Thursday, May 04, 2017

Cruising the Web

As so many presidents before him, Trump is now talking about playing a role to bring peace between Palestinians and Israelis. Yesterday Mahmoud Abbas came to the WHite House and lied to Trump and the media.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said Wednesday during a joint press conference with President Donald Trump that his government is raising its youth in a "culture of peace."

"Mr. President, I affirm to you that we are raising our youth, our children, our grandchildren on a culture of peace," Abbas said. "And we are endeavoring to bringing about security, freedom, and peace for our children to live like the other children in the world along with the Israeli children in peace, freedom, and security."

Abbas' comments are contrary to reports about Palestinian children being recruited to carry out terrorist acts. One report detailed at least 36 incidents when Palestinian children have attempted to carry out terrorist attacks.

"The preferred method of murder and attempted murder by Palestinian child terrorists are stabbings or knifings, the modus operandi in 34 of the 36 attacks," according to the report authored by a United Nations watchdog group.

Another report showed Palestinian Authority teoks advocating violence against Jews in Israel, and a Palestinian child television show depicted Jews as "evil," "filth," and "barbaric monkeys."

Abbas reportedly said in September 2015 that "every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem is pure" amid clashes between police and Arab protesters at the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism.
Remember that the Palestinian Authority gives rewards to the families of suicide terrorists who kill Israelis. So spare us these lies about how Abbas' government is raising Palestinian children in a "culture of peace." Given the reality of what the Palestinian government does to encourage violence against Israeli civilians, how can they be a reliable partner for peace with Israel?

Douglas J. Feith and Sander Gerber recommend that Congress pas the proposed Taylor Force Act.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress is considering the Taylor Force Act, which would require Abbas to either dismantle his government’s system of rewards for terrorists or forfeit American financial aid. The proposed law is controversial largely because the PA presents a confusing picture of itself....

Though it helps Israel fight those terrorists who oppose both Israel and the PA, it actively foments anti-Israel terrorism in its own domain through its formal legislative and bureaucratic system of professional and cash benefits for Palestinians who commit knifings, axe-murders, shootings, and car-rammings.

Abbas was elected to a four-year presidential term in 2005. Popular dissatisfaction with the PA’s pervasive corruption put his reelection in doubt, so no new elections were scheduled. He simply remains in power.

Abbas says that he supports peace, but the Israeli government offered him a generous deal in 2008. The Israelis had just handed all of Gaza over to the PA. They offered him virtually all the West Bank, with unprecedented concessions on Jerusalem. He nevertheless scorned the deal.

Abbas and his PA colleagues are bound and determined to perpetuate the conflict with Israel. Their personal interests require it. If the conflict ended, they would lose foreign aid, which makes their lucrative corruption possible. They would stop receiving invitations to the White House and other gratifying diplomatic attention. They would cease to be the leaders of a long-standing and proudly uncompromising national struggle, forfeiting their self-respect and prestige, especially in the Arab and Muslim worlds. For them, peace would be hell.

But peace could enormously benefit the Palestinian people. It could open a path to greater freedom and prosperity for them and save their children from the fatal lure of “martyrdom.” Those interests, alas, don’t influence PA policy.
As long as there are incentives for Palestinian leaders to block peace with Israel, we can just forget about any peace accord.

Mother's Day Gift Shop

25% Off in Office and School Supplies

Deals in Office Products

Deals in Home and Kitchen

So FBI director testified yesterday about why he issued the notice before the election. He announced that Huma Abedin had a habit of sending classified information to her laptop that she shared with ANthony Weiner so that he could print them out. He stated that they didn't recommend criminal charges because they decided there was no criminal intent. As Andrew McCarthy has repeatedly pointed out the actual text of the law in question doesn't require "criminal intent." This is what the law says.


That is, Clinton could have been prosecuted either for willfully mishandling classified information or for doing so through gross negligence....

Huma Abedin's constant use of a non-secure laptop to send classified emails also violates the law. As David French points out, if Hillary or Huma had been in the military, they would be in jail.
Here’s what I know beyond a shadow of a doubt — if a soldier had sent classified documents to his wife “to print out,” his best legal outcome would be a one-way ticket to a dishonorable discharge. His worst outcome would be jail.
Ted Cruz's questioning of Comey yesterday explored the point that the statute doesn't require criminal intent. Comey answers that the practice has been to interpret that statute requires criminal intent. How convenient to not interpret the actual text of the law for what it clearly says.

Echo and Alexa Devices

Amazon Fire TV

Hot New Releases in All Categories

Betsy McCaughey fights bac
k against the Democrats' accusation that the GOP Obamacare repeal bill removes protections for those with pre-existing conditions.
. There is a consensus that people with pre-existing conditions should be able to get insurance. The issue is who pays the hefty price tag. ObamaCare forced healthy buyers in the individual market to foot the entire bill. That's why their premiums have doubled since the law went into effect.



In fact, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini reports that less than 5 percent of ObamaCare enrollees consume over half of the health care.


