Obama Administration to Force Schools to Establish Co-Ed Restrooms and Locker Rooms

These aren't "gender neutral" accommodations. They're "co-ed," since immutable differences between boys and girls (and men and women) aren't changing. So if a so-called "transgender" (actually "gender dysphoric") individual insists they're the opposite gender to to their birth sex, the administration's going to force school districts across the country to toe the line.

Hey, it's a brave new world out there.

At the New York Times, "U.S. Directs Public Schools to Allow Transgender Access to Restrooms":

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is planning to issue a sweeping directive telling every public school district in the country to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity.

A letter to school districts will go out Friday, adding to a highly charged debate over transgender rights in the middle of the administration’s legal fight with North Carolina over the issue. The declaration — signed by Justice and Education department officials — will describe what schools should do to ensure that none of their students are discriminated against.

It does not have the force of law, but it contains an implicit threat: Schools that do not abide by the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law could face lawsuits or a loss of federal aid.

The move is certain to draw fresh criticism, particularly from Republicans, that the federal government is wading into local matters and imposing its own values on communities across the country that may not agree. It represents the latest example of the Obama administration using a combination of policies, lawsuits and public statements to change the civil rights landscape for gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people.

After supporting the rights of gay people to marry, allowing them to serve openly in the military and prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against them, the administration is wading into the battle over bathrooms and siding with transgender people.

“No student should ever have to go through the experience of feeling unwelcome at school or on a college campus,” John B. King Jr., the secretary of the Department of Education, said in a statement. “We must ensure that our young people know that whoever they are or wherever they come from, they have the opportunity to get a great education in an environment free from discrimination, harassment and violence.”

Courts have not settled the question of whether the nation’s sex discrimination laws apply in matters of gender identity. But administration officials, emboldened by a federal appeals court ruling in Virginia last month, think they have the upper hand. This week, the Justice Department and North Carolina sued each other over a state law that restricts access to bathrooms, locker rooms and changing rooms. The letter to school districts had been in the works for months, Justice Department officials said.

“A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so,” according to the letter, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times.

A school’s obligation under federal law “to ensure nondiscrimination on the basis of sex requires schools to provide transgender students equal access to educational programs and activities even in circumstances in which other students, parents, or community members raise objections or concerns,” the letter states. “As is consistently recognized in civil rights cases, the desire to accommodate others’ discomfort cannot justify a policy that singles out and disadvantages a particular class of students.”

As soon as a child’s parent or legal guardian asserts a gender identity for the student that “differs from previous representations or records,” the letter says, the child is to be treated accordingly — without any requirement for a medical diagnosis or birth certificate to be produced. It says that schools may — but are not required to — provide other restroom and locker room options to students who seek “additional privacy” for whatever reason...

Well, what a relief!

And it'll be hilarious when at schools across the country students request "additional privacy" in mass, to the extent that they leave the entire locker room to the gender dysphoric students.

We're all fucked up these days.

And oh boy, Republicans are going to have a field day with this in the general election. It's going to be the nationalization of the Houston LBGT referendum clusterfuck.

Via Memeorandum.

ICYMI: Robert J. Gordon, The Rise and Fall of American Growth

Following-up on my previous entry, "Do We Really Need to Save Capitalism?"

Rana Foroohar argues the financial system no longer serves the economic interests of average Americans. See, Makers and Takers: The Rise of Finance and the Fall of American Business.

But as I argued, it's the collapse of economic growth, and the collapse of the leftist (previously "liberal") consensus to pursue pro-growth policies (rather than identity politics), that explains increasing inequality and the decline in public support for "capitalism."

I posted on Robert Gordon's new book on Saturday, "Professor Robert J. Gordon, The Rise and Fall of American Growth."

Here's the Amazon link, The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living since the Civil War.

And from the blurb:

In the century after the Civil War, an economic revolution improved the American standard of living in ways previously unimaginable. Electric lighting, indoor plumbing, home appliances, motor vehicles, air travel, air conditioning, and television transformed households and workplaces. With medical advances, life expectancy between 1870 and 1970 grew from forty-five to seventy-two years. Weaving together a vivid narrative, historical anecdotes, and economic analysis, The Rise and Fall of American Growth provides an in-depth account of this momentous era. But has that era of unprecedented growth come to an end?

