Teens and Young Adults Don't Want to Work

My first response to seeing this polling data is that it's simply incomprehensible. But then, thinking about it for a minute, there are all kinds of variables that would contribute to a decreasing desire to work among young (and very young Americans). Either way, this is a terrible development for American society.

At Pew Research, "More and more Americans are outside the labor force entirely. Who are they?":

But let’s look in particular at the youngest part of the eligible workforce. The share of 16- to 24-year-olds saying they didn’t want a job rose from an average 29.5% in 2000 to an average 39.4% over the first 10 months of this year. There was a much smaller increase among prime working-age adults (ages 25 to 54) over that period. And among people aged 55 and up, the share saying they didn’t want a job actually fell, to an average 58.2% this year.

'This isn’t gender neutrality, this is women upset that men can stand and pee...'

"This is going to turn me into an activist."

 Heh, at iOTW REPORT, "Leftist Idiocy – Retrofitted Gender Neutral Bathrooms Are Blocking the Urinals With Tape."

Big Cat on the Loose in Paris

Apparently, it's not a tiger. But still.

At Telegraph UK:

Soldiers called in to help hunt for the Disneyland Paris "tiger", with fresh paw prints spotted after beast apparently crossed a major highway and slinked past a petrol station.

Police and soldiers hunting for a large cat believed to be on the loose near Paris have shut down a motorway service station after the beast was spotted there a day after it was first seen near the Disneyland theme park.

Motorists were warned to be extra vigilant on the busy A4 motorway after a driver first spotted what he described as a “wandering animal” before dawn on Friday at the service station.

Paw prints believed were later found on the grounds of the service station.

However, the National Office for Hunting and Wildlife said it is not a tiger but some other sort of (as yet unidentified) feline. They base their statement on analysis of its paw prints.

More at London's Daily Mail, "Camera footage captures big cat stalking across a car park near Disneyland as police marksmen continue hunt for 'aggressive and adventurous animal'."

U.S. Fuel Costs Drop to Historic Lows, Thanks to Shale Oil Boom — And No Thanks to Obama!

According to the Los Angeles Times, increased U.S. energy production, resulting from the shale boom, is forcing a structural change in U.S. energy markets, that --- along with decreased demand --- could result in a long-term decline in fuel costs.

And keep in mind, consumers and business owners have more disposable income with lower energy costs, which in turn boosts spending in other areas, like recreation and job hiring. (Oh, and of course the federal and state governments would raise much more in tax revenues from higher business earnings and job growth, which would reduce pressure to raise taxes --- but don't expect idiot progs to be touting these benefits any time soon).

In sum, a policy focus on expanding the U.S. energy sector would be a huge boom for Americans across the board. Instead, President "I'll Bankrupt the Coal Industry" Obama is looking to crush the energy sector in favor of a climate change legacy for his administration.

Americans opened their eyes to this abuse on November 4th, and if the Dems don't change their ways, they'll be looking at another ass-kicking in 2016.

In any case, see the Los Angeles Times, "Gasoline prices continue to drop":

How low can gas prices go?

In Southern California — and across the country — prices have been dropping for months, placing extra dollars in consumers' wallets. This week the average price for a gallon of regular hit $3.24 in Los Angeles and Long Beach, the lowest in four years, according to AAA. In Orange County, it was $3.19.

Energy analysts say it may go lower.

"We could see gasoline prices in the high 2s," said Amy Myers Jaffe, executive director of energy and sustainability at UC Davis.

Several factors are likely to get prices there, Jaffe said.

Oil production in the United States — driven by the nation's shale oil boom — is increasing. And on the demand side, the sluggish global economy has sent the price of crude steadily down.

In the U.S., where growth has been stronger, demographics and consumer habits are putting downward pressure on demand, analysts said...

The current decline is partly seasonal...

But the nation's shale oil boom should help drive down prices in 2015 across the state, with average prices potentially falling below $3 once next year's summer driving season ends, Kloza said.

"It's going to be a sloppy year next year for oil," he said. "On balance, crude oil prices should be the lowest they've been in four or five years."

The rise in oil production has been so great that the U.S. Energy Information Administration now predicts average daily production in 2015 will reach the highest level since 1972.

Low fuel prices have been a boon to consumers' pocket books, especially working- and middle-class Americans for whom gas accounts for a significant portion of their paychecks.

When prices were around $4 a gallon, Rita Mena paid as much as $80 to fill her Ford Explorer.

On Friday, at an Arco gas station in Boyle Heights, she shelled out $60.

