularly popular in recreational gear such as that made by The North Face.

But The North Face’s environmental hypocrisy goes far beyond peddling pricey parkas, hiking boots, and backpacks that happen to be made largely of the very materials whose extraction it publicly opposes.

Misrepresenting hypocrisy

 Critics on the Left use the accusations of hypocrisy by misrepresenting what it means.  Hypocrisy is not falling short of our one’s ideals.  That is simply human frailty, something of which everyone is guilty.  The Pharisees were not hypocrites because they were really pious, but because they pretended to be something they weren’t.  This is what hypocrites are, people who pretend to be what they are not.  

That is what we see when we see people who buy “Books by the Foot.”  It is all a show, pretending that the books on the shelf have been read by the owner, rather than installed by a bookseller.  A show designed for visitors - or watchers on Zoom calls- pretending that the owner is a voracious reader when he has not cracked open a book in years and has no intention of reading the books on his shelf.   It is supposed to imply how smart, how intelligent, and wise the owner is.  That is the essence of hypocrisy.  It is an illusion, designed to show that they’re better people than the scumbags they really are.   

The same is true of the person with a sign in their yard saying, “HATE HAS NO HOME HERE.”  

I have noticed these signs, most often in upscale neighborhoods inhabited by professionals or well-to-do retirees.  Why put up a sign like that in a peaceful, upscale, decidedly un-diverse neighborhood?  There is nothing to suggest that the neighbors are racists or bigots.  Or that hate has set up a household on their block.   So, what is going on?  Some call it virtue signaling. But it is really vice signaling.  

Vice signaling is a defense mechanism, meant to displace liberal guilt. There was a moment, shortly after the 2016 election, when liberals realized that ordinary Americans had turned against them and that they had reason to do so.

Allied to the teachers' unions, the liberals had permitted our schools to descend to Third World standards. They supported an immigration system that imported economic immobility. They welcomed a regulatory morass that gave elites jobs but that placed a stumbling block in the path of those who sought to get ahead.  They watched as factories closed and workers lost their jobs when production was sent to China while their investment portfolios grew fat. They shopped at Amazon while their local retailers went broke.   Rather than blame themselves, it was much easier to transfer the guilt to conservatives. That is how vice signaling became the language of liberal politics.

The people with their “No Hate” signs sow more division than they do comity. It tells you that if you are not in tune with the Liberal zeitgeist, you are a hater.  They show their love by ordering a sign from Itsy, or Zazzle or Amazon to tell you how full of love they are, unlike the sinners around them  It is actually a hateful sign and people who put them in their yards are – like the Pharisees - hypocrites.  

Pandemic Rules Are Only for the Little People

 As we've seen time and again, such hypocrisy is common. We're expected to suffer discomfort, economic pain, and emotional distress or else pay fines and even serve jail time. Government officials, meanwhile, take offense when called out for violating the standards they created.

The pandemic will eventually pass, but it will leave behind our memories of arrogant authorities who consider themselves above the concerns of the common people. Long after the virus is gone, those memories should stay with us as a vaccine against future trust in agents of the state.

Windsor mayor breaks COVID restrictions at restaurant, just hours after urging zero tolerance

 

Rules are for the little people.

Pelosi Redefines Hypocrisy and Destroys #MeToo for … Biden?

It's not hypocrisy: it's a lie.

In 1665, François Duc de la Rochefoucauld famously opined, “Hypocrisy is a tribute that vice pays to virtue.”

That definition may have been witty at the time, but seems a bit feeble in our era, when Nancy Pelosi states she absolutely believes Joe Biden didn’t sexually assault Tara Reade and she will not “answer this question again.”

As we know, that contrasts with the Pelosi who until recently was repeatedly reciting the “believe all women” mantra, as was Biden himself.

But this doesn’t make Pelosi an actual hypocrite as described by Rochefoucauld or anybody else. It makes her a bloody liar (twice over).

