Woe to the electorates bested by the obscurantists.
Joined April 2009
- Tweets33.7K
- Following1.5K
- Followers1.2K
- Likes85.8K
Brad Crawford retweeted
It’s even worse than Anish notes here because boys make up 61% of the top SAT scores. So despite that fact and the fact that men apply about 2x as often to MIT; @MIT admits more women every year than men. It’s impossible for this to be merit based. Just mathematically impossible.
17,000 men apply to MIT
8900 women apply to MIT
600 men were accepted
612 women were accepted
If we assume male and female applicants to MIT are roughly the same, the probability this happens by chance, let alone every year for a while
The probability of a sex blind admission process creating this result is 1 in 4 × 10³¹
Brad Crawford retweeted
In light of this, I motion that @elonmusk create a new MIT. One of my followers suggested it be called the Musk Institute of Technology. With merit, it would produce the most impressive graduates in the country. DEI for schools, nations and companies makes them dysfunctional, evil and insufferable. It’s the enemy of innovation and progress for humanity. Skin and sex should never be a thought in the process. Give the best tools to the best candidates and watch humanity flourish in the long run. That’s the path to greatness.
It’s even worse than Anish notes here because boys make up 61% of the top SAT scores. So despite that fact and the fact that men apply about 2x as often to MIT; @MIT admits more women every year than men. It’s impossible for this to be merit based. Just mathematically impossible.
Brad Crawford retweeted
You are not allowed to notice the replacement until the replacement is irreversible.
That is the actual policy.
Brad Crawford retweeted
Managing the checkout at a Dollar General is infinitely more honorable than providing legal aid to illegal aliens in Texas
This quoted post is unavailable.
Brad Crawford retweeted
Italian bishops just put out “fact sheets” for Catholic schools that call the Quran “the revealed word of God.”
Cardinal Zuppi calls it an antidote to violence and ignorance. The material was developed with Muslim partners. It treats Islamic claims as something to affirm rather than examine.
While Christians are killed for their faith from Nigeria to the Middle East, the Church is teaching Italian children that the Quran is divine revelation. This is not dialogue. This is surrender
Brad Crawford retweeted
Primary sources:
Vatican News coverage of the Oct 21 presentation: vaticannews.va/it/chiesa/new…
Official CEI page with free PDFs of all 11 Schede per conoscere l’Islam (incl. sheet 4 titled “Il Corano: parola rivelata di Dio”): unedi.chiesacattolica.it/202…
Full volume: unedi.chiesacattolica.it/wp-…
Critical reporting: lifesitenews.com/news/italys…
Brad Crawford retweeted
The public school system is not only designed to dumb you down, but to train you to be obedient to the children of the rich and powerful - who receive a different education in how to operate as the future ruling class.
"...when you can't win under the rules, you change the referee. And a majority that rewrites the rules in its favor doesn't plan on being a minority again."
A Letter to America, From a Frenchman Who Loves You
Yesterday, the Prime Minister of Poland posted this: "Restoring the rule of law is our duty. After years of PiS-led lawlessness, this is a difficult process, sometimes painful, and it requires decisive action. There is no other way."
Read it slowly. "There is no other way." In today's Europe, that is the sentence a government says right before doing something it could not do through the normal rules.
I'm French. I'm the grandson of a farmer from Brittany. I taught myself to code at twelve, spent a year in Silicon Valley when I was young, and today I build a tech company between Paris and San Francisco. I'm writing to you because I watch what is happening to my continent, and I'm afraid you are about to take the same road.
Let me tell you what "rule of law" means in Europe now.
When Donald Tusk came to power in December 2023, one of his first moves was to take over Poland's public broadcaster. Rather than pass a media law the president would veto, his government used corporate law to replace its leadership, and the state news channel briefly went dark. When that was blocked, it put public TV into liquidation. When the Constitutional Tribunal ruled against the government, the government stopped recognizing its rulings. Tusk himself said openly that restoring the rule of law would sometimes require decisions that would not fully meet the criteria of legality.
And Brussels? For years, the European Commission froze billions in EU funds to Poland over "rule of law" concerns under the previous conservative government. Once Tusk was in, it unfroze the money and closed its proceedings.
That's the lesson. In Europe, the rule of law is no longer a principle. It is a label. When a conservative government reshapes the courts, it's an assault on democracy. When a pro-Brussels government ignores a court, it's "restoring the rule of law."
