Happy Birthday America 🇺🇸 #ProudToBeAnAmerican pic.twitter.com/CAc7iGa9ZS
— Jessica Simpson (@JessicaSimpson) July 4, 2017
* "LEA MICHELE STILL IN A BIKINI OF THE DAY."BONUS: "BELLA THORNE IN A BATH FOR AMERICA OF THE DAY."
* "ARIEL WINTER’S CLEAVAGE FOR AMERICA OF THE DAY."
* "CHRISTIN MILIAN STLL TRYING TO BE A KARDASHIAN FOR AMERICA OF THE DAY."
* "CHANEL IMAN MODEL IN A BIKINI ON THE BEACH OF THE DAY."
* "ALESSANDRA AMBROSIO’S BIKINI OF THE DAY."
* "PARIS JACKSON IS SPENDING HER INHERITANCE RIGHT OF THE DAY."
* "HILARY DUFF IN A BIKINI OF THE DAY."
* "PREGNANT REESE WITHERSPOON BATHING SUIT SHOOT OF THE DAY."
With my journey with the blog about to conclude, it will probably surprise no one that my quest continues. Retirement still eludes me, because I want it to. Next, I will be expanding my role in covering the Court for Constitution Daily, the blog of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. My editor there, Scott Bomboy, is as imaginative a leader as I have ever had, and the Center has grown in stature and cultural impact with Jeff Rosen in charge. The Court’s press room, thus, has not seen the last of me. I will always be reachable at lylden at aol.com.
And, through the generosity of the leaders and faculty at the University of Baltimore and its Law School, and my friend, the uniquely talented Garrett Epps, I will take on a role as a lecturer and visiting professor. Since my days with The Baltimore Sun, I have never lost my affection for Charm City, and the University is a dynamic presence in its midst.
And, who knows, I may still have a book or two waiting, inside me, to be written...
With American-backed ground forces poised to recapture Mosul in Iraq and Raqqah in Syria, Islamic State’s de facto capitals, U.S. commanders are confident they soon will vanquish the militant group from its self-declared caliphate after three years of fighting.Still more.
But the White House has yet to define strategy for the next step in the struggle to restore stability in the region, including key decisions about safe zones, reconstruction, nascent governance, easing sectarian tensions and commitment of U.S. troops.
Nor has the Trump administration set policy for how it will confront forces from Iran and Russia, the two outside powers that arguably gained the most in the bitter conflict — and that now are hoping to collect the spoils and expand their influence.
Iran, in particular, is pushing to secure a land corridor from its western border across Iraq and Syria and up to Lebanon, where it supports Hezbollah militants, giving it a far larger foothold in the turbulent region.
“Right now everyone is positioned” for routing Islamic State “without having the rules of the road,” said Michael Yaffe, a former State Department envoy for the Middle East who is now vice president of the Middle East and Africa center at the U.S. Institute of Peace. “That’s a dangerous situation.”
The risk of a broader confrontation was clear in recent weeks when a U.S. F/A-18 shot down a Syrian fighter jet for the first time in the multi-sided six-year war, provoking an angry response from Russia, which supports Syrian President Bashar Assad.
U.S. warplanes also destroyed two Iranian-made drone aircraft, although it’s not clear who was flying them. The Pentagon said all the attacks were in self-defense as the aircraft approached or fired on American forces or U.S.-backed Syrian fighters.
“What I worry about is the muddled mess scenario,” said Ilan Goldenberg, a former senior State Department official who now heads the Middle East program at the nonpartisan Center for a New American Security. “When you start shooting down planes and running into each other, it quickly goes up the escalation ladder.”
The clashes occurred in eastern Syria, where Russian-backed Syrian and Iranian forces are pushing against U.S. special operations forces and U.S.-backed Syrian opposition fighters trying to break Islamic State’s hold on the Euphrates River valley south of Raqqah and into Iraq.
Except for a few towns, Islamic State still controls the remote area, and U.S. officials fear the militants could regroup there and plan future attacks. Many of the group’s leaders and operatives have taken shelter in Dair Alzour province...
