Moral consistency: don’t bemoan Bill O’Reilly’s ouster over sexual harassment if you thought Bill Clinton should be impeached for a consensual sexual encounter

From National Review:

O’Reilly, Ailes, and the Toxic Conservative-Celebrity Culture

By David French | April 20, 2017

Knifework, not character or integrity, is what we demand from our ideological gladiators. We’re paying the price.

There are those who say that the Left is “taking scalps,” and they have a list of Republican victims to prove their thesis. Roger Ailes is out at Fox News. Bill O’Reilly is out at Fox News. Michael Flynn is out at the White House. Those three names — the head of the most powerful cable news network, the highest-rated cable news personality, and the national-security adviser — represent a stunning wave of resignations and terminations.

But this isn’t scalp-taking, it’s scalp-giving. Time and again prominent conservative personalities have failed to uphold basic standards of morality or even decency. Time and again the conservative public has rallied around them, seeking to protect their own against the wrath of a vengeful Left. Time and again the defense has proved unsustainable as the sheer weight of the facts buries the accused.

Read more here.

I’m old enough to remember how angry conservatives were when President Clinton received fellatio from a completely willing young intern, and how many thought he should be impeached and removed from office for it.1 Why, then, do so many conservatives believe it was wholly wrong for Bill O’Reilly to lose his job for sexual harassment of unwilling co-workers?

Think of all of the situations in which leftists have gotten that conservatives used against them: former President Clinton’s infidelities were still being used in attacks on his wife’s 2016 presidential candidacy, and Anthony Weiner, husband of Mrs Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, and his ridiculous, perverted behavior was also being used against the Clinton campaign.

It was only a couple of weeks ago that conservatives were cheering, and the left were mocking, Vice President Pence for his long-established policy of following the “Billy Graham rule,” refusing to put himself in situations in which he would be alone with any woman other than his wife.2 Why, then, are so many conservatives outraged that Roger Ailes and Mr O’Reilly got busted and lost their jobs for similar behavior?

Well, I’m not outraged, and, quite frankly, I’m not even surprised that such things (probably) occurred. Fox News is great for having brought forth the conservative positions on the news, something no one else on television was doing. But when you watch Fox News, what you are seeing is a bunch of really pretty thirty-somethings dressed in short skirts and f(ornicate) me heels. Now that I have retired (sort of), I have been able to see the very lovely Ainsley Earhardt, one of the three co-hosts on Fox & Friends, in the morning, not only with the obligatory short skirt and heels,3 but wearing sleeveless dresses in the middle of winter; what woman would choose to dress that way, in New York City, if she weren’t under network ‘guidance’ to do so? Mr O’Reilly apparently mentioned to one of the Foxes on Fox that he was glad she was a blonde, but, let’s tell the truth: there are a whole lot more blondes on Fox News than their percentage of the population. Of course, most of them appear to be blonde solely due to help from Clairol!

Fox News’ success has been imitated, of course, as CNN and the Weather Channel appear to have made skirts and heels di rigour for their on-air women as well. I noticed — I’m a fairly observant fellow! — that when Anaridis Rodriguez was heavily pregnant on the Weather Channel, she started wearing flat shoes, but was back in high heels as soon as she returned from maternity leave. It was the change due to physical necessity, and then the return to the obvious dress code when she returned, that brought it to my attention.

Fox News’ viewers very obviously appreciate the way the anchorwomen dress; Fox is number one in viewership, by a wide margin. That CNN would encourage their anchorwomen to dress similarly is hardly a surprise;4 if it worked for Fox, it should work for CNN as well.

It’s long been obvious: television is an appearance-driven medium,5 and the people who make it in television all know that. It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that a medium which places a premium on good looks would be one in which some people think those looks are meant for more than just the camera.
_______________________________

  1. He was impeached, though not technically for his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky, but for his actions to try to cover it up.
  2. I noted that, had Mr O’Reilly followed that rule, he’d still have his job today.
  3. I have noticed Miss Earhardt wearing slacks twice recently; it was so unusual that I took note of it.
  4. I was unable to find any supporting articles stating that such is a dress code at CNN, but if there isn’t, then it seems that the ladies there all think alike.
  5. I happen to have a face made for radio, and a voice meant for print.

