Dear Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences @TheAcademy: “Reagan” is a historic biopic. Were they supposed to include made-up characters? //

Fan-favorite presidential biopic “Reagan” has been disqualified from consideration for the Best Picture Oscar this year — because it failed to meet the judges’ DEI requirements.

The movie, starring Dennis Quaid as the Republican president, couldn’t hit any of the criteria that the Academy for Motion Pictures requires of Best Picture nominations, including that their casts be at least 30% from traditionally underrepresented groups such as minorities, women and the LGBTQ community.

“By these new rules, many previous winners would never have been recognized,” said “Reagan” screenwriter Howard A. Klausner to The Post. //

“We were among 116 films that were eliminated for consideration this year,” Klausner said as the famed awards ceremony was set to be held Sunday evening. “Obviously, there needs to be a conversation about this policy.”

In observing the trajectory of Western civilization over the past 70 years, one is hard-pressed to honestly assess that the modern global order has truly been good for mankind. Rather than ending warfare, it has spread fighting far beyond the realms of land and sea combat to mass informational war and lawfare waged both internationally and domestically among our fellow citizens.

Decades of American involvement in wars overseas have desensitized Westerners and their militaries. In the U.S., we hear choruses about willingness to die for freedom. Yet when tyrants violate the freedoms of U.S. citizens on American soil, the allegedly brave roll over. “To the guns for Ukraine,” we hear… though we never see those who sport "I stand with Ukraine" iconography deploy to the fight. //

In a just world, Vladimir Putin would be driven from office and sent to the gallows. But his evil nature does not by default bequeath the character of George Washington on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. //

Unlike much of the current "Give war a chance"/Ukraine flag as social media banner mob, I went to war. It's not pleasant. Union General William Tecumseh Sherman rightly described combat as a cruelty that cannot be refined. Thus, it is right that we should seek the option of armed conflict as a last resort—that if war must be waged, we should fully commit to overwhelming force to bring it to an end and work to expeditiously restore peace and ordered liberty. Those who insist on the necessity of a prolonged conflict to "defeat Russia" often fail to recognize the moral costs of such an approach. War should always be a last resort, and when it is waged, it should aim for an expedient resolution. Yet, in the case of Ukraine, many are advocating for a war of attrition that sacrifices human lives—on both sides—in the hope of a political outcome that seems increasingly distant.

Russia was unjustified in starting this war. The U.S. has been unjustified in merely prolonging it. If lawmakers want to argue that American interests are at stake and that destiny demands that the U.S. fight in Ukraine, let them make the case to the public and follow the constitutional rules for committing America to the fight. Otherwise, the choices are to sit this one out, or use the other instruments of national power to help negotiate a lasting peace. But waging proxy war of attrition against fellow human beings who have not lifted a finger against Americans—without a clear victory strategy—does not place us on the moral high ground.

Article

See new posts
Conversation
Elon Musk reposted
More Births
@MoreBirths
A Pronatal Culture is the Clearest Path to Solving the Birthrate Crisis
Many worry that we won't be able to solve the low fertility crisis without terrible costs on society. Some fear women will lose access to birth control and abortion, like in Ceaușescu's Romania.Ceau Others imagine a religious theocracy as in The Handmaids Tale.
A slightly better possibility is the Scandinavian model, where significant sums are spent on subsidies for children. That's not a bad idea. But it seems to take big spending for only modest increases in fertility. Norway, Sweden and Finland all have a fertility rate below 1.5 anyway.
There is a way to solve the fertility crisis that is compatible with reproductive choice, reasonable government spending and a broadly freedom-oriented society. What is that? A society that priorities having children as one of the highest values.
Don't all societies do that? No, it's actually pretty rare in the modern world. Israel and Mongolia are two examples of countries that achieve healthy birthrates through a directly pronatal culture.
In December I wrote "Understanding High Israeli Fertility" about the only rich country with above-replacement fertility.
https://x.com/MoreBirths/status/1870911221630685465
In August I wrote, "Elevating the Status of Motherhood Solves Low Birthrates" about how Mongolia achieves triple the fertility of its neighbors with the help of national celebrations of motherhood. (The top image shows a Mongolian mother of four receiving the Order of Maternal Glory award, at the presidential palace in Ulaanbaatar.)
https://x.com/MoreBirths/status/1827418468813017441
That thread went viral thanks to @ElonMusk.
Both of these countries solve the fertility crisis in the most straightforward way possible. The fact that society needs more children is communicated openly and sincerely, over many years so that everyone in society understands. Having children became not just a personal choice but a national cause.
Building society-wide pronatal belief may not be easy. But that has to be the foundation of any successful pronatal strategy.
What is so great about having children as a national goal? A lot of things:
(1) It is honest about what society needs from people.
Society needs children and will fall apart without them. Most countries aren't willing to openly say it, but nations that do say it, and have a sense of national identity, can see profound results. //

