Runaway School Bus in Minnesota

Wild.

It's the End of Sex as We Know It

From Mark Hemingway, at the Federalist.

I great piece.

American Express-Costco Divorce Shakes Up Credit-Card Industry

This is interesting, at WSJ, "Costco Cards Account for One Out of Every 10 AmEx Cards in Circulation":

American Express Co. and Costco Wholesale Corp. are ending their 16-year relationship, a surprise move that pummeled AmEx’s stock price and will trigger a major upheaval in the card industry.

The unusual partnership, in which Costco exclusively accepted AmEx cards, had driven a significant chunk of business to the New York card company. In addition, AmEx and Costco issued a credit card together that could also be used at other merchants. When the arrangement ends next year, millions of customers will be forced to use a different credit card when shopping at the wholesale store.

The failure to agree on new terms was a fresh blow to AmEx, which was already falling short of some sales targets. American Express Chief Executive Ken Chenault said the move, affecting roughly one in 10 AmEx cards in circulation, would eat into the company’s results in the next two years.

On Thursday, AmEx’s shares dropped $5.53, or 6.4%, to $80.48, its largest one-day percentage decline since August 2011.

The move sets up a race among credit-card firms to team up with the fast-expanding wholesale club, which sells everything from car tires to smoked salmon...

More.

Putin's Latest Victory

At WSJ, "The Minsk accord ratifies a Russian satrapy in Ukraine":

The last time the Kremlin signed an agreement to end the war in Ukraine—as recently as September—it promised to withdraw “military equipment as well as fighters and mercenaries” from the war zone, ban offensive operations and abide by an immediate cease-fire. In exchange the Ukrainian government granted unprecedented political autonomy to its rebellious eastern regions.

Moscow and its proxy militias in Ukraine have been violating the so-called Minsk Protocol ever since. Russian troops and equipment have poured across the Ukrainian border to support the separatists. Together they have seized an additional 200 square miles of territory, rained deadly rocket fire on the port city of Mariupol and encircled thousands of Ukrainian troops defending a strategic railway link in the village of Debaltseve.

So what better time for Vladimir Putin to agree to another cease-fire that consolidates his military gains, extracts additional political concessions from Kiev, puts off further Western sanctions, and gives President Obama another diplomatic alibi not to supply Ukraine’s demoralized and ill-equipped military with desperately needed defensive weapons?

That’s our read of the deal reached in Minsk on Thursday between Mr. Putin and Petro Poroshenko, with Germany and France acting as handmaids to the Ukrainian president’s forced capitulation. In theory the agreement requires the departure of “mercenaries” from eastern Ukraine, the creation of a buffer zone between the two sides, and a pullback of heavy weapons from the front lines. It also calls for a cease-fire to begin Sunday morning, local time.

But these are all but identical to the commitments Moscow has already broken, and nobody should be surprised if separatists and their Russian patrons use the next 48 hours to press their advantage in Debaltseve. Worse is that the agreement forces Kiev to fork over additional gifts to the breakaway regions, including an independent police force and the resumption of pension and salary payments for state employees. Ukraine must settle for a promissory note from Mr. Putin that he will allow Ukraine to regain control of the border with Russia.

All of this gives the Kremlin the benefits of establishing a de facto satrap without having to foot the costs of sustaining it or assume political responsibility. It turns eastern Ukraine into another of Russia’s “frozen conflicts,” akin to those it has with Moldova over Transnistria or Georgia over Abkhazia, with an option of taking the conflict out of the freezer at will. Merely the threat of doing so will give Mr. Putin a whip hand over Kiev should it continue to seek closer ties to the European Union and NATO.

Then again, nobody should be surprised if this cease-fire collapses as quickly as the last one did. The eagerness with which France and Germany proved willing to renegotiate a cease-fire that Mr. Putin had already broken only shows that future violations will carry no real price. So he will continue to alternate between brute force and fake diplomacy, as his political needs require...

More.

Voters Want Ground Troops in Obama's War on Islamic State

From Andrew Malcolm, at IBD, "Voters' verdict: Obama's ISIS action plan is not good enough":

On Wednesday, President Obama sent a draft authorization for use of military power against ISIS. But already Americans say such a half-hearted assault on terrorists is not good enough.