With the extra money, the 32-year-old said, she can buy more of the things she needs, like groceries or diapers for her 2 1/2-year-old daughter, Leilani.

Then there's the luxuries.

"I want to go out more now," said Mena, who works at a downtown L.A. health clinic. "And maybe I could pick up an extra present or something for Christmas."

PREVIOUSLY: "The Geopolitical Consequences of the Shale Revolution."

ICYMI: John Nagl, Knife Fights

Get your copy at Amazon, Knife Fights: A Memoir of Modern War in Theory and Practice.

Francoise Boufhal #Rule5

A real sweetie, via Twitter:

Francoise Boufhal @Onlybadchicks @S2nningBabes @johnnywalkeryyc @Fan_Of_Glamour @US_GlamourFan @onlyhotgirlzz #beauty pic.twitter.com/zWrZaSH7lE

— BABEIMPACT (@babeimpact) October 14, 2014

More on Donald Sutherland

He's a bleedin' lefty, but I think he's onto something about the "youth revolution."

More from Gentleman's Quarterly:

Donald Sutherland's epic Hollywood life and career. The GQ &A: http://t.co/5bku2tjkWH pic.twitter.com/MzIjMqHd7D

— GQ Magazine (@GQMagazine) November 15, 2014

Air-Sand Battle: Force Size, Land-Air-Sea Balance, and the Fight Against #ISIS

I love this piece.

From Kate Brannen, at Foreign Policy, "The fight against the Islamic State is forcing the Pentagon to rethink its plans for the future of warfare":

The  fight against the self-proclaimed Islamic State is still in its early days, but already it is challenging the Pentagon's assumptions about where and how war will be fought and what the military will need to be prepared.

The conflict in Iraq and Syria represents the type of war the Obama administration has tried to relegate to history. The days of fighting protracted ground wars in the Middle East were supposed to be over. Instead, the White House directed the Pentagon to turn its attention to the Asia-Pacific region, where it's believed by some that high-tech weapons systems belonging to the Air Force and Navy could be optimized in a more conventional fight.

But with new conflicts and pockets of violence and instability rapidly cropping up in places such as Ukraine, the Middle East, and parts of Africa, defense policymakers are being forced to revisit, if not rethink, some of the assumptions that underpin today's strategy and resource decisions.

Among the ideas under scrutiny are the relevance of ground forces and whether state actors pose the most dangerous threat to the U.S. homeland and global security.

For the military services, the debate over these assumptions will directly affect their size, budget, and the types of weapons they buy.

For senior military leaders, the issue of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS and ISIL, "is as much about where the services are headed as it is about the problem to solve," said David E. Johnson, a military analyst at Rand who from 2012 to 2014 directed the Army's Strategic Studies Group for Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno.

The Pentagon has laid out a strategy that accepts greater risk in the ground forces so that more resources can be poured into the Air Force and Navy -- the services that play the biggest role in the Asia-Pacific region. A smaller ground force is also believed to be necessary due to escalating personnel costs at a time when the defense budget is shrinking.

As part of this plan, the Army is continuing to shrink from a wartime high of 570,000 active-duty soldiers to today's 505,000, with the goal of dropping to 490,000 by the end of 2015. And even deeper cuts are likely to come; the Army is expected to downsize to 420,000 soldiers if Congress doesn't undo the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration planned for 2016.

The assumption behind these troop reductions is that the United States won't fight large-scale, protracted ground wars like it has in Iraq and Afghanistan anytime soon. And although no one is recommending inserting large-scale U.S. ground forces into Iraq -- the current cap is 3,100 "non-combat" troops -- events there and in Ukraine are providing the Army support for its argument that it is too risky to make the Army much smaller than it already is.

"I think there is a sense by many in the Army of, 'Hey, we told you you've been engaging in some degree of wishful thinking and we think we're getting growing evidence that we're not talking about hypotheticals,'" said Maren Leed, a senior advisor to Odierno from 2011 to 2012 who is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It's ISIS, it's Ebola, it's Russia. Name your problem, ground forces matter."

Meanwhile, the other services are arguing, "You can do it with us and with other people's boots," she said...

More.

PHOTO CREDIT: Wikimedia Commons.

#ObamaCare Architect Exposes Progressive Totalitarianism — And Repsac's Too!

But hey, "Gruber Shmuber," right?

All the leftist lies, deceit, and tyrannical corruption are fine and dandy, as long as it provides a few victims of "capitalist oppression" access to ObamaCare!

Newly Insured Through Exchanges Give Coverage Good Marks http://t.co/tMazy4D6zs / Gruber Shmuber. THIS is what matters.

