Sunday morning roundup

David Harsanyi at The Federalist on the garbage that passes for science education in government schools:

Have you experienced a school “science week” lately? You should.

The chances that you’ll find a student whose goal is to one day extract fossil fuels more effectively or use genetically modified crops—or any real innovation, for that matter—to help the fortunes of billions of impoverished humans around the world is around zero. Most students will mimic what they hear, and claim to want to turn pond scum or discarded plastic bottles into eco-fuel. They get an A for caring.

Many kids confuse science with environmental activism. Who can blame them? Science isn’t only the systematic study of structure and behavior in physical and natural world through observation and experimentation, but a moral elixir.

“Science” means “panic over climate change.” “Innovation” means pretending to deal with it. And so “science week” at your local public school is probably more like “green week”—which, in turn, is just part of green year. Because every day is Earth Day.

In many states science standards are plummeting, though the prevalence of green education programs is rising. Perhaps this is not coincidental. Children seem exceptionally concerned about overpopulation and a variation in the climate, which they are told portends dystopia despite all evidence to the contrary. “Science” means creating apprehension about human progress.

How many teachers do you think point out on Earth Day that human existence—despite our generally indifference to climate change—has quantifiably improved in almost every area? Do they know the world is effectively “drowning in oil”? How many kids understand that air and water are all cleaner today than they were when their teachers were kids?

How many comprehend that climate change is a mildly negative externality of the greatest poverty-killing project ever devised by man? Has anyone asked these kids if they believe a billion people should be deprived of basic modern necessities and be forced to continue live in destitution? How many teachers explain to their students that if innovators of the past had agonized over “environmental friendliness,” we’d be living in mud houses and most of us would be dead at the hands of untreated infections?

And, in the course of an article the main point of which is the complex and multilayered relationships among and between post-America and the major players of the Asian continent, Kevin Williamson at NRO pens today's how-do-we-go-about-hog-tying-Laura-Ingraham-and-making-her-read-this-aloud-on-her-show paragraph:

 . . . the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade-liberalization pact that Mrs. Clinton has been walking sideways away from for months. TPP is a proposal that is good and necessary in its generalities, worrisome and sometimes unpersuasive in its particulars, and currently caught between a Democratic electorate that hates free trade per se and a Republican electorate that is one-third composed of people who hate free trade per se and otherwise dominated by those who believe, not without some reason, that President Obama would not put forth such an agreement without a rascally purpose, occult though it may be. This leaves the United States in the very difficult position of needing to make the case for free trade abroad when it is a minority taste at home.

Kimberly Ross at Red State marvelously articulates the reason why real conservatives will remain #NeverTrump no matter what happens between now and the end of time:

 . . . let’s just say for now that Trump would beat Hillary. Congratulations, the Republican party has taken back the White House. But at what cost? It would be nothing but a Pyrrhic victory. Do we really want to set back conservatism? Trump has shown himself to be weak and substance-free on issues foreign, domestic, and social. It’s difficult to keep up with how often his so-called “policy stances” change. He is widely supported by those who are fueled by nothing but racist tendencies, as I’ve seen firsthand. He couldn’t care less about basic tenets of conservatism, like being 100% pro-life. And to top it off, he’s an immature individual who seems to be doing all this for fun, not to actually improve America, and certainly not promote conservative values.

Prince had been an opioid addict for his entire career:

Prince's former drug dealer has revealed the full extent of the late-star's secret drug addiction - telling how the superstar was hooked on powerful opiates for over 25 years.

Speaking exclusively to Daily Mail Online, the performer's long-time dealer - who asked to be named only as Doctor D - revealed the singer would spend up to $40,000 a time on six-month supplies of Dilaudid pills and Fentanyl patches - both highly addictive opioid pain killers.

Prince, who was found dead on Thursday at his home in Minneapolis, Minnesota, was secretly cremated in an intimate ceremony at a nondescript funeral home in Minneapolis shortly after an autopsy was completed on Friday, Radar reports.

Prince's sister Tyka Nelson and another family member reportedly spent a few minutes saying goodbye at the First Memorial Waterston Chapel before the musician was cremated.

His death came just days after sources claimed he overdosed on the opiate Percocet.

Doctor D said the musician, who he described as 'majorly addicted', regularly bought drugs from him between 1984 and 2008. 

The dealer, often to the stars, said Prince suffered crippling stage fright and could not get on stage and perform without the drugs - but had a phobia of doctors so could not obtain a prescription legally.

Tragically, Doctor D suggests it could have been a physician that unknowingly contributed to Prince's death - by prescribing strong pain killers to the singer for his hip condition without knowing the extent of his secret opiate addiction.

He said: 'I first met Prince in 1984 while he was filming the movie Purple Rain and he was already majorly addicted to opiates - I didn't hook him on drugs he was already a really heavy user.'In the beginning he would buy speed as well as Dilaudid.'I would sell him black beauties which were a black pill and cross tops which were also speed pills.'He would use that as a counter balance to get back up again from taking opiates.'That lasted for a couple of years then he would just buy Dilaudid, which is a heroin based opiate. It is highly addictive.'As far as I knew he never took heroin - as that would leave you out of it for days whereas Dilaudid gives you an energy buzz as well as making you feel relaxed - so he preferred it.

And for two pull-no-punches takes on the Most Equal Comrade's edict to the UK that it must stay in the EU in order to get special-relationship-level trade benefits from post-America, check out Charles Moore at The Telegraph and  Peter Hitchens at the Daily Mail, who is so honked off that he has decided there never was a special relationship.