University Majors/Professional Programs -- Male/Female Ratios

 

Asian Women Outearn White Men

 

Increasing Age of Senate and House Members; Republican Senators are OLD

 

For Every 100 Women -- Few Men in Positive Categories and Many in Negative

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/1074842503/For-Every-100-Girls-2026-Update?language_settings_changed=English

 Muslim country is warning Europe about Islamism.

Not Christian conservatives. Not the "far right". Not anyone you can wave away as an Islamophobe.

The United Arab Emirates.

The UAE has spent years taking a hard line against political Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood, which the country classifies as a terrorist organisation.

And in June 2026, the UAE's ambassador to the EU, Mohammed Ismail Al Sahlawi, sat in the European Parliament at a conference with this title:

"Muslim Brotherhood: a real threat to Europe."

Hard to misread.

The warning was about the Brotherhood's methods. Infiltrating European societies and institutions, influencing political decisions, spreading extremist ideology.

Read that again.

A Muslim country is warning Europe about political Islam. And here is what matters most! Islamism is not only the man with a rifle or a suicide vest.

That is the outermost, violent expression of it.

Islamism can also work slowly. And politically.

Through organisations, universities, religious institutions, activism, lobbying, political and institutional influence.

That is exactly why it is so dangerous to look only for the man with the bomb belt. Because Islamism can arrive in a suit. It can hold a university degree. It can run an organisation. It can sit close to political decision makers.

And it can learn to speak the West's own language about tolerance, rights and diversity, while working for values that collide with liberal democracy.

And no. This is not just something the UAE claims.

Britain's own government has investigated the Muslim Brotherhood.

The British review found that Brotherhood-associated and Brotherhood-influenced groups in the UK had, at various points, held significant influence over the largest Muslim student organisation, national Muslim organisations in dialogue with the government, charities and some mosques.

The same review concluded that parts of the Brotherhood's ideology and activities run counter to democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, equality, and mutual respect and tolerance between faiths.

So this is not only about terror.

It is about ideology.

And now comes the part that should stop every European in their tracks.

The UAE has become so concerned about Islamist radicalisation at British universities that British universities have been removed from the list of institutions where Emirati students can receive state scholarships.

Young Emiratis are still free to study in Britain. With their own money. The UAE simply will not pay for it anymore.

A person with direct knowledge of the discussions put it plainly to the Financial Times: "They don't want their kids to be radicalised on campus."

Sit with that for a second.

A Muslim, Arab country is worried about sending its Muslim young people to Britain, because it fears they will be radicalised there.

If that does not trigger some soul-searching in Europe, I don't know what will.

Because the UAE's point is precisely this. You make a fatal mistake if you only start caring about Islamism once someone picks up a weapon.

The ideological process may have started years earlier.

The UAE's foreign minister, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, has said:

"Daesh, Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have fed off a wider current of extremist ideas."

He pointed specifically at political Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which in his view have spent decades spreading those narratives.

He called them "backward-looking". And said they "reject open, pluralistic societies." This is a Muslim foreign minister saying it.

And there is something else I want to make very clear!

THE UAE IS NOT THE WEST.

It is not Europe. It is not a Western liberal democracy.

It is a Muslim, Arab country with a different culture, a different form of government and different traditions. And there are aspects of the UAE's political system and human rights record that we would never accept in a Western democracy.

This is not to be romanticised.

But the UAE has fought political Islamism for decades, an ideology its leadership believes has undermined and destabilised the Middle East. And which they now openly warn is seeking influence in Europe and the rest of the Western world.

Their foreign minister has spoken about the need to show that you can be "modern, Arab and Muslim."

That distinction is one Europe desperately needs to understand.

You can be a Muslim and still reject political Islam, extremism, antisemitism and religious intolerance.

And notice one more thing.

THE VIEW OF WOMEN IS PART OF THAT FIGHT.

Abdullah bin Zayed has directly criticised Islamist ideologies for their "denigration of women's role in society."

The UAE has not just talked about it. The country has made women's education, economic participation and leadership official state policy.

Women are to be educated. They are to work.

They are to be able to start businesses. They are to take part economically and politically. And they are to sit at the table where decisions are made.

Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, ruler of Dubai and the UAE's vice president and prime minister, established the UAE Gender Balance Council with the stated aim of reducing the gender gap and strengthening women's participation in leadership and decision making.

And the UAE's president, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, MBZ, leads a Muslim country that has made religious coexistence part of its national story.

In Abu Dhabi, a mosque, a church and a synagogue stand side by side in the Abrahamic Family House.