Marie Harf gets #Outnumbered

From Fox News:

‘That’s Obama Propaganda’: McCain, Harf Battle Over ‘Success’ of Iran Deal

April 20, 2017 | 12:47 PM EDT

On “Outnumbered” today, Meghan McCain and Marie Harf got into a testy exchange while discussing the Obama administration’s nuclear agreement with Iran.

McCain agreed with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s assessment that the Iran deal “fails to achieve the objective of a non-nuclear Iran.”

She said that of all the sins of the previous administration, this is the one that future generations will feel the most ramifications from.

Harf, a former State Department official under Obama, insisted that the deal is working.

“The Iranians have upheld their part of the bargain,” Harf said. “Because of that deal, today they are over a year away from being able to get a weapon. Before the deal, they were under 60 days away.”

She said Iran’s nuclear program has been “greatly diminished” as a result of the deal.

McCain argued that it is not a success and it’s actually the biggest foreign policy catastrophe of Obama’s eight years as commander-in-chief.

There’s a little more at the original; I’ll add the video when I see it available.

I actually like Marie Harf, in that she’s willing to stick to her guns and make her case. On #Outnumbered, where the show style is one man ‘outnumbered’ by four women, it sometimes becomes one liberal, Miss Harf, outnumbered by four conservatives.

But there’s one point I just have to make. Miss Harf said that Iran has had to give up 90% of its nuclear weapons material under the agreement. And yes, that was what the agreement specified. But it wasn’t that long ago that then-Secretary of State John Kerry, for whom Miss Harf worked, told us that Syria was in compliance, and all of its chemical weapons were gone. Then, just earlier this month, Miss Harf was on the hook, having to explain away how Syria managed to launch a chemical weapons attack after all of their chemical weapons were gone:

Marie Harf, a Fox News contributor and former spokeswoman for Secretary of State John Kerry, scrambled on Wednesday to defend the Obama-era Syria deal from 2013, admitting it was not “perfect.”

The Obama administration has come under fire after the Syrian regime launched a chemical weapon attack last week that killed more than 80 people. Obama, Kerry and others repeatedly claimed credit for a deal in 2013 that rid the country of its chemical weapons stockpile.

Fox News host Bill Hemmer asked Harf whether she agreed with President Trump’s decision to order a military strike against Syria last week.

“I did. I thought it was a good response to President Assad’s use of chemical weapons,” Harf said. “What I’m more focused on now quite frankly is the strategy going forward and what happens next in Syria.”

Hemmer then asked Harf whether Obama was given the same military option during his presidency.

Harf claimed that while she was at the State Department in 2013, they wanted to use force against Syria when it was discovered that they used chemical weapons. However, Harf said that Congress did not give the Obama administration authorization to use force, so Kerry had to conduct a backup plan and negotiate an agreement to get chemical weapons out of Syria.

She conceded to her point that Obama should have just attacked Syria without Congress’s authorization, but then she pivoted to defending the Obama administration for getting 1,300 tons of weapons out of Syria.

“Either they hid some [chemical weapons] that we didn’t know about or they’ve made more in the last 3.5 years,” Harf said.

Hemmer played a clip of Kerry from January talking about how they got “all of the weapons of mass destruction” out of Syria.

There’s more at the original, but I would have thought that Miss Harf would have been a bit more circumspect about declaring that Iran was in compliance, when the evidence that Syria had not been was made evident by about seventy dead men, women and children. Add to that the prior discussion, on the same show, concerning North Korea’s bluster and nuclear program, when North Korea had also broken agreements concerning nuclear weapons, and someone as intelligent and educated as Miss Harf ought to know that totalitarian regimes cannot be counted upon to keep their agreements, not when the dictators decide otherwise. This was an area of expertise for her: “on June 1, 2015, she became Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications to Secretary Kerry, continuing her work leading the Iran nuclear negotiations communications strategy.”