As a political symbol (and to spread the blame when something goes wrong), Obama has asked Congress for authority to do what he's already been doing since September -- bomb ISIS as part of an international coalition and train and arm Kurds, Iraqis and Syrians.

This is authority the Nobel Peace Prize winner did not seek before attacking Libya in 2011, a successful war that also succeeded in turning that country into a lawless land of terrorist groups and marauding militias that killed four Americans in Benghazi.

But in a brief Wednesday afternoon statement on his authorization request (Scroll down for full C-SPAN video of that statement), Obama ended up saying as much about what he does not want to do.

"The resolution we’ve submitted today does not call for the deployment of U.S. ground combat forces to Iraq or Syria," Obama maintained. "It is not the authorization of another ground war, like Afghanistan or Iraq."

However, a new Rasmussen Reports poll also out Wednesday reveals for the first time that a majority of Americans are now sufficiently concerned about ISIS' barbarism and terrorist threat that it supports the use of ground combat troops again in Iraq as part of an international effort.

The poll of 800 likely voters found that 52% want to do more than Obama, 28% do not and 20% don't know.

The numbers show steady growth in support of ground troop deployment since September when 48% liked that idea and 36% were opposed. A key element in that support is involvement of other countries, especially Muslim ones.

A December Rasmussen survey found fully 79% agreeing with military experts (and disagreeing with Obama) that air assaults alone would be insufficient to defeat ISIS and U.S. ground troops would be necessary at some point.

Voters disagree by party, but not as sharply as you might expect--with 67% of Republicans favoring a ground troop commitment while a near majority of Democrats (45%) agree.

Coming just weeks after Obama boasted of withdrawing all American combat troops from Afghanistan and just four years after pulling all U.S. forces from Iraq, the Democrat is loathe to commit them again. Remember last summer when he openly confessed he had no ISIS strategy?

But some 2,500 are already back in Iraq. Obama stressed their mission is training. But they're armed and combat would seem inevitable. Canadian snipers recently engaged and dispatched an ISIS mortar crew firing on coalition forces...

Obama's the endless nightmare in the Oval Office. Americans are just counting down until they can be rid of this national embarassment.

Keep reading.

And see U.S. News, "Public Doubts Obama's ISIS Strategy."

'Radical Brownies' Spread Message of Social Justice in Oakland

I blogged about these poor children in January, "'Social Justice' Preschoolers March in 'Black Lives Matter' Protest in Oakland."

And now see CBS News Bay Area.

Also at Independent Journal Review, "Instead of Selling Cookies, California’s ‘Radical Brownies’ Spread ‘Black Lives Matter’ Messages."

Krauthammer: Obama Selfie Video is 'Distasteful'

The president's a national disgrace.

Netanyahu Speech to Congress Could Threaten U.S.-Israel Relations

Oh, the drama.

At LAT, "Israelis wonder whether Netanyahu is risking too much in Obama tussle":

Has Bibi gone too far this time? That's the question a lot of Israelis are asking.

Even in a country where chutzpah is not necessarily viewed as a political liability, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's escalating tussle with the Obama administration is beginning to overshadow other election issues — and heightening fear of long-term damage to Israel's most vital friendship.

In the face of a rare public rebuke from President Obama amid the furor over the Israeli leader's planned address to a joint session of Congress next month, Netanyahu — universally known by his nickname, Bibi — yet again brushed aside criticism and declared that he would use the speech to warn against the dangers of a nuclear deal with Iran.

A bit of nose-thumbing at Washington is a long Israeli tradition. But what began weeks ago as a seeming breach of protocol — House Speaker John A. Boehner inviting Netanyahu to address lawmakers without first clearing it with the White House, and the prime minister pressing ahead despite Obama's evident displeasure — has grown into what some veteran diplomatic observers are describing as a full-blown threat to the staunch support that Washington has long offered Israel in the international arena.

"This is the sort of thing that leaves scars," former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Itamar Rabinovich said Monday, speaking on Israeli radio. "I fear that this sets the prime minister and the U.S. administration on a collision course."

With Israel's election campaign in full swing, and the prospective speaking date falling only two weeks before the March 17 vote, Netanyahu's election opponents have cried campaign foul since plans for the speech were unveiled.

In the latest salvo, Zehava Galon of the left-leaning Meretz party asked the main electoral body to block live broadcasts of the speech by Israeli media. Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog, Netanyahu's main opponent, called the planned address a "strategic" mistake.

