EVERYTHING IS ILLEGAL
"EVERYTHING IS ILLEGAL: Laws that presumptively prohibit “disparate impact” require employers, landlords, and recipients of federal funds to justify to a government agency just about EVERYTHING they do. Maybe even everything."
Foolishness is why we so often see K-12 and higher education entwined in federal handouts. In the end, these handouts will throttle many of these institutions.
Trump's enemies fail to realize that Barney Fife's antics are a cautionary tale not a roadmap to success.
It’s Undeniable: Trump Is Blessed With Really Stupid Enemies - Kurt Schlichter
"Donald Trump goes to Europe, scandalizes the Euroweenies, libs, and cruise-shilling grifters of Never Trump, and comes back victorious. He’s about to get his second SCOTUS justice confirmed – all they have on Brett Kavanaugh is that he likes beer and is named “Brett.” In Congress, the Democrats decided to go all in on abolishing ICE because Americans love open borders and welcome MS-13 or something. In the Mueller farce, the Dems decided that the smart play was to publicly run interference for creepy weirdo Peter Strzok when he went on national TV doing his impression of Lotion Boy from Silence of the Lambs.
Hey Pete, what do those Trump voters smell like? Smells like a red wave to me, you insipid weirdo.
How did Trump luck out by getting such hopeless geebos for opponents? It can’t just be chance. At every turn, these dummies choose to lock themselves into the most implausible and indefensible positions imaginable, then push all their chips into the center of the table. It’s almost supernatural – maybe Trump won the intervention of some ancient demon by heading over to the offices of the Weekly Standard and snatching away one of its Never Trump scribblers to use as a virgin sacrifice."
It Kurt, read it all.
Live Blog | July 18, 2018 08:47:19
President Nikki Haley 2024.
"Nikki Haley secures arms embargo that eluded Obama admin.
Trump did say he'd choose the best people.
From Fox News's Adam Shaw:
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley has chalked up another win, securing an arms embargo on South Sudan -- something that eluded the Obama administration.
South Sudan, which declared its independence from Sudan in 2011, has been beset by conflict and violence since 2013. But an arms embargo resolution introduced by the U.S. during the Obama administration was rejected by the Security Council in 2016.
The resolution on Friday squeaked through, only picking up the nine votes necessary to pass. France, the Ivory Coast, the Netherlands, Kuwait, Peru, Poland, the U.K. and Sweden all backed the U.S. While no members voted against the measure, Russia, China, Bolivia, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia and Kazakhstan all abstained.
Haley also powerfully responded to criticism that the embargo was a "slap in the face" and would undermine peace talks.
In her remarks on Friday, Haley said that the U.S. supports the peace process, but dismissed claims that an arms embargo would undermine talks.
“For negotiations to work, we must end the cycle of broken promises to stick to a ceasefire. Peace in South Sudan will not come by letting the parties get their hands on more weapons,” she said. “The opposite is true. Supporting an arms embargo will show the parties that we are fed up with delays and stalling.”
First woman president, anyone?"
Husband shoots home invasion suspect holding wife at gunpoint
At 30 feet I shoot 3" groups rapid fire. It sounds like this husband does as well.
Damn, there is always a chore that needs doing around the house! Hero is a better chore than planing a swelled door to fit a tight jam, cleaning out the wood stove, or replacing a kaput light fixture. Just saying.
Good shootin' Tex!
VOTERS’ MEMO TO HILLARY — DON’T RUN AGAIN: Nothing so sad as the performer who is way past their p…
VOTERS’ MEMO TO HILLARY — DON’T RUN AGAIN: Nothing so sad as the performer who is way past their prime but just refuses to get off the stage.
Hillary "Norma Desmond" Clinton: "Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up."
Yeah, but we're not!
Only 2.3 hours to fuel this baby up!
Most liquid fuel autos take perhaps 5 minutes to fuel.
This is the same steampunk thinking that brought us light rail, streetcars, trams, and rail as the 21st-century modes of transit. Somehow if you make the train look new it is! No, it is not, it is just cosmetically enhanced 19th-century travel technology. The gold standard in the 19th-century is not the gold standard today.
To make this all the more insane, the carbon output and pollution output from the electric vehicle is seldom significantly better than the average liquid fuel powered auto when one makes a head to head comparison of the carbon and pollution costs of the entire design, to build, to use, to destruction lifecycle of both a fuel powered and electric powered vehicle. Why the environmentalist wants to hide these facts is incomprehensible if they really want to reduce carbon. But that leads to the more interesting question, do they want to reduce carbon and pollution?
I've written about these environmental issues on more than one occasion.
