Monday, July 21, 2014

Cruising the Web

We knew this: "Obama aides were warned of brewing border crisis." They either didn't care or wanted the crisis to come. THe health and safety of the children were secondary.

Ah, true diversity. It means something special at the University of Wisconsin.
That framework includes eight essential “working definitions,” among them the already-discussed diversity, as well as others: “compositional diversity,” “critical mass,” “inclusion,” “equity mindedness,” “deficit-mindedness,” “representational equity,” and “excellence.”

Let us take a closer look at one of these working definitions included, namely “representational equity.”

It calls for “proportional participation of historically underrepresented racial-ethnic groups at all levels of an institution, including high status special programs, high-demand majors, and in the distribution of grades.”

We are not told exactly what adherence to this will entail. It appears to mean that directors of programs and departmental chairs will have to somehow ensure that they have a mix of students with just the right percentages of individuals who embody the various “differences” included in the definition of diversity. I cannot see how that is possible and even if it were, how it improves any student’s education.

Suppose there were a surge of interest in a high demand field such as computer science. Under the “equity” policy, it seems that some of those who want to study this field would be told that they’ll have to choose another major because computer science already has “enough” students from their “difference” group.

Especially shocking is the language about “equity” in the distribution of grades. Professors, instead of just awarding the grade that each student earns, would apparently have to adjust them so that academically weaker, “historically underrepresented racial/ethnic” students perform at the same level and receive the same grades as academically stronger students.

At the very least, this means even greater expenditures on special tutoring for weaker targeted minority students. It is also likely to trigger a new outbreak of grade inflation, as professors find out that they can avoid trouble over “inequitable” grade distributions by giving every student a high grade.
And diversity has also moved on to Europe where they're finding that diversity today actually means the opposite of what it literally means.

This makes sense - a custodian is facing charges for starting a fire that burned down an elementary school. But he gets to retire with his full pension.

Jeff Dunetz explains about the Z Street case which will probably be the first of the IRS cases to open up the scandal. What a criminal operation the IRS has been in trying to limit organizations with agendas that annoyed this administration.
The Z Street case has the potential of blowing the IRS scandal wide open. First of all, it is the furthest along, and probably will be decided first. They can put on the stand the IRS employee who said they were being scrutinized because their policy is different than the Obama administration’s, and the lack of terrorism in any of the documents released by Rep. Levin indicates that the TAG manager who said Z Street was being examined because of terrorism in Israel may have been committing perjury

Mitch McConnell's opponent in Kentucky, Alison Lundergan Grimes is just not a very good candidate. Her aides have to work full-time to clean up her gaffes.

Kimberley Strassel reminds us of when Democrats believed in suing a president.
About the only thing Ms. Slaughter didn't do in five hours was offer House Speaker John Boehner her litigation notes. For it seems to have slipped Ms. Slaughter's mind—and the press's attention—that a mere eight years ago she was a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by congressional Democrats against George W. Bush. The year was 2006, just as Democrats were, uh, peaking in their campaign to take back the House.

Democrats were sore that they'd lost a fight over a budget bill that made cuts to Medicaid and student loans. They dredged up a technical mistake—a tiny difference between the House and Senate version of the bill. Michigan Democrat John Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, decided to (how did Ms. Slaughter put it?) file a lawsuit against the president brought by half of the Congress. He was joined as a plaintiff by nearly every other then-ranking Democratic member and titan in the House— Charles Rangel, John Dingell, George Miller, Collin Peterson, Bennie Thompson, Barney Frank, Pete Stark, James Oberstar and Ms. Slaughter herself.

n an April 2006 Huffington Post piece titled "Taking the President to Court," Mr. Conyers explained that he was "alarmed by the erosion of our constitutional form of government," and by a president who "shrugged" about "the law." After "consulting with some of the foremost constitutional experts in the nation," he had determined that there was "one group of people" who were "injured" by Mr. Bush's lack of respect for "checks and balances": Congress. So he was "going"—or as Ms. Slaughter might put it, "running"—"to court."
I hadn't realized how many times members of Congress have tried to sue a president.
It was left to Florida International University law professor Elizabeth Price Foley, another witness, to remind Democrats that in fact no fewer than 44 lawsuits in which legislators sought standing had been filed in federal court since Coleman v. Miller. Of the 41 filed by plaintiffs with unified political affiliation, nearly 70% were brought by Democrats. At least 20 of those came since 2000. The GOP might thank Ms. Slaughter for the idea.
Ah, but that was when the president was a Republican. Apparently, then it perfectly fine for individual members of Congress to sue a president. Of course, the Supreme Court has continually denied individual members standing to sue. It's just a cheap way to garner a day's headlines. What we don't know is what will happen when one whole body of Congress sues.

