OOPS: Stuxnet-Style Virus Failed to Infiltrate North Korea’s Nuclear Program.

AT AMAZON, give the gift of Amazon Prime between now and Father’s Day, and Amazon will donate $10 to cancer research.

FLYING: Airbus confirms software configuration error caused plane crash: Airbus A400M flight recorder data confirms “quality issue” in setup caused failure.

I PITY THE FOOL: Naomi Shaeffer Riley is en fuego at the New York Post, penning an oped on Laura Kipnis’s sad, slow awakening to the progressive culture of which she is/was a part:

The charges against Kipnis were dropped over the weekend, but not before she submitted to what she referred to as her “Title IX Inquisition.”

A law firm hired by Northwestern to investigate at first even refused to reveal the nature of the accusations against her. Lawyers told her they wanted to ask her questions but she wasn’t entitled to have her own lawyer present.

Nor could she record the session, during which she was interrogated about her writing, her teaching and even tweets she’d sent.

It’s hard to work up too much sympathy for Kipnis, though. One wonders where she’s been for the past two decades when kangaroo courts were set up at institutions of higher education all over the country.

Has she been rushing to defend all the men convicted by campus courts of sexual assault with no lawyers present?

Kipnis learned (much to her surprise) that, as she wrote, “any Title IX charge that’s filed has to be investigated, which effectively empowers anyone on campus to individually decide, and expand, what Title IX covers. Anyone with a grudge, a political agenda, or a desire for attention can quite easily leverage the system.”

No kidding. And Title IX is only the tip of the iceberg. Anyone with a political agenda and an ax to grind can get professors reprimanded, students kicked off campus and commencement speakers disinvited.

Did self-described feminist Kipnis rush to the defense of Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Condoleezza Rice when they were told they couldn’t come to Brandeis and Rutgers? (In an essay for Slate, Kipnis referred to Condi as President George W. Bush’s “Stepford Wife.”)

Has she been defending Christina Hoff Sommers when the students at Georgetown and Oberlin tried to prevent her from giving a visiting lecture and then demanding “safe spaces” to be protected from her harsh words?

Of course she didn’t.

Do I feel sorry for Kipnis? Yes, I pity the fool, for not opening her eyes and seeing what little fascist enclaves universities have become thanks to progressive intolerance and lack of ideological “diversity.”  Other than that, as a court of equity would say, Kipnis has “dirty hands,” and her involvement in the progressive cabal diminishes her entitlement to relief.

JOE PAPPALARDO: How Russian and American Weapons Would Match Up in a New Cold War.

RACISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION: To get into elite colleges, some advised to ‘appear less Asian.’ “Some call it ‘the bamboo ceiling’ of racial quotas, telling stories of Asian-American students with perfect SAT scores and GPAs turned down by elite colleges who limit the number of Asians they will admit, effectively forcing them to face a higher bar for admissions than other racial groups, including whites.”

CAN YOU TEACH AN OLD DOG NEW TRICKS? Richard Epstein: An Economics Lesson For Bernie Sanders.

DEMOCRATS’ #WARONWOMEN: S.E. Cupp has an incisive oped about the Democrats’ objections to a GOP effort to increase over-the-counter (OTC) access to birth control:

If you’re one of the 10 million women in America who uses the pill, the prospect is nothing short of life-changing. Going to the doctor to refill the pill every month or even a couple times a year is annoying and time-consuming. And, according to many doctors, it’s unnecessary. The pill is safe to take without a prescription. . . .

But if Republican Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, along with four other GOP senators, were expecting flowers from Planned Parenthood and others for their bill, the Allowing Greater Access to Safe and Effective Contraception Act, they should brace for disappointment. Suddenly, the idea doesn’t sound so great, and the former supporters aren’t mincing words.

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said the bill is a “sham and an insult to women.”

Karen Middleton of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado even got personal, saying, “Cory Gardner can’t be trusted when it comes to Colorado women and their health care.”

