The Day After Tomorrow is a 2004 American climate fiction-disaster film co-written, directed, and produced by Roland Emmerich. The film was made in Toronto and Montreal and is the highest-grossing Hollywood film to be made in Canada (if adjusted for inflation).
More from Joy Karmaker
More from Culture
. THREAD 1/x
David Baddiel is getting lots of coverage and feedback on his book which again focuses on so called 'left wing' antisemitism.
I will start by saying that I have seen antisemitic comments made by Labour members and some genuine cases.
However, I have huge concerns.
2/x
Let's look in detail at this article written in April 2019 in the @Guardian - and I will explain the concerns.
The areas highlighted guide you to believe this was all Labour - IT WASN'T.
It also occurred before 2015! Detail follows...
https://t.co/cK59FP83aG
3/x
So as you see the writer of this rather deceitful piece starts with
"THAT CHANGED IN SEPTEMBER 2015" 🙄
This was done to point the timeframe as Corbyn's leadership. Yet the article goes on to describe things that are not even related to Labour, which occurred in 2014.
4/x
So... What in fact the @Guardian writer is discussing here is this case - where a group of Neo-Nazi's spent months inflicting abuse on Jewish MP Luciana Berger
All the detail is in the Court Notes when Bonehill-Paine was sentenced by the judge.
https://t.co/wAyo6Yro5Q
5/x
The Justice sentencing remarks to Neo-Nazi explain the previous cases too. See the date 2014.
Yet the Guardian writer refers to this NON LABOUR case to effectively make her article a lie.
"Star of David" - this was Garron Helm another neo-Nazi..
David Baddiel is getting lots of coverage and feedback on his book which again focuses on so called 'left wing' antisemitism.
I will start by saying that I have seen antisemitic comments made by Labour members and some genuine cases.
However, I have huge concerns.
2/x
Let's look in detail at this article written in April 2019 in the @Guardian - and I will explain the concerns.
The areas highlighted guide you to believe this was all Labour - IT WASN'T.
It also occurred before 2015! Detail follows...
https://t.co/cK59FP83aG
3/x
So as you see the writer of this rather deceitful piece starts with
"THAT CHANGED IN SEPTEMBER 2015" 🙄
This was done to point the timeframe as Corbyn's leadership. Yet the article goes on to describe things that are not even related to Labour, which occurred in 2014.
4/x
So... What in fact the @Guardian writer is discussing here is this case - where a group of Neo-Nazi's spent months inflicting abuse on Jewish MP Luciana Berger
All the detail is in the Court Notes when Bonehill-Paine was sentenced by the judge.
https://t.co/wAyo6Yro5Q
5/x
The Justice sentencing remarks to Neo-Nazi explain the previous cases too. See the date 2014.
Yet the Guardian writer refers to this NON LABOUR case to effectively make her article a lie.
"Star of David" - this was Garron Helm another neo-Nazi..
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
1/OK, data mystery time.
This New York Times feature shows China with a Gini Index of less than 30, which would make it more equal than Canada, France, or the Netherlands. https://t.co/g3Sv6DZTDE
That's weird. Income inequality in China is legendary.
Let's check this number.
2/The New York Times cites the World Bank's recent report, "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations Around the World".
The report is available here:
3/The World Bank report has a graph in which it appears to show the same value for China's Gini - under 0.3.
The graph cites the World Development Indicators as its source for the income inequality data.
4/The World Development Indicators are available at the World Bank's website.
Here's the Gini index: https://t.co/MvylQzpX6A
It looks as if the latest estimate for China's Gini is 42.2.
That estimate is from 2012.
5/A Gini of 42.2 would put China in the same neighborhood as the U.S., whose Gini was estimated at 41 in 2013.
I can't find the <30 number anywhere. The only other estimate in the tables for China is from 2008, when it was estimated at 42.8.
This New York Times feature shows China with a Gini Index of less than 30, which would make it more equal than Canada, France, or the Netherlands. https://t.co/g3Sv6DZTDE
That's weird. Income inequality in China is legendary.
Let's check this number.
2/The New York Times cites the World Bank's recent report, "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations Around the World".
The report is available here:
3/The World Bank report has a graph in which it appears to show the same value for China's Gini - under 0.3.
The graph cites the World Development Indicators as its source for the income inequality data.
4/The World Development Indicators are available at the World Bank's website.
Here's the Gini index: https://t.co/MvylQzpX6A
It looks as if the latest estimate for China's Gini is 42.2.
That estimate is from 2012.
5/A Gini of 42.2 would put China in the same neighborhood as the U.S., whose Gini was estimated at 41 in 2013.
I can't find the <30 number anywhere. The only other estimate in the tables for China is from 2008, when it was estimated at 42.8.