Having children may bring happiness to adults, but so can fine dining and travel to beautiful places. Why should someone choose the first one which is hard instead of the latter two, which are easy? Are we willing to make the ask, to say we need people to have more children?

(2) A pronatal culture makes parenthood and especially motherhood higher status. //

(6) A pronatal culture solves fertility simply, mainly by getting existing parents to have more kids!
One the few examples of a country that went from below replacement fertility to above is Kazakhstan, whose TFR went from 1.8 in 2000 to 3.0 today. It did it much like Mongolia did, by celebrating motherhood and directly urging people to have more children for a brighter future.
What happened in Kazakhstan? First order births hardly changed but third, fourth and fifth+ births rocketed upward.

This has to be the easiest solution! People who aren't ready for kids don't have to have them. Those who already have kids just choose to have more!
Guess what: That is also how the Patriarch of Georgia got his country to raise its birthrate, by persuading parents to have more.

Justin Murphy @jmrphy
The NYT this morning criticized Elon Musk's call to impeach federal judges, accusing him of violating constitutional norms. Well, I looked into the data and it's insane: We stopped impeaching federal judges, despite having more of them now than ever!

The impeachment rate now seems implausibly low.

Either federal judges have become saints, or something is suppressing impeachments.

What is the probability we'd observe zero impeachments from 2011-2024? Using the Poisson distribution, I think it's somewhere around 3-7% depending on how you do it. So it's very fishy.

What's even crazier is that there is a clear political story behind all of this.

The 1980 Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, signed by Jimmy Carter, gave judges the power to police themselves through an obfuscated multi-layer system where chief judges dismiss almost all the complaints and judicial councils choose confidential sanctions in most of the cases where they even admit wrongdoing occurred.

Democrat Senator Chris Murphy (CT) and presumably others encouraged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to reject the prospect of a peace deal without so-called "security guarantees" (a euphemism for American military commitments) just before the now-infamous Oval Office blow-out. //

One of the big questions was how we even arrived at that point. What caused Zelensky to walk into the White House with the sense that he could bully Trump in front of the press and scoff at any diplomatic negotiations? A post made by Murphy gives the game away.

Chris Murphy 🟧

@ChrisMurphyCT
·
Follow
Just finished a meeting with President Zelensky here in Washington. He confirmed that the Ukrainian people will not support a fake peace agreement where Putin gets everything he wants and there are no security arrangements for Ukraine.
4:15 PM · Feb 28, 2025. //

Chris Murphy isn't going to be writing Ukraine a check. All he and his cohorts can do is virtue-signal, and that's not winning any battles against Russia. If things are going to be patched up with the Trump White House, Zelensky has to accept that reality and stop believing that he can bully his way to American military commitments by appealing to the press and Democrats.

Trump will only recoil further at that, and he is never going to set up any "security guarantees" that result in U.S. troops fighting Russia. There's still a path for Zelensky to get much-needed aid for his country, but he has to stop operating like it's still 2022, and the first step in that is to stop listening to Democrats who can not help him. //

Soundwave
2 hours ago
The Democrats are vile. Willing to sacrifice the Ukrainians to the Russian meat grinder just to “embarrass” Trump. They disgust me.