In the first place, no matter what she said, she didn’t “believe all women” any more than she or anyone would believe all men. (Neither did Biden, we can hope.) Only an imbecile would—and Pelosi is no imbecile. She is an unremitting power-driven political operative and a successful one, quite willing to lie at a moment’s notice to achieve her goals.

And that’s what she did. Saying she believes all women was a totally expedient lie at the time, not mere hypocrisy, which is too weak.

Lie No. 2 is, despite what she says, she doesn’t have any idea whether Biden is guilty of sexually assaulting Tara Reade, irrespective of how long she has known him. (Would she have expected that Ted Kennedy would have left a woman drowning in a car?) As any reader of Dostoevsky or Henry James can tell you, human behavior is far too various to be easily predictable.

Trump Puts Democrats Between A Rock And A Hard Place On Illegal Immigration

The Democratic argument of “open borders, let everyone in” while proclaiming heavily-blue areas “sanctuary cities” is all about virtue signaling, not reality. If it were about reality, Governor Gavin Newsom of California and Mayor Jenny Durkan of Seattle and Senator Spartacus Booker would be throwing their arms open to take in all the illegals they could get. But instead, Trump has exposed them as hypocrites of the basest kind – those willing to exploit the hopes and dreams of one group by throwing the responsibility for it on the backs of those who don’t agree with them.

Chicks on the Right

Jerry was clearly trying to spin this but ultimately why wouldn’t Democrats want illegal immigrants to be safely relocated to sanctuary cities? They’ve been telling us for years how evil Trump is to keep them ‘caged’ at the border, and they’ve also told us how beneficial illegal immigrants are to communities so what’s the big deal?

Babylon Bee: "'Believe All Women' Movement Publishes Extensive List Of Exceptions"

While Americans from both sides of the aisle largely agree that women's stories shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, the far left's insistence that everyone always believe all women has gotten some pushback. This list of exceptions is designed to clarify the left's position, according to spokespeople.

Included in the list are the following:

Bill Clinton's accusers
Joe Biden's accusers
Potiphar's wife
Delilah
Conservative women
Women who accuse Democratic candidates
Sarah Sanders
Any woman the left suddenly decides they don't like anymore
Nikki Haley
Dana Loesch
Women the Democrats no longer have a political need to exploit
Melania Trump
Cersei Baratheon
Any woman who argues for pro-life causes

The full list goes on for another 8,000 pages, explaining exactly which women the left doesn't believe while still proclaiming that everyone should "believe all women."

"This new list lets us be consistent with our rallying cry," said Hillary Clinton. "We can now simultaneously say that we believe all women, while conveniently ignoring or silencing women whose stories conflict with our narrative."

The list is available online in a 587 MB PDF download, or a hard copy of the binders full of women can be purchased from Hillary Clinton's official site.

Matt Damon Finally Shuts Up — and We Can Thank the #MeToo Crowd

Look on the bright side, though: For the first time in 20 years, Matt Damon is closing his yap! It's sort of like Al Capone getting nabbed for tax evasion. It's a relatively minor infraction, and it doesn't make up for all those years of wrongdoing, but at least it's something.

The Decorum Police are Liars

Glenn Reynolds

I’m amused when people who’ve spent 50 years declaring the very concept of decency repressive and outdated suddenly start with the “have you no decency?” shtick. When Joseph Welch used that phrase, it was pretty much Peak Decency, or as we’re now told, a horrible regressive time of racism, homophobia, transphobia and xenophobia.

I'm so old that I remember that women with notches on their bedposts were "empowered" and "slut walks" were all the rage because power.  When Christians and their values were denounced and leaders of the Democrat Party used the "F-word" to demonstrate their street cred.

Pelosi Chokes, Won’t Say That “Icon” Conyers Should Resign Over Settlement Of Harassment Allegations

An astounding performance, in which the first woman Speaker in American history goes to bat for a credibly accused harasser in the midst of a cultural revolution about stopping sexual misconduct by powerful men. She’s getting shredded for it on social media this morning too, and not just by Republicans.