It isn't only Poland. In Romania in December 2024, the Constitutional Court annulled the first round of a presidential election after the wrong candidate came first. In France, a TV channel, C8, lost its broadcasting license in 2025, and this week a member of parliament declared that shutting down CNEWS, the most-watched news channel in the country, is "a priority." In Germany, domestic intelligence labeled the main opposition party extremist. In Brussels, the Digital Services Act gives unelected commissioners the power to fine platforms up to 6% of global revenue, and its first fine ever went to X, with more investigations into "disinformation" still open.
There are no gulags here. Let me be precise about that. But there is a reflex: an elite that knows better than the people, that decides what the people are allowed to read, and that corrects their vote when it comes out wrong.
Now let me tell you why you are the first power on earth.
It's not oil. It's not size. It's not luck. Europe has had all of those. You are number one because you built your entire system on a radical idea: the individual comes before the state. Your First Amendment doesn't say "speech shall be protected unless it's disinformation." It says Congress shall make no law. Your Constitution protects private property against the government that wrote it. And your culture lets people fail and try again.
In France, a founder who fails carries it for life. In America, a founder who fails is called experienced. In Europe, we passed a law to regulate artificial intelligence before we had an AI industry. You built the industry. That's not an accident. That's what happens when a society trusts its citizens more than its bureaucrats.
Your system is not perfect. Your politics are loud, ugly and polarized, and I see it. But it is fairer than ours, because it was designed by people who distrusted power, including the power of good intentions. That distrust is the most valuable thing you own.
So here is what worries me as I watch you vote on Tuesday.
From Paris, when I look at the Democratic side, I recognize the European reflex. I saw an administration lean on social media platforms to take down posts; Mark Zuckerberg later wrote to Congress that the government had repeatedly pressured Meta to censor content and that he regretted not pushing back. I saw a proposal to tax unrealized gains, meaning taxing wealth you haven't even sold. I hear calls to end the filibuster, add seats to the Supreme Court, and add new states to the Senate. Each one can be defended on its own. Together, they look like what Europe did: when you can't win under the rules, you change the referee. And a majority that rewrites the rules in its favor doesn't plan on being a minority again.
The twentieth century already ran the collectivist experiment, and it ran it to the end. Every time a state decided that individuals were a means to a collective goal, and that some category of people stood in the way of justice, it ended in camps and mass graves. Tens of millions dead. But it never started with camps. It started with good intentions, a moral elite, and a list of things that were too dangerous to say, too much to own, too misinformed to count.
I'm not telling you Democratic voters are Bolsheviks. Most of them are your neighbors and they want good things. I'm telling you the reflex is real, that I live under it every day, and that you are the last big country on earth built to resist it.
When Europeans want to build something, we look at you. When we leave, we go to you. If you become us, there is nowhere left to go.
Keep your First Amendment. Keep your property. Keep your right to fail. Vote on Tuesday.
From Paris, with love, and with fear.
Brad Crawford retweeted
Je parle souvent de La Route de la servitude de Friedrich Hayek. Je vais être direct : pour moi, quiconque lit ce livre en étant sain d'esprit et n'en ressort pas libéral et profondément anti-étatiste est soit fou, soit stupide, soit corrompu. Soit les trois à la fois.
Voici pourquoi. Masterclass.
D'abord, l'homme.
Friedrich Hayek naît à Vienne en 1899, dans un empire qui se croit éternel. À 18 ans, il est sur le front italien. Quand il rentre, l'empire n'existe plus. Il voit l'Autriche sombrer dans l'hyperinflation, les économies d'une vie effacées en quelques mois.
Il devient l'élève de Ludwig von Mises, celui qui avait démontré qu'un planificateur sans prix libres navigue à l'aveugle. En 1931, il part enseigner à Londres et devient le grand rival intellectuel de Keynes. En 1938, il voit son pays natal avalé par Hitler sous les acclamations de la foule. Il prend la nationalité britannique.
C'est là, en pleine guerre, entre 1940 et 1943, qu'il écrit son livre. Pas contre les nazis : tout le monde l'était déjà. Contre quelque chose de bien plus dérangeant. Il voit les élites anglaises, les meilleurs esprits, les gens les mieux intentionnés, reprendre exactement les idées qui avaient mené l'Allemagne au désastre. Planification, direction de l'économie, organisation « scientifique » de la société.