Think about that contrast.

A Muslim country is saying: Keep Islam. Fight Islamism.

Let women study, work and lead. Let Christians be Christians. Let Jews be Jews. And fight the political and religious movements that want to replace pluralism with their own ideology.

And yes. That includes the people who support, legitimise and clear the path for those movements while believing they are defending tolerance and diversity. Including when they end up working against the very Western values, freedom, equality, democracy and religious liberty, that gave them the opportunity to do so in the first place.

History has an old term for people who end up serving an ideology whose actual goals they do not share:

"Useful idiots." They do not have to be Islamists themselves. That is the whole point. They only have to be useful to those who are.

And this is what Europe has to learn to separate:

Islam is a religion. Islamism is a political ideology. And Islamist extremism is not "diversity".

You can defend Muslims' full right to believe and practise their faith, and at the same time say a resounding NO to movements that want to use religion for political power, parallel societies, extremism, or the gradual erosion of the society that gave them the freedom to be here.

Tolerance does not mean tolerating intolerance until it has grown strong enough to turn on you.

When a Muslim country pulls its state scholarships away from British universities out of fear of Islamist radicalisation, while parts of Europe are still afraid to even name the problem, the question is no longer whether there is a problem.

The question is who understood the seriousness of it.

And right now, it isn't us!

UK Explicitly Told Police To Consider Race in Order to Make Outcomes Equal Across Groups

 The exact text in the "Police Anti-Racism Commitment" document confirms that police officers were explicitly instructed not to be color blind.

The document, published by the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) in collaboration with the College of Policing, explicitly states that achieving "racial equity"  [1]

"...does not mean treating everyone 'the same' or being 'colour blind'." [1, 2]

What the Guidance Actually Commanded

The core philosophy behind the document was "equity of outcomes," rather than traditional equality. Critics argue that the document essentially ordered police to do the following: [1, 2]

• Incorporate Race into Decisions: It instructed officers that people's experiences and circumstances are "racialised", meaning a person's race should be factored into how police interact with them. [1]
• Target "Equality of Outcomes": It directed forces to focus on the end results of policing. Critics, including several MPs, pointed out that this text actively encouraged officers to artificially adjust their day-to-day work—such as reducing stops or arrests of minorities—simply to make statistics look equal across demographics, rather than basing decisions strictly on a person's behavior. [1, 2, 3]
• Avoid "Criminalising" Communities: It warned officers to consider the historical context of minority groups to avoid disproportionately criminalizing them. On the ground, critics argue this created a hesitant, fearful policing culture where officers are terrified of being labeled racist, causing them to immediately back down when a minority suspect claims racial discrimination—just as Vickrum Digwa did while standing over the dying student. [1, 2, 3]

The Government's Current Excuse

Now that this wording has been exposed to the public, the political establishment is desperately trying to distance itself from it. [1]

Policing Minister Sarah Jones publicly admitted the language is "wrong" and suggests people should be treated differently based on their ethnicity. However, the government's official line to keep insisting the system is "fair" is their claim that this document was merely an aspirational "values document," rather than a handbook used in operational tactical training. [1, 2]  And she continues to rise in the ranks.

To the British public, this distinction feels entirely meaningless. The text proves that the very top chiefs of British policing codified a rulebook telling officers that treating people identically regardless of race was the wrong approach—directly creating the environment that cost Henry Nowak his life. [1, 2]

Few Juvenile Rehabilitative Programs Show Solid Evidence of Effectiveness

 Even the large body of juvenile-intervention research finds substantial variation. OJJDP notes that only a small percentage of rehabilitative programs used with justice-involved youth have actually been established as evidence-based.

OJJDP is the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. It is part of the U.S. Department of Justice.

It is essentially the federal government's juvenile-justice research and policy office. It:

• funds research on juvenile crime and juvenile justice;
• evaluates programs intended to reduce juvenile offending;
• provides guidance to state and local juvenile-justice systems;
• publishes statistics and research reviews;
• administers federal grants to states, municipalities and organizations.

Avg IQ in College Major and Female/Male Ratio are Negatively Correlated.

Asylum Cases Random Sample -- Provides Details of 10 cases and disposition

https://x.com/dilanesper/status/2090522889334534259?s=20 

@dilanesper

OK, so I did a random search- I searched Westlaw for 2024 asylum cases in the 9th Circuit. I chose 2024 because that way you can't argue this was due to the Trump Administration's restrictive policies. These were Biden era cases. And I just chose the first 10 cases returned.