As for the Europeans. Feel free to fund the war without us. Let’s see how long you losers last without us paying for your defense. //

Political-Paige
2 hours ago
My question is: what was the end-goal of the Dem interference?
Was it just to create an embarrassment for Trump? If so, that failed. Trump isn't at all embarrassed, and Zelensky was unceremoniously kicked out of the White House.
Was it to assure WW III for their donors? If so, that failed. We aren't engaging.
Was it to get even more freebies for Ukraine? Why? And if so, wow: was that ever a failure.
Or was it simply to interfere for the sake of interference, because they've been rendered irrelevant and need some pretense to power?
I think the last one is most likely.

RedStater In a Blue Apocalypse Political-Paige
9 minutes ago edited
...to interfere for the sake of throwing mud at the wall at every thing they see as an opportunity to oppose. Undermine any successes that Trump could achieve, whether they miscalculate or not.

...because this is what a panicked crew does on a rapidly sinking ship.

They have nothing left to lose.

For John Morgan, the sky has never just been a career—it’s been a lifelong journey. A journey that has taken him from the left seat of a Cherokee 140 at age 17 to the controls of the world’s last Douglas DC-8 flying humanitarian missions around the world.

As recently as two years ago, there were five operational Douglas DC-8s around the world. Sadly, with the retirement of NASA’s DC-8 last April, N782SP became the sole operational DC-8 after more than five decades of service. Between 1958 and 1972, 556 DC-8s were built at Douglas’ (later McDonnell Douglas) Long Beach, Calif. factory.

That makes John a member of a very elite club in aviation today.

So this really could have been and should have been a positive moment for Ukraine. And then we go to further negotiating with the Russians, bring this war to an end, and, and move the world forward, stop the death and destruction.

But instead, what became clear, and I think what has the president so, uh, so frustrated, and frankly angry, is that it's not clear that Zelensky truly wants to stop the fighting. And he came in, even though he was warned not to, determined to litigate all that in front of the entire world. And the vice president said enough is enough, the president said enough is enough, and I gotta tell you, this was the wrong approach, wrong time in history, and definitely, the wrong president to try to do this kind of thing. This was not Joe Biden, this was Donald J. Trump. I think the entire world saw that, crystal clear. //

If President Zelensky did, for some indecipherable reason, wish to prolong this conflict, what would he have done differently on Friday? //

anon-fht2
9 hours ago edited
If Molly Hemingway is correct, it WAS an ambush, for Trump. Zelensky has supposedly been in communication wth a Democrat/Deep State team that included Rice, Blinken, and others inluding “somoness” from CIA, DHS, and DoD. According to Hemingway, the operative assumption was that Zelensky would embarass Trump. Trump, anxious to save the deal, would capitulate to Zelensky in the public broadcast, destroying his credibility.

If true, this is treason on the part of Rice, Blinken, and the other Obama gang of idiots involved.

It also proves that a massacre in all the agencies is going to be required to root out resisrance collaborators, with sugnificant penitentiary time placed on some worthy exampples to encourage others to turn. This is a war and to lose is to put Americans in place as no longer citizens , but subjects of the bureaucracy. 2 million plus in th4 government bureaucracy; if a quarter of that still exists a year from now the Deep State will just keep coming back.

One could argue that Arizona Senator and 1964 Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater was the pre-Reagan. He was one of the early champions of today's conservatism, of small government and low taxes. He famously said:

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”. //

“Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem,” Ronald Reagan famously said. No doubt he believed it.

Donald Trump is doing something about it. //

Ron Paul has been happy about this. On February 7, he wrote glowingly, “DOGE is ripping through the federal government like a tornado. This morning it has been reported that DOGE sent out firing notices to 9,400 USAID employees, leaving only 611.”

“Democratic politicians are furious, of course. But we hope that when it’s all said and done, ALL politicians, Democrat AND Republican, are furious with DOGE,” he added.

“Then we will know that it was a job well done for the American people.”

Per the CDC, here are the following cases/outbreaks for the last few years. (Per the CDC, an outbreak is defined as three or more related cases.)