Il dédie le livre « aux socialistes de tous les partis ». Tout est dit.
Trois éditeurs américains le refusent. Il sort en 1944, s'épuise en quelques semaines, puis le Reader's Digest le condense pour des millions de lecteurs. Keynes lui-même, son grand adversaire, lui écrit qu'il en approuve moralement et philosophiquement presque chaque ligne. Trente ans plus tard, Hayek reçoit le prix Nobel. Thatcher relit le livre en 1974 et change la trajectoire de l'Angleterre.
Le titre, d'ailleurs, est un hommage à un Français : Tocqueville, qui avait vu venir le despotisme doux.
Maintenant, ce que dit le livre. En clair.
Première idée : personne ne sait assez pour planifier.
La connaissance qui fait tourner une économie n'est dans aucun bureau. Elle est éparpillée dans des millions de têtes : l'agriculteur qui sait quand sa terre est prête, le commerçant qui sent son quartier changer, l'artisan qui connaît son fournisseur. Le prix libre est le seul système capable de rassembler tout ça en un signal. Remplacez les prix par un plan, et vous remplacez le savoir de millions de gens par l'ignorance de quelques-uns.
Deuxième idée : contrôler l'économie, c'est contrôler la vie.
On croit que l'économie est un domaine à part, matériel, secondaire. Faux. Celui qui contrôle les moyens contrôle les fins. S'il décide de ce que vous pouvez produire, acheter, chauffer, cultiver, il décide de la façon dont vous vivez. Il n'y a pas de liberté politique sans liberté économique.
Troisième idée : une démocratie ne peut pas se mettre d'accord sur un plan.
Tout le monde veut « un plan ». Personne ne veut le même. Le Parlement débat, tergiverse, se divise. L'impatience monte, et on finit par dire : laissons faire les experts. On délègue à des agences, des commissions, des autorités « indépendantes ». La démocratie ne meurt pas d'un coup d'État. Elle se dessaisit elle-même, par lassitude.
Quatrième idée : l'État de droit contre l'arbitraire.
Dans un pays libre, l'État fixe des règles générales, connues à l'avance, les mêmes pour tous, comme le code de la route. Vous savez à quoi vous attendre et vous construisez votre vie autour. Dans un pays planifié, l'État décide au cas par cas : qui a droit à quoi, quel secteur survit, quelle région est sacrifiée. Ce n'est plus la loi qui gouverne, c'est la volonté de quelqu'un.
Cinquième idée, la plus terrible : pourquoi les pires arrivent au sommet.
C'est le chapitre que tout le monde devrait lire. Quand le plan échoue, et il échoue toujours, il faut contraindre. Il faut des gens prêts à faire ce que les gens honnêtes refusent de faire. Le système ne promeut pas les meilleurs, il sélectionne ceux qui n'ont pas de scrupules. Et pour souder une majorité autour du plan, rien ne marche mieux qu'un ennemi commun : le riche, l'étranger, le récalcitrant.
Sixième idée : la fin de la vérité.
Un plan a besoin que tout le monde y croie. Alors l'information devient un instrument. Ce qui sert le plan est vrai, ce qui le gêne devient de la « désinformation ». La propagande n'est pas un accident du dirigisme. C'est une nécessité.
Et la leçon centrale, celle qui glace le sang : ceux qui ouvrent la route ne sont pas des monstres. Ce sont des gens sincères, cultivés, bien intentionnés. Ils veulent la justice, la sécurité, le progrès. Ils ne voient pas où mène le chemin. Les monstres arrivent après, quand le terrain est prêt.
Ce livre est une bouteille à la mer. Hayek nous a laissé le mode d'emploi pour reconnaître la pente avant qu'elle devienne un précipice.
Et que fait l'Europe ? Elle rejoue le livre, chapitre par chapitre.
Les règles générales remplacées par des milliers de normes au cas par cas. Des décisions qui pèsent sur nos vies prises par une Commission que personne n'a élue et que personne ne peut renvoyer. Des plans à vingt-cinq ans pour l'énergie, l'agriculture, l'industrie, l'automobile, comme si quelqu'un à Bruxelles savait mieux que 450 millions d'Européens ce qu'il faudra produire en 2050. Et quand ça échoue, on ne remet jamais le plan en cause. On ajoute une couche : une taxe, une interdiction, un régulateur.