Before the cameras even started rolling, Chad Johnson was drunk. Not tipsy; hammered. By the time production on “Bachelor in Paradise” kicked off at 11 a.m. in Sayulita, Mexico, the reality star had already taken seven shots of Jack Daniel’s whiskey and downed a whole bottle of wine.Keep reading.
Because, he figured: Why not? He’d agreed to go on the third season of the spinoff of ABC’s “The Bachelor” because it seemed like a paid vacation, replete with bikini-clad women, a private beach and an open bar. Also, alcohol loosened him up — he wanted to be liked by his new cast mates, and when he drank, he felt like he was instantly funnier.
“Plus, when you’re filming the show, you have this adrenaline pump of being on TV, so you can drink more and are still capable of walking and talking,” Johnson, 29, explained. “There are points of time on the show where you’re still conscious, where in the real world, you would have been asleep somewhere 10 hours earlier.”
But no one on the production team put Johnson to bed. Instead, he passed out on the sand, as crabs crawled over his face. The next morning, he learned he engaged in an aggressive make-out session with one female cast member and hurled insults at another who was born with only one full arm. He was also told he’d soiled himself during his sleep.
Johnson’s behavior that night had consequences: Within hours, host Chris Harrison was dispatched to tell him he was no longer welcome on the show.
*****
Heavy drinking is not uncommon on the “Bachelor” shows, with contestants sometimes becoming so intoxicated that they see the extent of their behavior only when it eventually airs on national television. Often, drunken antics are played for humor — there’s usually that one person who gets so sloshed at the “Bachelor” mansion on night one that they do something embarrassing in front of their potential husband or wife. But for the first time in the franchise's 15-year history, an incident fueled by on-set drinking has led to both public scrutiny and reports of internal policy changes regarding alcohol and sexual behavior.
On June 4, the first day of filming on “Paradise’s” fourth season at the Playa Escondida resort, a male and female contestant got drunk and had an encounter in the pool that the male said in a televised interview involved a sexual act.
At first, the incident seemed par for the course in “Paradise.” Contestants regularly get frisky in the open and have sex in bedrooms without doors — though the footage rarely shows anything too raunchy.
A couple of days later, though, the two contestants were pulled aside and told that two producers had filed third-party complaints with Warner Bros., the production company that produces the ABC show, related to the pool encounter. The entire cast was flown back to the U.S. On June 11, Warner Bros. released a statement announcing production had been suspended while it investigated claims of alleged misconduct.
The female contestant, Corinne Olympios, hired a high-profile Hollywood lawyer, Marty Singer, and issued her own statement. “Although I have little memory of that night,” the 24-year-old said, “something bad obviously took place.” The male contestant, 30-year-old DeMario Jackson, retained his own counsel and told his side of the story, including a detailed description of what he says was a consensual encounter, in a televised interview on E! News earlier this week.
On June 20, Warner Bros. announced that its internal investigation did not “support any charge of misconduct” or show that the “safety of any cast member was ever in jeopardy.” Production resumed last weekend with what Warner Bros. described as “certain changes to the show’s policies” to enhance participants’ safety.
Warner Bros. declined to elaborate on those changes, but on Tuesday, TMZ reported that the show had instituted a slew of new rules: Contestants must adhere to a two-drink-per-hour maximum, and before initiating sex, they must check with a producer tasked with making sure both parties are able to give consent.
Olympios said in a statement to The Times on Thursday that she was “happy” about the changes on the show. In the statement, she said her legal team had completed its investigation to her “satisfaction” and that she had no complaints about the production...
Their stories came out slowly, even hesitantly, at first. Then in a rush.Keep reading.
One female entrepreneur recounted how she had been propositioned by a Silicon Valley venture capitalist while seeking a job with him, which she did not land after rebuffing him. Another showed the increasingly suggestive messages she had received from a start-up investor. And one chief executive described how she had faced numerous sexist comments from an investor while raising money for her online community website.
What happened afterward was often just as disturbing, the women told The New York Times. Many times, the investors’ firms and colleagues ignored or played down what had happened when the situations were brought to their attention. Saying anything, the women were warned, might lead to ostracism.