Well, perhaps she really does. Perhaps Miss Harf is simply playing the role assigned to her when Fox News signed her. Me, I’d rather see honesty.

Bill O’Reilly, Mike Pence and the Billy Graham rule

From The Philadelphia Inquirer:

Bill O’Reilly out at Fox News, denies wrongdoing; Tucker Carlson will take over timeslot

Updated: April 19, 2017 — 5:46 PM EDT | by Nick Vadala, Staff Writer

Bill O’Reilly is no longer with Fox News.

21st Century Fox issued a statement on O’Reilly’s departure, writing that the host “will not be returning” to the network:

Tucker Carlson will take over the 8 p.m. timeslot once occupied by O’Reilly starting Monday. Dana Perino and Greg Gutfeld will continue to guest host in O’Reilly’s absence on Thursday and Friday, respectively. The Five will move to the 9 p.m. slot.

O’Reilly, in a statement obtained by The Washington Post Wednesday afternoon, again denied any wrongdoing.

He added that he was incredibly proud of his a 20-year career at Fox News.

“It is tremendously disheartening that we part ways due to completely unfounded claims,” he said. “But that is the unfortunate reality many of us in the public eye must live with today. I will always look back on my time at Fox with great pride in the unprecedented success we achieved and with my deepest gratitude to all my dedicated viewers. I wish only the best for Fox News Channel.”

There’s more at the original.

Mr O’Reilly denied the allegations of sexual harassment, but the fact that Fox paid out millions to settle some sexual harassment claims against him sure doesn’t count in his favor. I have no position on his guilt or innocence, realizing that the truth in a he said/she said situation can never really be known, but one thing is clear: Mr O’Reilly was obviously in some situations in which allegations of sexual harassment could at least be credible, and Dylan Byers of CNN reported that part of his problem was that Mr O’Reilly wasn’t really all that well liked by his colleagues.

Is that true? CNN certainly has no reason to be fair to Mr O’Reilly, and the executives must be overjoyed that Fox News Channel’s top performer, and the number one show in its time slot, are gone. But all of this demonstrates, to me, the wisdom of Vice President Mike Pence and his following of the ‘Billy Graham rule’:

How Mike Pence’s Marriage Became Fodder for the Culture Wars

Outrage over the vice president’s approach to marriage reveals how deeply gender divides American culture.

by Emma Green | March 30, 2017

The Washington Post ran a profile of Karen Pence, the wife of Vice President Mike Pence, on Wednesday. The piece talks about the closeness of the Pences’ relationship, and cites something Pence told The Hill in 2002: Unless his wife is there, he never eats alone with another woman or attends an event where alcohol is being served. (It’s unclear whether, 15 years later, this remains Pence’s practice.) It’s not in the Post piece, but here’s the original quote from 2002: “‘If there’s alcohol being served and people are being loose, I want to have the best-looking brunette in the room standing next to me,’ Pence said.”

Some folks—mostly journalists and entertainers on Twitter—have reacted with surprise, anger, and sarcasm to the Pence family rule. Socially liberal or non-religious people may see Pence’s practice as misogynistic or bizarre. For a lot of conservative religious people, though, this set-up probably sounds normal, or even wise. The dust-up shows how radically notions of gender divide American culture.

Pence is not the first contemporary public figure to set these kinds of boundaries around his marriage. He seems to be following a version of the so-called Billy Graham rule, named for the famous evangelist who established similar guidelines for the pastors working in his ministry. In his autobiography, Graham notes that he and his colleagues worried about the temptations of sexual immorality that come from long days on the road and a lot of time away from family. They resolved to “avoid any situation that would even have the appearance of compromise or suspicion.” From that day on, Graham said, he “did not travel, meet, or eat alone with a woman other than my wife.” It was a way of following Paul’s advice to Timothy in the Bible, Graham wrote: to “flee … youthful lusts.”

The Hill article gives more context on how the Pences were thinking about this, at least back in 2002. Pence told the paper he often refused dinner or cocktail invitations from male colleagues, too: “It’s about building a zone around your marriage,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a predatory town, but I think you can inadvertently send the wrong message by being in [certain] situations.”