Gordon challenges the view that economic growth can or will continue unabated, and he demonstrates that the life-altering scale of innovations between 1870 and 1970 can't be repeated. He contends that the nation's productivity growth, which has already slowed to a crawl, will be further held back by the vexing headwinds of rising inequality, stagnating education, an aging population, and the rising debt of college students and the federal government. Gordon warns that the younger generation may be the first in American history that fails to exceed their parents' standard of living, and that rather than depend on the great advances of the past, we must find new solutions to overcome the challenges facing us.

The key is productivity growth. It's been slowing down since the 1970s. Its robust restoration is the key to reviving living standards. I'd like to see more popular discussion of that, in contrast to all the pathetic leftist hand-wringing about "super capitalism" and "financialization," blah, blah.

Do We Really Need to Save Capitalism?

Rana Foroohar seems to think so, at Time, "American Capitalism’s Great Crisis":

This week's @TIME cover: American Capitalism’s Great Crisis https://t.co/fJ3Y5Hxgz2 via @RanaForoohar pic.twitter.com/ttvrFfKkvh

— TIMEPolitics (@TIMEPolitics) May 12, 2016

This explains Bernie and Trump: https://t.co/j9yQZOwbjs

— Rana Foroohar (@RanaForoohar) May 12, 2016

A couple of weeks ago, a poll conducted by the Harvard Institute of Politics found something startling: only 19% of Americans ages 18 to 29 identified themselves as “capitalists.” In the richest and most market-oriented country in the world, only 42% of that group said they “supported capitalism.” The numbers were higher among older people; still, only 26% considered themselves capitalists. A little over half supported the system as a whole.

This represents more than just millennials not minding the label “socialist” or disaffected middle-aged Americans tiring of an anemic recovery. This is a majority of citizens being uncomfortable with the country’s economic foundation—a system that over hundreds of years turned a fledgling society of farmers and prospectors into the most prosperous nation in human history. To be sure, polls measure feelings, not hard market data. But public sentiment reflects day-to-day economic reality. And the data (more on that later) shows Americans have plenty of concrete reasons to question their system.

This crisis of faith has had no more severe expression than the 2016 presidential campaign, which has turned on the questions of who, exactly, the system is working for and against, as well as why eight years and several trillions of dollars of stimulus on from the financial crisis, the economy is still growing so slowly. All the candidates have prescriptions: Sanders talks of breaking up big banks; Trump says hedge funders should pay higher taxes; Clinton wants to strengthen existing financial regulation. In Congress, Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan remains committed to less regulation.

All of them are missing the point. America’s economic problems go far beyond rich bankers, too-big-to-fail financial institutions, hedge-fund billionaires, offshore tax avoidance or any particular outrage of the moment. In fact, each of these is symptomatic of a more nefarious condition that threatens, in equal measure, the very well-off and the very poor, the red and the blue. The U.S. system of market capitalism itself is broken. That problem, and what to do about it, is at the center of my book Makers and Takers: The Rise of Finance and the Fall of American Business, a three-year research and reporting effort from which this piece is adapted.

To understand how we got here, you have to understand the relationship between capital markets—meaning the financial system—and businesses. From the creation of a unified national bond and banking system in the U.S. in the late 1790s to the early 1970s, finance took individual and corporate savings and funneled them into productive enterprises, creating new jobs, new wealth and, ultimately, economic growth. Of course, there were plenty of blips along the way (most memorably the speculation leading up to the Great Depression, which was later curbed by regulation). But for the most part, finance—which today includes everything from banks and hedge funds to mutual funds, insurance firms, trading houses and such—essentially served business. It was a vital organ but not, for the most part, the central one.

Over the past few decades, finance has turned away from this traditional role. Academic research shows that only a fraction of all the money washing around the financial markets these days actually makes it to Main Street businesses. “The intermediation of household savings for productive investment in the business sector—the textbook description of the financial sector—constitutes only a minor share of the business of banking today,” according to academics Oscar Jorda, Alan Taylor and Moritz Schularick, who’ve studied the issue in detail. By their estimates and others, around 15% of capital coming from financial institutions today is used to fund business investments, whereas it would have been the majority of what banks did earlier in the 20th century.