Le plus cruel, c'est l'ironie. En 1939, Hayek défendait l'idée d'une fédération européenne. Mais une fédération où ni le centre ni les États ne pourraient diriger l'économie. Une union pour libérer les échanges, pas pour piloter les vies. Nos européistes ont gardé le mot « fédération » et jeté tout le reste. Ils ont construit exactement ce contre quoi il nous mettait en garde.
Ils avaient le livre à portée de main. Ils refont les mêmes erreurs, avec les mêmes bonnes intentions et le même mépris pour ceux qui doutent.
Je ne crois pas que l'histoire se répète à l'identique. Je crois qu'elle rime. Au XXe siècle, la route de la servitude a mené au pire : des tyrans fous, des peuples broyés, des dizaines de millions de morts. Ceux qui avaient ouvert la route n'avaient jamais voulu ça.
J'espère que, pour une fois dans l'histoire, nous saurons nous arrêter avant. Que nous n'attendrons pas le tyran pour comprendre où menait le chemin.
Hayek nous a tout dit il y a quatre-vingts ans. La seule question est de savoir si nous saurons le lire à temps.
Lisez La Route de la servitude. Puis offrez-le à quelqu'un que vous aimez.
Christine Lagarde publie son autobiographie le 4 février 2027. Titre : « Lady First ».
Pile au moment où elle s'apprête à quitter la BCE avant la fin de son mandat.
Officiellement, c'est pour laisser Macron choisir son successeur. Et la rumeur l'envoie à la tête de Davos.
Un livre-portrait, une sortie anticipée, une présidentielle trois mois plus tard. Vous croyez aux coïncidences ?
On va essayer de vous la vendre. Pour comprendre ce qu'on va vous vendre, il faut d'abord comprendre ce qu'est le mondialisme.
Le mot est tellement utilisé qu'il ne veut plus rien dire. Reprenons.
Le mondialisme, ce n'est pas le commerce international. Des pays libres qui échangent des biens, c'est le marché. Le mondialisme, c'est l'inverse : l'idée que les grandes décisions (monnaie, énergie, frontières, normes, dépenses) doivent remonter toujours plus haut, vers des instances que personne n'a élues et que personne ne peut révoquer.
Ce projet a un nom. C'est un projet de planification centrale. C'est un projet communiste.
Pas le communisme du drapeau rouge et du kolkhoze. C'est le communisme des comités, des normes, des « trajectoires », des objectifs fixés d'en haut pour 450 millions de personnes.
Mises l'a démontré dès 1920 : sans prix libres, un planificateur ne peut pas calculer. Aussi intelligent soit-il, il navigue à l'aveugle.
Hayek a enfoncé le clou en 1945. Le savoir qui fait tourner une économie est dispersé dans des millions de têtes : entrepreneurs, agriculteurs, artisans, ingénieurs. Aucun bureau ne peut le centraliser. Ceux qui prétendent le faire ne planifient pas l'économie, ils la détruisent.
Dans La Route de la servitude, il décrit la suite. Quand le plan échoue, on ne remet jamais le plan en cause. On accuse le peuple, on serre la vis, on retire des libertés. C'est mécanique : plus le centre est loin, plus il doit contraindre.
Le Gosplan avait ses plans quinquennaux. Nous avons des « Green Deal », des « Pactes » et des « Agendas 2030 ». C'est la même logique, avec un meilleur marketing.
Ce projet n'est pas un fantasme, il est écrit noir sur blanc. Jacques Attali, l'ancien conseiller de Mitterrand, plaide ouvertement pour un gouvernement mondial.
Lisez « Demain, qui gouvernera le monde ? ». Il ne s'en cache pas. C'est la matrice intellectuelle de toute une génération de dirigeants français.
Attal. Philippe. Glucksmann. Lagarde.
Les étiquettes changent, la direction reste la même : toujours plus de pouvoir loin de vous, toujours moins de pouvoir chez vous.
Lagarde en est l'incarnation parfaite : Bercy, le FMI, la BCE, et peut-être Davos.
Jamais élue au suffrage universel à une fonction exécutive, toujours aux commandes. Le récit est déjà prêt : la femme des premières fois, la compétente, la rassurante, celle « au-dessus des partis ». La candidate idéale d'un système qui n'a plus de candidat.