Now some of these female entrepreneurs have decided to take that risk. More than two dozen women in the technology start-up industry spoke to The Times in recent days about being sexually harassed. Ten of them named the investors involved, often providing corroborating messages and emails, and pointed to high-profile venture capitalists such as Chris Sacca of Lowercase Capital and Dave McClure of 500 Startups.
The disclosures came after the tech news site The Information reported that female entrepreneurs had been preyed upon by a venture capitalist, Justin Caldbeck of Binary Capital. The new accounts underscore how sexual harassment in the tech start-up ecosystem goes beyond one firm and is pervasive and ingrained. Now their speaking out suggests a cultural shift in Silicon Valley, where such predatory behavior had often been murmured about but rarely exposed.
The tech industry has long suffered a gender imbalance, with companies such as Google and Facebook acknowledging how few women were in their ranks. Some female engineers have started to speak out on the issue, including a former Uber engineer who detailed a pattern of sexual harassment at the company, setting off internal investigations that spurred the resignation in June of Uber’s chief executive, Travis Kalanick.
Most recently, the revelations about Mr. Caldbeck of Binary Capital have triggered an outcry. The investor has been accused of sexually harassing entrepreneurs while he worked at three different venture firms in the past seven years, often in meetings in which the women were presenting their companies to him.
Several of Silicon Valley’s top venture capitalists and technologists, including Reid Hoffman, a founder of LinkedIn, condemned Mr. Caldbeck’s behavior last week and called for investors to sign a “decency pledge.” Binary has since collapsed, with Mr. Caldbeck leaving the firm and investors pulling money out of its funds.
The chain of events has emboldened more women to talk publicly about the treatment they said they had endured from tech investors...
Hey stork, you’ve been slacking off — and U.S. health officials know it.Teenage birthrates are declining, so that's good news.
For the second year in a row, the number of babies delivered in the U.S. fell in 2016, according to a new report from the National Center for Health Statistics. For some groups of women, the birth rate reached record lows.
The provisional figures released Friday include 99.96% of all births in the United States last year. Here’s what they show:
Overall births
The total number of babies born in the U.S. last year was 3,941,109. That’s 37,388 fewer babies than were born in the U.S. in 2015, which represents a 1% decline.
The number of births tends to rise as the population rises, so statisticians like to make historical comparisons by calculating the general fertility rate. This is the number of births per 1,000 women considered to be of childbearing age (between 15 and 44).
In 2016, the U.S. general fertility rate hit a record low of 62.0 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. In 2015, the general fertility rate was 62.5.
Another useful statistic is the total fertility rate. This is an estimate of the total number of babies that 1,000 women would have over their lifetimes, based on the actual birth rates for women in different age groups.
In 2016, the total fertility rate for American women was 1,818 births per 1,000 women. That’s the lowest it has been since 1984.
In order for a generation to exactly replace itself, the total fertility rate needs to be 2,100 births per 1,000 women. The U.S. has been missing that mark since 1971 (though the country’s population has grown due to immigration).
More older mothers
The ages of women giving birth in the U.S. has been skewing older for several years, and that trend continued in 2016.
Birth rates for women 30 and older hit their highest levels since the 1960s, and women in their early 30s had the highest birthrate of any age group.
In 2016, there were 102.6 births per 1,000 women between the ages of 30 and 34. The last time it was that high was 1964.
There were also 52.6 births per 1,000 women ages 35 to 39, the highest that figure has been since 1962...
Donald Trump and his allies believe he’s gained a tactical advantage in his war with the media.Keep reading.
As he escalates his attacks on the “failing media,” Trump and his allies are increasingly convinced that recent evidence, including the retracted CNN piece on an aspect of the Russia investigations, will prove to skeptical voters that the mainstream media has a vendetta against the administration.
Many White House staffers were “elated,” a person with knowledge of their conversations said, when they learned that three journalists had resigned over a botched story that claimed newly appointed Export-Import Bank official Anthony Scaramucci was being investigated for his ties to a Russian investment fund.
Trump was quick to publicize the retraction and resignations on his Twitter feed, adding, “What about all the other phony stories they do. FAKE NEWS.” He used the “FAKE NEWS” line again Wednesday morning in claiming that The Washington Post was “guardian of Amazon,” the company of Post owner Jeff Bezos.
