Kimsgman Smashes Deep Green Ecology

For a guy who speaks with a lisp, Valentine is a scary dude.

Samuel L Jackson chews the scenery with the best of them and perhaps has more fun doing it than any of them. In Kingsman: The Secret Service he looks like he's having more fun doing it than he's ever had before.

In Kingsman Valentine essentially serves as the backdrop for the story of the transformation of Gary "Eggsy" Unwan (Taron Eggerton) from down-and-out urban lowlife into gentleman spy. Acting as his Fairy Godfather is Harry Hart (Colin Firth), known within the Kingsmen as Galahad.

Hart recruits Eggsy to replace Lancelot, a Kinsman killed by Valentine at the beginning of the film. By film's end Eggsy and Merlin (Mark Strong giving his most singularly awesome performance to date) are all that stands between Valentine and the destruction of nearly all human life on Earth.

Valentine, you see, is a deep green ecologist who believes that humanity is a virus, and that the planet can heal itself after humanity is mostly extinct.

Of course he doesn't plan to exterminate himself, his friends, or a very select group of international celebrities and dignitaries who are going along with his plan.

They never do.

And I say that because the premise of Valentine's role in the film is not entirely fictional. Deep green ecologists -- who literally believe that a decrease in the human population is necessary in order for the planet to flourish -- really do exist.

Not all of them believe in exterminating human life. Some of them do. Some observers have even adopted a separate term for people with such beliefs: dark ecologists. Dark ecologists exist as a deranged and violent subset of deep green ecologists, who venerate eco-terrorists such as Ted Kaczynski or Wiebo Ludwig.

What separates deep green ecologists from dark ecologists? In my opinion, one thing: deep green ecologists are willing to wait for human life to be reduced through attrition. I disagree with this, but I don't consider it especially threatening. Dark ecologists are not content to wait for such things, and are perfectly willing to kill.

There are only two things that separate dark ecologists from the villain of Kingsman. First, the obvious cartoonishness of the film -- something that characters in the film brilliantly remark about throughout the film. Secondly, dark ecologists are so far removed from any kind of power that a global mass slaughter is simply not plausible for them.

But if they were ever permitted to attain power, the results could be absolutely catastrophic.

The deep green ecology movement will always be a bunch of Malthusian whackjobs. They can at least earn themselves some moral and ethical capital by rooting out, isolating and expelling any dark ecologists in their midst.

If they instead shelter these dark ecologists, deep green ecologists should be treated as no less psychotic than their more murderous compatriots.

After all, it isn't Valentine's lisp that makes him scary.

Good Gawd, I'm Bored With Alexander Knight...

...bored to the point of disinterest, in fact.

In a week of questions about whether or not Alexander Knight funneled donations intended for a non-for-profit "eco-drone" into his own private for-profit business, Knight has promised answers, but produced none.

I'm starting to think there's a reason for that. But earlier today, Knight came up with this:

Apparently these are screencaps from Amazon proving that Knight did, indeed, purchase a Tarot T-2D gimbal and a GoPro camera.

That was never in dispute.

What is in dispute is whether he purchased it for his so-called "eco-drone" project, or if he purchased it for his @SkeyeFoto drone. This picture doesn't answer that question. I'm really starting to think that he won't, and I think under these circumstances a refusal to answer is, in itself, an answer of sorts.

Your mileage may differ.

But here's the remarkable thing about it: even if Knight did purchase these components with funds donated to what he promised was strictly a not-for-profit project, and then used to build a drone for his for-profit business, I'm not the person to whom he owes redress.

That would be his donors.

And suppose that his existing donors are okay with him doing such a thing? Well, fine. But at the very least Knight ought to edit his GoFundMe page in order to indicate that the drone is for dual purpose. So that at least future donors may not be misled.

It could be that simple.

That's what's so remarkable about this to me: there are so many easy ways out of this for Alexander Knight. But they involve answering questions to account for how he's conducting himself, and correcting whatever misconduct may be afoot.

