Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Cruising the Web

How ignorant of history is Donald Trump? Now he's claiming that "In the old days, when we won a war, to a victor belong the spoils." Has he ever heard of the two world wars? We didn't claim spoils from either of those. I guess he's hung up in the 19th century and thinking of the Mexican-American and Spanish-American Wars. How unsurprising that his familiarity with history doesn't extend past that. Don't any of his advisers know the history of our roles in the world wars? Just as a quick reminder, here is the introduction to the Atlantic Charter, the agreement between FDR and Churchill in August, 1941 that set up the goals of each country in fighting the war.
The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.

First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;
After World War One, the U.S. did not participate in grabbing up the remains of the the three empires, German, Austria, or Russia, that had collapsed during the war. Britain and France had wanted the US to accept the mandate for parts of the Ottoman Empire to protect Armenians, but we weren't interested. After World War Two, we helped rebuild Europe; we didn't grab for the spoils. Is Trump saying that we should have behaved differently? It sure sounds like it.

It should be a mark of pride that we no longer go to war hoping for "spoils," but not in Trump's book. This guy continues to define ignorance and idiocy down.

The WSJ has given up hope that Trump will ever pivot to being presidential and the GOP should give him about two weeks and then give up on him.
Mr. Trump’s advisers and his family want the candidate to deliver a consistent message making the case for change. They’d like him to be disciplined. They want him to focus on growing the economy and raising incomes and fighting terrorism.

They think he should make the election a referendum on Hillary Clinton, not on himself. And they’d like him to spend a little time each day—a half hour even—studying the issues he’ll need to understand if he becomes President.

Is that so hard? Apparently so. Mr. Trump prefers to watch the cable shows rather than read a briefing paper. He thinks the same shoot-from-the-lip style that won over a plurality of GOP primary voters can persuade other Republicans and independents who worry if he has the temperament to be Commander in Chief.

He also thinks the crowds at his campaign rallies are a substitute for the lack of a field organization and digital turnout strategy. And he thinks that Twitter and social media can make up for being outspent $100 million to zero in battleground states.

By now it should be obvious that none of this is working. It’s obvious to many of his advisers, who are the sources for the news stories about dysfunction. They may be covering for themselves, but this is what happens in failing campaigns. The difference is that the recriminations typically start in October, not mid-August.
And the sad, sad fact is that this was a very winnable year for the GOP. Hillary is a terrible candidate and the basic factors favor the Republicans.
The tragedy is that this is happening in a year when Republicans should win. The political scientist Alan Abramowitz has spent years developing his “time for a change” forecasting model. The model looks at the rate of GDP growth in the second quarter of an election year (1.2% this year), the incumbent President’s approval rating, and the electorate’s desire for change after one party has held the White House for eight years.

No model is perfect, but Mr. Abramowitz’s has predicted the winner of the major-party popular vote in every presidential election since 1988. His model predicts that Mr. Trump should win a narrow victory with 51.4%. A mainstream GOP candidate who runs a reasonably competent campaign would have about a 66% chance of victory.

Mr. Trump has alienated his party and he isn’t running a competent campaign. Mrs. Clinton is the second most unpopular presidential nominee in history—after Mr. Trump. But rather than reassure voters and try to repair his image, the New Yorker has spent the last three weeks giving his critics more ammunition.
Remember in the olden days when the campaigns didn't really start until after Labor Day and pundits told us not to pay attention to anything that happened before then? That changed when opponents succeeded in defining candidates with advertising in the summer. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did that with Kerry and Obama did that with Romney in 2012. So now, in August, we can basically see how the campaign is going to be going forward. Barring some black swan sort of event, we're looking at a Trump loss with the possibility of losing some of the states that McCain and Romney won. It only makes sense for the GOP to focus on keeping the House and Senate and the state legislatures and governorships.

$20 off all new Kindle E-reader

Kindle Paperwhite E-reader - Save $20

Save $15 off Amazon Tap

Save $50 off Fire HD 10 Tablet

Fire Kids Edition - Save $20

Charles Lipson notes the change that we're seeing from the primaries when voters were angry and just wanted to vote against anyone associated with the establishment. There was a hope that Hillary would have trouble in the general election because she is the ultimate "status quo" candidate.
Now, in the early stages of the general election, that strategy is faltering. Why? Not because voters are suddenly happy with the status quo. They are still disgusted with established politicians, insider deals, slow economic growth, and rising dangers at home and abroad. They still don’t trust Washington insiders to solve those problems. They still think those insiders are cutting special deals for themselves and cutting out ordinary people.