Ne vous faites pas avoir.
Place au Brivadamus.
Si l'extrême centre rafle encore 2027, ce seront les dernières vraies élections de ce pays.
On ne supprimera pas le vote, mais il ne décidera plus de rien, parce que tout ce qui compte aura été transféré plus haut. Vous voterez encore, comme on vote dans ces pays où le résultat ne change rien.
Ce sera 1984 avec un label RSE. Et l'Europe, la vraie, celle des nations, des peuples et des cultures, ne s'en relèvera pas.
2027 n'est pas une élection comme les autres.
C'est la dernière sortie avant l'autoroute.
Brivadamus a parlé.
Brad Crawford retweeted
When the de facto leader of the lawfare movement openly admits that a massive, coordinated scheme to deceive voters and manipulate an election is just “politics, not criminality,” you know they are dead to rights.
These are the same people who have spent years weaponizing the criminal justice system against their political opponents. Now they expect everyone to shrug off a meticulously organized operation to deceive the electorate.
Absolutely not. This is the moment to go after the entire operation with everything the law allows. Every participant, every lawyer, every operative, every person who financed or coordinated this scheme must face full scrutiny and accountability. No more sweeping it under the rug. There can be absolutely no justification for letting them get away with it.
A 2nd Dan Sullivan on Alaska's ballot is politics not criminality, & Alaska's Supreme Court already said he could stay on
Last week Trump's DOJ sued to stop AK from certifying the result, & now it's making a fed case 5 days before the election -TN
apnews.com/article/alaska-pe…
Brad Crawford retweeted
These are very important insights into media lawfare. Always assume that the media already know everything when it comes to these operations.
Take the fraudulent Steele dossier, for instance. The media knew about it before anyone else. They also knew it came from the Clinton campaign, yet kept that information to themselves, carefully walking a fine line whereby they used their inside knowledge to drive the fake Russia collusion narrative while maintaining the appearance of independent reporting, so that they could later deny knowing more than they were telling the public.
The same goes for the FISA warrants, the Biden Ukraine corruption, the fake Dan Sullivan operation in Alaska, and countless other examples.
The media are part of the lawfare machine. They have an assigned role in these operations, specifically to drive particular narratives, shape public perception, and provide political cover.
And when something goes wrong, they adjust their tactics accordingly. When our little group managed to identify the fraudster behind the Steele dossier, they went on the offensive and attacked us. In the case of the fake Dan Sullivan operation, they simply threw him under the bus, pretending to have discovered something they had known about all along.
The important thing to understand is that the media are part of these operations from the beginning.
Stop thinking of these people as merely biased journalists who hate Trump. Of course they hate Trump, but it is much worse than that. They are lawfare operatives, integral to these operations and working toward the ultimate goal of one party rule.
Hey folks. This is an exact repeat scenario from the 2016 CP FISA warrant and the demand for it to be public. Same players, same actors.
No one should be silly enough to believe the target Ilhan Omar didn't already share the warrant with political allies as it was delivered to her and her representatives during execution.
IMHO, without a doubt the media already have the executed warrant in their hands, the Lawfare operatives have reviewed the content and defensive meetings and strategy sessions have already taken place in person and in chat groups with ideologically aligned jour-o-listers.
The alternative is to believe that Ilhan Omar did not share it with democrat leadership, the DSA group, media allies, advocates and lawyers who represent her interests. So, the question is, should the same search warrant background be made public?
All of the advocates and lawyers may have full knowledge of the material in the search warrant; however, they are not able to execute the public defense strategy without revealing that Omar has given it to them. Thus, they want it public.
Enter, Judge James Boasberg who, not coincidentally was the central figure in the Title-1 FISA Warrant request from 2017, and who will now be the decisionmaker on whether -for the first time in history- a search warrant was released to the public prior to the fully executed process to obtain the material that is inside the warrant itself.
The public release of a non-fully executed search warrant has never happened before.
The public release of a Title-1 Surveillance Warrant (the CP FISA warrant) also never happened before, until suddenly it was released in 2018.... for some odd reason (never explained), despite the national security shield that surrounds the entire FISA system, which easily blocks any public releases.
Brad Crawford retweeted
Because nobody was ever held accountable for Russiagate, the original lawfare operation, the whole machinery has only grown more brazen and sophisticated.