2024- 285 cases reported in 33 jurisdictions
2023- 59 cases reported in 20 jurisdictions
2022- 121 cases in 6 jurisdictions
2021- 49 cases among 5 jurisdictions
2020- 13 cases among 8 jurisdictions
2019- 1,274 cases (amongst 31 states)

https://www.cdc.gov/measles/data-research/index.html#:~:text=Measles%20cases%20in%202024&text=There%20have%20been%2016%20outbreaks,59)%20were%20outbreak%2Dassociated.

CNN asked HHS whether the secretary recommends people get the measles vaccine. The agency responded with, "Vaccination remains the best defense against measles infection."

Now here we are, he's trying to bring an end to this conflict, we've explained very clearly what our plan is here, which is we want to get the Russians to the negotiating table, we want to explore whether peace is possible.

They understand this. They also understand that this agreement that was supposed to be signed today was supposed to be an agreement that binds America economically to Ukraine, which to me, as I've explained it, I think the president alluded to today, is a security guarantee in its own way, because we're now involved, it's us, it's our interests. //

I've asked people, what is the European plan to end this war? I can tell you of one foreign minister told me, I'm not going to say who it was, but I can tell you what one of them told me, and that is that the war goes on for another year, and at that point Russia will feel so weakened, that they'll beg for a peace. That's another year of killing, another year of dying, another year of destruction, and by the way, not a very realistic plan in my point of view. //

It takes two sides to end a war, but only one side to perpetuate one. Ending this affair will require both Ukraine and Russia to come to the table. Once the shooting stops, then the parties involved can start talking about how to prevent a recurrence in a year, a decade, or a century hence. But first, the shooting has to stop.

OrneryCoot
4 hours ago
Zelensky failed to realize that Trump WAS giving him a real, tangible security guarantee. He was promising American shoes (not boots) on the ground in the form of American workers and executives to work the mineral deal. I think he doesn't realize just how far Trump would take that responsibility to protect those American workers. The first time Putin endangered those citizens would have brought him a whole lot of pain. Putin knows this about Trump, which would have stopped him from trying it. No, they weren't soldiers. With our country, it didn't need to be. Zelensky had what he wanted but couldn't realize it due to his arrogance and basic misunderstanding of American culture. Now, he's left to either squeeze blood out of Europe's turnip of military might, or be replaced by a less narcissistic Ukrainian leader.

If you’ve got an old Kindle laying around, you may be interested in this write-up from [Hemant] that shows a practical example of how the popular e-reader can be pushed into service as a weather dashboard.

Obsidian has made managing my work significantly easier
For someone who struggles with organization, it really helps

There are a lot of note-taking apps out there that I've tried, but Obsidian is the first to have finally captured me. I don't need overly complex notes, I just need something to help me keep track of my day-to-day life... and this finally does it for me in a way no other app has before. //

CJ
Key features:

• Sync across devices
• Data control of your files/data
• Ease of dropping a note from your phone or desktop
• Ability to organize your notes based on your method

I feel like the author was trying to convey they chose a new note taking methodology that worked for him.

You can apply a note taking methodology to anything, including the trusty pocket notebook.

This author chose a new methodology and chose to use obsidian. That's it. Not that obsidian is better at note taking apps.

So far for the literal speed to note taking onenote and Trello seem to be the winners. They also sync flawlessly. There may be other apps too.

All that being said, you can make a mess of your notes in any app too.

As you may have gathered, Super Display turns almost any Android device (and Chromebook) into a portable monitor connected to a Windows PC or laptop via a USB cable or Wi-Fi network. //

Super Display consists of a Windows driver and an Android app. You’ll need to install both for it to work. Once that’s complete, the host Windows machine views the Android devices as another monitor. This includes access to the regular array of display settings, including resolution, refresh rate, location of the monitor in the array, and even customization options. Super Display also includes some limited quality adjustments if the connection drags for any reason. //

As mentioned, Super Display is a puzzle of two parts. You’ll first need to install the Windows driver and then the Android app.

1. Download the Super Display driver on your Windows PC.
2. Once the driver is installed, install the Android app on whichever device you want to connect.
3. Once the app is installed on your phone, open it.
4. Grab a USB-C (or micro-USB) cable and connect your Android device to your PC.
5. Follow the prompts on your Android device’s screen.
   Super Display includes a three-day trial, which is more than enough time to determine its usefulness. However, you’ll need to invest $14.99 to unlock it for life.