But those anxieties are now being eclipsed by another, even larger one. Voters are increasingly worried Donald Trump is not stable enough to be entrusted with the vast powers of the presidency, not prudent enough to make life-and-death decisions, and not respectful enough of constitutional limitations to head the executive branch.

Trump is in deep trouble, not because he's an outsider, not because of his controversial views on trade and immigration, but because the American public increasingly sees him as erratic and undisciplined.
Do you know how we know that this is true - because the Democrats keep hammering home the argument that Trump does not have the character to be president. He keeps giving them and the media evidence of his irrational, unstable behavior.
Neither candidate receives high marks for good judgment. Republicans initially thought they could use the issue to attack Clinton. She’s vulnerable on multiple fronts. She pushed hard to remove Libya's dictator, Moammar Gadhafi, and reaped the whirlwind. Her much-touted effort to “reset” U.S.-Russian relations failed utterly. She is closely tied to the Obama administration’s bumbling Middle East policies, which led to deepening civil wars, coups and counter-coups, and widening influence for Iran and Russia. She is indelibly associated with the ensuing global dangers.

That dismal record would sink most candidates, but not with Trump in the race.

He is even more vulnerable because his judgment looks even worse: He’s impulsive, narcissistic, and dangerous. If he cannot reverse that perception before it hardens among voters, then he is doomed. And that perception is hardening quickly.

Trump's sinking popularity does not ensure Clinton's victory, but it does sharply increase the odds.
And the irony is that Trump has no one but himself to blame. He might choose to blame the media or Hannity might blame #NeverTrumpers, but the truth is he has been the one coming across as an unstable, ignorant guy who is more focused on some Tweet than on attacking Hillary or on learning enough to have even a basic understanding of the issues.

M.G. Oprea links to this horrifying report by the Daily Express on the Rotherham child sex abuse ring. Two years ago we learned about the mass peddling of at least 1400 underage girls as young as twelve for sex in the British town of Rotherham. Even more disturbing was the fact that town authorities had learned about the sex rings and had done nothing about it, mostly because they realized that the perpetrators were Muslim immigrants, mostly from Pakistan, and they didn't want to be accused of racism. It turns out that the abuse is still going on.
GROOMING of young girls by gangs of predominantly Kashmiri men is still occurring on an “industrial scale” in Rotherham because authorities are failing to tackle an organised child sex crime racket, an investigation by express.co.uk has uncovered.

Express.co.uk has pieced together shocking testimony from victims, campaigners and local residents in a large-scale investigation series being revealed throughout this week.

They all told us how police and the local council is still "failing" thousands of vulnerable girls.

It reveals how organised, criminal gangs of paedophiles are still using the town as their own personal fiefdom, peddling underage girls for sex as part of a multi-million pound crime empire.

The men are predominantly from the city of Mirpur in the disputed region of Kashmir, on the border between Pakistan and India....

A number of people who gave evidence to Professor Drew’s inquiry expressed open dismay at his findings and told us the grooming of girls is as bad now as it has ever been.

And many have told Express.co.uk of their outright anger the police and local council workers have not done more to crack down on the grooming gangs.

One victim, who we have called Ellie to protect her identity, said: "Raping of white girls by these men is still going on. Some, I know, have had to wait months before they're even asked to give a statement [to the police]. It's shockingly bad still."

In light of the scandalous failings of South Yorkshire Police (SYP) to tackle child sexual exploitation the Government sent in the National Crime Agency (NCA) to oversee the inquiry.

The investigation – called Operation Stovewood – is currently probing more than 7,000 lines of inquiry.

But Ellie said: "What have the National Crime Agency been doing for the last 18 months with their £10million? No arrests yet? We're feeling desperate and disheartened."

Another girl, going under the pseudonym Lizzie, said: "I know a few girls who have come forward recently and been told they are being racist and I know a lot that won't come forward and to be fair I can't blame them.

“Nothing has changed, not in the slightest. It's still the same scale as before."
According to the Daily Express, this sort of abuse is going on in plain sight on basically a daily basis. And the rapists are getting away with it because they can intimidate witnesses and the authorities aren't doing anything to protect the victims.
In many instances the abuse is so open that neighbours in the town are aware it is going on.

But they say they feel powerless to act because of police indifference and the vice-like grip the criminal grooming gangs have achieved.

