Steve Sailer tells of an intriguing approach to offsetting immigration risks: insurance.

Immigration insurance may sound like a wacky idea at the moment, but it actually could appeal to multiple politically powerful interest groups, such as insurance companies looking for a new market and trial lawyers looking for new reasons to sue insurance companies. Giving the backbone of Democratic donors—the trial lawyers—a financial incentive to dig up and publicize dirt on immigration would be political jujitsu of the highest order.

Sailer admits that only the legal immigrants would comply with such a policy, but then, the same is true about car insurance.

At present, forecasting that some applicants for immigration would be better than some other applicants is widely considered racist and un-American, a violation of the Zeroth Amendment inscribed on the Statue of Liberty. More sane countries, such as Canada and Australia, have complex points systems for evaluating applicants based on statistical models of how much good they are likely to do current citizens.

We do? Are you sure, Steve? Does the Canadian government actually pay any attention to the points, though?

Anyway, the bigger problem is how to implement such a notion without having your eardrums shattered from libtards screaming about it. But that’s the same with each and every notion about what to do about immigration crises, so no big whoop.

Read more at Taki’s Magazine.

Taki’s Magazine’s Jim Goad on the latest fad, female to male transsexuals who breastfeed “chestfeed”:

Huffington Post, that digital safe space for menopausal liberals in the early stages of Alzheimer’s, ran an article a few weeks ago titled “The Troubling Erasure of Trans Parents Who Breastfeed.” Without a hint of a wink, the article states that the notion that “gender is tied to biology” is an “antiquated belief.”

Because of course just because she has a vagina, just gave birth, and is lactating, doesn’t mean she’s not a real, honest-to-goodness manly dudebro, you evil bigot.

Harvard University has made and distributed placemats with leftist talking points, perfect for students to use to wreck Christmas dinner by starting stupid political fights.

From the Daily Caller:

Harvard spokeswoman Rachel Dane told Campus Reform the placemats were deliberately intended to shape the conversations undergraduates have with their parents.

Another Harvard representative, assistant diversity dean Emelyn de la Peña, insisted the placemats do not constitute indoctrination despite presenting only a single point of view as correct.

This is very disappointing. We would have thought Harvard students were better than this.

I mean, if you can’t even memorize your talking points for annoying Uncle Frank, what kind of annoying leftist brat are you?

Lazy, lazy, lazy…

Now, after being mocked in certain corners of the press, Harvard backpedaled, no doubt worried more about potential loss of alumni donations and prestige than because they actually regretted their idiot indoctrination placemats.