salma hayek pic.twitter.com/yLA9GrljLU
— bella (@alejandra_xoo) July 25, 2017
— Women Are Beautiful (@AgelesssBeauty) August 1, 2017
Throughout the 2016 campaign, many people opposed to Donald Trump’s candidacy were nonetheless reluctant to endorse Hillary Clinton, in part because of her relative hawkishness. Candidate Trump had a decades-long career in the public eye that demonstrated plenty of reason to worry he would be a disastrous president, but he lacked the long career in public service that fueled worries about Clinton’s approach to the use of force, and her alleged desire to expand executive war-making powers past what she inherited from her predecessor.More (FWIW).
Six months into Trump’s presidency, we now have enough data to assess his own approach. The results are clear: Judging from Trump’s embrace of the use of air power — the signature tactic of U.S. military intervention — he is the most hawkish president in modern history. Under Trump, the United States has dropped about 20,650 bombs through July 31, or 80 percent the number dropped under Obama for the entirety of 2016. At this rate, Trump will exceed Obama’s last-year total by Labor Day.
In Iraq and Syria, data shows that the United States is dropping bombs at unprecedented levels. In July, the coalition to defeat the Islamic State (read: the United States) dropped 4,313 bombs, 77 percent more than it dropped last July. In June, the number was 4,848 — 1,600 more bombs than were dropped in any one month under President Barack Obama since the anti-ISIS campaign started three years ago.
In Afghanistan, the number of weapons released has also shot up since Trump took office. April saw more bombs dropped in the country since the height of Obama’s troop surge in 2012. That was also the month that the United States bombed Afghanistan’s Mamand Valley with the largest non-nuclear bomb ever dropped in combat.
Trump has also escalated U.S. military involvement in non-battlefield settings — namely Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. In the last 193 days of the Obama presidency, there were 21 lethal counterterrorism operations across these three countries. Trump has quintupled that number, conducting at least 92 such operations in Yemen, seven in Somalia, and four in Pakistan.
Hand in hand with Trump’s enthusiasm for air power comes a demonstrated tolerance for civilian casualties. Increased air power in Iraq and Syria has resulted in unprecedented levels of civilian deaths. Even by the military’s own count, civilian casualties have soared since Trump took office, though independent monitors tally the deaths as many as ten times higher. In Afghanistan, Trump’s tolerance for killing civilians has led to 67 percent more civilian casualties in his first six months than in the first half of 2016, according to the United Nations.
The expansion of air power and acceptance of civilian harm are together a problem, but they are made worse by the fact that they are occurring without any diplomatic strategy to wind down the wars...
Matt Clapp: I still can’t decide how much I like the two Wild Cards. I’m a big believer in the better team being rewarded. Say the WC1 wins 96 games, and the WC2 wins 88 games. And then the WC2 beats the WC1 in the one-game playoff. That’s very unfair to the WC1, as they have absolutely been the better team over 162 games, and baseball should in no way be judged by one game.
Then again, 2015 was an example of the two Wild Cards being a good thing. The NL Central featured three teams with at least 97 wins; the Pirates were the WC1 with 98 wins and the Cubs were the WC2 with 97 wins. Those were the three best records in baseball! One of them being completely left out would’ve been quite lame. Of course, the Pirates would argue that it was even more lame that they won 98 games and had to face a historically red-hot pitcher in Jake Arrieta.
Again, one game deciding anything in baseball flat-out sucks. I’d prefer they find a way to make it a three-game play-in, but that’s of course difficult with scheduling. And because of the scheduling issues, Theo Epstein said in 2015 that he proposed the idea of a three-game playoff which included a doubleheader for two of the three games to make things easier. This would also be a very weird way to decide the Wild Card winner, but in my opinion it still beats just one game in deciding the more Division Series representative.
Whatever the case, what we think doesn’t matter. What matters is how it’s working out for MLB, and it’s working tremendously. Look at the AL Wild Card race right now. There are NINE teams (including the two currently leading the race) within four games for two spots. Several teams have a legitimate playoff shot because of the second Wild Card, and this means much more fan interest. Fans of the teams in the race will go out to the ballpark into deep September. Baseball fans that generally don’t even care about those teams will be following these games just because pennant races are compelling. Then the one-game playoff is fantastic drama, must-see TV for people that aren’t even big baseball fans. In general, it’s all more eyes on the game, more discussion on social media/TV/radio, and more money. This all makes it a success for MLB, regardless of whether or not we think it’s the best way to be handled...
It's happening @BufferFestival pic.twitter.com/STmt0nABzq— Arielle Scarcella (@ArielleScarcell) August 11, 2017
— Arielle Scarcella (@ArielleScarcell) August 4, 2017
The application process for schools, fellowships, and jobs always came with a ritual: a person who had a role in choosing me—an admissions officer, an interviewer—would mention in his congratulations that I was “different” from the other Asians. When I won a scholarship that paid for part of my education, a selection panelist told me that I got it because I had moving qualities of heart and originality that Asian applicants generally lacked. Asian applicants were all so alike, and I stood out. In truth, I wasn’t much different from other Asians I knew. I was shy and reticent, played a musical instrument, spent summers drilling math, and had strict parents to whom I was dutiful. But I got the message: to be allowed through a narrow door, an Asian should cultivate not just a sense of individuality but also ways to project “Not like other Asians!”More.