Instead, Knight is trying to preen about his alleged victimhood.

And so, I'm bored. Bored to the point of disinterest. Unless Knight decides he'd like to actually answer the relevant questions, I'm pretty much done with it.

All Eyes on Alexander Knight's Eye in the Sky

Readers of High Noon are well aware that Alexander Knight's recent decision to target me has resulted in a harvest of fact-based counter-punches, mostly regarding his bizarre predilection for venerating eco-terrorist and murderer Wiebo Ludwig.

In the interest of journalistic ethics, I'm going to disclose something here: Mr Knight has chosen to make matters between him and myself personal. He chose to be the aggressor. Next time he should think better of it.

Because, as it turns out, there may be reason to suspect that Mr Knight may not quite be the environmentalist activist that he's making himself out to be. In fact, I've received detailed tips that he may be using his so-called "environmentalist activism" as a cover to enrich himself.

The matter revolves around a GoFundMe project he started in order to pay for what he calls an "eco-drone." He says it will take aerial camera footage and even non-descript "samples."

But it turns out that there's reason to think that what Mr Knight has really asked people to crowdfund is a private business, called Skeyefoto.

Skeyefoto's Twitter profile IDs its purpose as the following: "Photographer for commercial and residential real estate. Serving the GTA and Southern Ontario. Negotiable flat rates. Aerial photos possible in rural areas."

Now certainly, there's nothing wrong with a man starting a business. In fact, I personally encourage anyone with an idea and this ambition to do just that. So no, this isn't about Mr Knight starting a business. It's about possibly deceiving his crowdfunders in order to do it.

Here's a relevant snippet from his GoFundMe page:

"AN FPV system will permit safer operation of the drone and allow far more accuracy when obtaining footage and samples. The onboard OSD will monitor and display battery level, altitude, speed, direction, and distance from operator.

With the donations already received I have purchased a GoPro Hero3+ Black (FPV capable), the Tarot T2-D gimbal and an IOD (FPV functionality). For this new frame I have also purchased a NAZA-M V2. In the event of an ESC, motor or prop failure this new NAZA will allow me to perform an emergency landing instead of losing the entire rig as I did last December. What I need now are at least two 10000+mAH 4S LiPo batteries to extend flight times up to and over 20 minutes. Currently I am working with old cheap 3S LiPo batteries that will only last for roughly 60-90 seconds--that is not a typo.

I simply do not have the budget for these items and am asking the public for help. This project will be solely dedicated to environmental initiatives meant to benefit everyone."

Sorry to say that Mr Knight starting a business to film or photograph commercial real estate properties from the air doesn't "benefit everyone." It benefits Mr Knight. It may even benefit the real estate companies in question. But that's hardly "everyone."

My anonymous tipster was kind enough to send me a link to this:

It's proof that Alexander Knight is the owner of this theoretical business. Moreover, Mr Knight doesn't even deny it.

Mr Knight did object to any discussion of Skeyefoto and his role as its proprietor -- I have yet to find any evidence that this business exists as anything more than a website, or that it has done any actual work for any actual real estate companies -- as "blackmail."

(This is kind of amusing considering that he's believed to have created numerous sockpuppet Twitter accounts to "threaten" him on behalf of the "oilsands lobby.")

Particularly amusing is that the individual questioning him in this instance isn't asking him for anything. Mr Knight may want to familiarize himself with the meaning of "blackmail" before using the word.

He insists that the drone being used for his activist work and the drone being used for his business are not the same drone. As in, there is or may be more than one drone. This doesn't dispel any suspicions regarding the propriety or possible impropriety of his GoFundMe as much as he seems to think it does.

In fact, it begs a question: if Alexander Knight already has a drone for his business, why does he need to crowdfund another drone? Could he not just be using that drone for his activist work? And if not, why not?