Conservative outlets and allies of the president also trumpeted Sarah Palin’s libel suit against The New York Times for suggesting in an editorial that her super PAC played a role in inciting the gunman who shot former Rep. Gabby Giffords. The editorial from May was ultimately corrected, but was nonetheless an embarrassing moment for another media company that’s aggressively reported on the president and received his wrath in return.
The attacks marked an escalation of Trump’s strategy of citing media bias to rally conservatives and undecided voters around the idea that the investigations of Russian influence in the 2016 election are media-driven and politically motivated...
* Garrett Graff, Raven Rock: The Story of the U.S. Government’s Secret Plan to Save Itself - While the Rest of Us Die.Interesting.
* Lynne Olson, Last Hope Island: Britain, Occupied Europe, and the Brotherhood That Helped Turn the Tide of War.
* Brian Devereux, Escape to Pagan: The True Story of One Family’s Fight to Survive in World War II Occupied Asia.
* Thomas-Durell Young, Anatomy of Post-Communist European Defense Institutions: The Mirage of Military Modernity.
* Peter Schweitzer, Victory: The Reagan Administration’s Secret Strategy that Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union.
* Misagh Parsa, Democracy in Iran: Why It Failed and How It Might Succeed.
* Mark Bowden, Hue 1968: A Turning Point of the American War in Vietnam.
* Edward Luce, The Retreat of Western Liberalism.
* Sinclair McKay, The Secret Life of Bletchley Park: The WWII Codebreaking Centre and the Men and Women Who Worked There.
* Thomas Wright, All Measures Short of War: The Contest for the Twenty-First Century and the Future of American Power.
As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump used his close alliance with the National Enquirer to attack his enemies. Now that he’s President, he’s continuing to benefit from the tabloid’s support.Still more.
This morning in a Washington Post op-ed, Morning Joe co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski disclosed that White House officials offered to spike an Enquirer story about their romance if the pair apologized to Trump for the show’s critical coverage. In recent months, Scarborough and Brzezinski have questioned Trump’s mental state and fitness for office. They elaborated on the op-ed on MSNBC this morning. Morning Joe regular Donny Deutsch said it was “blackmail” for Trump to use a hit-piece in the Enquirer to extract an apology from media critics. Trump then tweeted a quasi-confirmation of the behind-the-scenes conversations, saying that Scarborough called to enlist his help to kill the story. Scarborough called Trump’s version a “lie,” tweeting that he never spoke to the president.
According to three sources familiar with the private conversations, what happened was this: After the inauguration, Morning Joe’s coverage of Trump turned sharply negative. “This presidency is fake and failed,” Brzezinski said on March 6, for example. Around this time, Scarborough and Brzezinski found out the Enquirer was preparing a story about their affair. While Scarborough and Brzezinski’s relationship had been gossiped about in media circles for some time, it was not yet public, and the tabloid was going to report that they had left their spouses to be together...
In mathematics, when you’re convinced of some eternal truth but can’t quite prove it, you offer it as a hypothesis (with a portentous capital H) and invite the world, future generations if need be, to prove you right or wrong. Often, a cash prize is attached.More.
In that spirit, but without the cash, I offer the Krauthammer Conjecture: In sports, the pleasure of winning is less than the pain of losing. By any Benthamite pleasure/pain calculation, the sum is less than zero. A net negative of suffering. Which makes you wonder why anybody plays at all.
Winning is great. You get to hoot and holler, hoist the trophy, shower in champagne, ride the open parade car and boycott the White House victory ceremony (choose your cause).
But, as most who have engaged in competitive sports know, there’s nothing to match the amplitude of emotion brought by losing. When the Cleveland Cavaliers lost the 2015 NBA Finals to Golden State, LeBron James sat motionless in the locker room, staring straight ahead, still wearing his game jersey, for 45 minutes after the final buzzer.
Here was a guy immensely wealthy, widely admired, at the peak of his powers — yet stricken, inconsolable. So it was for Ralph Branca, who gave up Bobby Thomson’s shot heard ’round the world in 1951. So too for Royals shortstop Freddie Patek, a (literal) picture of dejection sitting alone in the dugout with his head down after his team lost the 1977 pennant to the New York Yankees.