Marc Elias used the fake Steele dossier to push Russia collusion smears. In Alaska, his firm has taken the same playbook a step further, engineering a dirty trick and then turning to the courts to protect the result of that scheme.
Imagine Elias commissioning the Steele dossier and then marching straight into court, waving it around as evidence and demanding that a judge give legal force to the lies he had manufactured (back then, he used the FBI for that purpose, but now he simply cuts out the middleman and does it himself).
That's what happens when nobody is ever held accountable. They learn that there is no price to pay, so they keep escalating, growing bolder and more ruthless with every operation. And why wouldn't they? They've been taught that they can get away with anything.
The bigger revelation from the Alaska episode isn’t just that a decoy candidate was recruited. It’s that lawyers from Marc Elias’s law firm who were apparently involved in the scheme were also involved in the subsequent lawsuits aimed at challenging or suppressing the fallout.
I think the overlap between those orchestrating the operation and those litigating its aftermath deserves far more scrutiny than it’s receiving.
Brad Crawford retweeted
But really though I mean who among us doesn’t inadvertently file taxes jointly with someone we never legally married — but who happens to be the parent of our kids — while being legally married to someone else bearing the same family name, in a ceremony presided over by a minister of an entirely different faith, while having resided at the same residence as both people simultaneously before the legal husband fled the country after the feds questioned whether it was a sham marriage.
Your quintessential American immigrant story.
If you read American Ingrate, you knew the truth about Ilhan Nur Said Elmi, a/k/a Ilhan Omar, and the twisted web she weaved years before the NYT got around to covering the story. amazon.com/American-Ingrate-…
Everyone should read this @powerlineblog post today.
(powerlineblog.com/archives/2…)
Today is a big day in the curious case of Ilhan Omar. In the world of @londonoe and the New York Times, Ilhan Omar's fraudulent marriage to her brother is no longer simply "fodder for conservative bloggers."
powerlineblog.com/archives/2…
My personal internet winner of the day.
Comments are great also.
This Post is from a suspended account. Learn more
Brad Crawford retweeted
Brazil is a preview of what happens when the lawfare machine is allowed to run to its logical conclusion, which is de facto one party rule, all while preserving the illusion of democracy.
For years, there has been relentless lawfare in Brazil, especially against the Bolsonaro family, along with an assassination attempt and massive manipulation of and by the courts. The point was always to take conservatives off the playing field and establish a permanent grip on power.
That is the endgame of lawfare, and it is happening in America as well. It’s just that many people still don’t see it or where it all leads. Lawfare is no more about the Bolsonaros than it is about Trump. It’s about one party rule.
Flavio Bolsonaro's passport was cancelled and he was forced to flee the country by Lula, Alexandre De Moraes, and the insane Brazilian regime.
His brother Eduardo has an arrest warrant out for lobbying the US. His father, Jair Bolsonaro is serving 27 years. Victims of political persecution, all of them.
It's time for the Brazilian left to face the full force of American diplomatic and economic sanctions until they stop acting like a banana republic.
The Trump administration lifted Magnitsky Act sanctions on de Moraes, his wife, and his holding company last December. They should be immediately reimposed.
Further, visa bans should be imposed on every government official who has touched the Bolsonaro investigations - and their families too.
Finally, Section 301 tariffs on Brazilian goods should be quadrupled.
The Brazilian regime should look carefully at what has happened to Venezuela and Cuba, and remember that this hemisphere belongs to the United States of America.
Brad Crawford retweeted
One of the most important priorities of the past two years should have been to break Washington DC’s monopoly over the adjudication of virtually anything that can be connected to the capital, however remotely.
The system is totally dysfunctional and fundamentally unfair, whereby anyone who is not a Democrat has no chance of receiving a fair hearing, let alone justice, while Democrats themselves are completely shielded from accountability.
That was painfully clear during Trump’s first term, became even more glaring with the January 6 prosecutions, and was illustrated yet again by travesties such as the grotesque $1 million judgment against Mark Steyn for criticizing climate change “research.” The constitutional promise of a fair trial and jury of one’s peers is completely meaningless in DC for anyone who is not on the far left.
None of this is new. Many of us have been warning about this problem for years and proposing various ways to address it. Yet, predictably, absolutely nothing has been done, and nothing will be done.