Thanks: "Only 2.3 Hours to Recharge!"
Shirking the Real Work -- Full Professors and Freshman Comp — The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal
The problem for the university is the low quality of the feeder K-12 systems. Low quality K-12 education is a problem looking for a solution, but our political class does not want to solve problems it wants eternal issues in need of a little more money. K-12 education fits this bill perfectly.
A key problem at university is the fact that the money and prestige go to the researchers, not teachers. The result is baccalaureate students are a demanding afterthought for many professors. As the article notes, this leads to professors shifting the critically important lower level workload to graduate students or assistant professors.
Further, the chance that an excellent researcher will make a highly motivated and outstanding teacher of baccalaureate students is low.
A separate but related issue is that many minority students are mismatched with their university rigor level due to affirmative action. A minority student who would do well at a second-tier university may be incapable of handling the work at a first tier or Ivy. The result is incredible stress and a tendency to pass these students along before they are competent in the material.
"We are caught in a treacherous situation. The hardest classes to teach are often taught by the least competent teachers. The class most unpopular with undergraduates is taught by the most vulnerable teachers. The most delicate subjects are thrust upon twenty-somethings ill-equipped to manage them.
This is not the fault of people running writing programs, or of deans of humanities, or of lecturers with renewable appointments. It is the fault of safe and secure tenured professors in English, Comparative Literature, American Studies, etc. All too often they conduct rarefied research and minimize contact with students. They regard themselves as specialists, busy and professional, and while they agree on the importance of freshman writing, in their actions they express the opposite. General education and basic skills, they indicate, are the responsibility of lesser colleagues."
This sounds to me like it is time for a revolution, a riot, or both.
What was it the Bard said? "The first thing we do, let's kill all the tenured English professors." Or something like that.
"This is not a healthy subdivision of the humanities, and the disciplines will recover only if the upper-faculty regularly turns its attention away from its research and toward the foundations of reading and writing. If those foundations are not reinforced and respected by distinguished humanities professors, and if students don’t acquire sound English skills during the first year, the most cutting-edge sophisticated scholarship collapses upon itself.
Full professors must reconnect with the freshman classroom and with the teachers—graduate students, temporary hires, and lecturers—who are doing the hardest job on the campus."
But do the tenured English professors want students with solid analytical, research, and writing skills? The political wackadoo which stands in as an education in the humanities and social sciences today would be untenable if the students were skeptical, critical thinkers. Better to not rock the boat, but indoctrinate the students while providing them with an incompetent education in writing, analysis, research and critical thinking skills.
In the video below, law students from Lewis and Clark law school show the quality of analysis, critical thinking, and skepticism to be found in law students. As a lawyer, I would not hire these zombies to fetch water or coffee.
Police Killings Tied to Poor Mental Health in Blacks
"Black individuals in the United States are three times more likely than whites to be killed by police, but new research suggests it is the killing of unarmed blacks that adversely affects the mental health of this population.
"When we sum up to a population level, we find that these killings led to an additional 55 million days of poor mental health each year in the black American adult population," study investigator Atheendar S. Venkataramani, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.
* * *
The greatest effect on mental health was observed 1 to 2 months after exposure.
The killing of an unarmed black or white individual did not affect white respondents to the survey.
* * *
In addition, many scholars and policy makers have interpreted police killings of unarmed black Americans as a signature manifestation of structural racism. So, another reason to do the study was to try to understand how manifestations of structural racism influence health," he said."
In essence, progressives believe in the wishful thinking of institutional racism, which is just a buzzword for the idea, "We can't find any over racism but blacks are not outcome equal with whites so, there must be "institutional racism." Only in the social sciences can a lack of evidence prove a nonsensical proposition.
If these "researchers" opened their eyes, the truth would be obvious. After the police kill a person, one of two things happens.
If the dead are black, the race baiters show up and create a carnival atmosphere alleging anti-black racism (frequently against a majority black police force) was the cause and demanding all kinds of things from the police, the government, including changes which the black communities often do not want like reductions in police patrols in dangerous inner city black communities. Rallies and protests are held, and the community is whipped into a frenzy often with the race baiters implying the black community should be compensated in some way. This usually means the race baiter will be compensated. The police are bullied into public investigations frequently with multiple secondary "investigations," analysis, and conclusions from questionable sources.
There is no moving on from these situations and the relationship between the police and the community sours. The race baiters use this to force less policing of black communities which ensures more crime, which ensures more race baiting opportunities for the race baiters, which creates more opportunities for graft and corruption.
This is the real institutional racism which is occurring in minority communities.