The 2002 article notes that Pence arrived in Congress a half decade after the 1994 “Republican revolution,” when Newt Gingrich was the speaker of the House. Several congressional marriages, including Gingrich’s, encountered difficulty that year. Pence seemed wary of this. “I’ve lost more elections than I’ve won,” he said. “I’ve seen friends lose their families. I’d rather lose an election.” He even said he gets fingers wagged in his face by concerned Indianans. “Little old ladies come and say, ‘Honey, whatever you need to do, keep your family together,’” he told The Hill.

These comments show that the Pences have a distinctively conservative approach toward family, sex, and gender. This is by no means the way that all Christians, or even all evangelical Christians like the Pences, navigate married life. But traditional religious people from other backgrounds may practice something similar. Many Orthodox Jews follow the laws of yichud, which prohibit unmarried men and women from being alone in a closed room together. Some Muslim men and women also refuse to be together alone if they’re not married. These practices all have different histories and origins, but they’re rooted in the same belief: The sanctity of marriage should be protected, and sexual immorality should be guarded against at all costs.

The left attacked the Vice President over that, claiming that such a policy undercut women in the professions. Slate, of all places, had a rational response, by a liberal writer:

Lists of government staffers are widely available, and in 2012, for example, Pence’s roster of 19 Congressional employees included nine women, including his press secretary and staff director, the latter of whom he made his deputy chief of staff when he moved to Washington this year. No one would call Mike Pence a champion of gender equality—he spent part of the day Thursday casting a tie-breaking Senate vote to give states permission to deny funding to abortion providers—but he is not incapable of working with women.

And, in the concluding paragraph:

Socially conservative politicians who are discovered cheating on their spouses earn a lot of well-deserved scorn for their hypocrisy. But this week we’ve seen that socially conservative politicians who bend over backwards not to cheat on their wives are also subject to mockery and derision. The Pences’ approach is far too onerous and paranoid for my own relationship, and perhaps for yours, too. But something is obviously working for Mike and Karen Pence, who have been married for 31 years despite the kind of high-power, high-demand career that has derailed many other Washington marriages.

Is Mr O’Reilly really innocent of all of the allegations? Were they really all set-ups by gold diggers? I neither know nor care, but had he employed the Billy Graham rule — perhaps we can now refer to it as the Mike Pence rule? — he’d still have his job today.

A messed up society: when adults look for ‘transgenderism’ everywhere

This is from The New York Times, and I’m surprised that they actually printed it:

My Daughter Is Not Transgender. She’s a Tomboy.

By Lisa Selin Davis | April 18, 2017

“I just wanted to check,” the teacher said. “Your child wants to be called a boy, right? Or is she a boy that wants to be called a girl? Which is it again?”

I cocked my head. I am used to correcting strangers, who mistake my 7-year-old daughter for a boy 100 percent of the time.

In fact, I love correcting them, making them reconsider their perceptions of what a girl looks like. But my daughter had been attending the after-school program where this woman taught for six months.

“She’s a girl,” I said. The woman looked unconvinced. “Really. She’s a girl, and you can refer to her as a girl.”

There’s more at the original, but the point is simple: a young girl, who in times past would simply have been accepted as a tomboy, is now presumed by politically correct adults to be transgender. Were Charles Schultz’s Peanuts comic strip still going, we’d be seeing all sorts of liberal commenters telling us that Peppermint Patty, the good-at-sports tomboy, must really be transgendered. J K Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series, decided that Albus Dumbledore was homosexual, and while I suppose that the author defines the character, there was no sex involving Professor Dumbledore in any of the Harry Potter novels. He was a fictional character, who never engaged in sex in any of the books in which he appeared,1 so, to me, his ‘sexual preference’ — can a fictional character have any preferences? — was nothing at all.