The Netanyahu camp has denied any political motive for the speech. Netanyahu struck a conciliatory note Tuesday evening, with his office announcing that he had offered condolences over the death of U.S. hostage Kayla Mueller, who had been held captive by Islamic State militants. In the same statement, the prime minister appeared to be trying to lower the temperature on the speech controversy.

"This is not a personal disagreement between President Obama and me," the prime minister was quoted as saying. "I deeply appreciate all that he has done for Israel in many fields. Equally, I know that the president appreciates my responsibility, my foremost responsibility, to protect and defend the security of Israel. I am going to the United States not because I seek a confrontation with the president, but because I must fulfill my obligation to speak up on a matter that affects the very survival of my country." ...

More.

Cut-and-Run Obama Shuts Down Yemen Embassy

From Michelle Malkin, "“Success story” update! Cut-and-run Obama shuts down Yemen embassy."

Also at the Washington Post, "A major setback in the fight against al-Qaeda: CIA scales back in Yemen."

When Obama says the "tide of war is receding" he means the U.S. is ceding the battlefield to the enemy.

Obama Wants Political Cover for His Planned Strategy of Military Defeat

At WSJ, "The War Irresolution: Obama wants Congress to endorse his hesitant anti-ISIS strategy":

Napoleon famously said that in warfare if you vow to take Vienna—take Vienna. President Obama ’s version of that aphorism might be—on the way to Vienna stop to summer in Salzburg, only use air power, and if the fighting isn’t over in a couple of years call the whole thing off.

How else to interpret the amazing draft of a resolution that Mr. Obama sent to Congress Wednesday requesting an authorization to use military force against Islamic State? The language would so restrict the President’s war-fighting discretion that it deserves to be called the President Gulliver resolution. Tie me down, Congress, please. Instead of inviting broad political support for defeating ISIS, the language would codify the President’s war-fighting ambivalence.

The draft is especially notable for its disconnect between military ends and means. The preamble contains a long and accurate parade of horribles about the “grave threat” posed by Islamic State. These include “horrific acts of violence” against women and girls, the murder “of innocent United States citizens,” and its intention “to conduct terrorist attacks internationally, including against the United States, its citizens, and interests.” Really bad guys.

But then the resolution proceeds to inform these killers about the limits of what the U.S. will do to defeat them. Mr. Obama wants Congress to put into statutory language that it “does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations”; and that “the use of military force shall terminate” in three years “unless reauthorized.”

The time limit alone is reason to oppose the resolution, as we’ve seen in Afghanistan. Mr. Obama’s deadline on U.S. operations there has given the Taliban confidence to wait us out. A time limit also tells our coalition allies that the U.S. commitment against ISIS could end no matter the state of war at the time. Mr. Obama has said himself that degrading and destroying ISIS may take years, yet his draft would force the next President to seek a new authorization in 2018.

As for ground troops, Mr. Obama is asking Congress to endorse a military strategy that his own generals have said may be deficient. In a letter to Congress elaborating on the draft authorization, Mr. Obama says his draft “would provide the flexibility to conduct ground operations” in “limited circumstances, such as rescue operations” or “the use of special operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership.” He says the resolution would only bar “long-term, large-scale ground combat operations” as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But then get ready to parse the meaning of “enduring” and “offensive” ground operations. Is enduring more or less than a year? Or a month? We’d guess that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders takes the under.

“Offensive” is even more subject to interpretation. Does that mean ground troops are acceptable as long as they shoot in self-defense? Or that they can do everything but take territory? Winning a war is hard enough without such legal complications.

Mr. Obama’s draft language fairly describes his current war strategy. But a flawed military strategy that is ambiguous is better than a flawed strategy written into law. Mr. Obama’s strategy can be changed by the next President—unless it is codified by a flawed authorization.

Mr. Obama’s language could also get worse as it moves through Congress. Many Democrats and GOP libertarians want even more specific limits on ground troops, a shorter time limit, and a geographic limit on where the U.S. can fight.

Yet the flaws in this half-hearted war strategy are already clear. ISIS continues to hold nearly all of the territory it did when Mr. Obama announced his plans in September. One exception is the town of Kobane in Syria, where Kurdish troops drove out the jihadists with U.S. bombing help. But Kobane now resembles Dresden after World War II—a bombed out, empty shell.

