Summer solstice begins tomorrow at 3:58AM PST. In my neck of the woods, sunrise is at 5:12am and sunset is 9:14pm, getting light around 4:30am and getting dark by around 10:00pm. I love this time of year.
Moderate Islamists? If less-brutal-than-militant-Islamists qualifies one as a "moderate", well, whatever. Since there is no comments section, the NYT is continuing its unofficial policy of desiring conversations on race and stonewalling conversations on the RTMNBN.
The Tunisian Islamists appear to be the most moderate, but we'll see how it goes when they form a new government. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood talked moderate but did not govern so, and neither is Erdogan in Turkey. Are there moderates of any influence in Syria? The Sham legion self-identifies as moderate and has said it separated from the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. What makes it moderate? The link doesn't say. It is closely aligned with the Commission for the Protection of Civilians (CPC), which has claimed to fight alongside al Qaeda. Are there moderate Islamists in Libya? Can't say. Maybe the NYT can form an Islamist search party and provide some real reporting on the subject.
Reform Islam? Raymond Ibrahim cautions that "reform" may well mean a closer reading of the Koran and Hadiths, just as the Protestantreformation entailed a closer reading of the New Testament, which could be more problematic than beneficial. Does Ibrahim have a bias on the subject? Probably. According to Rushdie, the time was right for a reformation nine years ago. I'm still waiting. Rushdie has a bias, too, such as avoiding an Iranian death sentence.
Leaning toward Rand Paul on this. By sending military "advisors" to assist the Iraqi government, we are taking sides in this civil war. I think it's a bad idea. We shouldn't help this government while al Maliki--the one who primarily caused this mess--remains in leadership, and this administration should not be afraid to say so. Also, we shouldn't be helping Iran by helping al Maliki. Link.
Re-partition Syria and Iraq. Jeffrey Goldberg has one example which, thanks to al Maliki's misrule, may become reality.
Daniel Hannan has a similar but less detailed version.
Criminal allegations against Scott Walker. What the Journal-Sentinel doesn't mention until the 16th paragraph is that a federal judge killed the investigation on First Amendment grounds. A useful primer here. This has all the odeur of a political vendetta (I have no idea if odeur is a real word, it just sounds right).
Those IRS emails the dog ate? Not the "official record". Except they are.
George Will and campus sexual assault. Per Jacobson, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch canceled his column because "Mr. Will suggested that sexual assault victims on college campuses enjoy a privileged status, made the decision easier." But, if a young woman reports a sexual assault to the authorities but the prosecutor does not have sufficient evidence to prosecute, and if the college still suspends the male student while denying his due process rights, does that not confer extra or privileged rights to the "victim"? If a male and female are both drunk and have consensual sex, and if the male is later suspended and is denied due process, does that not confer extra or privileged rights to the "victim"? Here is a real-world example. The male student's suspension was reversed but is not allowed to graduate. Some justice.
Will's article is here is the numbers from the Ohio State example here. Over four years, there were an estimated 817 sexual assaults, and there are just over 28,000 women who attend the Columbus campus, which means that the incident rate is 2.9% while a coed is in college, not 20% reported by the Obama administration. FIRE still has issues with the Department of Education.
Update 1: On George Will, after looking at various other sources, I no longer accept his 2.9% figure. As for the "one in five" claim by this administration, verdict pending. The "privileged status" claim by Will, in cases where males are not afforded proper due process, speaks for itself.
Update 2: Conor Friedersdorf has a more detailed reaction to Will's piece and a reaction to the reaction by the Left. If the Left has to mischaracterize Will to make a point, then it wasn't a very good point in the first place. And Will could have made his point with better numbers and better clarity.