In 1986, the “Today Show” commemorated the 30th anniversary of Don Larsen pitching the only perfect game in World Series history. They invited Larsen and his battery mate, Yogi Berra. And Dale Mitchell, the man who made the last out. Mitchell was not amused. “I ain’t flying 2,000 miles to talk about striking out,” he fumed. And anyway, the called third strike was high and outside. It had been 30 years and Mitchell was still mad. (Justly so. Even the Yankee fielders acknowledged that the final pitch was outside the strike zone.)
For every moment of triumph, there is an unequal and opposite feeling of despair. Take that iconic photograph of Muhammad Ali standing triumphantly over the prostrate, semiconscious wreckage of Sonny Liston. Great photo. Now think of Liston. Do the pleasure/pain calculus.
And we are talking here about professional athletes — not even the legions of Little Leaguers, freshly eliminated from the playoffs, sobbing and sniffling their way home, assuaged only by gallons of Baskin-Robbins...
The year 2016 marked a dramatic change of political course for the English-speaking world, with Britain voting for independence from Europe and the United States electing a president promising a revived American nationalism. Critics see both events as representing a dangerous turn toward “illiberalism” and deplore the apparent departure from “liberal principles” or “liberal democracy,” themes that surfaced repeatedly in conservative publications over the past year. Perhaps the most eloquent among the many spokesmen for this view has been William Kristol, who, in a series of essays in the Weekly Standard, has called for a new movement to arise “in defense of liberal democracy.” In his eyes, the historic task of American conservatism is “to preserve and strengthen American liberal democracy,” and what is needed now is “a new conservatism based on old conservative—and liberal—principles.” Meanwhile, the conservative flagship Commentary published a cover story by the Wall Street Journal’s Sohrab Ahmari entitled “Illiberalism: The Worldwide Crisis,” seeking to raise the alarm about the dangers to liberalism posed by Brexit, Trump, and other phenomena.Keep reading.
These and similar examples demonstrate once again that more than a few prominent conservatives in America and Britain today consider themselves to be not only conservatives but also liberals at the same time. Or, to get to the heart of the matter, they see conservatism as a branch or species of liberalism—to their thinking, the “classical” and most authentic form of liberalism. According to this view, the foundations of conservatism are to be found, in significant measure, in the thought of the great liberal icon John Locke and his followers. It is to this tradition, they say, that we must turn for the political institutions—including the separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism—that secure the freedoms of religion, speech, and the press; the right of private property; and due process under law. In other words, if we want limited government and, ultimately, the American Constitution, then there is only one way to go: Lockean liberalism provides the theoretical basis for the ordered freedom that conservatives strive for, and liberal democracy is the only vehicle for it.
Many of those who have been most outspoken on this point have been our long-time friends. We admire and are grateful for their tireless efforts on behalf of conservative causes, including some in which we have worked together as partners. But we see this confusion of conservatism with liberalism as historically and philosophically misguided. Anglo-American conservatism is a distinct political tradition—one that predates Locke by centuries. Its advocates fought for and successfully established most of the freedoms that are now exclusively associated with Lockean liberalism, although they did so on the basis of tenets very different from Locke’s. Indeed, when Locke published his Two Treatises of Government in 1689, offering the public a sweeping new rationale for the traditional freedoms already known to Englishmen, most defenders of these freedoms were justly appalled. They saw in this new doctrine not a friend to liberty but a product of intellectual folly that would ultimately bring down the entire edifice of freedom. Thus, liberalism and conservatism have been opposed political positions in political theory since the day liberal theorizing first set foot in England.
Today’s confusion of conservative political thought with liberalism is in a way understandable, however. In the great twentieth-century battles against totalitarianism, conservatives and liberals were allies: They fought together, along with the Communists, against Nazism. After 1945, conservatives and liberals remained allies in the war against Communism. Over these many decades of joint struggle, what had for centuries been a distinction of vital importance was treated as if it were not terribly important, and in fact, it was largely forgotten.