Her spin is all over the map. The clip picks up after she’s called for “zero tolerance” of sexual misconduct in Congress. What about John Conyers, retorts Chuck Todd? Hey, hey, hey, says Pelosi — the man’s an icon. There are only one or two accusers. And he’s entitled to due process. Uh, he settled with his accuser, Todd reminds her, and he got to hide that settlement. Why should he get more due process after that? I’m confident Conyers will do the right thing, she tries to reassure him. And what’s the right thing, Todd presses her? Whatever’s right under the facts, Pelosi says. Do you believe the accusers, Todd finally asks her — the fateful question as “Pervnado” sweeps across America. She won’t say yes

Gosh, I sure hope we don’t come to find out that Conyers’s behavior with women staffers has been an open secret on the Hill for decades and that his friend Nancy has heard the rumors for 30 years. What a legacy that would be for her, petrified to use her authority as Democratic leader to purge the gropers in her ranks. As a Twitter pal notes, this is smoking-gun proof that the recent left-wing navel-gazing over whether Bill Clinton should have resigned 20 years ago is cynical nonsense. Faced with credible allegations against a much less powerful Democrat than Clinton in Conyers, one who’s waaaaaay past the age at which he should have retired and who’s been accused of having lost some of his mental capacity, the leader of the caucus whiffs on demanding that he step down. And worse than that, she cites his “icon” status as a point in his favor. Clinton, Conyers, and basically every male member of the Kennedy family, living or dead, would smile at that. It may be the single creepiest thing she’s ever said in public life.

Watching their least favorite Democrat shill for an accused harasser on her own side is going to convince Republicans who are on the fence about Moore that it’s not only okay for them to support him, it’s the responsible thing to do as a partisan by punishing Democratic hypocrisy. I think he just won the election.

Judge Moore needs to run this performance as the Alabama election nears to prove that Democrats don't care, never cared, about sexual harassment and their recent attempts to pretend are fake. 

Democrats like rapists if they're Democrats

re

ANN COULTER: LET'S MAKE RUSSIA OUR SISTER COUNTRY!

The more hysterical liberals become about Russia, the more your antennae should go up.

Their selective misgivings with Russia are just like their selective alarm with (our ally) Chiang Kai-shek, leader of the nationalist Chinese government, and (our ally) Ngo Dinh Diem, president of South Vietnam. ...

They say Putin is a "thug" and a "bully" who kills journalists. Liberals never used to mind Russian leaders killing journalists. Nor millions of scientists, writers, Christians, Jews, kulaks, Ukrainians and the entire 1980 Soviet Olympic hockey team.

...

Liberals were cool with the show trials, the alliance with Hitler, the gulags, the forced starvations, the shooting down of American planes and goose-stepping through Eastern Europe.

But that was when the Russian leader was Joseph Stalin or Nikita Khrushchev -- not the beast Putin!

Back then, liberals were spying for Stalin (Julius Rosenberg's code name: "Liberal"), the U.S. president was calling the bloodthirsty dictator "Uncle Joe," and The New York Times was covering up Stalin's infamous crimes. In the storied history of fake news, the Times' Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for his false reports denying the Ukrainian famine, in which more than 7 million people were deliberately starved to death.

As far as the Times is concerned, those were Russia's halcyon days!

Back when Russia was actually threatening America with nuclear annihilation, Jimmy Carter warned Americans about their "inordinate fear of communism." Sting sang that "the Russians love their children, too.”

But now liberals are hopping mad with Putin. They could never forgive Russia for giving up communism.

To add insult to injury, Putin embraced the Russian Orthodox Church! This was deeply offensive to fiercely Christophobic liberals.

Russia's descent into insanity and madness was clear when Putin refused to allow LGBTQ marches through Red Square. For having the same position on gays as Obama did, circa 2008, Russkies were walking on the fighting side of liberals!