A concerned resident told Express.co.uk he regularly saw cars full of abusers kerb crawling in the area around his home, adding it is an open secret taxi drivers still target local schools at home time in the hope of picking up young girls.

The man - a former university lecturer – said he was “furious” grooming is still going on so openly despite the public outcry.

He said: "It's not stopped and I'm furious about it. It's rampant and it's very, very wrong.

"I've seen the young men and they are like dogs on heat outside the house, they won't go away. They are outside a white girl's house, the kid is screaming in the kitchen, the men want to get in and screw her but the police aren't interested.”
How can this still going on two years after the report that revealed what was going on in the town appeared two years ago? Everyone was horrified then and authorities swore they would clean up Rotherham.

As Oprea writes, this is not unique to Rotherham. And the fear of somehow provoking Islamophobia seems to outweigh consideration for the abused women.
The same phenomenon can be seen across the European continent. German officials repeatedly tried to cover up the mass sexual assaults that occurred on New Year’s Eve in cities across the country. First, they tried to keep what had happened out of the news, then insisted it had nothing to do with migrants or men from Muslim-majority countries. When it finally came out that the attackers were, in fact, predominately from the Middle East and North Africa, German officials tried to downplay the extent of the attacks. To the German government’s chagrin, news broke just last month that there were many more assaults than previously thought—more than 1,200 victims and more than 2,000 attackers.

We can get an insight into the motivations behind these kinds of official cover-ups by looking at a less well-known example. In January, a left-wing German politician was raped in a playground by three men speaking Arabic or Farsi. When she reported the crime to the police, she lied and said the men were speaking German. Twelve hours later she went back and told the truth, claiming she hadn’t wanted to create “more hatred against migrants in Germany.”

In all these cases, the truth didn’t conform with the official narrative about Muslim immigration: that everything’s going swimmingly. In reality, the unwillingness of the government, politicians, and police to confront crime committed by the Muslim immigrant population is a sign that Europe has a deep and troubling integration crisis on its hands. Europe can’t integrate immigrants if it doesn’t hold them to the same standards as the native European population.
As the Express story demonstrates, many Muslim immigrants in Rotherham are disgusted with the authorities and what is being allowed to go on to girls in their city. They don't want to hide behind political correctness or sensitivity to Muslims. They don't want rapists in their city; the authorities should feel just as strongly. If this predatory behavior isn't stopped, it will just get worse and spread.
If European law enforcement agencies give immigrants from Muslim countries special treatment, the consequences on all fronts will only be harmful. It will fuel far-right groups, allow crime to go unchecked, and create more strife between Muslims and non-Muslims. It also infantilizes Muslim communities by treating them as too fragile to be held to the social and legal expectations of their new home.

This failure of integration has been going on for decades and is now reaching a fevered pitch. Europe sowed these seeds of discord long ago and now it’s seeing the fruits. Many immigrants and their families have done just fine in Europe. But as we’re seeing almost weekly, many have not.

Rotherham is a particular disgrace because it shows that once again multiculturalism trumps everything, including the safety of young girls. The shocking revelations about Rotherham two years ago should have resulted in a final repudiation of European political correctness. Sadly, it didn’t. And some of England’s most vulnerable residents are paying the price.

Meanwhile, Race Hochdorf compares the attention in this country to the story of one terrible rape at Stanford University to the attention paid to over 1400 rapes in Rotherham. It's not that the former should not have received attention, it's the disproportionate attention. Don't feminists care about twelve-year old girls being raped?
When Brock Turner, a white college freshman, brutally raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster and only received a sentence of six months in jail, the entire country—including me—was outraged. How could there be such a gross miscarriage of justice? How could such a clear-cut case of deliberate barbarism meet what was basically the judicial equivalent of a “time out”?

The Internet reacted with anger and disbelief. A Change.org petition that demanded the judge who presided over the trial be recalled for his ruling garnered more than a million signatures (one of which was mine). More than just the petition, the Internet did what it normally does best when appalled: it preached.

This “preaching” took on the forms it normally takes— Facebook statuses, tweets, hashtags, and think-pieces by celebrities and non-celebrities alike. We needed to understand what had just happened. We needed to fathom the unfathomable. Most importantly, we needed to make a diagnosis. A week after the Stanford rape case became famous, a common consensus among cyberdom had at last emerged: The West is a rape culture.
You hear this allegation over and over. Yet somehow we never hear that 1,400 rapes indicate a rape culture among those Pakistani and Kashmiri immigrants.
While cries of “rape culture” were everywhere during Stanford, they are nowhere to be heard in the discourse surrounding the scant coverage of Rotherham, nor was it anywhere to be heard after the Cologne attack— despite the fact that the men these gangs were comprised of did come from cultures that routinely and systemically abuse women and treat them as inferior.

