September 17, 2026

RACISM IS COOL NOW BECAUSE SHUT UP, WHITEY: Nearly 40 universities maintain neo-segregated housing despite HUD demand to end practice.

Research by The College Fix found 39 universities this fall semester operate “affinity housing” or “living-learning communities” geared toward students of a particular race or ethnicity.

Proponents argue such arrangements improve retention rates, foster peer mentorship, and support academic integration for historically underrepresented groups. However, these offerings have been deemed a euphemism for discrimination by the Trump administration. Another term used to describe such arrangements is “neo-segregation.”

Fix research identified 39 universities with one or more such residential programs, but because many universities operate multiple communities, the total number of individual segregated housing programs is substantially higher, coming in at 74.

Of the 39 universities, at least 28 offer housing geared toward black or African students, 17 toward Hispanic or Latino students, 10 toward Native American or Indigenous students, and nine toward Asian students. Several universities offer multiple affinity housing programs.

The dorms are separate but equal, to coin a phrase.

Posted at 9:39 am by Stephen Green

IT’S THE SAME OLD SONG:

Well, cool — I guess we saved the climate.

Posted at 9:23 am by Stephen Green

KRUISER’S MORNING BRIEFING: Karen Bass Will Probably Get Her Shot at Finishing Off Los Angeles. “What’s happened in the eight years since I got out is heartbreaking. I haven’t gone back for a while for a couple of reasons. One is that a good many of the friends I had there have also left California. The other is that some of the friends who are still there have repeatedly told me that the Los Angeles I loved no longer exists at all and that I’d be saddened by what I saw. “

Posted at 9:08 am by Stephen Green

MORNING IN AMERICA:

Posted at 8:35 am by Ed Driscoll

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED:

Posted at 8:21 am by Stephen Green

IT’S MY THURSDAY ESSAY FOR VIP SUBSCRIBERS: They Want to Save Us From AI. Who Saves Us From Them?

America’s most important edge is one that the CCP can’t afford to let China replicate: our free-wheeling, laissez-faire tech culture. From the start of his extended term as Communist Party boss, Xi began reversing China’s decades-old free-market reforms. Under Xi, there’s less of Deng Xiaoping’s “it is glorious to grow rich” mantra and more Party control over pretty much everything.

But that does put China in a bind. AI creates new domestic and international threats to the CCP, but staying behind the US increases the foreign threat, while further advances risk increasing the domestic threat.

That’s one reason, as Eric S. Raymond recently put it, China “officially stated that they consider the calls for an AI pause to be a ‘power play’ and will not be participating in any US-led agreements to slow down development.” The Beijing Times reported on Tuesday that China’s state-owned Global Times accused Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei of proposing a “quiet AI Cold War” to “widen America’s lead” through tech barriers and regulatory schemes.

Any worldwide pause would freeze China’s disadvantages into place.

Whatever the domestic threat might be to CCP control, Beijing can’t afford to slow — that is to tame — Chinese AI development. Getting the Americans to tame themselves, however… in Xi’s eyes, that would be ideal.

But who in the US would ever encourage us to do such a thing?

Enter, stage left: Barack Hussein Obama.

Lots to chew on in this one.

Posted at 8:06 am by Stephen Green

EUROPE PARTYING LIKE IT’S 1939:

● Dutch officials say first toddler euthanized under new state law was “handled well.”

● Merz: the Rise of the AfD Shows Why Free Speech Must Be Curbed.

● Europe: What Climate Change Really Needs Is More Bureaucracy.

Also, America will need a new division of Monuments Men to rescue Europe’s artwork, twenty minutes into the future:

Posted at 7:45 am by Ed Driscoll

FOREIGN INFLUENCE:

Posted at 7:45 am by Glenn Reynolds

FRICKEN LASER BEAMS, FOR STARTERS: US Space Force Confirms It Has Weapons in Orbit. Here’s What They Could Include.

Space Force doctrine defines space control as offensive and defensive operations conducted to gain and maintain freedom of action in space.

Offensive counter space operations can impair or destroy an adversary’s space capabilities, while defensive operations protect U.S. and allied systems.

That broad mission can involve very different weapons. Kinetic systems destroy or physically damage a target.

Non-kinetic options include electronic warfare that jams communications, cyber operations against satellites or ground stations, and directed energy that can disrupt or damage sensors.

An orbiting spacecraft could also approach another satellite for inspection, servicing or attack. The same maneuvering and robotic technologies can perform peaceful work or hostile acts, making a system’s purpose difficult to judge before it is used.

SM-3 and THAAD Missile tests showing the missiles being fired and intercepting ballistic missiles with dummy warheads.

Meink’s wording does not establish that the United States has placed guns, explosives or missile interceptors in orbit.

Seriously, lasers would be great because they disable, not blow up. Debris fields are bad, mmmkay?

This line stands out, too: “However, he separately said the Space Force had produced flight-ready hardware for planned space-based interceptors under Golden Dome.”

Well, good.

I wrote about all this on Tuesday, but it’s weird how little attention “weapons in orbit” has gotten from the mainstream press. They couldn’t shut up about how “reckless” Reagan was with SDI 40 years ago, slamming it as a Star Wars fantasy.

Maybe they’re quieter now because the stuff works.

Posted at 7:35 am by Stephen Green

RECOGNIZE THE OP WHEN YOU SEE IT:

Posted at 7:19 am by Stephen Green

INDEED:

Posted at 7:00 am by Glenn Reynolds

THE MEAN GIRLS ARE UP ON THE WARPATH:  Here’s What Triggered the Left’s Recent Meltdown Over Sydney Sweeney.

Every ugly girl is a leftist. And they have no appreciation for beauty. Now, at 64 I have no beauty, but maybe it is because I remember being beautiful (or close enough) that I don’t feel the slightest resentment or annoyance at beautiful women. Or maybe because I have an aesthetic appreciation of the beautiful, even beautiful that does nothing for me? I don’t know. What I know is leftists be cray cray.

Posted at 6:32 am by Sarah Hoyt