Read the whole thing.

In Wake of Trump, Democrats Suddenly Discover Freedom of Association

Well, well.

Suddenly, it seems, the left has discovered freedom of association. After years of telling religious people that they had a moral and legal obligation to throw out their religion and serve same-sex weddings, provide contraception, and fund abortion, the left now realizes that the ability to pick and choose those to whom you give your services is actually rather vital.

Don’t expect it to last.

Of course artists should be able to turn down clients. So should religious bakers. But you won’t see the left acknowledge that. The only freedom to turn down clients is the freedom for leftists to turn down conservative and religious clients, not the other way around.

I’m OK. You’re a rage-a-holic.

But in recent years, another phenomenon has emerged. Some forms of anger are now considered more culturally legitimate than others. As a result, we spend less time examining the sources of people’s anger and more time arguing over which people have the “right” to be angry.

This is especially true with controversial issues. Announcing his recent executive actions on gun control, President Obama wiped away angry tears as he said of the victims of gun violence, “Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad.” The media swooned; Matt Lauer, of the Today show, praised the president’s “rare display of emotion” and columnist Nicholas Kristof tweeted, “We should all be crying about 32,000 American gun deaths a year.” Obama’s angry tears supposedly placed the president above politics, in the realm of the spirit—and elevated those who admired his display of feeling. “I think any of us who sort of covered that story, any time I think about Sandy Hook, you feel that as well,” said Today’s Willie Geist, thus suggesting that professionals who “covered” the shootings at the school in Connecticut simply felt more deeply about it than the rest of us hoi polloi. “It doesn’t mean his policies are going to fix the gun problem, it doesn’t even mean they’re the right thing, I’m just talking about that emotion right there.”

But when people on the other side of the aisle express anger, it’s not emotionally inspiring. It’s scary. “Anger and alienation have been simmering in Republican ranks since the end of the George W. Bush administration,” the New York Times noted recently (and ominously), while failing to note the similar rise in Democratic anger. A recent editorial indulged in a standard bit of outrage-peddling by blaming “years of overheated antigovernment statements by right-wing politicians and media figures” for “outbursts” such as the current standoff between local ranchers and law-enforcement agents at a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon. Meanwhile, these same observers describe expressions of anger from the left (bullying campus activists, Occupy Wall Street) as righteous manifestations of the fight for justice and treat their excesses like the overenthusiasm of an excitable puppy.

In other words: I’m OK. You’re a rage-a-holic.

It’s an emotional version of what behavioral economists call the “licensing effect.” The term describes a curious human trait: When we do something good, we then give ourselves license to do something bad. One Canadian study found that people who bought environmentally conscious products were more likely later to lie, cheat, and steal, for example. “Purchasing green products may produce the counterintuitive effect of licensing asocial and unethical behaviors by establishing moral credentials,” researchers told CBC News.

Similarly, by pointing out the supposedly irrational and dangerous anger of their political opponents (and thus establishing their “moral credentials”), cultural mandarins of the left can then readily indulge in their own vitriol without ever having to figure out what might be stirring these other people....

There is something both brilliantly instrumental and stunningly condescending about the efforts of the self-appointed cultural and media elite to disqualify the emotions of the majority of Americans. In doing so they suggest not only that their opponents are wrong on the facts, but also that they are irrational, immature, and possibly dangerous, like a child having a tantrum. This makes serious conversation—and useful political debate—impossible. And it makes people very, very angry.

Here’s What Would Be Happening if President Romney Had Bombed a Hospital in Afghanistan

The news out of the Perpetual War on Terror is pretty grim these days. The US military knowingly but “accidentally” bombed a hospital in Afghanistan, killing 22 doctors and patients. Just days later, the president decided not to draw down troops in the country as previously planned, but will instead keep nearly 6,000 of our sons and daughters in the country until at least 2017 when his term ends. At the same time, the inner workings of the president’s drone war, including questionable intel, lax target timeframes, and horrifying collateral damage ratios, have been brought to light by a whistleblower.