This is a clear instance of what has gone wrong with modern liberalism in the West. Cultural relativism has taken priority over the rights of women, and only when white Western men (the pet favorite oppressor) strike is there a “brave” call to action. Western feminism— and it seems social justice warriors in general— are more concerned about “mansplaining” and “manspreading” than they are about the ever-increasing threat of Islamism and the glaringly obvious problem that arises when countries emphasize multiculturalism but don’t equally emphasize assimilation.

The message seems clear: If a white guy in his home country assaults a woman, it suggests an entire “rape culture” that needs to be addressed. But when Muslim migrant men from Third world countries assault a woman, it demonstrates our “lack of cultural sensitivity,” and to even remotely suggest that elements in their culture and religion are a contributing factor to their abuse of women is xenophobic and bigoted.

To conclude, the amount of “Western guilt” Birkenstock liberals are peddling isn’t just astoundingly stupid, it’s also incredibly dangerous. Liberalism needs to locate its balls, and start defending the values of the Enlightenment (including women’s rights) rather than shrivel like cowards in the face of a clash between barbarism and modernity.

Best Selling Books in History

Best Selling Books in Military History

Best Sellers in Biographies

Best Selling Books in Politics and Government

Jonah Goldberg ridicules
the Trump supporters like Sean Hannity who are blaming #NeverTrumpers for Trump's sinking in the polls.
Sean’s threats and bullying are for the entertainment benefit of an audience that doesn’t need threats or bullying – they’re already in love with Trump. Except as an exercise in masochism, why would someone horrified by Trump watch Sean’s nightly Trump Hour brought to you by special guest director Roger Stone? Except maybe for the health updates on Hillary Clinton?

There are simply no gettable Trump-skeptical voters paying attention to Hannity or the other Trumpian party enforcers. The tantrums directed at the #NeverTrump crowd are for internal consumption, blame shifting, conscience-easing, and maybe to lay the groundwork for a purge of the new national-populist GOP.

But the really important point is that, the “let’s root out the kulaks” zeal enflaming the folks in Breitbart World notwithstanding, the simple fact is that Trump isn’t losing because of the #NeverTrump brigades. He’s losing because millions of people who don’t know or care about people like me don’t like the guy or are nervous about him.

Bill Kristol, Jonah Goldberg, Kevin Williamson, Jim Treacher, Guy Benson, Ben Shapiro, Erick Erickson, John Podhoretz, Steve Hayes, George Will, and Peggy Noonan (on the odd-numbered weeks when she doesn’t like Trump) could endorse Trump tomorrow and he’d still be drowning with college-educated Republicans, women, minorities, et al.

Why? Because he’s making a fool of himself, daily. It’s as if he lost his car keys in his rectum and he’s looking for them face first.
And Sean Hannity is his chief enabler. Instead of spending his time blaming those conservatives who don't like Trump, why doesn't Hannity look to his guy, Donald Trump, and be straight with him about how Trump's own behavior is self-sabotaging his campaign?
The simple fact is this: Trump will not win unless he changes. He needs to reassure the skeptics. He needs to win-over people not already won-over. He needs new, serious, material. But like an aging has-been rocker, he’d rather keep playing his greatest hits at Indian casinos and state fairs than actually put in the work and pivot.

But Hannity doesn’t seem to care. Trump is sabotaging his own campaign every single day, and yet his supporters put the blame on everyone else and cheer Trump on. They are Trump’s worst enemies because they are enabling him and by enabling him, they are sabotaging Trump’s campaign. If Hannity really loved Trump, he would play Ben Affleck to Matt Damon’s Will Hunting and tell him he owes it to himself and the country to be more than what he is.

Hannity should pull Trump aside and tell him, “The best part of my day are those few minutes every morning before I look at the newspaper or turn on the TV, when I think, ‘Hey, maybe today’s the day Donald Trump doesn’t beclown himself.’”