The steps below outline how to access Netflix's additional categories on your Mac, PC, or tablet from the Netflix website.

1. On your device, go to the Netflix website and log in.

2. In another browser window, open What's On Netflix.

3. In the prompt of your first tab, enter: https://www.netflix.com/browse/genre/.

4. Over on the tab with What's On Netflix, select your desired code, and place it at the end of the URL. For example, the "Fantasy Anime" subgenre code is 11146, so I altered the URL to read: https://www.netflix.com/browse/genre/11146.

5. Choose your title from the selection there and click play.

6. Then, once you've identified a movie or show you want to watch, add it to your queue and find it on the app.

The point is not about Donald Trump, and the meaning of the moment is much larger than most of the reporting suggests. The claim that it’s outrageous, unprecedented, and a crisis to fire flag officers is laughable. It’s also dangerous and threatens to reduce civilian control of the military if the premise is accepted at all. If it’s an illegitimate act for President Donald Trump to fire senior military officers, then it’s illegitimate for presidents to fire senior military officers — all presidents. It means that anyone who wears stars on his or her collar is somehow untouchable, a member of a protected guild that stands above political control. “You can’t fire me — I’m a general.” Good luck with that. //

The current president’s decision to fire flag officers isn’t a break with American law and tradition. The “Appeal to Congress” from former secretaries of defense certainly is. The warning about a crisis is the crisis. This dangerous argument needs to be hammered into its grave, quickly and forcefully.

The basic gist of Trump's remarks was this: The U.S. wants to broker peace, but Zelensky wants to keep fighting with assistance from the U.S.

High-ranking White House officials confirmed to CBS News that President Trump is unwilling to talk to Zelensky at this point because of Zelensky's disinterest in peace. //

High-level Trump sources tell me the White House is now uncertain if they can get the Russians and Ukrainians to stop fighting because this episode with @ZelenskyyUa raised questions about whether he can move forward toward a peace deal. It also raises questions about whether US will pause aid to Ukraine. But Trump is NOT seeking regime change in Ukraine. No discussions about who in Ukraine might be a better leader than Zelenskyy.

Ukrainian officials have reached out this afternoon to senior White House officials desperate to get the deal back on track. But that will not happen today, I'm told. Trump is unwilling to talk to Zelenskyy further today.

When Rubio and Waltz went into the Roosevelt Room to ask Zelenskyy to leave, Rubio made it clear that any further engagements today would be counterproductive. Waltz told Zelenskyy he had made a tremendous mistake, and it was a grave disservice to Ukraine and to Americans, both.

No phone calls between Trump and Putin have been scheduled. But multiple European officials have called top Trump officials since Zelenskyy left asking how the minerals deal can be salvaged.

Trump fully intended to sign the minerals deal today. Two official binders were prepared -- Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and his Ukrainian counterpart and the two presidents were going to sit at a conference table in the East Room and then trumpet their success at podiums.

But there were suspicions before Zelenskyy arrived today that it might fall apart. Because the Trump admin had been pushing for weeks for a minerals deal signing at the ministerial level, and Ukraine had refused. Zelenskyy wanted security guarantees.

US officials thought negotiations would be much harder with Putin so today have been been in disbelief that it has been Zelenskyy who has been more difficult, making maximalist demands, sources told me. //

Greg Price
@greg_price11
·
Follow
Zelenskyy declares that he won't negotiate an end to the war without security guarantees from the United States -- And then admits that he doesn't have enough weapons to push Russia out of Ukraine -- And then demands more money from the U.S.

Last edited
11:56 PM · Feb 28, 2025. //

RedDog_FLA
an hour ago
Zelesky forgot the he's dealing with the Producer of the Apprentice.

Zelensky thought he could manage an on-camera negotiation with the dealmaker. 🤔

He might not get another chance... it's possible he has been FIRED.