But since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, these circumstances have changed. The challenges facing the Anglo-American tradition are now coming from other directions entirely. Radical Islam, to name one such challenge, is a menace that liberals, for reasons internal to their own view of the political world, find difficult to regard as a threat and especially difficult to oppose in an effective manner. But even more important is the challenge arising from liberalism itself. It is now evident that liberal principles contribute little or nothing to those institutions that were for centuries the bedrock of the Anglo-American political order: nationalism, religious tradition, the Bible as a source of political principles and wisdom, and the family. Indeed, as liberalism has emerged victorious from the battles of the last century, the logic of its doctrines has increasingly turned liberals against all of these conservative institutions. On both of these fronts, the conservative and liberal principles of the Anglo-American tradition are now painfully at cross-purposes. The twentieth-century alliance between conservatism and liberalism is proving increasingly difficult to maintain...
America faces an urgent crisis in its health-care system. Costs are skyrocketing and choices are disappearing on the individual and small-group markets. Many people now confront the real challenge of having no choice in their health coverage.More.
One of them is Doug Lake, an Iowa radiologist who came to the White House last week to share his story. His daughter, who suffers from a rare cardiac condition, is covered by an insurer that plans to pull out of ObamaCare’s exchange in their state next year. Only one insurer remains in their county, and that company has requested a 43% increase in premiums.
The situation is even worse elsewhere. As of this week, 49 counties across the country do not have a single insurer offering plans on the exchanges next year.
This year more than 1,000 counties had only one insurer in the ObamaCare market, meaning millions of Americans had no meaningful choice. Meanwhile, the insurers that did stay in the market increased premiums for their midlevel plans by an average of 25%. Premiums on the individual market are up about $3,000 since ObamaCare was implemented. Think about what else that money could buy!
It is too early to know how much premiums will rise next year, but reports so far indicate that double-digit increases again will be the norm.
These are not simply numbers on a page: They represent real people with real stories, facing real health-care and financial crises.
Dudley Bostic, a pharmacy owner in Tennessee, can no longer afford to provide health insurance for her employees because of ObamaCare’s mandates. Candace Fowler, a Missouri homemaker who was recently diagnosed with a serious neurological condition, lives in a county where there are slated to be no insurers selling ObamaCare plans next year. Tommie McClain, a student in Clinton, Mo., who suffers from chronic migraines, faces the possibility of zero choices in his county, too.
The good news is that Congress has the chance to help Doug, Dudley, Candace, Tommie and the millions of other Americans suffering under this law by undoing the damage done by ObamaCare and fulfilling the promises President Trump has made.
The bill recently introduced in the Senate would get rid of the individual mandate, which in 2015 alone caused 6.5 million Americans to pay $3 billion in penalties to the IRS because they did not want or could not afford a government-dictated health plan. It would directly repeal some of ObamaCare’s most costly regulations while giving states flexibility to waive others if they develop innovative ways to provide coverage and bring down costs.
The Senate’s plan also would repeal hundreds of billions of dollars in onerous taxes. It would put Medicaid on a sustainable spending path and give states a real chance to reform the program to make it work for the people who rely on it...
Will Black Lives Matter soon suffer the fate of other separatist “black power” movements in the 1920s and 1960s, which captured America’s attention for a period but ultimately did little to help advance the black underclass?More.
The Black Lives Matter movement got its start after George Zimmerman’s 2013 acquittal for fatally shooting Trayvon Martin and found its footing a year later when Michael Brown was shot dead after attacking a police officer in Ferguson, Mo. By 2016, BLM activists were being hosted by President Obama and disrupting campaign events for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Today, major news organizations such at National Public Radio and the Washington Post turn to BLM representatives for comment on race-related stories.
An obituary for a movement that has become so prominent so fast seems premature, but a recent BuzzFeed article that included interviews with dozens of BLM-linked activists was pessimistic about the group’s future. Factions have formed, infighting is common and objectives are unclear. “Black Lives Matter is still here. Its groups are still organizing. But Black Lives Matter is on the verge of losing the traction and momentum that sparked a national shift on criminal justice policy,” wrote reporter Darren Sands. And “activists largely agreed that the identity of the movement, its existential purpose and aim, remains unresolved.”