If the dead are white usually nothing happens. Perhaps the police investigate the shooting quietly but there is seldom a carnival atmosphere or allegation of anti-white racism or the need for reparations from the police. No race baiting carnival barkers show up to demand money, the community simply reads in the paper that another criminal was shot and killed by police for some ascertainable reason. The people quickly determine that the problem was the criminal, not the police and move on.
Fake research like this is the problem along with the race baiters like Al Sharpton, not the police.
Police officers make mistakes, and we need to monitor the police and demand high-quality training of officers to make sure these mistakes are limited.
More importantly, we need to find ways to limit the race baiters and eliminate the rubbish social "science" which has infected our public sphere. Articles like this, research like this are a significant part of the problem.
Dreaming of a Fluoroquinolone? Think Again
...just like the Fluoroquinolone, I used to know.
Boy, can't you hear Bing? Can't you feel the snow, er, Fluoroquinolone falling on your tongue?
Me neither, which is probably why I decided not to go into medicine and I went into law instead.
Denmark in NATO: Paying for Protection, Bleeding for Prestige
The 2018 NATO summit in Brussels met the expectations of many observers who were concerned that President Donald Trump’s extemporaneous remarks and actions could weaken and confuse the alliance. The Trump administration worked diligently to frame the agenda around equitable burden-sharing in NATO, sending letters to many allied capitals exhorting them to increase defense spending. And while most concern has been expressed about Germany’s willingness to address its spending and readiness difficulties , it is Denmark that will be the true bellwether for the burden-sharing debate to come. If the Danes accept that “ Burden sharing … must include cash, in addition to capabilities and contributions” and increase defense spending above what is already planned, then the debate in NATO will move to a different plane.
Denmark has become the poster child for analysts arguing that America’s favored metric of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense is ill-considered, and what matters is contributing effectively to coalition operations when asked. The weekend prior to the NATO summit, the Danish Ministry of Defense released a video and a webpage in both Danish and English detailing what they “offer” NATO to sell that message. Copenhagen has dismissed the 2 percent goal as unrealistic. Denmark approved a six-year defense agreement this January that pledges to increase spending from 1.17 percent of GDP in 2017 to 1.3 percent by 2023 — and to do so slowly, with 60 percent of the increase coming in 2022 and 2023. The Danes are basically daring Trump to give them a pass on the goal of 2 percent by 2024 and aim to wait him out.
This strategy is sound, but Denmark will likely cave to the right sort of American pressure. The Danes will haggle for a “discount” given their performance on other metrics but can be convinced to revisit the levels of defense spending agreed upon in January if what they value most in this relationship is placed at risk: Denmark’s reputation for being a “good ally.” Successive Danish governments have built this reputation, and garnered plaudits and rewards, by being willing — even eager — to participate in U.S.-led expeditionary operations without complaint or caveats. However, during the recent NATO summit, Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen made it abundantly clear to Trump that Denmark has paid its dues in blood as a U.S. coalition partner in Afghanistan and Iraq with relative casualties comparable to those suffered by the United States. The Danish political elite is thus arguing for a NATO burden-sharing logic that balances blood and treasure, but is unwilling to budge on treasure as the fiscal weight of an extensive welfare state dominates domestic politics. Even then, if American officials make it clear that defense spending is the new coin of the realm, and that Denmark will lose its access in Washington unless they pay their membership fee, Denmark will grudgingly comply — as it has done in the past."
The Dane, and, frankly, pan European philosophy, is we only need to do a little. We could spend money, or send troops into harms way, or maybe something else and that would be enough. The Danes spend far less than we Americans in military budget, and have little interest in increasing those expenditures, but they join America in staffing the NATO and UN joint operations, and "pay" with casualties comparable to those we American suffer.
Apparently, meeting on criteria is sufficient in the New Math world of the Europeans to be good enough.
Americans need to meet all of the criteria, we need to expend copious amounts of money on our military, we need to be active in protecting Europe, keeping the sea lanes open, engage in and lead NATO and UN-authorized joint operations, and we need to withstand the highest levels of casualties. Why are we required to meet all of the criteria and more, while the Europeans, even the "good allies" like Denmark barely meet one or perhaps two? What reason do we have to want to continue this arrangement? Are the Europeans paying for some of our costs? No. Are they participating in US-based training missions in equivalent numbers to what the US is participating in Europe? No. Are they helping with open sea piracy prevention, or keeping the sea lanes open for trade in roughly equivalent terms with the US? No.
What we have in NATO is an American obligation to protect Europe which was supposed to be predicated on Europe providing half the total military might. Instead, we have European nations playing pretend military so the European politicians can dole out goodies and benefits while the US protects Europe, performs the lions share of all the heavy lifting necessary to keep the world order intact, to keep the sea lanes open, to fund and fight the NATO and UN-mandated military operations, and to actively fight problems like open sea piracy.