But you’d be forgiven for not noticing any of this. While it has been reported in the news media, there has been almost no secondary public reaction. I think that’s entirely because of one factor: Barack Obama won the last election, not Mitt Romney. If Romney had been elected in 2012 and in the year before his reelection campaign had bombed a hospital, decided to keep troops in Afghanistan, and had details of his robot assassin program leaked, things would probably look a little different today.

If Romney were president right now, the White House would be surrounded by protesters and candlelight peace vigils night and day. Some would wave American flags, some would wave signs calling for impeachment, some would have pictures caricaturing the president as Hitler or an animal. They would chant “Not in our name!”, or “Bring them home!”, or “Hey ho, hey ho, Romney has got to go!”

If Romney were president, nightly news reports on CBS, NBC, and ABC would have regular features on war crimes, quagmires, and collateral damage. CNN would be wall-to-wall with team coverage of protests, interviews of bombing witnesses, and Anderson Cooper walking through rubble in full body armor.

If Romney were president, every political analyst left of Judge Napolitano would be fretting over the war-weary public turning the upcoming election into a referendum against the president and his party. Vox and FiveThirtyEight would have maps showing how many Senate seats Republicans would lose because of the president’s sure-to-plummet approval rating. And then there’s MSNBC.

If Romney were president, MSNBC would be holding mock war crimes tribunals on Chris Hayes, explaining the ins and outs of the process with expert guests. Lena Dunham would be on Maddow every night aghast (but still giggling!) at this warmonger-in-chief. Chris Matthews would be yelling at Michael Moore, trying to find out when charges would be filed at the Hague.

If Romney were president, Democrats in Congress would be calling for hearings and investigations for each transgression: the bombing, troop levels, and drone policy. Chuck Schumer would hold daily press briefings scolding the wreckless president from behind the glasses perched precariously down his nose. Someone would accurately quote Sheila Jackson-Lee condeming the terrible bombing of the “orphanage in Pakistan”.

But Mitt Romney isn’t president, Barack Obama is, so no one cares. When the One, the Nobel Peace Prize Winner, the Lightbringer, the Calmer of Seas, the History-maker, the Healer of Wounds, He Who Will Make Us Respected Again bombs a hospital, extends a war he said he already ended (Promise Fulfilled!™), and uses flying death robots to kill [REDACTED]s of bystanders and labels them “enemies” anyway, we assume it’s a bug, not a feature, and we excuse it. Shame on us.

Being the ex-President's daughter pays off: Hugo Chavez's ambassador daughter is Venezuela's richest woman

FUNNY, YOU SEE THIS KIND OF COINCIDENCE A LOT IN SOCIALIST PARADISES

After her father's death in 2013 and until her appointment to the United Nations as alternate ambassador, Chavez continued to live in the presidential mansion, forcing the current president Nicolas Maduro to remain at the vice presidential home

The daughter of Hugo Chavez, the former president who once declared 'being rich is bad,' may be the wealthiest woman in Venezuela, according to evidence reportedly in the hands of Venezuelan media outlets.

Maria Gabriela Chavez, 35, the late president's second-oldest daughter, holds assets in American and Andorran banks totaling almost $4.2billion, Diario las Americas reports.

The figure would make Gabriela Chavez wealthier than media mogul Gustavo Cisneros, whom Forbes named the wealthiest Venezuelan earlier this year with $3.6billion in assets.

It seems that one of the best roads to riches is to be a socialist denouncing the rich while taking huge bribes.

Oh, Hillary?

Bernie Sanders’ rape-fantasy essay reveals left-wing hypocrisy

But Sanders is excused — because he’s a liberal.

The hypocrisy on the left is stunning.

So says Andrea Peyser. No it's not. It would be stunning if it were new, or rare. 

But it's not! 