“The trend varies slightly country by country, but the broad direction is clear,” says Adair Turner, a former British banking regulator and now chairman of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, a think tank backed by George Soros, among others. “Across all advanced economies, and the United States and the U.K. in particular, the role of the capital markets and the banking sector in funding new investment is decreasing.” Most of the money in the system is being used for lending against existing assets such as housing, stocks and bonds.

To get a sense of the size of this shift, consider that the financial sector now represents around 7% of the U.S. economy, up from about 4% in 1980. Despite currently taking around 25% of all corporate profits, it creates a mere 4% of all jobs. Trouble is, research by numerous academics as well as institutions like the Bank for International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund shows that when finance gets that big, it starts to suck the economic air out of the room. In fact, finance starts having this adverse effect when it’s only half the size that it currently is in the U.S. Thanks to these changes, our economy is gradually becoming “a zero-sum game between financial wealth holders and the rest of America,” says former Goldman Sachs banker Wallace Turbeville, who runs a multiyear project on the rise of finance at the New York City—based nonprofit Demos.

It’s not just an American problem, either. Most of the world’s leading market economies are grappling with aspects of the same disease. Globally, free-market capitalism is coming under fire, as countries across Europe question its merits and emerging markets like Brazil, China and Singapore run their own forms of state-directed capitalism. An ideologically broad range of financiers and elite business managers—Warren Buffett, BlackRock’s Larry Fink, Vanguard’s John Bogle, McKinsey’s Dominic Barton, Allianz’s Mohamed El-Erian and others—have started to speak out publicly about the need for a new and more inclusive type of capitalism, one that also helps businesses make better long-term decisions rather than focusing only on the next quarter. The Pope has become a vocal critic of modern market capitalism, lambasting the “idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy” in which “man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.”

During my 23 years in business and economic journalism, I’ve long wondered why our market system doesn’t serve companies, workers and consumers better than it does. For some time now, finance has been thought by most to be at the very top of the economic hierarchy, the most aspirational part of an advanced service economy that graduated from agriculture and manufacturing. But research shows just how the unintended consequences of this misguided belief have endangered the very system America has prided itself on exporting around the world.

America’s economic illness has a name: financialization. It’s an academic term for the trend by which Wall Street and its methods have come to reign supreme in America, permeating not just the financial industry but also much of American business. It includes everything from the growth in size and scope of finance and financial activity in the economy; to the rise of debt-fueled speculation over productive lending; to the ascendancy of shareholder value as the sole model for corporate governance; to the proliferation of risky, selfish thinking in both the private and public sectors; to the increasing political power of financiers and the CEOs they enrich; to the way in which a “markets know best” ideology remains the status quo. Financialization is a big, unfriendly word with broad, disconcerting implications.

University of Michigan professor Gerald Davis, one of the pre-eminent scholars of the trend, likens financialization to a “Copernican revolution” in which business has reoriented its orbit around the financial sector. This revolution is often blamed on bankers. But it was facilitated by shifts in public policy, from both sides of the aisle, and crafted by the government leaders, policymakers and regulators entrusted with keeping markets operating smoothly.

This is: "Economics for Dummy Leftists."

All the sources and experts cited are leftists. They hate capitalism, a term invented by Karl Marx to demonize free market economics.

The trend Faroohar is describing here is simply change. Markets and finance are changing, and innovation and concentration in the finance sector isn't a cause of growing inequality or the public despair over sluggishness.

What's harming the average worker, and preventing more regular people from improving their income and wealth, is stagnating GDP. The economy is growing at 0.5 percent. No wonder the titans of finance are the only ones who're better off. There's no rising tide to lift all boats. The Obama administration's obsessed with the phony campus rape crisis and gender neutral restrooms. Democrats don't care about improving the economic prospects of average Americans. Now that's depressing. And what's more depressing is how economically illiterate all these hacks are, from the so-called financial journalists quick to blame the "system" to the idiot Millennials who wouldn't know a production possibilities frontier if it hit them upside the head.