That ATM is closed. I don't much care if we protect Europe or stay in NATO. Europe has decided to let in over one million people a considerable number of whom are feral, violent, religious extremists intent on killing the Europeans and creating a new European Califate. Europe has decided it does not want to spend enough on defense to even minimally participate in maintaining the current world order or protecting Europe.
Sorry, Denmark, doing a little is not enough. You need to put on your big boy pants and join the US as a full partner not hope to do a little and get by.
Germany is another story. The Germans have decided that the frumpy East German Manchurian Candidate they have running the shop is good enough. Germany is wealthy. It needs to pay its reasonable share for the benefits it receives.
Obama allowed what was a travesty when he took office to become a disaster by the time he left. I expect Trump to turn this around or leave NATO altogether and begin realigning our alliances based on the willingness of our allies to take an active role in defense, and in the costs of keeping the world ordered and trade flowing.
The American taxpayer ATM is closed. Get used to it.
"American leaders routinely thanked Denmark for its stalwart participation in coalitions of the willing, with skilled personnel, interoperable equipment, and without caveats. Denmark’s willingness to engage in actual combat, and its leadership of a public that has demonstrated extreme tolerance of casualties and support for their forces in operations, have also been noted. Danish leaders met with their American counterparts far more often than they used to since these changes were implemented, including frequent bilateral meetings with the president and the secretaries of state and defense. “Denmark’s enhanced standing in Washington not only opened doors at the highest level: on several occasions Danish diplomats were invited to join special forums reserved for the United States’ closest allies,” noted Ringsmose and Anders Henriksen in a book chapter entitled “What did Denmark Gain? Iraq, Afghanistan and the Relationship with Washington.” American gratitude extended to promoting Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen to be NATO Secretary General from 2009 to 2014 and Chief of Defence Knud Bartels to be chairman of NATO’s Military Committee from 2012 to 2015, putting Danes in the highest NATO leadership positions for an overlapping 33 months. Danish leaders saw such rewards as tangible indicators of their status as well as of America’s guarantee of Danish security.
Butter Over Guns
Yet while Denmark’s operational tempo accelerated beyond anything imagined by previous generations and burnished their reputation within the alliance, Danish leaders bowed to domestic pressure to reduce defense spending. In 2007, only 5 percent of Danes supported increased defense spending while 66 percent preferred other priorities. Just last month Gallup reported only 4 percent of Danes saw defense as a priority — tying for 13th place out of 15 categories. Defense spending reflected these sentiments."
The problem is not so much the Danish political class as it is the Danish people. America protected Europe and was willing to allow it to free ride on the American defensive capability. Europeans now believe they are entitled to those protections. This was terrible policy from past administrations, but it is in need of correction now. Like all poor behavior, forcing change will be difficult and take a firm steady hand.
We will need lots of bright lines, and firm clear statements of what we expect and what will happen if expectations are not met. Then we need to act precisely as the bright lines dictate. Obama was incapable of this; he was a feckless, fickle man always running to the back seeking to "lead" from behind like all cowards. That will no longer work. We need real leadership if we are to salvage anything.
"In the age of never-ending wars and attempts to retain primacy, American patience with reluctant allies began to wear thin. While Donald Rumsfeld infamously divided NATO into “Old Europe” and “New Europe” over support for Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Obama administration expressed its frustration more diplomatically and systematically. In 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates expressed alarm at the “demilitarization of Europe” and in 2011 warned:
[T]he blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress — and in the American body politic writ large — to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.
After the Russian annexation of Crimea, frustration became policy. The Obama administration pushed successfully to formalize the understanding, reached at the 2006 Riga summit, that allies would “aim to move towards” 2 percent of GDP on defense by 2024. This promise was realized in the 2014 Wales Summit Declaration. Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work emphasized in meetings with allies that “our bedrock policy is that we would like every NATO member to spend 2 percent of their gross national product on national defense.” The U.S. ambassador and visiting American officials reinforced this message in Copenhagen. Most of Denmark’s neighbors heeded the call, with the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, former Warsaw Pact members Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria, Nordic neighbor Norway, and even non-NATO member Sweden each raising their defense budgets.
The Danish response to these efforts was four-fold. First, many took these efforts as simply another ritualized act in standard U.S.-European relations: “It’s a part of the game,” said Holger K. Nielsen, the respected defense spokesperson for the Socialist People’s Party. Within this context, Danish officials and analysts made the case that output measures should trump input measures such as percentage of GDP. Denmark offered itself as the exemplar of an efficient, effective ally and banked on their record and reputation to deflect criticism. Third, they argued they would soon meet the NATO target of spending 20 percent of their defense budget on equipment, particularly as payments for their acquisition of 27 F-35s started. Finally, they argued their forthcoming defense agreement would result in a “substantial lift” in spending that should allay concerns.