If he's going to crowdfund a drone from donors, he ought to at least have a good reason to do it. A second drone to play around with -- when/if he already has one -- doesn't seem like a great one.

Can Alexander Knight provide any kind of proof that the drone he crowdfunded in order to build has not been used for any kind of for-profit activity? And what kind of assurances can he provide that it won't be?

If I were the following people, I'd be raising these questions with great aplomb:

Sam Choukeir - donated $10
Karen Gauthier - donated $15
Diane Smith - donated $50
Jeff Couillard - donated $20
Angela Bischoff - donated $25
Billy Nobels - donated $50

As well, there are a number of anonymous donors who could very well ask the same question.

These might not be overwhelming sums of money. But fraud is fraud. And while I don't think there's quite enough evidence afoot here to solidly accuse Alexander Knight of fraud, it seems to me that there's certainly cause for suspicion. Certainly enough to ask questions about it.

And let's make no mistake about it: if Knight is using this drone that he crowdfunded promising it would only be used on a not-for-profit basis for his for-profit business, a case could be made for fraud. After all, if that isn't a person misrepresenting themselves for monetary gain, what is?

Alexander Knight has some 'splainin' to do. I invite him to do it without accusations of "blackmail." No one's asking him for anything other than the truth.


Update, 02/ 03/14 - Well, Mr Knight is declining to answer any questions. Which was predictable.

Which is really a shame. He's provided plenty of fodder for anyone who may be suspicious regarding the sincerity of his GoFundMe page. There is, for example, the following:

Pictured right is a screencap from Knight's GoFundMe page. It reads as follows:

"With the donations already received I have purchased a GoPro Hero3+ Black (FPV capable), the Tarot T2-D gimbal and an IOD (FPV functionality)."

Pictured left is a Tweet from Mr Knight's @SkeyeFoto Twitter account, making reference to Transport Canada regs on commerical UAVs and boasting that a Tarot T2-D gimbal has just arrived.

Did he buy that piece of equipment for @SkeyeFoto with donations received via his not-for-profit crowdfunder? Mr Knight has yet to answer this question.


Update, 02/04/14 - Alexander Knight is promising to answer questions -- hopefully, the very specific question of whether or not he purchased a Tarot T2-D gimbal for his private business with funds donated for the construction of a not-for-profit "eco-drone."

Mr Knight has also accused me of accusing him of fraud. I think this is a very telling accusation, when you consider how I've phrased any remarks regarding Mr Knight and the possible presence of fraudulence in this matter:

"...while I don't think there's quite enough evidence afoot here to solidly accuse Alexander Knight of fraud, it seems to me that there's certainly cause for suspicion. Certainly enough to ask questions about it.

And let's make no mistake about it: if Knight is using this drone that he crowdfunded promising it would only be used on a not-for-profit basis for his for-profit business, a case could be made for fraud. After all, if that isn't a person misrepresenting themselves for monetary gain, what is?"

Notice the "if?" The question of whether or not Mr Knight is doing anything fraudulent is prefaced on the matter of whether or not he used crowdfunded donations for his for-profit business.

I think that a person could potentially take his bombastic response to the questions raised in this blogpost as confirmation that he's done just that. I personally don't, but I think a person potentially could.

Which is why Mr Knight would do far better to drop the Ghomeshi tactics and just answer the questions.

Rattling The Birdcage: CRA Audit of "Bird Watchers" is Spot-On

If you've been anywhere near the #CdnPoli Twittersphere over the past couple of days, you've heard a lot of chirping about it:the Canada Revenue Agency is investigating a bunch of bird watchers for political activity. Sounds ridiculous, right?

Well, not nearly so much. And it took Greg Renouf to reveal it.

I don't want to steal too much of Greg's thunder. I highly recommend visiting Genuine Witty and reading his story. I am, however, going to quote a specific snippet and add to his analysis.

