California Legalized Drugs. Cartels Took It Over. by Daniel Greenfield

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20723/california-legalized-drugs-cartels

Six years after California legalized marijuana, the bodies keep piling up. Earlier this year, six men were murdered in the Mojave Desert. Four of the men had been burned after being shot with rifles. In 2020, seven people were killed at an illegal pot operation in Riverside County.

Violence like this was supposed to disappear after legalization. Legalization advocates argued that making the drug trade legal would end the grip of the cartels. Instead, the legal market has failed, and the cartels are taking over sizable parts of California and the rest of the country.

California’s legal drug revenues have fallen consistently, as have those in other legal drug states including Colorado, whose model helped sell the idea that drug money would fix everything.

Despite falling revenues, Colorado legislators brag about $282 million in drug revenue. That number may sound high, but it’s a drop in the bucket considering the money that the state and cities like Denver are spending on homelessness, drug overdoses and law enforcement.

While the legal drug business is also collapsing in California, the state is spending a fortune fighting marijuana even as it tries to tax it. Gov. Gavin Newsom paradoxically promised to close the budget deficit with $100 million in drug revenue, meant to be used to fund law enforcement and fight substance abuse. The state seized over $300 million in illegal pot this year and uses satellite imagery and heavily-armed raids to fight untaxed marijuana.

But despite all those efforts, illegal marijuana has won and legal marijuana has lost.

Is Wikipedia Politically Biased?by David Rozado

https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased

Executive Summary
This work aims to determine whether there is evidence of political bias in English-language Wikipedia articles.
Wikipedia is one of the most popular domains on the World Wide Web, with hundreds of millions of unique users per month. Wikipedia content is also routinely employed in the training of Large Language Models (LLMs).
To study political bias in Wikipedia content, we analyze the sentiment (positive, neutral, or negative) with which a set of target terms (N=1,628) with political connotations (e.g., names of recent U.S. presidents, U.S. congressmembers, U.S. Supreme Court justices, or prime ministers of Western countries) are used in Wikipedia articles.
We do not cherry-pick the set of terms to be included in the analysis but rather use publicly available preexisting lists of terms from Wikipedia and other sources.
We find a mild to moderate tendency in Wikipedia articles to associate public figures ideologically aligned right-of-center with more negative sentiment than public figures ideologically aligned left-of-center.
These prevailing associations are apparent for names of recent U.S. presidents, U.S. Supreme Court justices, U.S. senators, U.S. House of Representatives congressmembers, U.S. state governors, Western countries’ prime ministers, and prominent U.S.-based journalists and media organizations.
This trend is common but not ubiquitous. We find no evidence of it in the sentiment with which names of U.K. MPs and U.S.-based think tanks are used in Wikipedia articles.
We also find prevailing associations of negative emotions (e.g., anger and disgust) with right-leaning public figures; and positive emotions (e.g., joy) with left-leaning public figures.
These trends constitute suggestive evidence of political bias embedded in Wikipedia articles.
We find some of the aforementioned political associations embedded in Wikipedia articles popping up in OpenAI’s language models. This is suggestive of the potential for biases in Wikipedia content percolating into widely used AI systems.Wikipedia’s neutral point of view (NPOV) policy aims for articles in Wikipedia to be written in an impartial and unbiased tone. Our results suggest that Wikipedia’s NPOV policy is not achieving its stated goal of political-viewpoint neutrality in Wikipedia articles.
This report highlights areas where Wikipedia can improve in how it presents political information. Nonetheless, we want to acknowledge Wikipedia’s significant and valuable role as a public resource. We hope this work inspires efforts to uphold and strengthen Wikipedia’s principles of neutrality and impartiality.

Bragg drops trespassing charges against nearly all Columbia protesters Of the 46 charged, 14 were undergraduate students at Columbia, nine were graduate students, and two were employees. Misteri Severi

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/education/bragg-drops-trespassing-charges-against-nearly-all-columbia-protesters

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg dropped charges on Thursday against most of the Columbia University protesters who were arrested for trespassing in Hamilton Hall in April.

Nearly 50 people were charged with criminal trespassing after they staged a multi-day protest on the Manhattan campus of the Ivy League school. But 31 of those cases were dismissed on Thursday due to a lack of evidence, according to NBC News. Prosecutors said another 14 of the 46 cases will be dismissed if the defendants do not have any other arrests in the next six months.

The court said the person who will remain charged is James Carlson, who has two other separate cases opened against him. One of those charges is flag burning, and he is not associated with Columbia University.

Hundreds of protesters initially engaged in the protests, which was centered on the U.S. response to the war in Israel. But the 46 who were charged had illegally occupied Hamilton Hall towards the end of the protest, despite warnings that they were trespassing. Of the 46 charged, at least 14 were undergraduate students at Columbia, nine were graduate students, and two were employees. 

Biden’s Fiscal Crisis Is Far Worse Than We Thought

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/06/21/bidens-fiscal-crisis-is-far-worse-than-we-thought/

Nothing should shock us anymore, but the latest Congressional Budget Office report did. Released this week, the report shows that the nation is in vastly worse financial shape than anyone thought just a few months ago. And the report makes clear who is to blame.