Our culture has become thoroughly fouled up! The ‘transgendered’ make up somewhere around 0.3% of the population, as far as anybody knows — though some left-wing publications are now claiming that it may be as high as 0.6% — a population size I would guess to be somewhat smaller than the incidence of ‘tomboyism’ among girls.2 From any reasonable perspective, it would make more sense to assume that a girl who dresses like a boy and plays sports with the boys is a tomboy, something perfectly within the range of normal behavior, than that she is mentally ill. And really, why should anybody, other than her immediate family, think that it’s any of their business whether a particular girl who doesn’t favor ‘girly girl’ clothes is or is not ‘transgendered?’

One of the more positive aspects of our society is the encouragement of girls toward athletics; why would we ever want to think that a girl who wants to mix it up with the guys playing baseball or soccer or whatever — especially before adolescence, when girls and boys are more physically equal in such things — is anything other than she appears, a girl who wants to compete?

It’s a pretty sad commentary on our society that the Times would have to publish an article like this, a sad commentary that the propaganda of the ‘transgender’ lobby would have busybodies thinking that normal kids must really be abnormal.
__________________________
Cross-posted on RedState.
__________________________

  1. Yes, I have read all of the Harry Potter series of books, and yes, Miss Rowling is an excellent author. I was particularly impressed by her ability, as a mature woman, to write so realistically about an adolescent boy’s emotions.
  2. A google search failed to locate any statistics on the prevalence of ‘tomboyism.’

Democrisy: Why are the feminist left so silent on domestic abuse when it involves an immigrant?

And now, the story:

Silicon Valley CEO Pleads ‘No Contest’ to Abusing His Wife—and Is Offered a Deal for Less Than 30 Days in Jail

A deal was struck, and the judge had left for vacation, before the victim had her say in the same Santa Clara courthouse where Brock Turner was given six months for sexual assault.

by Michael Daly | 04.17.17 7:40 PM ET

At Apple, Neha Rastogi worked on everything from Siri to FaceTime to Maps, sometimes seated beside Steve Jobs himself.

She is clearly brilliant and dedicated as well as passionate about the happy interface between technology and the public. Nobody could have foreseen that she would someday be compelled to employ an iPhone to record harrowing moments of what she says was a pattern of domestic abuse during virtually her entire 10-year marriage to a man who is now CEO of a Silicon Valley startup.

Without the recordings, it would have been just another case of “he said, she said,” as her husband, Abhishek Gattani, faced his second felony domestic violence charge in Santa Clara Superior Court in fabled Palo Alto.

Instead, it was “he said, she-and-her-iPhone said.”

The video that Rastogi made on May 17, 2016, of 5 minutes and 58 seconds of her life with Abhishek Gattani offers no dramatic images like the elevator surveillance footage of Ray Rice knocking out his girlfriend with a single devastating punch.

Visually, this footage is so uneventful you might think that somebody had mistakenly left their phone in video-record mode in their pocket.

But that makes the audio all the more disturbing, most particularly when you begin to hear the repeated thwacks in the presence of their then 2-year-old daughter.

The Daily Beast original has a lot more, including the audio recordings and transcripts of the whole stinking thing.

This was Mr Gattani’s second assault upon his wife known to law enforcement; he had already been apprehended for assaulting his wife, in public, with a “closed fist,” for which he:

was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor and was sentenced to a year of domestic violence/anger management classes, but not a minute behind bars.

The current case? Mr Gattani was allowed to plead down from felony assault to felony accessory after the fact, with an accompanying misdemeanor of “offensive touching.” He would be sentenced to six months, but serve less than one, with the rest on probation.

Now, why might the prosecution agree to a lenient plea deal for the second assault? According to the article:

The prosecutor in the case, Assistant District Attorney Steve Fein, described the plea deal to The Daily Beast as a fair outcome, noting that accessory after the fact is also a felony, though not a violent one that would place Gattani at risk of being deported back to his native India. Fein indicated that his boss, Santa Clara District Attorney Jeff Rosen, seeks to avoid such deportations.

and:

[Mr Fein] allowed that no case is exactly like another, but ventured that the outcome in this one was not unusual.

“[Gattani] didn’t get a lighter deal, he didn’t get a heavier deal,” Fein said.

He confirmed that Gattani’s immigration status was a factor.