The Left is running a multimillionaire woman as a populist. Does not have one positive accomplishment on her record and quite a number of deadly failures.  Someone who's obviously sold her office for money. Has illegally hidden her electronic communication from public records. Is lying about race and wants to make stealing an election easier. Has a husband who takes trips on private jets to islands with female sex slaves but claims to be a feminist.

Leonardo DiCaprio the 'eco warrior' flew on a private jet from NY to LA SIX times in SIX weeks, Sony hack documents reveal

Glenn Reynolds I DON’T WANT TO HEAR ANOTHER GODDAMN THING ABOUT MY CARBON FOOTPRINT: ... I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who keep telling me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.

He's a high profile advocate of environmental causes, believes the world must act now to combat the effects of global climate change and is producing documentaries about endangered species.

But accusations of hypocrisy have also dogged Hollywood star Leonardo DiCaprio, 40, with detractors accusing him of not practicing what he preaches.

Now with RadarOnline reporting Friday that he took six private jet flights in just six weeks last year, it may prove hard for the actor to justify the need to avail himself of more than $200,000 worth of private travel between LA and New York in such a short period of time.

 

HIDDEN CAMERA: Gay Wedding Cake At Muslim Bakeries Read

Who thinks that the MSM will take off after Muslim bakers for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage?  Tony Macrini, is that you?  Tony .... Tony?

Why is this not big news?  Because the gay wedding issue is not about gay rights.  If it was a rights issue the Muslim bakery refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding would be all over CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and PBS. 

This is about bashing Christians.  It's about shutting Christians up.  It's about forcing Christians to deny their faith, go force them to violate their morals and deeply held beliefs.   It's about showing the "God botherers" who's boss. 

Mark Steyn got a message from a reader:

Judge Napolitano on Fox News thinks the Supreme Court will rule against the religious freedom law in Indiana, because it is discrimination. Shepard Smith is also upset with this law. If these people want to see real discrimination, that is ignored by judges, and politicians, just go to Dearborn, Michigan.

I would like to see Smith, Napolitano, and the Supreme Court all wear a t-shirt with a crucifix on it, and attend some festival in this town. Maybe they could set up a gay pride booth at this festival, and hand out gay literature. If any of them attempted to do such a thing, they would need several marine divisions with them, it would be like taking Tikrit or Mosul back.

You can bet that Islamic discrimination will be totally ignored by all the gutless judges, news people, lawyers, and Democrat politicians. Women are not allowed in certain Islamic coffee shops, and certain Islamic restaurants in this country right now, the discrimination is occurring in Islamic neighborhoods, and our courts allow Islamic religious freedom to discriminate against women, go figure. A black guy on YouTube said he is not allowed in Dearborn, and a Muslim said that the black guy is from the crim- filled city of Detroit, and that Dearborn has very little crime. Just let a white Christian say the same thing, and see if this is called discrimination, and racism.

He replies:

Betrothed gays looking for wedding cakes and floral arrangements are not just carelessly stumbling into homophobic bakeries and florists. It's an organized campaign consciously targeting particular establishments. That's why no gay couples have wandered into a Muslim patisserie in Dearborn. As I said on The John Oakley Show, it's not about expanding "rights", it's about shifts in power - which is to say shifts in fashion. In Kenya and Indiana, the thugs know they can get away with targeting Christians and the world won't care - I mean, how often do you ever hear any of the timeserving hacks and panderers who head up America's "mainstream" churches ever say anything on either subject?

But the Big Gay enforcers know it would all get more complicated if they were to go after a Muslim pizzeria in Dearborn. And, if they did, they'd be the ones in hiding. Tim Cook, the Apple CEO who'll have no truck with hoosier homophobes, is happy to enrich Iran's mullahs so they can build fancier gay gallows on which to hang the sodomites. Muscle respects muscle.

Big Gay is on the ascendant in America. But in an Islamifying Amsterdam, once "the most tolerant city in Europe", gay-bashing is on the rise, and the gay moment is already passing.

Dick Durbin's War On Women