This is how crazy the United Nations is. They are returning rockets to Hamas that they found in a Gaza school.

Political stunts like proposing amendments that everyone knows are going nowhere is a sign of desperation for any party. The Republicans have done their share and now it is the turn of the Democrats.

Charles C.W. Cooke puts his finger on why Obama's behavior on the day that the news of the Malaysian airliner shot down over Ukraine is so jarring.
The criticism here is not that Obama did not immediately spring into action, flying as Superman into the air, safety to escort the air traffic to its final destination. Nor is it that Obama was insufficiently bellicose. Instead, the president’s aristarchs were troubled that a major international incident was treated as a mild irritation — as little more than a brief and unwanted overture to the usual fractious stump speech. I am among those who would like to see a dramatically smaller presidency at home.. Were Obama never to grace my television screen again, I would be in no way vexed. But, in foreign relations, I want someone who seems to be on the ball, who looms large in the international imagination, who recognizes that his primary responsibility is to the national defense and not to the nature of domestic policy, and who understands that there is a time for partisan politics and a time for national unity — especially when it is being widely reported that American citizens have been blown out of the sky. The lattermost is a distinction that this president — a man who famously made his national debut pretending to be a uniter — has never matured into observing.

Having given his infrastructure speech for the umpteenth time, Obama then made his way to a couple of fundraisers. One wonders what it would have taken to shake him off this course. Indeed, as Jim Geraghty points out, insouciance is the standard response. “This,” Geraghty writes, “is the president who didn’t address the country for three days after the attempted bombing of an airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009, who gave a “shout-out” to an audience member moments before his first comments on the Fort Hood shooting, and who attended a campaign rally on September 12, 2012, when most Americans awoke to the news of the murder of four Americans in a terror attack in Benghazi, Libya.”

There is a significant grey area between running around waving your hands in the air and appearing uninterested, and, in the realm of international affairs at least, President Obama has never managed to set foot inside it. It would be nice to believe that a missile that stole the lives of 298 souls could also puncture his bubble. But, in all likelihood, it won’t. For the next two years, this is to be our fate. Indifference, drift, diversion, and fatigue. Hello Cleveland! Hello Brooklyn! Goodbye, yellow brick road.

Myra Adams wonders what would have to happen for President Obama to cancel a fundraiser. She has some suggestions.
1. News that Beyonce and Jay Z are divorcing.

2. His favorite golf course was attacked by al-Qaeda.

3. Lebron James unexpectedly retired.

4. Air Force One was hijacked by the Tea Party.

5. A tsunami destroyed his August vacation compound on Martha’s Vineyard.
It's rather striking how illiberal today's liberals are. Michael Barone writes some more on this same theme.

Here's a clear case of a high school censoring the sources of information that students can access to make sure they don't read conservative sites. Apparently, the Vatican's website and other sites were blocked because it was considered "hate speech." One intrepid high schooler was able to catch his school's censorship and document it.
On May 27, shortly before his graduation, Andrew Lampart, an 18-year-old senior at Nonnewaug High School in Woodbury, Conn., set out to research gun control on a school computer in order to fulfill an assignment for a basic law course. He found that the website for the National Rifle Association was blocked, while websites supporting gun control remained accessible.

Over the next five days, Lampart spent more time on the web. He discovered that websites supportive of conservative causes and Christianity – including the Vatican web page — were blocked, while sites supportive of liberal causes and Islam remained accessible. The webpage for Republican party of Connecticut, for example, was blocked, but the page for the Democratic party of Connecticut was accessible.