Keep reading, FWIW.

'American' identity is 'the most blatant microaggression...'

At Campus Reform.

College campuses are the most fervid hotbeds of leftist radicalism. From antiwar ideology, deconstruction, to Israel apartheid (now "anti-Zionism"), America's campuses have long been the breeding grounds of postmodern leftist hatred. Soon enough, the regressive bilge leaks into the mainstream culture.

Just being American is racist nowadays. I'm sure there'll be a "modern family" style television show on racist microaggressions soon enough.

#UVA #student calls ‘American’ identity ‘the most blatant microaggression’: https://t.co/PdeL2DKA9c pic.twitter.com/8fx52Qqq1V

— Campus Reform (@campusreform) May 11, 2016

Finished: Kim R. Holmes, The Closing of the Liberal Mind

I finished The Closing of the Liberal Mind over the weekend.

The book's a quick read, but it's heavyweight in its implications. I'll be keeping my copy next to my bedside for a ready reference, and for periodic review. Especially good are Holmes' theory chapters, on the ideology of classical liberalism, and particularly on postmodern leftism and leftist authoritarianism. I can't recommend these enough, mainly because these chapters represent the best, most concise recent writings on the nature of the contemporary radical left, and the threat leftism poses to the American political and cultural order.

I have two quibbles: One, I was perturbed by Holmes' discussion of Dylann Roof, and especially how he mistakenly characterized Roof as a "white supremacist" who represents the "intolerance and bigotry" of "the right." Holmes writes that the 2015 Charleston attack "shows that a violent strain of racial hatred still exists on the far right in America." As readers may recall, I showed here that Roof isn't on the right. In fact, Roof's an "emo-prog" leftist, and frankly, the photo of Roof burning the American flag should have been enough evidence to figure that out without all of this about the "far right," a discussion which draws on leftist and MSM tropes seeking to demonize conservatives. I'll speak to Holmes about this personally if I meet him, perhaps at a book signing or something.

Two, Holmes provides a powerful explanation of why leftists are not liberals, offering a definition of what we normally refer to as "progressives" as "postmodern leftists." This is really perfect terminology, and easy to use. The problem is that Holmes, after offering these terms, in fact doesn't use them consistently himself. I didn't count, but Holmes used the term "progressive liberals" more than other other combination of terminology, which was frustrating because the whole point of his chapter 2, "The Rise of the Postmodern Left," was to reclaim "liberalism" for the classic meaning of the word as a political orientation favoring limits on government power, free exchange of ideas, free enterprise economics, and tolerance of political and religious differences. I was basically furrowing my brows throughout the book whenever Holmes abandoned his defined terminology and relapsed back into talking about postmodern radical leftists as "progressive liberals."

That's about it. As noted, I particularly enjoyed the book's parsimoniousness. It's largely a pleasure to read, and I had a couple of "aha" moments as well, always a good indicator of scholarly success.

In any case, I definitely recommend the book to my readers. It's a must-have item for your library.

Check it out at Amazon, The Closing of the Liberal Mind: How Groupthink and Intolerance Define the Left.

How Marriage Influences Male Economic Success (VIDEO)

Here's Brad Wilcox, for Prager University.



And check out his study, "For Richer, For Poorer: How Family Structures Economic Success in America."

Here Comes the Anti-Trump Summer of Hate

From the inimitable Zombie, at Pajamas, "Inside the Anti-Trump Circus: Here Comes the Summer of Hate — Protest Outside Donald Trump's Appearance at the California Republican Convention, April 29, 2016."

Conservative Leader Rona Ambrose Hugged by Prime Minister Trudeau After Her Speech on Fort McMurray (VIDEO)

At the CBC, "Fort McMurray wildfire: Justin Trudeau to survey damage on Friday."

And watch, "Ambrose hugged by Trudeau after speech."

North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory Defends State's So-Called 'Bathroom Bill' (VIDEO)

Watch, at CNN, "North Carolina governor defends bathroom law."

And at the Charlotte Observer, "Feds enter HB2 case against North Carolina with solid record of victories: But so-called Title VII lawsuits can take years to resolve."