Beneath the fear-mongering lies the more likely reason for the change of heart on the left. The bill was simply introduced by the wrong party.

If Democrats cede this issue to Republicans, they lose a major chit in their “war on women” narrative. For years, pro-choice groups have been peddling the charge that Republicans are against access to birth control. But it’s utterly (and provably) false.

Indeed. Republican presidential candidates should push this issue hard.

TAXPROF ROUNDUP: The IRS Scandal, Day 754.

TENURE’S DEMISE BEGINS?: A Wisconsin state legislative committee approved a measure that would, if ultimately enacted, cut $250 million from the University of Wisconsin over two years, and eliminate state laws guaranteeing tenure.  The $250 million cut can be absorbed with little effect by eliminating the unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. As for the tenure reforms:

The elimination of tenure protections was first suggested by [Gov. Scott] Walker back in February, but was considered a longshot proposal. The Joint Finance Committee, however, is tremendously influential, and its decision to send the rollback to the floor of the legislature is seen as making passage much more likely.

By itself, the measure wouldn’t end tenure, but it would remove the current protections it has under state law and allow universities to set their own policies on the matter. In response, current UW system president Ray Cross said the school’s board of regents will act to enshrine tenure as university policy in a meeting later this week.

More details:

In addition to removing tenure from state law, the budget committee called to make it easier for tenured faculty to be fired or laid off. One provision eliminates current law requiring that tenured faculty only be removed for just cause and only after due notice and hearing. Another provision gives Regents authority to lay off any employee, including tenured faculty, if budget circumstances call for it. Seniority protections would go away, although seniority would be one factor considered in who loses jobs.

Darling stated that Wisconsin is the only state that has job protections for tenured faculty written into statutes, which Radomski said was a point of pride for many faculty and a reason faculty find System campuses a desirable place despite comparatively low salaries. The GOP motion calls for the Board of Regents to determine whether to have tenure and what it would entail.

UW faculty are fighting mad. I have mixed feelings about this, and it’s not because I have tenure (which I do).  Undoubtedly, tenure inherently creates some “dead wood”–faculty that slack off and lose interest in their jobs once they know they have a presumptive job for life.  And it would be nice to have a higher education system that reflects a real world ethos of rewarding excellence and punishing lethargy–among faculty, staff and administrators.

On the other hand, the original justification for tenure in higher education (and notice that this emphatically does not apply to lower education, where elementary, middle school and high school teachers do not undertake scholarship as part of their job) is that the job does generally require and involve scholarship, and sometimes that scholarship is politically controversial. Tenure was designed to ensure that scholars could feel free to express their views, without fear of retribution based on viewpoint discrimination. And frankly, it’s conservative professors who need this protection the most, as they are inherently swimming in a sea of progressive colleagues/deans/administrators/sharks who would be tempted to “punish” conservative scholarly viewpoints and activities. These concerns potentially could be allayed with robust statutory protections against viewpoint discrimination, but this would encourage expensive litigation whenever a faculty member is fired. Whether these costs would outweigh the benefits isn’t as clear as it may seem initially.

In any event, the Wisconsin legislature’s proposal represents a thoughtful beginning to an important discussion about what tenure means, and when it is needed (if ever).

FORTUNATELY, WE HAVE SMART DIPLOMACY^TM ON THE JOB, SO NO WORRIES: The Middle East Aflame: Sectarian War in Saudi Arabia?

fter ISIS struck two Shi’a mosques in Saudi Arabia with suicide bombs, the worst sectarian violence the Kingdom has seen in recent times, Saudi authorities have begun a security crackdown in the country’s Eastern Province. But that hasn’t reassured the country’s minority Shi’a population, who are now forming militias for protection. In turn, the authorities are alarmed by these volunteers, and report that some are already being arrested. In the midst of the Saudi war on the Shi’a Houthi in Yemen, anti-Shi’a sentiment within the Kingdom is on the rise. ISIS is making use of that feeling to recruit; as one expert put it, “Rather than going after foreigners in well-defended compounds, [young Saudis] are blowing up fellow Saudis, who happen to be Shia.”
When ISIS struck Saudi Arabia two weeks ago, we noted that, “An attack like this both strengthens ISIS’ claim to be a pan-Sunni, anti-Shi’a “defense” force and sows division within what ISIS would see as a rival for the leadership of the Sunni world, Saudi Arabia.” The development of the Shi’a militias would appear to show the early success of that strategy. Divide et impera is a universal principle, after all—and ISIS has thrived since its beginning on ethnic strife.