Bob Smalser
an hour ago
"If it’s true that Blinken, Rice, Nuland, and Vindman conference called with Zelensky on the flight to DC advising him to "stand strong" and "be tough" and "don't let Trump bully you" it seems to have backfired. Perhaps FBI Director Patel should meet with those clowns for a debriefing (and Logan Act discussion) after talking with a foreign head of state.". //

Slappy
an hour ago edited
The way Zelenskyy bombed this meeting publically like that, I think he isn't stupid, he did it because he wanted to torpedo any ceasefire deal and he's unwilling to settle for peace. The Europeans are all that's left, so maybe he thinks that's who he played up to here. I wish them and Ukraine luck, because blowing up what's left of the relationship with the U.S. is one hell of a risky move.

Slappy
an hour ago edited
The way Zelenskyy bombed this meeting publically like that, I think he isn't stupid, he did it because he wanted to torpedo any ceasefire deal and he's unwilling to settle for peace. The Europeans are all that's left, so maybe he thinks that's who he played up to here. I wish them and Ukraine luck, because blowing up what's left of the relationship with the U.S. is one hell of a risky move.

Sean Davisb@seanmdav
·
Trump doesn’t bad mouth anyone who comes to the negotiating table in good faith. Ever. It’s a near-cardinal rule of negotiations for him, and a major reason he’s been such a successful dealmaker. 

If you refuse to negotiate, he will trash you. If you lie or negotiate in bad faith, he will trash you. He has zero interest in allowing empty moralizing to get in the way of a deal that he wants.  

He has done this his entire career, in business and in politics, and it’s fascinating to me how many people who think of themselves as smart and savvy are incapable of seeing or understanding this dynamic.

Christian Datoc @TocRadio
TRUMP: "You want me to say really terrible things about Putin and then say, 'hi, Vladimir. How are we doing on the deal?' It doesn't work that way. I'm not aligned with anybody. I'm aligned with the United States of America, and for the good of the world."
8:05 PM · Feb 28, 2025. //

The key here isn't just that Trump is holding the cards and that Zelensky needs him — not the other way around — it's that Trump is negotiating from a fortified position of "America first." Everything at the table is subject to that one point, and if anything drifts away from that, then Trump pushes back and pushes back until he's all the way gone from the table.

Zelensky acted like a petulant child who showed no respect to the country that had given him the money for his war while trying to secure more, and Trump saw no value, not in the war, and not in Zelensky's disrespect. As such, there was no deal. Moreover, Zelensky attempted to pressure Trump into capitulation through our own media, which was a costly mistake. Trump is not beholden to the American media as other leaders are.

But Zelensky's error came from a habit he never should have never been allowed to develop. The Democrats — and too many Republicans — taught Zelensky that he was in charge. They caved to him constantly because the last thing they wanted was for our own media, who fawn and worship the ground Zelensky walks on, to turn on them. That would result in massive blowback from Democrat supporters, including their donors. //

Ultimately, the Democrat at the negotiating table asks, "what's expedient for me politically right now?" When the question that they should be asking themselves — and Trump clearly understands — is "how does this put America and Americans in the best position possible?"

The answer is sometimes not to make a deal at all. It's not sexy to come back and say negotiations fell apart, especially to a bloodthirsty media who makes everything sound like every failed deal moves us closer to doomsday, but again, Trump isn't concerned with the media, he's concerned with America.

And Democrats just can't seem to wrap their heads around that. //

TexasVeteran
3 hours ago edited
"The answer is sometimes not to make a deal at all."

Trump is channeling his inner Ronnie! Remember when Reagan walked away from a nuke deal with Gorbachev in Iceland? It lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union!🤔. //

anon-m0b0
2 hours ago
The war with Putin is a gigantic money-laundering operation that Zelensky and Democrats (and some Republicans) are getting rich from. Trump knows this. He wants to end the war and end the corruption. Zelensky is not ready for peace because a lot of people are getting rich. The mineral rights are some repayment to U.S. taxpayers for tax dollars sitting in oligarchs bank accounts.

Zelensky is counting on the U.S. press to do his dirty work to Trump. He doesn't realize Trump doesn't care.

Zelensky will be back at the table when the money is gone. He made his own bargaining position worse and he still doesn't realize yet.