“It was a consideration, yes,” he said.

Since the Daily Beast article was published yesterday, Salon writer Amanda Marcotte has published four articles,1 none of which mentioned this particular outrage, even though it is squarely within her sphere of interest. Other than Sarah Lacy on Pando and Karoli Kuns on the liberal site Crooks and Liars, a Google search for Abhishek Gattani2 turned up nothing from the feminist ‘intellectual leadership,’ not from Melissa McEwan, not from Jessica Valenti. The New York Times took the Daily Beast story and put it on their Women in the World web page, a 21 hours after the Daily Beast original.

If there was ever a story about the left trying to ignore criminal brutality when it might have an impact on immigration policy of which they disapprove, this is it. Santa Clara District Attorney Jeff Rosen has a policy of avoiding charges which might lead to deportation of immigrants. The Mercury News quoted the soft-on-crime Mr Rosen:

In the DA’s office, we successfully prosecute more than 42,000 criminal cases a year, and send hundreds of men and women to jail and prison each year.

Most of these inmates will serve their sentences and get released back into our community. These inmates are not the ‘other.’ They are our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, friends and neighbors.

Yet here he has had opportunities to not have criminals released back into his community, and has declined them. He has attempted to eliminate the ‘unconscious victim’ loophole that got Brock Turner off so lightly, but had one of his minions negotiate a lower sentence on a lesser offense to keep Mr Gattani safe from deportation. He should want Mr Gattani locked up for years, and then deported once he gets out, to protect the women of Santa Clara.

This is a horrible story, one in which I would expect the feminist left to be outraged. The Brock Turner case sure got their dander up, but Mr Turner was a white American, who couldn’t be deported, so their outrage didn’t impact immigration policies. One would think that the Gattani case would also anger them, but, Alas! it could be seen as supporting deportation and President Trump’s policies, even though Mr Gattani is a legal immigrant. Even to the feminists, opposing Mr Trump on immigration is much more important that abuse of women.
_______________________________
Cross-posted on RedState.
_______________________________

  1. Miss Marcotte’s Salon author page accessed at 5:42 PM EDT
  2. Conducted at 5:53 PM EDT.

Alisyn Camerota sets a trap for Jon Ossoff How can Georgia voters trust a man who can't answer such a simple question?

I caught part of CNN’s New Day this morning, when Alisyn Camerota was giving Jon Ossoff, the leading Democratic candidate for the special election to fill the 6th congressional district seat vacated by Tom Price what at least seemed to be a softball interview. Then, she opened up the trap, and he stepped right into it.

First, Miss Camerota asked a question to which she already knew the answer, whether it was true that Mr Ossoff could not vote in his own election. He admitted that he cannot, that while he was born and raised in what is now the 6th district, he lives about ten minutes south, with his girlfriend, a medical student at Emory University. That much was already known, and published, but then Miss Camerota laid her trap, asking when Mr Ossoff planned on marrying his girlfriend,1 even suggesting an election day proposal. Mr Ossoff refused to answer, blowing it off as a personal question.

Mr Ossoff was very prepared for all of Miss Camerota’s questions except that one. His girlfriend is described as his “high school sweetheart,” and Mr Ossoff said that they’ve been together for twelve years, but he doesn’t know how to answer a question about when they will marry, when he is running for political office?

The truth is that Mr Ossoff didn’t want to answer the question, because he knew it wouldn’t help him in his campaign. If you have been ‘dating’ someone for twelve years, and are now living together, the subject has to have arisen by now. If Mr Ossoff cannot answer that simple a question about himself, how can voters trust anything else about him?2
_______________________________

  1. Mr Ossoff referred to her as his “girlfriend” on every occasion, never taking any opportunity to refer to her as his “fiancée.”
  2. This article updated at 5:52 PM EDT.

There’s no threat quite like an empty threat

From The Wall Street Journal:

Pence Warns North Korea Not to Test Trump

In visit to demilitarized zone, Pence calls U.S. alliance with South Korea ironclad

By Jonathan Cheng | April 17, 2017 3:26 a.m. ET

SEOUL—U.S. Vice President Mike Pence warned North Korea not to test President Donald Trump, calling the recent American military strikes on Syria and Afghanistan an example of Washington’s strength.