The CBO’s latest “Budget and Economic Outlook” projects that the federal deficit this year will top $1.9 trillion. That’s $408 billion higher – a 27% increase – than what the CBO thought it would be just four months ago.

This will make the 2024 deficit the biggest ever recorded in American history – not counting the two years of panic-induced COVID-19 spending sprees – and will mark the third consecutive increase in deficits under Biden. (See the chart below.)

It’s also highly unusual for the CBO to make such a huge correction to its forecast.

The nonpartisan office routinely produces a budget and economic forecast at the start of the year, and then an update mid-year. Normally, these don’t vary much. In Trump’s first three years, for example, the average variance between the first forecast and the final deficit was just $73 billion.

Europe: Nazis’ ‘Do Not Buy from Jews’ 2.0 by Robert Williams

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20713/europe-nazis-boycott-israel

Since October 7, when Iranian proxies Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad committed unspeakable atrocities against men, women, children and babies in Israel, large parts of the international community have been in a frenzy over the Jews’ puzzling inclination to defend themselves.

This is the same French government [which banned Israel from participating in Eurosatory 2024 defense industry trade fair] so obsessed with appearing inclusive and non-discriminatory that it recently supported a bill that outlaws discrimination based on hair texture, length, color or style.

Meanwhile, the French government did not think it necessary to ban the participation of China, presently indulging in two genocides – against Tibetans and against Uyghurs – from participating in Eurosatory. China’s representation at the trade fair counts around 61 defense companies.

The French government also did not ban… Turkey, which has been taken to the International Criminal Court for committing crimes against humanity against hundreds of thousands of opponents of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ruthless regime…

When there are no Jews to blame, evidently, crimes against humanity, genocide and human rights abuses are perfectly acceptable.

Since October 7, more than 19,000 rockets have been launched into Israel, a country smaller than New Jersey, primarily by the terrorist groups ruling Gaza, as well as from another of Iran’s terrorist proxies, Hezbollah in Lebanon

Never mind that John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point, determined that Israel has consistently implemented more measures to prevent civilian casualties than any military in the history of warfare.

“The Middle East does not need more weapons, it needs more peace,” said Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares. The remark, oddly, did not appear to be addressed the entities that started the war: Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Qatar.

Iran, the Middle East’s warmonger par excellence, and — along with major funding from Qatar, which seems never to have met an Islamic terrorist group it did not finance or promote — was the originator of the current war in Gaza.

Iran’s terrorist proxies span the region — Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza; Hezbollah in Lebanon; the Houthis in Yemen, and various proxy militias in Syria and Iraq — well-funded because of the Biden administration’s lifting sanctions. Yet Albares has nothing but praise for Iran.

The submission to the Islamic regime by European leaders such as Albares, who knows full well that Iran is behind the war in Gaza, tells us more about them than about Israel.

In April, however, the EU imposed sanctions on Israeli “settlers.” Regrettably, to many Palestinians, all of Israel is “one big settlement” that needs to be uprooted, and everyone there, a “settler.”

How California’s Paradise Become our Purgatory How and why did California end up as a warning to Western civilization of what might be in store for anyone who followed its nihilism? By Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2024/06/20/how-californias-paradise-become-our-purgatory/

California has become a test case of the suicide of the West. Never before has such a state, so rich in natural resources and endowed with such a bountiful human inheritance, self-destructed so rapidly.

How and why did California so utterly consume its unmatched natural and ancestral inheritance and end up as a warning to Western civilization of what might be in store for anyone who followed its nihilism?

The symptoms of the state’s suicide are indisputable.

Governor Gavin Newsom enjoyed a recent $98 billion budget surplus—gifted from multibillion-dollar federal COVID-19 subsidies, the highest income and gas taxes in the nation, and among the country’s steepest sales and property taxes.

Yet in a year, he turned it into a growing $45 billion budget deficit.

At a time of an over-regulated, overtaxed, and sputtering economy, Newsom spent lavishly on new entitlements, illegal immigrants, and untried and inefficient green projects.

Newsom was endowed with two of the wettest years in recent California history. Yet he and radical environmentalists squandered the water bounty—as snowmelts and runoff long designated for agricultural irrigation were drained from aqueducts and reservoirs to flow out to sea.

Newsom transferred millions of dollars designated by a voter referendum to build dams and aqueducts for water storage and instead blew up four historic dams on the Klamath River. For decades, these now-destroyed scenic lakes provided clean, green hydroelectric power, irrigation storage, flood control, and recreation.

Steven McGuire What Does the Student Intifada Want? A recent conference in Detroit revealed its radical aims.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/what-does-the-student-intifada-want

With few exceptions, college and university presidents were slow and ineffective in responding to the protests and encampments on their campuses this spring. Their passivity calls to mind the character Gottlieb Biedermann in Max Frisch’s play The Fire Raisers, who, hearing about a series of local arsons, refuses to believe that the men who manipulated their way into occupying his attic could be the perpetrators. Deceived by feelings of guilt, Biedermann is unwilling to throw the men out or believe that they are dangerous—even when they tell him exactly what they are doing. Remaining in denial to the end, he hands them the very matches they use to incinerate his home.