The agreement approved in January of this year does progressively increase spending from 1.17 percent of GDP in 2017 to 1.3 percent by 2023 — back to where it was in 2013. Despite arguing that reaching 2 percent was “unrealistic” and that Denmark’s defense structure could not absorb such an influx of funding even if approved, Danish leaders considered this to be a good faith effort to move towards 2 percent."
Which brings us to the real problem, Europes militaries are vestigial. The Continent no longer has any significant connection to military concepts and as such has no idea what to do with the 2% if it were budgeted. These nations can field small special forces units where are essentially trained by a small cadre of individuals and the US military but nothing more. Europeans have permanently become old children living in their American parent's basement.
So, what will Europeans do if pressured?
"The American president’s unorthodox diplomacy certainly upset many of these arguments. European leaders, Danes included, looked to more traditional U.S. officials, such as the vice president and the secretary of defense, for reassurance. They received it, particularly with regard to upholding American treaty commitments, but not in terms of burden-sharing.
Danish officials received this message personally. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis greeted his Danish counterpart in May by pointedly noting that “twelve nations have yet to submit the plans to make this modest commitment” to spend 2 percent. Left unsaid was that Denmark was among that group. Trump’s June 19 letter to the Danes noted that “ Burden sharing … must include cash, in addition to capabilities and contributions. Strong performance in one area does not absolve any Ally of responsibility for the others.”
With such a clear framing of the argument, and the well-prepared deflection articulated by Rasmussen, what are the likely implications for U.S.-Danish relations?
First, we can expect Denmark will continue to highlight metrics that show its value as an ally and downplay those that do not. Concerted efforts by the administration and others in NATO — such as Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg — to build a consistent message around the “quality and quantity” argument will, however, find a receptive ear in corners of the Danish policy community.
Second, it is likely that only states that approach the two percent threshold will be taken seriously by the United States when engaging in discussions of efficiency at the margins. Furthermore, allies requiring maximum effort to deploy small units for a limited period of time will receive a limited hearing in such discussions. Danish officials highlight the efficiency of their forces, which is admirable, but it has been purchased at the expense of size, sustainability, and comprehensiveness of all three services.
Third, and most important, it is likely that Denmark — and others with a similar policy — could be subjected to naming and shaming until they reconsider. Trump’s penchant for hectoring those who fail to live up to his expectations may be particularly effective against Denmark. If prestige, access, and influence in Washington is the coin Denmark has worked to earn with its defense policies for the past two decades, then withholding it could have significant coercive value. Danish officials may consider reopening the defense agreement if they are rhetorically included among the countries that have not yet proffered a credible plan to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense, relegated to the sidelines of allied councils until they do so, or their force contributions turned down when they are suboptimal — perhaps because they cannot be organically sustained. If President Trump brings his “singular obsession on this issue” to bear on Denmark, they may find eliminating the risk of losing the benefits of alliance worth the higher costs of membership — just as they did during the Cold War. By doing so, Denmark may do the alliance a substantial favor and enable serious discussion of more appropriate metrics of burden sharing than blood versus treasure."
The authors offers a play in three acts:
Denmark prestidigitates hoping that slight of hand will confuse we simple Americans that the "sophisticated" Europeans are meeting their "fair share" by not coming anywhere near meeting their fair share. Good luck with that.
The authors believe that it is likely that America will take serious nations more seriously than unserious nations. I cannot argue against that scintillating logic.
If the authors believe Trump will only name and shame he has not been paying attention to Trump's action. Trump uses big stick diplomacy, and he is willing to use the big stick. Trump has used both sanctions and secondary sanctions to put serious pressure on the NorKs, Russia, and he will not hesitate to use the big stick on allies if the issue is serious. FYI, Trump believes this is a serious issue.
Trump believes NATO is good for the Europeans and cannot understand why they are so pathetically unwilling to put up a measly 2% of their national budgets to achieve real security.
"If President Trump brings his “singular obsession on this issue” to bear on Denmark, they may find eliminating the risk of losing the benefits of alliance worth the higher costs of membership — just as they did during the Cold War. By doing so, Denmark may do the alliance a substantial favor and enable serious discussion of more appropriate metrics of burden sharing than blood versus treasure."
This seems an awful lot of work to get the ancient children in the basement to behave like young adults. Sheesh!