“North Korea would do well not to test his resolve or the strength of the armed forces of the United States,” Mr. Pence said Monday after he visited the demilitarized zone that divides the Korean Peninsula.

Speaking alongside South Korea’s acting President Hwang Kyo-ahn, Mr. Pence said his unannounced visit to the DMZ underscored the message of resolve that he was bringing to the region.

“America has always sought peace through strength,” he said earlier in the day according to a pool report, warning North Korea that its military “should not mistake the resolve of the United States of America to stand with our allies.”

There’s more at the original.

OK, and just what is the United States going to do if the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea does “test (President Trump’s) resolve or the strength of the armed forces of the United States?” We have applied so many economic sanctions on North Korea that there just aren’t many more which can be used. And, throughout the continued application of those sanctions, the DPRK has just blustered and fussed, but in reality just laughed at them. It’s a simple truth: ‘Supreme Leader’ Kim Jong-un doesn’t care if his subjects have to live even more poorly than they do now, and those subjects have lived poorer than they do today during the 2010 food crisis,1 as well as one in 2016. President Trump’s only remaining options are military ones; is he going to give an order to bomb nuclear-armed North Korea, when Seoul is only 35 miles away?

North Korea’s foreign policy has been consistent for many years: whenever the leadership wants attention, it tests a nuclear weapon or ballistic missile, and gets the West to wax wroth, but still do nothing. The West, led by the United States, blusters and fusses, moves around ships and airplanes, but doesn’t take any action against the DPRK, because there no longer is any action other than military which could be taken.

At this point, the wiser course is to simply ignore North Korea’s provocation attempts. Kim Jong-un simply wants attention, like an (unfortunately nuclear-armed) six-year-old, but there’s no reason to give it to him.

  1. Kim Jong-il was still alive and in power in 2010, and he was no more concerned than Wonsu Kim Jong-un has been subsequently.

Things you should know about bail bonds

Things You Should Know About Bail Bonds

If you don’t know a lot about bail bonds, that’s probably a good sign. After all, the only experience you would have with the is if you or someone you know has been arrested and needs to bailed out of jail. We hope you never have to deal with a bail bondsmen. If you do, you should be prepared, though. Here are some vital things to now if you ever need to get Adams County bail bonds.

What to Know About Bail Bonds

Information – Before you contact the agent, there is some information you will need to have in order for them to be able to help you. You need to know where the person is incarcerated and their full name as this is the only way the bondsman will able to locate them and get the process started. After that, the bondsman will find out how much you will need to pay to get the person out of custody.

Do I have to Use a Bail Bondsman – No, you don’t have to use a bondsman, but it is the easiest way to get one. There are some other means to get one like just going to the court and posting the full amount of the jail, but with a bondsman, you only need to pay ten percent of the total amount. If you don’t have the cash the judge may let you put up an asset as collateral. They can also just release the prisoner on their own behalf if they feel that is warranted.

You don’t get your money back – You pay the ten percent to get the person out and don’t have to pay the full amount unless they don’t show up for their court date. You don’t get your original payment back when they do show up, though. Consider this a fee to keep the defendant out of jail during the period between their arrest and the court date they have been assigned.

Once a defendant is bonded out, they usually cannot leave the state. There are some exceptions to this that can be determined by the judge assigned to the case. Usually, you will be told not to leave the state at the end of the court date. Always assume you can’t leave the state unless specifically told otherwise. If the defendant leaves the state, they could be arrested and their charges could be even worse.

How to survive a job loss

How to Survive a Job Loss

One of the most common challenges for many adults is suffering from a job loss, which can make it easy to live in fear. Many people often wonder how they’ll continue paying their bills until they’re able to secure their employment. When you want to survive a job loss, there are a few important steps to take.

Save an Emergency Fund

It’s important to plan for a job loss by saving at least six months of income that you can live off of until another employer hires you. Avoid using the money for other types of expenses, which will allow you to keep your home and vehicles.