— Walter James Casper (@repsac3) November 14, 2014

Well, maybe not.

See Bruce Thornton, at FrontPage Magazine:

Professor Jonathan Gruber of MIT, who designed the Affordable Care Act, used to be the symbol of the Democrats’ technocratic bona fides, and an example of how big government with its “scientific” experts can solve social and economic problems from health care to a warming planet. Yet a recently publicized video of remarks he made at a panel in 2013, along with 2 other videos in the same vein, has now made him the poster child of the elitist progressives’ contempt for the American people, and their sacrifice of prudence and reason to raw political power.

In the video Gruber explains the spin and lies the Dems used to give cover to their Congressmen so they could vote for Obamacare. Especially important was avoiding the “t-word.” So, Gruber crows on the video, “This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies.” He also explained how the bills’ writers covered up the obvious redistributionist core of the legislation, which to work has to take money from the healthy young to pay for health care for the sick and old. “If you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in — you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.”

Then this handsomely paid consultant to the “most transparent administration in history” revealed the foundational contempt progressives have for the “people” whose champions they claim to be: “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.” As David Horowitz tweeted, “Progressive totalitarianism: We know what’s good for you and will lie, cheat and then compel you to agree with us.”

This modern version of the Platonic “guardians,” who possess superior knowledge but who must camouflage their tyrannical rule with lies, is now over 100 years old, and has become deeply embedded in our politics. It was the fundamental assumption of American Progressivism, which argued that modern technology and social change had rendered the old constitutional order a dangerous relic....

The politics of today’s progressives all have their roots in the old Progressive assumptions––that enlightened elites know better than the people what is good for them, and that the people, being such unenlightened clods, need to be manipulated and lied to for their own good. Most important, the freedom and autonomy of the people must be limited by intrusive federal agencies and regulations in order for these utopian goals to be achieved.

Or to put it in other terms, this set of progressive beliefs––which we have seen acted on for the last six years by the president and practically every government agency––is totalitarian at its core. Not the brutal despotism of Italian fascism or Soviet communism or German Nazism, but Tocqueville’s “soft despotism,” the kinder, gentler Leviathan which undermines self-reliance and self-government by taking responsibility for the people’s comfort and happiness, and financing its largess by the redistribution of property. But no matter how comfortable in the short-term, such a condition is nothing other than servitude. And as Tocqueville warns, “No one will ever believe that a liberal, wise, and energetic government can spring from the suffrages of a subservient people.”

Repsac's a fascist asshole, so it's easy to see why he's all "Gruber Shmuber" at this outlandish revelation of the massive Obama-Democrat lies, hypocrisy, and jack-boot authoritarianism. It's what he's all about.

Climate Change Made Simple

From Stephen Green, at Pajamas Media:

If we’re just going to jack up energy prices to make ourselves feel good in the name of “doing something,” fuggidaboudit. Cheap energy promotes production, it promotes trade, it promotes mobility — three of the keys to American prosperity. Any permanent “skyrocketing” of energy prices would condemn millions, perhaps billions of people to lives of continued poverty. Or condemn them to death.

Assuming we can safely determine that the coming climate change would be bad for us, we then move on to the question of how and why the change is coming. Is it due to sun cycles? Carbon emissions? Hyperintelligent Wampa terraformers from ice planet Hoth? Some combination of factors? This is a vital question, and the models only provide answers based on the untested assumptions of the programers.

But let us now assume that we know bad change is a-comin’ and that we know what’s causing it. Now we have to do something, right? Not so fast there, pardner. If it turns out carbon emissions are actually helping keep things warmer and better than they otherwise would be, it would be a mistake to play into the Hothians icy hands by reducing those emissions. But until we know, we don’t know. Ignorance is neither bliss nor a basis for swift action...

More.

Dr. Matt Taylor and the Absurdity of Modern Feminism

If by chance you haven't seen the mewling, bawling apology, it's here, "Rosetta comet scientist D.r Matt Taylor apologises for shirt."

Now, at Twitchy, "‘Slutshirt shamed’! ‘Feminist bullies’ just made a comet scientist cry over his ‘sexist’ shirt."

http://t.co/SjaYHf54zY feminist bullies have made the guy who landed a spacecraft on comet cry and apologise for a harmless shirt

— Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero) November 14, 2014

And here's Glenn Reynolds' response, "1 small shirt for a man, 1 giant leap backward for women."

And that's followed by Ann Althouse's fisking, "Did feminists make the comet landing all about clothes?"