The GOP bill offers a solution. States can choose to get a waiver from ObamaCare's community pricing rule, so that insurers can sell to healthy people at a far lower cost. States that get the waiver should see double-digit premium decreases for the healthy almost immediately.





The WSJ has more on the freakout over helping those with pre-existing conditions.
Pre-existing conditions are an understandable concern, but the critics traffick in demagoguery, not substance. Their opposition has less to do with vulnerable patients than preserving ObamaCare. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer claimed that risk pools are “like administering cough medicine to someone with stage 4 cancer,” which exploits cancer victims and shows he knows nothing about risk pools.

By targeting funds at the sickest patients, states can make insurance markets more affordable and stable. These subsidies siphon off some of the costs that contribute to rising premiums in the overall market, and the idea is that the resulting cheaper plans for everyone else will encourage more people to enroll.

In Alaska, ObamaCare premiums rose 40% annually over multiple years, one of the two participating insurers exited the business, and the other was on the brink. So the state received a federal waiver last year to create a risk pool. Premiums rose 7.3% on average for 2017.

Opponents say risk pools are underfunded, but the Alaska rescue mission cost merely $55 million (albeit in a low-population state). The results came despite ObamaCare’s restraints, and the GOP’s American Health Care Act promises more regulatory flexibility to experiment. Opponents also argue that risk pools are ghettos for the sick, but the Alaska payments are “invisible,” meaning that all consumers use regular insurance.

We’ll learn soon if risk pools are enough to win over GOP moderates, but they should know that Democrats will demagogue the pre-existing conditions issue in the 2018 election whether the bill passes or not. Better to pass the bill, and explain to their voters why their reform is better for patients, than defend a failure. HillaryCare’s crash didn’t save vulnerable Democrats in 1994—though unlike Democrats, this time Republicans have a good product to sell.

Here's some good news for restaurant owners as the Trump administration applies some common sense to one of the sillier and more burdensome Obamacare regulations.
The Food and Drug Administration announced on Monday that the agency would delay a May 5 enforcement date for a rule that requires restaurants with more than 20 locations to post calorie counts on menu boards, ostensibly to encourage healthy choices and prevent a patchwork of state labeling schemes. The mandate was included in the Affordable Care Act in 2010.

But the resulting regulation has been thrice delayed because it required pizza chains to display per slice ranges for an estimated 34 million topping combinations. Imagine a sign that reads “200-800 calories per slice of one-topping medium pizza” with lists of individual accoutrements that span from 0-400 calories, with each one varying based on whether you add other toppings. Do you feel edified about your food choices?

The displays would be ripped up and replaced for every limited-time special. Franchisees—that is, local business owners, not Mr. Moneybags—would sign affidavits that “reasonable” efforts were made to ensure the accuracy of the placards. That’s an invitation for trial lawyers to drag every last pizza to a lab for verification. The penalties for noncompliance include a year in jail, and who knew that a job at Papa John’s could lead to a life of crime.

A bill in the House would eliminate the fines and hard time, as well as allow pizza places to display information online, where customers can already find it. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, who deserves credit for the stroke of common sense, voted for an earlier version of the legislation. Congress should move on it before next year’s new enforcement date arrives, though the FDA could also revise the rule.

The FDA’s final guidance is riddled with amusing introspections on what constitutes a “combination meal” or how to label pumpkin lattes, but the less funny reality is that the pizza industry has spent years and millions of dollars fighting this insane rule-making. The Trump Administration is right to put those resources back in the productive economy.

Here are some facts
that should clarify how Obamacare works in California in case you were moved by Jimmy Kimmel's story about his baby son's heart surgery to think that Obamacare is what would make the difference in caring for sick newborns.













And here is another fact-check for Jimmy Kimmel.







Kimmel implies that opposition to Obamacare-style insurance mandates is both un-American and indecent. Had he been less hysterical, he would have acknowledged that different health care systems have pros and cons -- and decent Americans can have legitimate differences of opinion on such matters.


Perhaps we shouldn't be taking public policy advice from entertainers.

While there has been a lot of smoke about covering pre-existing conditions, this is still a bad practice and the sort that the Republicans had pledged to change when they regained control of the House.
Leadership’s decision to press ahead with the floor action means lawmakers will be voting on the bill without updated figures from their nonpartisan scorekeeper on how many people would lose coverage under the bill or how much it would cost.

Some lawmakers acknowledged that it would be helpful to have an analysis, known as a “score,” from the CBO, but said they could not wait for it.

When asked why the vote would not wait for the score, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) -- the lead sponsor of a new amendment to the bill that might push it over the finish line -- said “because I don’t expect it probably for a couple weeks.”
“I wish that we had it, alright?” Upton added. “I wish that we had had it in committee, I said so at the time.”

The lack of a score comes despite years of GOP attacks on Democrats for what Republicans argued was a rushed process that rammed through ObamaCare in 2010.