So, again: Why, Sean? Why? Doesn’t Trump listen to you? Didn’t you believe him when he promised you all those times that he can and will pivot? If you did, why aren’t you angry with him for lying to your face and your audience? Why are you happy to let him continue to pander to crowds that will already vote for him rather than make the slightest effort to persuade a constituency that would put him over the top?

Do you think Trump is lying when he says he could be presidential if he wanted to? If so, isn’t that a source of concern? I mean, if he can’t act presidential for 24 hours as a candidate, are you confident he can be presidential for four years? Why not publicly ask him to try to be a serious person for a week? Let’s see if he can do that. Hey, I’ll tell you what. If he can manage that I’ll reconsider my #NeverTrump position.

Unless, the issue is that you know he can’t be presidential, so you don’t want to risk asking him to be. Or maybe you just prefer having stuff to gripe about every night to the amen corner? Or maybe, deep down, you realized just how massively you screwed up – and screwed us – by backing this guy and you’d rather pass the buck elsewhere? Or maybe you just want Hillary Clinton to win?

DaTechGuy daydreams
about how the media would cover the Democratic Wisconsin State Senator dismissing the rioting in Milwaukee and showing her sympathy for the rioters if she were a Republican.
But Lena Taylor is not a republican, so none of the networks will find her statements worthy of the front page. No new broadcast will lead with her words. If the subject of her words even came up in newspapers or on cable news panels of “experts” would decry the hopelessness of the black community and cite slavery (even though Wisconsin was admitted to the union in 1848 as a “free state”) and discrimination as the underlying causes of the riots.

No member of the media will link Senator Taylor’s remarks to Hillary Clinton, Begala, Cuomo, Brazile and Axelrod will not demand that Hillary Clinton disavow them and if a Trump surrogate or Trump himself demands it Chuck Todd and George Stephanopoulos will dismiss it as a ploy to divert attention from the polls..

If Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell or Reince Priebus demand that every Democrat running for the US Senate or House candidate denounce Senator Taylor’s remarks, it will be at best dismissed as not having anything to do with elections in NH or Florida or Colorado or at worst be denounced instead as an attempt by the GOP to spread racial division.

And when the presidential debates roll along if Donald Trump brings up these remarks challenging Hillary Clinton to denounce them Hillary Clinton will play the race card and the moderators will scold Donald Trump for being divisive and the story on every major network will be about Donald Trump playing the “Willie Horton” card.

And that my friends is the difference between an unbiased media and one that consists of Democrats with bylines.

Best Deals in Auto Parts

Sales and Deals in Beauty and Grooming

Deals in Jewelry

Bret Stephens examines
how having a culture focused on hating Israel and anti-Semitism has retarded growth and development in Arab countries. Instead of generations of Arabs trying to improve their lives and innovate their economies, they persist in being obsessed with conducting wars and terrorism against Jews.
Yet the fact remains that over the past 70 years the Arab world got rid of its Jews, some 900,000 people, while holding on to its hatred of them. Over time the result proved fatal: a combination of lost human capital, ruinously expensive wars, misdirected ideological obsessions, and an intellectual life perverted by conspiracy theory and the perpetual search for scapegoats. The Arab world’s problems are a problem of the Arab mind, and the name for that problem is anti-Semitism.

As a historical phenomenon, this is not unique. In a 2005 essay in Commentary, historian Paul Johnson noted that wherever anti-Semitism took hold, social and political decline almost inevitably followed.

Spain expelled its Jews with the Alhambra Decree of 1492. The effect, Mr. Johnson noted, “was to deprive Spain (and its colonies) of a class already notable for the astute handling of finance.” In czarist Russia, anti-Semitic laws led to mass Jewish emigration as well as an “immense increase in administrative corruption produced by the system of restrictions.” Germany might well have won the race for an atomic bomb if Hitler hadn’t sent Albert Einstein, Leo Szilard, Enrico Fermi and Edward Teller into exile in the U.S.

These patterns were replicated in the Arab world. Contrary to myth, the cause was not the creation of the state of Israel. There were bloody anti-Jewish pogroms in Palestine in 1929, Iraq in 1941, and Lebanon in 1945. Nor is it accurate to blame Jerusalem for fueling anti-Semitism by refusing to trade land for peace. Among Egyptians, hatred of Israel barely abated after Menachem Begin relinquished the Sinai to Anwar Sadat. Among Palestinians, anti-Semitism became markedly worse during the years of the Oslo peace process.