Yes, society's pretty much all f-ked up.

As Global Strategic Threats Intensify, U.S. Nuclear Arsenal at Risk of Becoming Anachronism

A lot of problems with the U.S. strategic nuclear force.

At LAT, "Major overhaul of nuclear force planned to improve security and morale."

And also, "As U.S. nuclear arsenal ages, other nations have modernized":

As Russian forces were drawing back from a swift and violent incursion into Ukraine this fall, Moscow was delivering another powerful military statement many miles to the north.

A new 40-foot Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile, capable of delivering an unparalleled 10 nuclear warheads, was launched by a Russian navy submarine on a test run over the icy White Sea. The weapon was a clear signal to the world that as Russia battles tightening economic sanctions intended to block Moscow's aggressive posturing on NATO's frontiers, President Vladimir Putin has another card to play.

"I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations," Putin declared earlier this year at a state-sponsored youth camp. He reinforced the message last month, inviting the world to "remember what consequences discord between major nuclear powers could bring for strategic stability."

The debate over how to modernize America's aging nuclear forces has taken on increasing urgency with the emergence of a newly assertive Russia and a new generation of nuclear powers with increasing technological sophistication.

North Korea, Pakistan and India all are working quickly to improve their nuclear arsenals and delivery systems. By next year, China is expected to be capable of delivering a nuclear strike anywhere in the continental U.S. for the first time in its history — a threat that Russia has posed for decades.

While the nuclear confrontation between the United States and Russia cooled off after the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union, it has never ended. Indeed, the long-held hope for continual reductions in nuclear forces now seems unattainable, nuclear arms analysts say. For the first time in years, the U.S. and Russia each have increased the number of nuclear warheads deployed over the latest six-month monitoring period — the U.S. by 57 additional weapons and Russia by 131.

Russia is spending $560 billion on military modernization over the next six years with 25% allocated to aging nuclear forces, part of a program to replace all of its Soviet Union-era launchers. U.S. officials say it will take at least $355 billion over the coming decade to upgrade America's nuclear arsenal and keep up with the rearmament spree underway in the rest of the world.

"Our rival powers are investing billions of dollars to modernize and improve their nuclear systems," said Maj. Gen. Sandra Finan, Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center commander, warning that if the U.S. is "to remain credible," it must maintain nuclear preparedness as a priority.

But veterans of the Cold War also say tit-for-tat responses in nuclear confrontation carry grave risks, anchored to erroneous assumptions that a nuclear exchange would leave one side in better condition than the other.

"God help us if we ever need them," said Philip Coyle, a former nuclear weapons scientist, director of nuclear testing, senior Pentagon official and national security adviser.

The U.S. and Russia both continue to field land-based missiles that could be launched in a few minutes, submarine-based missiles able to deliver a devastating counterpunch to any surprise attack, and bombers that could loiter in threatening holding patterns above the Arctic.

A new strategic arms reduction treaty signed in 2010 limits deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 on each side, with a cap of 700 missiles and bombers by 2018. And over the last two decades, nuclear capabilities have been far from the U.S. military's top priority. Most of the attention has gone to high-tech conventional weapons that evolved after the first Gulf War. Two decades have gone by without developing a nuclear strategic weapon.

All the while, U.S. nuclear-capable bombers, submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles and their launch-control bunkers have been allowed to become virtual Cold War museums.

A fascinating piece.

Continue reading.

ZOO's Favorites

At Zoo Today, "ZOO's favourite babes in a boob-packed compilation video!"

Obama's Executive Amnesty Threatens Constitutional Crisis

If Obama goes for the full 5-million legalization plan, there's going to be hell to pay.

Here's Fox News, "Source: Obama to announce 10-point immigration plan via exec action as early as next week."

Also at LAT, "Going solo on immigration: Obama weighs reform options."

And here's Megyn Kelly's full opening segment last night, which includes comments from Professor Jonathan Turley, who has repeatedly warned against Obama's authoritarian executive actions.

After Shellacking, Democrats Shifting to 'McGovern Model' for 2016

I expect regressive Democrats to increasingly rally around Senator Elizabeth Warren over the next couple of years, pulling the party further to the left. And whether or not "Fauxcahontas" runs in 2016, the Dems are positioning themselves the way George McGovern did heading into the 1972 presidential election: as an ideologically extreme party out of touch with Main Street economic concerns. As such, the Republicans could deliver a massive thumping to the Democrats next time around, perhaps not as dramatic as the one Richard Nixon delivered to McGovern, but certainly for the same reasons. The Democrats will be split between ideological purists and political pragmatists, and the wisdom of the latter won't become evident until a couple election cycles of far-left repudiation by the voters.