Many ISIS commanders have been killed, and they have been forced to move more furtively. But they were still able to stage an attack on the Kurdish oil city of Kirkuk in the last month. And they are conducting widespread assassinations against Sunni tribal leaders who resist them and ought to be allies of the U.S.-led coalition.

ISIS is also using its staying power against U.S. bombing to burnish its credentials as the jihadist vanguard. The Associated Press reported Tuesday that U.S. intelligence officials now say foreign fighters are joining Islamic State “in unprecedented numbers,” including 3,400 from Western nations out of 20,000 from around the world...

Still more.

Behind NBC's Decision to Suspend Brian Williams

At the New York Times, "Frantic Efforts at NBC to Curb Rising Damage Caused by Brian Williams":

Hours before Brian Williams took the anchor’s chair for the nightly newscast on Feb. 4, a sense of dread began to spread through the Rockefeller Plaza offices of NBC News.

The military newspaper Stars and Stripes had just published an article in which Mr. Williams acknowledged that he had exaggerated an account of a helicopter journey in Iraq. Worse, Mr. Williams had written a weak apology, reading it first to the newspaper, then posting it on Facebook. None of his superiors knew about it.

Alarmed, the news operation immediately began scrambling to contain the damage, according to people with knowledge of the events of the last week. A team was quickly assembled to draft a statement that Mr. Williams could read during his “NBC Nightly News” show that evening to address the issue. But the Facebook post boxed them in. The explanations had to match.

Mr. Williams went on the air hours later and delivered the statement, including an apology.

That was the start of a week of rapidly cascading events that besieged both Mr. Williams and the network. Interviews with people with knowledge of the process, as well as former employees who spoke to people at NBC, portray a news division operating in crisis mode as it investigated its own celebrity anchor and assessed whether he could salvage his position.

Control of the situation quickly passed to Stephen B. Burke, chief executive of NBCUniversal. Thursday afternoon, Mr. Burke called the first of a series of secret meetings, this one at the conference room in the executive suites on the 51st floor. Those present included Patricia Fili-Krushel, chairwoman of NBCUniversal News Group, and Deborah Turness, the president of NBC News. Mr. Williams did not attend.

Mr. Burke acted decisively, according to one person, telling his colleagues to gather the facts so that they could make an expeditious but fair decision. He decided to hold meetings at 9:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. each day until the issue was resolved.

Mr. Burke sought advice from Mr. Williams’s predecessor, Tom Brokaw, who canceled a vacation in the Virgin Islands to offer his feedback. The two shared uncertainties about the best approach, with Mr. Brokaw expressing concerns about how the episode would affect NBC News employees, according to one person with knowledge of the discussions. Mr. Burke also consulted David L. Cohen, an executive vice president at NBCUniversal’s parent company, Comcast, who was busy on an issue with much higher financial stakes — Comcast’s attempt to gain regulatory approval for a $45 billion merger with Time Warner Cable.

During the next week, NBC News buckled down as both Mr. Williams and the network came under scrutiny, people with knowledge of the events said. An internal investigation and high-level meetings continued through the weekend, including one Saturday morning at Mr. Williams’s Manhattan apartment, at which it was decided that Mr. Williams would have to temporarily step aside. It culminated Tuesday morning, when Mr. Burke told Mr. Williams that he was being suspended without pay for six months.

“This has been a painful period for all concerned,” Mr. Burke said in a statement on Tuesday...

The dude's toast.

Keep reading.

Triple Slaying Arouses Fear of Far-Left Hate Crimes Against Muslims

Fear of murderous far-left anti-Muslim rampages after an atheist progressive murdered three Muslims in North Carlolina.

At the Los Angeles Times, "North Carolina triple slaying arouses fear of hate crimes against Muslims."

Well, according to the Times, it was all about not enough parking spots, or something.

But see Patrick Poole, at Pajamas, "Killer of 3 NC Muslim Students Was Hardcore Anti-Religion Atheist Progressive."

And on Twitter:

The Chapel Hill murderer was an atheist. People are DESPERATE to blame his atheism. But the police now say his motive was parking dispute.

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) February 11, 2015

People are going to see what they want to see. It's never about religion or ideology unless the perp is a conservative. You never hear the end of it in that case.