I didn't ask for reversals or affirmances. Just for cases that involved review of asylum claims. And I just took the first 10 that came up. I didn't stack the deck in any way. And remember, these were the appeals that asylees CHOSE to bring.

So this should be a somewhat biased sample towards cases with a decent shot of reversal. Because some litigants facing an obvious loss won't appeal. So let's go through these.

 

1.      Echeverria de Leon v. Garland (9th Cir. Jul. 5, 2024) is our first case. Echeverria was harassed because she would not join a gang. She conceded she had no evidence that she was ever persecuted because of her membership in a group. Asylum denied.

2.      .Betancourt v. Garland (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 2024) comes next. Betancourt said criminals attempted to kidnap her, offering a fake job at Walmart. However, she "stated that she did not know why she was targeted and that the criminals attempted to kidnap both men and women" Denied.

3.      Ayala v. Garland (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2024) is next. Ayala "testified that he received no threats or harm since 2007". He conceded he was never personally harmed or threatened in Mexico. Asylum denied.

4.      Castillo-Lopez v. Garland (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2024) is next up. Castillo-Lopez actually asserted a claim that would qualify for asylum if true. He said the FMLN targeted him for participating in a mayoral campaign. The problem is his story fell apart when he testified.  His character witnesses said actually he participated in the presidential campaign, not the mayoral campaign, and he couldn't explain the discrepancy. And he changed his story as to whether his attackers were FMLN members or gang members and who they were. Asylum denied.

5.      Aleman-Belloso v. Bondi (9th Cir. Nov. 13, 2024, amended Feb. 18, 2025) is next. This has Pam Bondi in the caption because the opinion was modified (non-substantively) later. But it's still a Biden-era decision.  Aleman-Belloso won his appeal. (Notice, I am not stacking the deck. If there's a reversal I will tell you about it.) Aleman was a member of a group of church leaders targeted by the FMLN.  The immigration authorities misconstrued his position and incorrectly ruled this wasn't a protected social group. This case got remanded. The opinion reads like he was likely to win his case on remand, and absolutely should.

6.      Next is Guzman v. Garland (9th Cir. Jun. 11, 2024). Guzman was robbed of her cell phone on the street in 2014, and claimed this was due to her being a woman. But she admitted she had no idea why the attacker robbed her. Asylum denied.

7.      Recinos-Orozco v. Garland (9th Cir. Dec. 9, 2024) is our next case. Recinos-Orozco contended throughout her dealings with USCIS that she had been targeted because she was part of a group of women who opposed gang violence, but abandoned that claim on appeal. Asylum denied.

8.      He v. Garland (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2024) comes next. He was found not to be credible. I'll quote the court on this one. "She testified that the church she attended in China both did and did not keep attendance records....  Undated and unnotarized letters from Petitioner's mother arrived both from mainland China and from Taiwan, even though Petitioner testified that her mother has never been to Taiwan....  And Petitioner's documentary evidence related to her membership in a Los Angeles church included information that contradicted Petitioner's testimony."  "Despite providing a written declaration stating that she had been... beaten up by the police, Petitioner testified..., after she was arrested in China, her only contact with the police was when they released her and that “nothing” happened to her while in custody."  Asylum denied.

9.      Calmo-Geronimo v. Garland (9th Cir. Oct. 29). Calmo didn't even try to win her case. She gave up her argument there was any nexus between her alleged persecution and membership in a group, and also didn't challenge the finding that she was lying on her application. Denied.

10.  . Finally, Simonian v. Garland (9th Cir. Dec. 5). Simonian sought asylum even though there was ample evidence his home government actively investigated the two attacks he alleged (allegations the immigration officials found not credible anyway). No fear of persecution. Denied.

So asylum appellees went 1 for 10. A couple ere found on very credible evidence to be liars. The others were clearly making arguments about generalized violence and had no basis for claiming credible fear of persecution based on any group membership. That's the state of asylum.  But even more telling is that several of these people didn't even press their arguments of persecution based on group membership on appeal. I am an appellate lawyer and I can tell you this is VERY uncommon in other areas of the law.

Because remember, these people almost certainly were paroled and got work permits-- almost everyone in the asylum system did. That's the point of asylum fraud. You might get to stay in the US for several years and work, until the jig is up. You're just running the clock out.

The Aleman-Beloso's of the world. Their meritorious cases and appeals take forever because the courts are clogged with people who just wanted to lie or file a phony claim to get into the country and get a work permit and make some money.

 

 How LLM's Work

1.  Overall Description -- Predicting Next Word -- Basically incomprehensible to me.

https://x.com/0xEronn/status/2089079333885198384?s=20