An any case, here's the NYT, "After Losses, Liberal and Centrist Democrats Square Off on Strategy."

Arrogance Plus Deception = #ObamaCare.

At the Chicago Tribune, "Arrogance plus deception equals Obamacare. Ask Gruber."

The Loneliest President Since Nixon

From Peggy Noonan, at WSJ, "Facing adversity, Obama has no idea how to respond":

Seven years ago I was talking to a longtime Democratic operative on Capitol Hill about a politician who was in trouble. The pol was likely finished, he said. I was surprised. Can’t he change things and dig himself out? No. “People do what they know how to do.” Politicians don’t have a vast repertoire. When they get in a jam they just do what they’ve always done, even if it’s not working anymore.

Seven years ago I was talking to a longtime Democratic operative on Capitol Hill about a politician who was in trouble. The pol was likely finished, he said. I was surprised. Can’t he change things and dig himself out? No. “People do what they know how to do.” Politicians don’t have a vast repertoire. When they get in a jam they just do what they’ve always done, even if it’s not working anymore.

This came to mind when contemplating President Obama. After a devastating election, he is presenting himself as if he won. The people were not saying no to his policies, he explained, they would in fact like it if Republicans do what he tells them.

You don’t begin a new relationship with a threat, but that is what he gave Congress: Get me an immigration bill I like or I’ll change U.S. immigration law on my own.

Mr. Obama is doing what he knows how to do—stare them down and face them off. But his circumstances have changed. He used to be a conquering hero, now he’s not. On the other hand he used to have to worry about public support. Now, with no more elections before him, he has the special power of the man who doesn’t care.

I have never seen a president in exactly the position Mr. Obama is, which is essentially alone. He’s got no one with him now. The Republicans don’t like him, for reasons both usual and particular: They have had no good experiences with him. The Democrats don’t like him, for their own reasons plus the election loss. Before his post-election lunch with congressional leaders, he told the press that he will judiciously consider any legislation, whoever sends it to him, Republicans or Democrats. His words implied that in this he was less partisan and more public-spirited than the hacks arrayed around him. It is for these grace notes that he is loved. No one at the table looked at him with colder, beadier eyes than outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , who clearly doesn’t like him at all. The press doesn’t especially like the president; in conversation they evince no residual warmth. This week at the Beijing summit there was no sign the leaders of the world had any particular regard for him. They can read election returns. They respect power and see it leaking out of him. If Mr. Obama had won the election they would have faked respect and affection.

Vladimir Putin delivered the unkindest cut, patting Mr. Obama’s shoulder reassuringly. Normally that’s Mr. Obama’s move, putting his hand on your back or shoulder as if to bestow gracious encouragement, needy little shrimp that you are. It’s a dominance move. He’s been doing it six years. This time it was Mr. Putin doing it to him. The president didn’t like it

From Reuters: “‘It’s beautiful, isn’t it?’ Putin was overheard saying in English in Obama’s general direction, referring to the ornate conference room. ‘Yes,’ Obama replied, coldly, according to journalists who witnessed the scene.”

The last time we saw a president so alone it was Richard Nixon, at the end of his presidency, when the Democrats had turned on him, the press hated him, and the Republicans were fleeing. It was Sen. Barry Goldwater, the GOP’s standard-bearer in 1964, and House Minority Leader John Rhodes, also of Arizona, who went to the White House to tell Nixon his support in Congress had collapsed, they would vote to impeach. Years later Goldwater called Nixon “The world’s biggest liar.”

Obama's a petulant bitch --- and a freakin' national disgrace.

More.

New RNC Video Hammers Democrats Over Jonathan Gruber #ObamaCare Comments

The Dems are getting Grubered, heh.

'Jonathan Gruber is One of Most Respected Economist in the World!'

That's the quote from outgoing Senate Majority Dickhead Harry Reid, on the MIT economist suddenly Democrats "have never heard of."

Watch:



And ICYMI, "#ObamaCare Sold on a Pack of Lies."

Keira Knightley's Topless Stunt: Valid Protest or Shameless Self-Promotion?

Everybody's doing topless shoots nowadays. Of course it's promotional. Some folks thought Ms. Knightly was unimpressive in her debut, but beauty's in the eye of the beholder.

In any case, here's Charlotte Allen, at the Los Angeles Times.

And previously, "Keira Knightley for Interview Magazine September 2014."