The dark hopes of groups like ISIS for a region-wide sectarian war have been having a good run lately, with local forces separating into religious camps from Syria to Yemen. In the absence of an American-guaranteed regional balance of power, such patterns are likely to continue.

You know, maybe Obama’s not crazy here. I remember back after Saddam fell, Josh Marshall worried that we hadn’t killed enough Iraqis to have the kind of psychological effect that World War II generated in the Germans and the Japanese, quelling further resistance. Perhaps the foreign policy geniuses in the Obama Administration have taken this advice to heart, and figure that a decade or so of bloody religious strife throughout the Muslim world will produce a renewed appreciation for secularism. I don’t know if this is their plan or not — I mean, if it were, they wouldn’t come out and say so, would they? — but if it is their plan, then congratulations on stellar execution.

BUT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO SAVE $2,500 PER YEAR!: Brace yourself for Obamacare sticker shock.

Health insurers are proposing to raise Obamacare rates more than in the past — some by more than 70 percent — now that they are finally equipped with all the information they need to price those plans.

Plans wanting to raise rates by at least 10 percent next year posted the proposed increase online Monday, as required by the 2010 healthcare law. Insurers are allowed to raise rates each year, but they must publish significant increases ahead of time.

Insurers have sold plans in the law’s new insurance marketplaces for two years in a row. But the difference in 2016 is that for the first time, they have a full year of claims data from enrollees that tells them how high or low to set the price tag. . . .

While plans and rates vary by state, a look at rate increases published Monday on healthcare.gov shows many hovering around 10 to 30 percent in many states.

But there’s also a sprinkling of even bigger hikes. Blue Cross wants to raise its most expensive “platinum” plan in Alabama by 71 percent next year. Aetna wants to charge 59 percent more for one of its small group plans in Virginia. Time Insurance Co. is proposing a 64 percent hike for an individual plan in Georgia.

Gosh, what happened to that $2500 per year savings we were promised? Same thing that happened to the “if you like your plan/doctor, you can keep it/him.”  I think we need trigger warnings for all Obamacare-related news items, since it inevitably causes painful flashbacks of these promises.  It’s like intellectual rape over and over again. 

“REYNOLDS’ LAW” IN AN INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT: “There’s nothing more valuable than a U.S. passport. And there’s nothing that would reduce global inequality more than issuing a few more of them.” Americans are rich and successful compared to the rest of the world. Bring foreigners to America and they’ll be rich and successful too! To be fair, he does admit that there’s a tipping point somewhere. . . .

AT AMAZON, fresh deals on bestselling products, updated every hour.

Also, coupons galore in Grocery & Gourmet Food.

Plus, Kindle Daily Deals.

And, Today’s Featured Digital Deal. The deals are brand new every day, so browse and save!

HILLARY: Great moments in retail politicking: “Go to the end of the line”?

Related: Women-Only “Conversation With Hillary Clinton” Event Sells Only 50 Tickets, So Men Are Invited. Maybe this whole “vagina politics” thing is overrated?

PRINCIPLES: Rand Paul just sacrificed his presidential campaign for his libertarian principles.

CLUELESS: Obama claims he has restored the U.S. to the most respected nation on earth:

“People don’t remember, but when I came into office, the Untied States in world opinion ranked below China and just barley above Russia, and today once again, the Untied States is the most respected country on earth. Part of that I think is because of the work we did to reengage the world and say we want to work with you as partners with mutual interests and mutual respect. It was on that basis we were able to end two wars while still focusing on the very real threat of terrorism and try to work with our partners in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s the reason why we are moving in the direction to normalize relations with Cuba and the nuclear deal that we are trying to negotiate with Iran.”