In a federal lawsuit filed in Massachusetts in 2014, a group representing Asian-Americans is claiming that Harvard University’s undergraduate-admissions practices unlawfully discriminate against Asians. (Disclosure: Harvard is my employer, and I attended and teach at the university’s law school.) The suit poses questions about what a truly diverse college class might look like, spotlighting a group that is often perceived as lacking internal diversity. The court complaint quotes a college counsellor at the highly selective Hunter College High School (which I happened to attend), who was reporting a Harvard admissions officer’s feedback to the school: certain of its Asian students weren’t admitted, the officer said, because “so many” of them “looked just like” each other on paper.
The lawsuit alleges that Harvard effectively employs quotas on the number of Asians admitted and holds them to a higher standard than whites. At selective colleges, Asians are demographically overrepresented minorities, but they are underrepresented relative to the applicant pool. Since the nineteen-nineties, the share of Asians in Harvard’s freshman class has remained stable, at between sixteen and nineteen per cent, while the percentage of Asians in the U.S. population more than doubled. A 2009 Princeton study showed that Asians had to score a hundred and forty points higher on the S.A.T. than whites to have the same chance of admission to top universities. The discrimination suit survived Harvard’s motion to dismiss last month and is currently pending.
When the New York Times reported, last week, that the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division was internally seeking lawyers to investigate or litigate “intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions,” many people immediately assumed that the Trump Administration was hoping to benefit whites by assailing affirmative action. The Department soon insisted that it specifically intends to revive a 2015 complaint against Harvard filed with the Education and Justice Departments by sixty-four Asian-American groups, making the same claim as the current court case: that Harvard intentionally discriminates against Asians in admissions, giving whites an advantage. (The complaint had previously been dismissed in light of the already-pending lawsuit.) The combination of the lawsuit and the potential federal civil-rights inquiry signals that the treatment of Asians will frame the next phase of the legal debate over race-conscious admissions programs...
— Devin Brugman Daily (@DevBrugmanDaily) August 5, 2017
Wow 😍🤤 pic.twitter.com/kiz5jLioaz
— Devin Brugman Daily (@DevBrugmanDaily) August 5, 2017
— Devin Brugman Daily (@DevBrugmanDaily) August 5, 2017
— Devin Brugman Daily (@DevBrugmanDaily) August 5, 2017
— Devin Brugman Daily (@DevBrugmanDaily) August 6, 2017
Fired White House staffer argued "deep state" attacked Trump administration because the president represents a threat to cultural Marxist memes, globalists, and bankers.
Alessandra Ambrosio turns up the heat on the beach in Malibu 🔥 🔥 🔥 https://t.co/2QRlivIMFB
— Daily Mail Celebrity (@DailyMailCeleb) August 10, 2017
Eleven Eleven coming soon... #staytuned pic.twitter.com/EULPA7RPCG
— Jessica Simpson (@JessicaSimpson) August 9, 2017
When Donald Trump threatened North Korea with “fire and fury” Tuesday if it continues to menace the U.S. with nuclear weapons, he provoked almost as much backlash at home as in Pyongyang. The usual diplomatic suspects, including some American lawmakers, claimed his remarks hurt U.S. credibility and were irresponsible.More.
The President’s point was that the North’s escalating threats are intolerable; he didn’t set any red lines. True to form, Pyongyang responded by putting the U.S. island of Guam in its cross hairs. Mr. Trump may be guilty of hyperbole (quelle surprise), but that is far less damaging to U.S. credibility than Barack Obama’s failure to enforce his prohibition on the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons in Syria. The foreign-policy elite who claim to be shocked also don’t have much credibility after their policy across three Administrations led to the current North Korean danger.
While the President’s words were unusually colorful, the Communist-style language may have been part of the message: Kim Jong Un isn’t the only one who can raise the geopolitical temperature. The U.S. has military options to neutralize the regime’s nuclear threat if it continues to develop long-range missiles, and the U.S. is considering those options.
National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said as much in an interview Saturday, explaining that Pyongyang’s nuclear threat is “intolerable from the President’s perspective. So of course, we have to provide all options to do that. And that includes a military option.” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis reinforced that message Wednesday, warning North Korea to stop acting in ways that could “lead to the end of its regime.”
Last week Senator Lindsey Graham told a morning television program, “There is a military option to destroy North Korea’s program and North Korea itself.” The South Carolina Republican revealed that Mr. Trump told him there will be war if the North continues to develop long-range missiles: “He has told me that. I believe him. If I were China, I would believe him, too, and do something about it.”
The China reference is a tip-off that the main audience for this rhetorical theater is in Beijing. Kim Jong Un won’t stop now that he’s so close to his goal of a nuclear deterrent. But China might restrict the flow of oil to the North, for example, if it believes that stronger action on its part could forestall a U.S. pre-emptive strike...