In his essay, Mr. Johnson called anti-Semitism a “highly infectious” disease capable of becoming “endemic in certain localities and societies,” and “by no means confined to weak, feeble or commonplace intellects.” Anti-Semitism may be irrational, but its potency, he noted, lies in transforming a personal and instinctive irrationalism into a political and systematic one. For the Jew-hater, every crime has the same culprit and every problem has the same solution.

Anti-Semitism makes the world seem easy. In doing so, it condemns the anti-Semite to a permanent darkness.

Today there is no great university in the Arab world, no serious indigenous scientific base, a stunted literary culture. In 2015 the U.S. Patent Office reported 3,804 patents from Israel, as compared with 364 from Saudi Arabia, 56 from the United Arab Emirates, and 30 from Egypt. The mistreatment and expulsion of Jews has served as a template for the persecution and displacement of other religious minorities: Christians, Yazidis, the Baha’ i.

Hatred of Israel and Jews has also deprived the Arab world of both the resources and the example of its neighbor. Israel quietly supplies water to Jordan, helping to ease the burden of Syrian refugees, and quietly provides surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to Egypt to fight ISIS in the Sinai. But this is largely unknown among Arabs, for whom the only permissible image of Israel is an Israeli soldier in riot gear, abusing a Palestinian.

Successful nations make a point of trying to learn from their neighbors. The Arab world has been taught over generations only to hate theirs.
Think what it does to a society generation after generation if all they can do is hug their hatreds and blame Israel, rather than buckling down and doing the hard work of economic growth and development.

If you're a high school student, don't fool yourself that your mission trip to help the poor of other countries is going to impress admissions officials. They see through it and are more impressed that you engage in regular volunteer work in your own community than take a one-week trip during the summer.
“The running joke in admissions is the mission trip to Costa Rica to save the rain forest,” Ángel Pérez, who is in charge of admissions at Trinity College in Hartford, told me.

Jennifer Delahunty, a longtime admissions official at Kenyon College, said that mission-trip application essays are their own bloated genre.

“Often they come to the same conclusion: People in other parts of the world who have no money are happier than we are!” she told me. “That is eye-opening to some students. But it can be a dangerous thing to write about, because it’s hard to rescue the truth from that cliché.”

Many of the students taking mission trips or doing other charity work outside the country have heartfelt motivations, make a real (if fleeting) contribution and are genuinely enlightened by it. Pérez and Delahunty don’t doubt that. Neither do I.

But there’s cynicism in the mix.
Wealthy parents are willing to go the extra mile to help out their own children to pad their applications.
Richard Weissbourd, a child psychologist and Harvard lecturer who has studied the admissions process in the interest of reforming it, recalled speaking with wealthy parents who had bought an orphanage in Botswana so their children could have a project to write and talk about. He later became aware of other parents who had bought an AIDS clinic in a similarly poor country for the same reason.
I don't see that among my students, but I do see the efforts of students to impress as leaders by starting their own clubs. They'll come ask me to sponsor some new club that parallels clubs we already have. So I'll ask them why they don't just join the already-existing clubs and they're simply not interested in that. So we have club inflation and teachers stretched by being asked to sponsor new clubs.
A more recent phenomenon is teenagers trying to demonstrate their leadership skills in addition to their compassion by starting their own fledgling nonprofit groups rather than contributing to ones that already exist — and that might be more practiced and efficient at what they do.

“It’s a sort of variation on going on a mission trip and figuring out that people all over the world are really the same,” said Stephen Farmer, who’s in charge of undergraduate admissions at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
I'm sure that the students going on these trips have worthy motives and are indeed moved by their experiences. But I wonder about those they're jetting in to help for one week. How must it feel to have a different set of American teenagers come in for a week and then leave them?

iTunes is so devoted to being even-handed that it has banned a British musician from releasing a song under the name IHateIsis.

Try Amazon Prime 30-Day Free Trial

Shop Amazon Gift Cards. Any Occasion. No Expiration.

Kindle Deals up to 80% off

Today's Best Deals

Deal of the Day in Books

I was a huge fan of Perry Mason growing up and watched the show in reruns and read all the books. So this is the best news I've read today.
Perry Mason could soon make a long-awaited return to the small screen as Robert Downey Jr is developing a new series for subscription channel HBO.
Robert Downey Jr. could add a lot of fun to the character. Raymond Burr was a bit too stolid for the role. Downey could add a bit of humor. And in this day and age, Perry Mason is the type of hero we could need - he is always on the side of justice and never loses. You know how we feel about loooosers these days.