What is he smoking? As John Hayward points out in his new Breitbart oped:

A “recovery” that just gave us a negative 0.7 percent contraction, a health care plan that hasn’t lived up to a single one of its promises – and is bidding to blow health insurance costs into orbit next year – and foreign policy that wiped out America’s influence in virtually every corner of the world, especially the Middle East, where the gains in Iraq were thrown away, and the group Obama misjudged as the “junior varsity league” of terrorism is sacking cities? What’s not to love? Hey, America is more popular in Cuba and Iran now, right? . . .

How will history judge Obama? Who cares? It’s how the present is judging him that should scare us out of wits. It’s also hard to avoid noticing that his prospective Democrat successors aren’t exactly treating him as a model President whose policies they intend to emulate.

Exactly. It’s the present danger presented by President Obama’s incompetence/indifference/indolence that matters–and we still have 18 long months to go.

LACKING SELF AWARENESS:  Obama tells Asian leaders, “One of my core principles is that I will never engage in a politics in which I’m trying to divide people or make them less than me because they look different or have a different religion,” Obama said. “That’s a core principle, that’s not something I would violate.”

How principled of him. But then again, notice he limits his principle to dividing or devaluing people because they look “different” or have a “different” religion. So inferentially, individuals in the majority (whites and Christians) can/should be divided or devalued?

WELL, THAT’S BECAUSE HE IS: Americans, 3-1, say Obama is losing fight against ISIS.

President Obama, under fire in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail for doing too little to stop the Islamic State terror group, has lost the support of America, with most now saying that the administration isn’t winning the war.

A new poll out Monday found that American voters believe the U.S. and its allies are losing the fight by a margin of 64 percent to 17 percent. “Republicans, Democrats and independent voters, and men and women, all agree the U.S. is losing,” said the latest Quinnipiac University national poll.

And you get the feeling that Obama isn’t all that bothered about it.

JUNIOR VARSITY: While nobody was looking, the Islamic State launched a new, deadly offensive.

THE GERMAN PRESS DISCOVERS THE COLUMBIA MATTRESS-GIRL RAPE HOAX: “What is unimaginable in Germany has a tradition in the United States.”

RON FOURNIER: Why We Can’t Trust the NSA (And Why That’s a Crisis). A greater threat than Iran, ISIS, and “lone wolf” attacks: government lies.

I wrote something similar two years ago.

SO IF CAMPUS RAPE IS SUCH A BIG PROBLEM, HOW COME ALL THE FAMOUS EXAMPLES TURN OUT TO BE LIES? Emily Yoffe looks into The Hunting Ground, finds it wanting.

The recent documentary The Hunting Ground asserts that young women are in grave danger of sexual assault as soon as they arrive on college campuses. The film has been screened at the White House for staff and legislators. Senate Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand, who makes a cameo appearance in the film, cites it as confirmation of the need for the punitive campus sexual assault legislation she has introduced. Gillibrand’s colleague Barbara Boxer, after the film’s premiere said, “Believe me, there will be fallout.” The film has received nearly universal acclaim from critics—the Washington Post called it “lucid,” “infuriating,” and “galvanizing”—and, months after its initial release, its influence continues to grow, as schools across the country host screenings. “If you have a daughter going to any college in America, you need to see The Hunting Ground,” the MSNBC host Joe Scarborough told his viewers in May. This fall, it will get a further boost when CNN, a co-producer, plans to broadcast the film, broadening its audience. The Hunting Ground is helping define the problem of campus sexual assault for policymakers, college administrators, students, and their parents. . . .

Willingham’s story is not an illustration of a sexual predator allowed to run loose by self-interested administrators. The record shows that what happened that night was precisely the kind of spontaneous, drunken encounter that administrators who deal with ca