Wednesday, September 06, 2017

Cruising the Web

It's rather amusing to hear Democrats bemoaning Trump's action in taking DACA and throwing it into the laps of Congress. It was Obama who behaved extra-constitutionally by implementing a program simply because he was fed up with Congress's delay in passing some sort of action to allow the so-called Dreamers to remain in the United States. Hello? That is the job of Congress. They are supposed to pass laws that the Executive Branch implements. If they think this is so very important, pass a new law. As Jonah Goldberg writes,
If you can get past the theatrics, it seems pretty obvious to me that asking Congress to fix DACA is the right thing to do. As Rich notes below, Democrats love to say that Trump is violating constitutional norms. Well, Obama violated them when he unilaterally implemented DAPA and DACA. The Supreme Court threw out DAPA and — if Gorsuch had been on the court — it probably would have quashed DACA too. By winding down DACA — slowly — and asking Congress to find a legislative fix, Trump is returning us to a constitutional norm. That liberal congressmen are scandalized by being asked to fulfill their constitutional duties tells you more about the expediency of contemporary liberalism than it does about Trump (as Jay Cost explains well in this Twitter thread).
Cost ridicules Congressman Adam Schiff's outrage over Trump's action.As Cost writes, it is amusing to see those who have recently been calling Trump a wannabe dictator are now outraged that he asked Congress to exercise its Constitutional responsibilities.

Senator Diane Feinstein admitted on MSNBC that DACA was legally questionable.
Anchor Chuck Todd asked, “Do you think — is DACA — was DACA legal?”

Feinstein answered, “DACA was executive order. Legal is the law of passage of something. I — you know, there are ten attorneys general that are prepared to sue. I don’t want to get into that. The point is, DACA is here. And we’ve got 800,000 young people –.” Todd then cut in to say, “Your answer indicates, though, that it's on shaky legal ground."

Feinstein stated, "It is. That's why we need to pass a law, and we should do it."

As Bill Belichick would say, Congress just need to do its job.

Best Deals in Vitamins and Supplements

Interesting Finds at Amazon: Updated Daily

Spring Savings in Grocery and Gourmet Food

Home and Kitchen Markdowns

James Freeman links this this CNN story about how Hillary blames Bernie Sanders for over-promising in his campaign as well as for his attacks on her.
She noted that Jake Sullivan, her top policy aide, told her that Sanders' campaign strategy reminded him of a scene from the movie "There's Something About Mary," where a hitchhiker says he has a plan to roll out seven-minute abs to top the famous eight-minute abs.
"Why, why not six-minutes abs?" Ben Stiller's character asks.
Clinton wrote: "That's what it was like in policy debates with Bernie. We would promise a bold infrastructure investment plan or an ambitious new apprenticeship program for young people, and then Bernie would announce basically the same thing, but bigger. On issue after issue, it was like he kept promising four-minute abs, or even no-minutes abs. Magic abs!"
So why didn't she challeng him on those promises? Why did she get involved in trying to match Sanders in his promises? For example, why did she jump in to propose a $12 minimum wage? Was that just her version of four-minute abs?

Ed Krayewski of satirizes Hillary's attempt to blame Bernie because he "promised everyone a pony." As Krayewski points out, this is basically the Democrats' modus operandi.
In other words, Sanders did to Clinton what Democrats have done to their critics for years: Frame any worry about the costs and unintended consequences of a program as a lack of concern for the problem the program is supposed to address. After years of cultivating economic illiteracy, the party reaped the results.
Wouldn't it be nice if her complaint would lead politicians to stop promising people ponies.

Onan Coca writes at lidblog to ask if "Western feminists hate Muslim women."
Feminists in the west must hate Muslim women.
The left in America spends so much of its time and energy battling “Islamophobia,” Israel, and conservatives as forces of evil. Oftentimes, they fight so hard against these things that they end up partnering with the Islamofascists who are aligned with Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other such organizations. In the West, left-wing feminism is the “Useful Idiot” that Islamist theocrats appreciate the most, because they ignore the plight of Muslim women.
The partnership has become so toxic that in a debate with conservatives you might even hear feminists defending the cultural practices and intolerance of the Muslim world because the greater evil is the “patriarchal” white hegemony in the West. It’s sad, laughable, and suicidal… but the left continues to team with the forces of radical Islam in the fight to destroy the West.
Coca links to a video at Prager U by Ayaan Hirsi Ali asking "Why don't feminists fight for Muslim women?"
Common among many Western feminists is a type of moral confusion, in which women are said to be oppressed everywhere and that this oppression, in feminist Eve Ensler’s words, is “exactly the same” around the world; in the West just as in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

To me, this suggests too much moral relativism and an inadequate understanding of Sharia law. It is true that the situation for women in the West is not perfect, but can anyone truly deny that women enjoy greater freedom and opportunities in the United States, France, and Finland than they do in Iran, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?

Other feminists have also argued that non-Western women do not need “saving” and that any suggestion that they “need” help from Western feminists is insulting and condescending to non-Western women.

My perspective is a practical one: any efforts that help Muslim women—whether they live in the West or under Islamic governments should be encouraged. Every effort to pressure these governments to change unjust laws should be supported.

Western feminists and female Western leaders have a simple choice to make: either excuse the inexcusable, or demand reform in cultures and religious doctrines that continue to oppress women.
I continue to be baffled by the willingness of so many progressive advocates of intersectionality to close their eyes to the denial of rights to Muslim women simply because Islam seems to trump the rights of women in their eyes.

Tools and Home Improvement

Today’s Deals

Fashion Sales and Deals

The Daily Caller points to this new sort of microaggression that two professors claim to have discovered - "invisibility microaggressions."
smine Mena, a Psychology professor at Bucknell University, and Annemarie Vaccaro, who teaches Higher Education at the University of Rhode Island, claim they are the first academics to argue that “invisibility” is a “common form of microaggression” experienced by professors of color.

“There is a growing body of literature that suggests invisibility is a common form of exclusion—or microaggression,” Mena and Vaccaro suggest. “However, no studies have focused deeply on the ways women faculty and staff experience invisibility microaggressions on college campuses"
One sort of invisibility which females of color report feeling is being the only minority in a group.
Unlike more traditional forms of microaggressions, such as microassaults and macroaggressions, no second-party is needed for an “invisibility microaggression” to occur. Instead, merely a lack of other racial minorities in a specific environment (such as a faculty meeting or in a cafeteria) can be a microaggression under this theory, according to Mena and Vaccaro.
So what's their proposed solution? HEre are two of their proposals.
Since microaggressions “perpetuate an oppressive cycle” for faculty of color, the professors conclude by calling upon colleges to make faculty of color feel less “invisible,” mainly by singling them out for positive attention.

First, they ask college administrators to publicize and “celebrate the accomplishments of women of color on campus” through “alumni magazines, campus newsletters, and the university website.”

Additionally, they suggest deliberately choosing women of color for high-profile awards, saying that “Both campuses and disciplinary/professional associations should be purposeful in nominating and selecting diverse winners for awards, thereby making sure women of color are celebrated.”
So what they're recommending is basically giving these women of color awards to make them feel better. Isn't that a parallel problem such as how affirmative action makes some minorities fear that others question their capabilities and think they just got into college because they're minorities. Won't the minority women suspect that they won awards simply to make them feel better and not because they earned it? Would those minority women who have achieved the ultimate in their fields - a professorship not feel patronized by getting these awards and celebrations from the administration?

Deals in Jewelry - under $80

Deals and Coupons in Beauty

Luggage and Travel Deals