Too often, when faced with the fervent demands and outlandish behavior of student demonstrators, university officials allowed them to violate institutional policies, disrupt academic life, and harass Jews. When presidents finally acted, many negotiated with the protesters and capitulated to their demands. Even those who rightly called the police often failed to impose serious consequences on the disrupters. In the end, few protesters face meaningful sanctions for their extended violations of campus policies and, in many cases, the law.

Yet, the protesters and their allies complained about “authoritarian” crackdowns, betrayals of democratic values, and free-speech violations as their camps got cleared away. Their complaints can be attributed partly to ignorance; a student speaker at Harvard University’s commencement, for example, proclaimed to a cheering crowd that the university had violated students’ “right to civil disobedience,” a right she genuinely seemed to believe that they had. One poll showed that more than half of those who said they supported chanting “From the river to the sea” were unable to name the river and the sea to which the chant referred. When a young woman at New York University was asked what she wanted the university to do, she turned the question to her friend: “Why are we protesting?”

Big News: The Surgeon General Calls for a Warning Label on Social Media Dr. Murthy is right. The evidence of widespread harm to adolescents is now strong.Jon Haidt And Zach Rausch

https://www.afterbabel.com/subscribe?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=email-subscribe&r=

The U.S. Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, has long been a leader on the youth mental health crisis. He wrote a book in 2020 on loneliness (Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World), and in 2023 he issued a landmark report on loneliness. In 2023, he also published a major report, a Surgeon General’s Advisory reviewing the research on social media and concluding that:

The current body of evidence indicates that while social media may have benefits for some children and adolescents, there are ample indicators that social media can also have a profound risk of harm to the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents.

Yesterday, June 17, Dr. Murthy dropped a bomb: An essay in the New York Times in which he called for government-mandated warning labels on social media, akin to those that a previous Surgeon General called for in 1964, on cigarettes.

‘Conformity is the enemy of free speech’ Greg Lukianoff on the sad demise of America’s free-speech culture.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/06/19/conformity-is-the-enemy-of-free-speech/

The Gaza solidarity encampments that spread across US universities earlier this year showed that free speech is under threat from all sides. Intolerant ‘pro-Palestine’ students wanted to exclude Zionists, Jewish students and anyone not fully committed to their cause from campus. They were happy to disrupt university life and to prevent classes and lectures from taking place. At the same time, some on the pro-Israel side called for these protests to be forcibly shut down, for demonstrators to be arrested and for Israelophobic speech to be censored or punished. Those who are consistent in their support for free speech are becoming rarer by the day.

Greg Lukianoff – president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) – returned to The Brendan O’Neill Show last week to discuss the need for a radical revival of free speech. What follows is an edited extract from the conversation. Listen to the full thing here.

Brendan O’Neill: Where does the left-right divide currently fall on the question of free speech?

Greg Lukianoff: One of the reasons I’m worried about the future of freedom of speech, in the United States and beyond, is that there used to be a contingent of the left that unapologetically defended free expression. These people were always in tension with those totalitarians who believed that, if society was governed by enlightened people like them, censorship would be justified. For the most part, I grew up at a time when freedom of speech was actually considered a left-wing value. But with totalitarian thinking winning on the left and the rise of the populist right, there’s no natural constituency for free speech today other than the centre.

Eco-vandals Came to Stonehenge. They Won’t Stop There By Andrew Follett

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/06/eco-vandals-came-to-stonehenge-they-wont-stop-there/

Environmental stewardship may be a laudable goal, but some radical environmentalists believe their ends justify extreme, damaging means.

Eco-vandals are at it again in England, having launched an attack on the priceless ancient historical site Stonehenge.

Two activists from the radical environmental group Just Stop Oil desecrated the ancient monument with orange powder paint. The site was saved from further attack only by the immediate intervention of another person at the site, who seized their paint equipment.

Just Stop Oil lied on X, formerly Twitter, that this wasn’t a major problem for the historical site because the paint “will soon wash away with the rain, but the urgent need for effective government action to mitigate the catastrophic consequences of the climate and ecological crisis will not.”

No doubt the irony that they likely traveled to the site in carbon-emitting vehicles to spray propellant-filled industrial dyes onto a historical landmark, then recorded the whole thing on a petroleum products–filled camera, is lost on these eco-vandals.

“Stonehenge at solstice is all about celebrating the natural world — but look at the state it’s in! We all have a right to live a life free from suffering, but continued burning of oil, coal and gas is leading to death and suffering on an unparalleled scale,” Niamh Lynch, an Oxford student who participated in the stunt, said in a statement.

The official Stonehenge X account replied to the activists, telling them the site was both protected and environmentally sensitive, and that they should “expect a prison sentence.” Local police have so far arrested two people, likely the two who recorded themselves attacking the site.