Apply for a Loan

Living off of unemployment money is often challenging for those who are supporting other dependents or have a significant amount of bills. To ensure that you can survive, consider taking out a loan from private money lenders California. The loan can be arranged quickly with attractive terms that are fair. You can obtain a loan with poor credit due to lenders who focus on your equity with flexible terms that fit your needs. You can repay the loan once you find another job and can make ends meet.

Reduce Your Expenses

It’s important to spend less while you’re unemployment, which will require you to eliminate unnecessary bills that are considered to be a luxury. Cut the cord on your cable or other types of subscriptions that are for entertainment purposes. Consider cutting coupons to spend less on groceries and household goods. You can also sell one of your vehicles or a boat that is in your possession to avoid having an extra bill each month.

Host a Yard Sale

Purge your home of unused items that haven’t been in use for at least a year. You can go through your bedroom closets and look for clothing that is worn or no longer fits. You can also sell children’s toys, furniture, and linens that are no longer needed. Consider selling jewelry pieces or electronics to pawn shops to get more money for items that have a higher value.

Reducing your expenses and obtaining a loan can allow you to have the necessary funds to pay your bills until you begin working in the future. Although it can be challenging to live paycheck to paycheck while unemployed, you can avoid stress and anxiety by following the right tips.

The left’s new lie about Obaminablecare

Propaganda from The New York Times:

No ‘Death Spiral’: Insurers May Soon Profit From Obamacare Plans, Analysis Finds

By Reed Abelson | April 7, 2017

In contrast to the dire pronouncements from President Trump and other Republicans, the demise of the individual insurance market seems greatly exaggerated, according to a new financial analysis released Friday.

The analysis, by Standard & Poor’s, looked at the performance of many Blue Cross plans in nearly three dozen states since President Barack Obama’s health care law took effect three years ago. It shows the insurers significantly reduced their losses last year, are likely to break even this year and that most could profit — albeit some in the single-digits — in 2018. The insurers cover more than five million people in the individual market.

After years in which many insurers lost money, then lost even more in 2015, “we are seeing the first signs in 2016 that this market could be manageable for most health insurers,” the Standard & Poor’s analysts said. The “market is not in a ‘death spiral,’ ” they said.

It is the latest evidence that the existing law has not crippled the market where individuals can buy health coverage, although several insurers have pulled out of some markets, including two in Iowa just this week. They and other industry specialists have cited the uncertainty surrounding the Congressional debate over the law, and the failed effort two weeks ago by House Republicans to bring a bill to the floor for a vote.

There’s a lot more at the original, but the important point is this: this is an analysis, which claims that insurers may become profitable in the exchanges, sometime in the future, but insurers are losing money now, which is why so many have pulled out. Do you think that companies would be leaving the Knoxville, Tennessee market with zero exchange insurers if they were making money?

Although it took longer than expected, the insurers appear to be starting to understand how the new individual market works, said Deep Banerjee, an S.&P. credit analyst who helped write the report. The companies have aggressively increased their prices, so they are now largely covering their medical costs, Mr. Banerjee said. They have also significantly narrowed their networks to include fewer doctors and hospitals as a way to lower those costs.

What does that mean? Well, the “Although it took longer than expected” part tells you that previous analyses, also made by experts, were wrong. That “companies have aggressively increased their prices” tells you what we already knew: that ACA exchange insurance rates have skyrocketed, something which past analyses also failed to predict. And the cost cutting measures listed tell you that no, not only do you not get to keep your doctor if you like him, but that the quality of medical care is being lowered, in the name of saving money.

And, let’s be honest here: the better physicians, the ones people really want to see, are the ones who are no longer part of the scheme. They are the ones with the highest rates, just as you’d expect.

Conservatives told you that this would happen!

When insurers start re-entering the laughably-named Affordable Care Act exchanges, then we will have real evidence that they have become profitable; as they keep pulling out, we know that they are seeing situations in which they cannot make money. Perhaps The New York Times will tell us when that happens.