Some BLM leaders want to integrate political institutions further. Others want the organization to expand its focus to immigrants’ rights. Still others want to create a society “free from pain being inflicted on it by police, racist structures, and capitalism.” Apparently, there are places in the world where blacks living in noncapitalist societies are thriving in comparison with their U.S. brethren...
Pro-Trump group pulls ads criticizing Heller over Obamacare https://t.co/LgDvwVcI4A pic.twitter.com/agT4rB3et7
— POLITICO (@politico) June 27, 2017
Some like it hot 🔥 pic.twitter.com/LVbDEosSxQ— Abigail Ratchford (@AbiRatchford) June 18, 2017
Splish splashhhhhh 💦💧 pic.twitter.com/c76LsnXTjh— Abigail Ratchford (@AbiRatchford) June 19, 2017
Sunday views ☀️ pic.twitter.com/rdbFRZoNPI— Abigail Ratchford (@AbiRatchford) June 26, 2017
#DailySabine @you_kiki https://t.co/UQAJxzaOLp #SabineJemeljanova #Page3 #Boobs #Busty #Brunette #Beauty #Cleavage #Lingerie #Glamour #Model pic.twitter.com/jgcBD1o1h2
— RosieJonesArchive (@CopperMailman) June 18, 2017
Apparent case of road rage triggers horrifying chain-reaction crash in California. At least one person was injured. https://t.co/ECVmH8RTIk pic.twitter.com/NwSYP35Buw
— ABC News (@ABC) June 23, 2017
California Highway Patrol officers on Monday were still searching for the motorcyclist involved in a shocking Southern California freeway crash that went viral on video last week.Keep reading.
The video, taken on a Santa Clarita freeway shows a motorcyclist at high speed kicking a car in the carpool lane, causing the car to swerve and smash into the center divider in flames, then careen into a truck, knocking the truck upside down, causing moderate injuries.
We talked with CHP Officer Eric Priessman about what the video shows and who might be at fault. Here are his answers, paraphrased...
Contemporary social justice activism is a quasi religion and dissent is heresy | @JonahNRO https://t.co/iWSwWs1lD2 pic.twitter.com/UtdPBgxYlU
— Claire Lehmann (@clairlemon) June 23, 2017
In the past, threats to free speech have taken many forms—nationalist passion, Comstockery (both good and bad), political suppression, etc.—but the threat to free speech today is different. It is less top-down and more bottom-up. We are cultivating a generation of young people to reject free speech as an important value.
One could mark the beginning of the self-esteem movement with Nathaniel Branden’s 1969 paper, “The Psychology of Self-Esteem,” which claimed that “feelings of self-esteem were the key to success in life.” This understandable idea ran amok in our schools and in our culture. When I was a kid, Saturday-morning cartoons were punctuated with public-service announcements telling kids: “The most important person in the whole wide world is you, and you hardly even know you!”
The self-esteem craze was just part of the cocktail of educational fads. Other ingredients included multiculturalism, the anti-bullying crusade, and, of course, that broad phenomenon known as “political correctness.” Combined, they’ve produced a generation that rejects the old adage “sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me” in favor of the notion that “words hurt.” What we call political correctness has been on college campuses for decades. But it lacked a critical mass of young people who were sufficiently receptive to it to make it a fully successful ideology. The campus commissars welcomed the new “snowflakes” with open arms; truly, these are the ones we’ve been waiting for.
“Words hurt” is a fashionable concept in psychology today. (See Psychology Today: “Why Words Can Hurt at Least as Much as Sticks and Stones.”) But it’s actually a much older idea than the “sticks and stones” aphorism. For most of human history, it was a crime to say insulting or “injurious” things about aristocrats, rulers, the Church, etc. That tendency didn’t evaporate with the Divine Right of Kings. Jonathan Haidt has written at book length about our natural capacity to create zones of sanctity, immune from reason.
And that is the threat free speech faces today. Those who inveigh against “hate speech” are in reality fighting “heresy speech”—ideas that do “violence” to sacred notions of self-esteem, racial or gender equality, climate change, and so on. Put whatever label you want on it, contemporary “social justice” progressivism acts as a religion, and it has no patience for blasphemy...