The Case Against the Case Against the Crusades

From Ross Douthat, at the New York Times:

The Crusades as an epoch-spanning phenomenon aren’t in and of themselves a great stain on Christian history: They’re a phenomenon in Christian history that includes many stains and sins and great crimes, but also involves many admirable figures and heroic moments, many great tragedies, and many individuals and incidents that simply resist any kind of manichaean reading. Contemporary Christians should reject and disavow the great crimes that some Crusaders committed as they should reject and disavow the un-Christian hatreds that motivated them. But we are under no obligation to reject and disavow the entire multi-century struggle with an armed and equally-militant foe as merely the manifestation of some irrational religious “phobia,” let alone accede to analogies that cast an entire civilization’s worth of kings and theologians and soldiers as the moral equivalent of Osama Bin Laden.

Keep reading.

Hat Tip: Instapundit, "Obama is a historical illiterate."

Ukraine Fighting Continues Ahead of Key Meeting

At WSJ, "Leaders Are Due to Meet for High-Stakes Summit to Negotiate a Cease-Fire."

More Foreign Fighters Traveling to Syria to Join Civil War

At WSJ, "Counterterrorism Officials Worry Fighters Could Carry out Attacks When They Return Home":

WASHINGTON—The number of foreign fighters traveling to Syria to join in the country’s civil war is increasing despite months of bombardment by the U.S. and its allies, stoking worries among counterterrorism officials they could carry out attacks when they return home.

Officials from the National Counterterrorism Center, Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation plan to tell the House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday that more than 150 U.S. citizens or permanent residents have traveled or attempted to travel to Syria to join extremist groups. Previously, officials had said about 100 Americans had fallen into that category. They are part of a larger group of 3,400 Westerners who have traveled or attempted to travel to Syria, the officials plan to say.

Meanwhile, more than 20,000 foreign fighters from over 90 countries have traveled to Syria, according to prepared testimony by Nicholas Rasmussen, the Counterterrorism Center’s director. That is up from previous U.S. estimates of about 19,000 foreign fighters.

The rate of fighters traveling to Syria is unprecedented, exceeding the rate of such travel to conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen or Somalia, Mr. Rasmussen plans to tell the committee.

Have you no decency, Huffington Post? No decency at all?

From Ashe Schow, at the Washington Examiner, "The Ernst-Truthers of the Huffington Post" (via Instapundit).

Well, the left is all about misogynist hatred, so this is no surprise.

Lilly Aldridge for Sports Illustrated Swimsuit

Photos at SI's swimsuit page.

Taya Kyle Expected to Testify at Trial of Husband's Alleged Murderer

At CBS This Morning:



Also at Dallas Morning News, "Chris Kyle's widow Taya will be among first witnesses in 'American Sniper' trial."

So, John McAdams Hasn't Updated the Marquette Warrior Since Last Wednesday...

... Because the university is revoking his tenure and canning his ass --- for a blog post!

The Marquette Warrior is apparently in legal limbo.

See Conor Friedersdorf, at the Atlantic, "Stripping a Professor of Tenure Over a Blog Post."

Make sure you follow the links, especially to Cheryl Abbate, who left Marquette's philosophy graduate program after McAdams' alleged "misogynist" attacks. See the loooong post, "Gender Based Violence, Responsibility, and John McAdams." She really goes after iOTW Report, claiming that the blog should be shut down because the "rape culture" comments. Yeah, how's that working out for ya?

Look, I'm sympathetic to the women on the receiving end of all these so-called misogynist attacks --- the GameGate dust-up hasn't been one of my hottest topics, mainly because I can't see how folks like Anita Sarkeesian deserve the abuse. But then, there's a lot of inside baseball in the gamer culture, so I leave the coverage to those better up on the issues --- Milo Yiannopoulos, for example. Or see Robert Stacy McCain, "The #GamerGate Hate Hoax."

Meanwhile, the FIRE has come to Professor McAdams' defense, "The Travesty of Due Process at Marquette."

BONUS: From Megan McArdle, at Bloomberg, "Free Speech and Ivory Towers."

Caroline Wozniacki for Sports Illustrated

At London's Daily Mail, "Caroline Wozniacki gets the deuces flowing by revealing her stunning picture in Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2015 edition," and "In her teeny tiny tennis whites! Caroline Wozniacki displays her athletic figure in an array of bikinis for Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit Issue."