From Greg's post:

"I spent the first minute of my investigation into this story by looking up the website for the Kitchener-Waterloo Field Naturalists and making my way to the About page. Once I arrived at the page it became immediately apparent this is more than just a group of “birdwatchers”- they’re a group that’s taken on the task of protecting and preserving wildlife. Shortly into my second minute I read the last line of the group’s objectives: 

'to support public interest in nature and its preservation by supporting the enactment of wise legislation and by other means that fall within the scope of the Corporation.'

The first problem is that supporting the 'enactment of wise legislation' is a whole lot more than simple birdwatching. The next problem here is that “supporting legislation” is not a charitable activity- but there’s no problem with that- unless they’re spending more than 10% of their resources on that activity. We’ll have to leave that up to the CRA to decide- that said, if you search the KWFN on Google News, they certainly do spend a lot of time pushing this mandate."

Greg's right. The Income Tax Act stipulates that purely political activity is to be limited to 10% of an organization's spending, and may not be a primary aim of the organization. Educational activity on political matters, however, is permitted; it's how think tanks qualify for charitable and non-profit status.

"Supporting the enactment of wise legislation" is inherently political. If KWFN had instead stipulated that "informing public policy" is a central goal of their organization, they'd clearly be in the clear. Clearly.

But this is a matter of semantics, right? Right? KWFN could be stating "supporting wise legislation" -- as in specific pieces of legislation they deem to be wise -- but then simply educating people as to the potential "wisdom" of this legislation, then letting people make up their own mind about those issues, right? Right?

Sorry. But no. From a column appearing in the KWFN newsletter:

"Ontario may be facing a spring election and time is running out to pass Bill 83 [an act protecting speech on environmental issues from SLAPP lawsuits]. Please ask your MPP and political leaders to pass this law."

A column educating readers about the potential benefits of Bill 83 without asking them to support it -- entrusting to them the task of making up their own minds about it, as educated people are wont to do -- would have been well within the rules stipulated by the Income Tax Act, which the CRA is obligated to enforce, This column, advising KWFN members to take specific political action in support of a specific bill, absolutely does not.

It looks like the KWFN are not entirely innocent victims after all. The Canada Revenue Agency's audit is entirely justified. In fact, it's entirely reasonable to wonder how they've gone this long without an audit, or how they received charitable status in the first place.

Going Rogue... Badly

I have no idea what "Deep Rogue Dam" is and probably you don't either. Apparently it has something to do with Kai Nagata and The Tyee. So you can safely presume that the epic fail is absolutely imminent.

Just how imminent? This imminent:




At times like this, it seems in order to just let Batman take it from here:

Swapping Apples & Oranges

CBC's Evan Solomon is the worst magician ever.

On a recent edition of Power and Politics, Solomon made a decision: to take the side of Sierra Club executive director John Bennett against Ethical Oil Institute spokesperson Kathryn Marshall. In doing so, he attempted a magic trick:

He would take an apple -- Marshall's reference to the generous foreign funding enjoyed by environmental groups attempting to block the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline -- make it disappear, and as with all good magic tricks, make it reappear.

There was just one problem: when Solomon made the apple reappear, it was an orange. But he and Bennett tried to pretend it was still an apple.

Solomon countered Marshall's comments about the foreign funding enjoyed by these environmental groups by asking if the Ethical Oil institute received any funding from Enbridge.

The unintentional punchline is that Enbridge is a Canadian company.

Oops.

Of course, the next trick in the far-left anti-oil sands arsenal is then to attempt to write off the Ethical Oil institute as corporate shills. See, in the eyes of the far-left, even Canadian corporations are inherently evil and villainous, no matter what. Even if they're Canadian.

So then they'll try to make the issue about that: a classic bait-and-switch tactic.

Naturally, it never occurs to them that Enbridge might be donating to the Ethical Oil institute because they share common values, and because the work of the Ethical Oil institute is already beneficial to them.

Heaven forbid corporations donate money to organizations that share their values.