Today's analysis: Atop 2017 losses, a sobering challenge for Democrats aiming at Trump next year https://t.co/wmrSSrNh2V— Cathleen Decker (@cathleendecker) June 25, 2017
Democrats have hoped that President Trump’s deep unpopularity would propel them to gains in next year’s midterm election as they fight to take control of the House and improve their position in the Senate.
But last year’s contests and this year’s special elections suggest a complication: Trump is so distinctive a politician that it’s hard to persuade voters that other Republican candidates are carbon copies of the president. Trump’s outsized persona makes even those Republicans who share his views seem more moderate, an important attribute to swing voters.
That presents a problem for the party out of power.
Midterm elections traditionally serve as referendums on the president, but voters’ complicated views of Trump may give Republicans more running room than his popularity figures suggest. The votes cast by individual Republican incumbents may be more important to their survival than any linkage with the president.
The first of those key votes is scheduled for this week, as senators confront the GOP healthcare measure, which closely resembles a House-passed bill that is widely unpopular.
In an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Friday, only 16% of adults supported the House plan. Three times that percentage thought it was a bad idea. Yet it is far from clear how powerful the issue will be in 2018, given the fast pace of political events.
Warning signs emerged for both parties after the spring series of special elections. Four of the races picked successors to Republicans elevated to senior positions in Trump’s administration; Republicans won all four. A fifth race, to replace California Democrat Xavier Becerra, the state’s new attorney general, was won by Democrat Jimmy Gomez.
In each of the four races in GOP districts, Democratic candidates came far closer to the Republicans than their party has in the recent past — but they did not succeed.
Implicit in the contests was a Democratic effort to repudiate Trump. Yet in the races which attracted more attention and money, Democrats may have suffered from a backlash as the virulence of their opposition pushed more Republicans to the polls.
In the aftermath, Democrats have offered as a partial excuse the Republican voting strength in those districts. But winning next year will require succeeding in Senate races in states that voted for Trump and in House contests where Republicans have the power of incumbency, something they did not enjoy in the special elections this year.
Tuesday’s results in the 6th Congressional District in Georgia, the most expensive House race in history, demonstrated what candidates next year face. There, as elsewhere, Trump loomed over the race even though the candidates seldom talked about him directly.
Republican Karen Handel barely mentioned the president, although members of his administration served as reinforcements for her. Her campaign spent much of its time casting Democrat Jon Ossoff as in league with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and “San Francisco values.” Handel won by just under 4 percentage points.
Ossoff backed away from criticism of Trump in the latter part of the race, but began it by contending that his victory would “make Trump furious.”
Connecting the Republican president and Republican candidate did not work there, suggesting it may not work elsewhere, Republican and Democratic strategists said.
“Voters have very complex feelings about Donald Trump,” said California-based strategist Katie Merrill, citing polling from swing districts around the country. “He’s wildly unpopular, but they still want Congress to try to work with him — and Congress is more unpopular than he is.”
“Simply going into the district and trying to tie them to Trump is not going to be enough to defeat them,” said Merrill, who is working for a super PAC seeking to defeat seven Republican House incumbents in California districts won last year by Hillary Clinton...
Everywhere we turn, a startling new device promises to transfigure our lives. But at what cost? In this urgent and revelatory excavation of our Information Age, leading technology thinker Adam Greenfield forces us to reconsider our relationship with the networked objects, services and spaces that define us. It is time to re-evaluate the Silicon Valley consensus determining the future.
We already depend on the smartphone to navigate every aspect of our existence. We’re told that innovations—from augmented-reality interfaces and virtual assistants to autonomous delivery drones and self-driving cars—will make life easier, more convenient and more productive. 3D printing promises unprecedented control over the form and distribution of matter, while the blockchain stands to revolutionize everything from the recording and exchange of value to the way we organize the mundane realities of the day to day. And, all the while, fiendishly complex algorithms are operating quietly in the background, reshaping the economy, transforming the fundamental terms of our politics and even redefining what it means to be human.
Having successfully colonized everyday life, these radical technologies are now conditioning the choices available to us in the years to come. How do they work? What challenges do they present to us, as individuals and societies? Who benefits from their adoption? In answering these questions, Greenfield’s timely guide clarifies the scale and nature of the crisis we now confront —and offers ways to reclaim our stake in the future.