Deals in Jewelry - under $80

Deals and Coupons in Beauty

Luggage and Travel Deals

Last week was the 25th anniversary of the 1992 Los Angeles riots after the acquittal of the policemen in the Rodney King beating. Heather MacDonald observes how the events are being portrayed along with the argument being made that all matters racial are just as bad today as they were back then.
A friend of Watson’s, Nathan Smith, who was on parole in 1992, predicts that another riot is likely. Back then, Smith says, “We all felt like, ‘We’ve been telling you we’re angry and you’re not listening, so now we’re going to show you.” “Showing you” consisted of burning down businesses that have struggled to survive constant robberies and assaults on their employees and have only succeeded due to a fierce work ethic. “Showing you” also consisted of pulling drivers from their cars and mutilating them. Even if there were some legitimate “you” that is responsible for the social chaos of the ghetto, it is certainly not a Korean convenience store owner or a construction worker returning from work.

The familiar “nothing has changed” complaint embodies the entitlement mentality. Its logic is the following: “We destroy the businesses that have served us for decades; we unleash savage violence against every ethnic group other than our own. So why aren’t things better now in our neighborhoods? Government and society owe us reparations in response to our feral rage against other people’s livelihoods and lives.” But a riot is inevitably going to make the local situation worse. Mainstream businesses will be even less willing to move into a riot zone; property values, already depressed by high crime, will plummet further. Though governments usually do respond to riots with cash and programs, such intervention is not going to make any difference unless individuals in the community make better personal choices: paying attention in class, doing homework, not committing crime, staying in a job, and not having children out-of-wedlock.

Kevin Williamson spent a day in eviction court and was struck by how no one seemed to take responsibility for their actions. Life is what happens to them and they don't recognize that they have agency in their own lives. It's all very depressing.
She is not the only person whose check didn’t come. The passivity and subjectlessness of these narratives is striking, and strikingly consistent. Domestic events happen. Checks come or don’t come. (Mostly they don’t.) Husbands are sent to jail, children are taken away by the clipboard-toting minions of Authority, disease descends. The money isn’t there. And, in the end, they are evicted. Bad things just happen,...

Of course, that’s never really that. Many people who have been evicted simply refuse to leave after being ordered to, which means that they will in the end be visited by constables who remove them and their belongings from the property, often to a chorus of wailing and lamentation. And another bad thing just happens to people who, for whatever reason, have no sense of agency in their own lives.
But some people can take responsibility for the trajectories of their own lives.
“I’ll give you a break on my rate,” says my lawyer, looking at his watch. He is the son of Mexican-American farm laborers, who learned at least one thing from his hard and poor childhood: Don’t be a farm laborer. Law looked like a pretty good alternative, and it seems to be working out pretty well for him. The idiomatic English would be, “He became a lawyer.” The better English would be, “He made himself a lawyer.” How did that happen? It must have begun with decisions he made as a child or as a very young man: A leads to B leads to C leads to a good income and a nice house and a bass boat.

A few months ago, I recounted the story of Preston Smith, a man from a very poor background (think outhouses and bare feet) who walked across a wide stretch of Texas to attend college at the beginning of a career that would see him become (make himself) a successful businessman and, later, governor of Texas. He and a friend made a living in college by opening up what at the time would have been called a “filling station,” a gas station/convenience store. By the time he was out of school, he had a few of them, and a movie theater, too. The reaction to that column surprised me: “That’s great,” critics wrote, “but he lived at a time when someone in his circumstances could open a gas station without backing and financing, and without all the taxes and regulation we have now.” As though the Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi immigrants who operate convenience stores from coast to coast show up in the United States with a $1 million line of business credit from Chase, an MBA, and a gas station waiting for them in Oklahoma. Next time you’re filling up in some country location late at night, take a peek around the back of the place, and see how many of those immigrants are quietly living in the gas stations they operate. It is not uncommon, for a time. But they don’t stay there long.

And while I am not much of a hard-ass on these kinds of questions (we have a positive moral obligation to help the poor, and not just the “deserving” poor), I cannot help but think of those hustling immigrants when I encounter the native-born sons and daughters of this sweet land of liberty who, if it were raining jobs and opportunity, would find a way to walk between the raindrops.

“My check didn’t come.” “Did you pay any rent in January?” “The factory closed down.” “The textile jobs moved to Thailand and Vietnam.” “My little town is dying.” “My check didn’t come.” “Did you pay any rent in February? In March?”

“My check didn’t come.”

Your check didn’t come. It’s never coming.

Now what?

Tools and Home Improvement

Today’s Deals

Fashion Sales and Deals

Harvard has decided to coddle
their poor, stressed-out students even more.



"We have witnessed firsthand the stress that overdue fines can cause for students,” Beardsley continued. “Eliminating standard overdue fines and standardizing loan periods across Harvard’s libraries should help students focus on their scholarship, rather than worrying about renewing library books every 28 days in order to avoid fines.”
Gee, I hope these students never get a job when they have to meet deadlines. And if turning in a book when it's due is too stressful, what about finishing papers by their due date? Isn't that stressful and distracting them from simply learning the material?