BONUS: From Kelsey Harkness, at the Daily Signal, "51 Families Sue Over Illinois High School’s Transgender Bathroom Policy."

The culture war's really coming to a head. Frankly, the GOP should run on culture issues and turn the left's moral degeneracy into a national referendum. We could see Houston writ large.

Pew Research Center: America's Shrinking Middle Class

At Pew:

Who is "middle income" and "upper income" in 2014? https://t.co/jz76pj9h6y https://t.co/drKOo36oGw

— Pew Research Center (@pewresearch) May 12, 2016

And at the Los Angeles Times:

From coast to coast, middle-class communities are shrinking https://t.co/wgdlO2qKj4 pic.twitter.com/Oh3aAzBqpA

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) May 12, 2016

Well, the Democrats promised hope and change. Folks are a bit tuckered out on the hope amid all this change.

Sheldon Adelson Thinks Donald Trump 'will be good for Israel...'

I think so too.

At the New York Times:

Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate, says he thinks Donald Trump “will be good for Israel.” https://t.co/5mYHQWskcr pic.twitter.com/ipicOvsCbn

— NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) May 6, 2016

Brittny Ward

She's a sweetie!

💋 pic.twitter.com/J0EIoi8h8w

— Brittny Ward (@brittnyward) April 11, 2016

More, "Jenson Button’s latest model Brittny Ward shows off her impressive bodywork: Playboy bunny gets steamy in exclusive Sun photoshoot."

General Michael Hayden: The Terrorist Threat Today vs. September 11 (VIDEO)

Via the American Enterprise Institution:

Jackie Johnson's Morning Clouds, Afternoon Sunshine Forecast

Today was a "typically sunny" day, but it's going to warm up through the weekend.

Via CBS News 2 Los Angeles:

Assignment America: A Look at What Makes Texas Texas

At the New York Times.

Thank goodness some Americans are determined to preserve their heritage and values.

What makes Texas Texas https://t.co/jfY813VjmC pic.twitter.com/iyo61lciLh

— The New York Times (@nytimes) May 7, 2016

Deal of the Day: Up to 50% Off Military and Tactical Boots

At Amazon, Bates Men's Ultra-Lites 8 Inches Tactical Sport Side-Zip Boot.

And more, Military & Tactical Boots.

Also, TaoTronics LED Desk Lamp, Gooseneck Table Lamp 7W, Touch Control, 7 Brightness Levels.

Plus, Save on Kimberly-Clark Kleenex Facial Tissue, White.

Still more, Introducing Amazon Oasis - Reimagined Design. Perfectly Balanced.

Also, Fire Tablet, 7" Display, Wi-Fi, 8 GB - Includes Special Offers, Black.

BONUS: Richard Overy, Why the Allies Won.

Obama to Visit Hiroshima; Talk of Atomic Bomb Apology Stirs Controversy (VIDEO)

I swear if Obama utters even the slightest inkling of an apology I think I'll just die.

The White House denied suggestions that O would apologize, but I'm not buying it.

At USA Today, "Obama to visit Hiroshima to promote nuke-free world."

CNN's Sara Murray Reports on Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll (VIDEO)

Following up, "Donald Trump Running Neck-and-Neck with Hillary Clinton in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania."

Medieval Reenactor Brings Down Drone with Spear (VIDEO)

Heh.

This is pretty good.

Donald Trump Running Neck-and-Neck with Hillary Clinton in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania

This is freakin' awesome, heh.

At Quinnipiac, "CLINTON-TRUMP CLOSE IN FLORIDA, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA,QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY SWING STATE POLL FINDS."

And hey, the white working class voters the Democrats have consistently demonized? They're not loving Hillary at all:

Florida—Trump wins whites 52%—33%.

Pennsylvania—Trump wins whites 48%-37%.

Ohio—Trump wins whites 49%—32%.

More at Bloomberg:

Clinton-Trump Race Tight in Three Battlegrounds: Quinnipiac Poll https://t.co/qCv6AWsw8r via @bpolitics

— Jennifer S. Carroll (@MrsJSCarroll) May 11, 2016