Displaying posts published in

April 2017

Reviving Repeal and Replace The GOP is running out of time as insurance markets deteriorate.

Republicans left Washington on Friday without a health-care deal, despite renewed negotiations after last month’s fiasco and a burst of White House diplomacy. Perhaps the two-week recess will be a cooling-off period and we hope the House’s factions can agree on a deal. If they can’t, then at least we’ll learn who’s responsible for defeat.

After the Freedom Caucus killed the original health bill in March, the talks resumed, not least for practical and political imperatives. President Trump and Republicans campaigned on repeal and replace, and the President at least wants to keep his word. The ObamaCare exchanges are also fragile and precarious, and consumers harmed by rising premiums and declining choices are likely to blame the party in power.

But the divide between conservatives and centrists hasn’t narrowed. Last week, in part to create the appearance of progress, the House added an amendment on “invisible risk sharing” that would help bring down premiums by absorbing high-cost patients. The compromise was worked out by the Freedom Caucus’s David Schweikert of Arizona and Tom MacArthur of New Jersey, who is more moderate.
These talks are constructive, though the larger question is whether most of the Freedom Caucus members want a bill they can back or are merely trying to shift the blame for failure. They say they’ll support a bill that repeals, or creates a state waiver to avoid, the ObamaCare mandates that prohibit insurers from denying coverage or charging more to patients based on pre-existing conditions. The Freedom Caucus is right that these mandates drive up the cost of insurance, but the moderates understandably don’t want to have a debate about how much to soak the sickest patients.

One reason is that this fight is largely pointless. True, the House bill doesn’t repeal the “community rating” that limits how much premiums can vary among consumers, but it does relax it enough to be effective repeal. Under ObamaCare, the costliest plan can be no more than three times as expensive as the cheapest, known as a 3 to 1 rating band. The House bill moves to a 5 to 1 band, which is above the true cost of care.

Jewish values gone haywire By Steve Apfel

Jews of Cape Town want their government to retake land bought by a Jewish day school and, in place of a new campus, to erect low-cost housing for poor Gentiles – right in a suburb that many Cape Town Jews find unaffordable.

American Jews direct communal resources to black rights, refugee rights, LGBT rights, women’s rights, transgender rights – to any right that is not a Jewish right. Rabbis sign a petition to allow Muslim refugees from Jew-intolerant backgrounds into America. Democrat Jews dote on Barack Obama with a hostility to the State of Israel matched only by a friendliness to powers that would do away with that nation. Jews attend a downtown Johannesburg event to hear a BDS panel confuse the Holocaust with self-governing Palestinians growing at a birthrate above the norm.

All of the above are trendy causes. They also, one and all, pick on Jews and their outlaw country.

All that was thought about Jews in the past has found a home in what trendy movements think about Israel now. The left-wing element is prone to overlook that unlovely aspect.

Every year at Passover, we read in the Haggadah: “Go and learn what Laban the Aramean sought to do to our father Jacob[.] … He sought to destroy everything.” Laban has been the paradigm of anti-Semites from time immemorial. Jews parading and protesting with modern Labanites may be tolerable; but when rabbis defend them, willfully forgetting what Laban sought to do to Israel (né Jacob), such behavior is unfathomable.

The counter-intuitive mind of the Jew is uncanny. From the sin of the golden calf onward, Jews have done things that no one can figure out. Did the Almighty create them to be contrary?

Probably not, when you hear left-wing elements speak out with clarity and moral conviction. Jacob’s kindred were created to be a light unto the world. Working with unlikely bedfellows is not aberrant behavior. On the contrary, they as Jews are doing exactly what they were put on earth to do: stand for values and modes of caring as old as the Bible. In their helter-skelter to get Muslim refugees into America, or to help the poor live in a sought after part of Cape Town, Jews of conscience have no qualms about doing what they do. History and tradition (their word for God in the secular?) marked out the Jews to care for the stranger in their midst.

But we are given to believe that the sacred duty is very selective. Caring for the stranger is everything; caring for the Jew is nothing. Kith and kin in parts of Ukraine are caught in crossfire and go hungry; in France, they live, and perish, under dire threat. While Jewish terror victims go unsung, and Zionists on campus are bullied, and the new domain for Laban’s kindred is the internet – still the gut instinct of Jews for repairing the world is for that stranger out there.

The Industrial Internet Of Things – Potential Cyber Threats Consequences By Ludmila Morozova-Buss

Mr. Chuck Brooks – one of the world’s most known experts and the cyber security guru, shares his thoughts about Industry 4.0 and cyber threats in an interview with Ludmila Morozova-Buss.

As the capabilities and connectivity of cyber devices have grown exponentially, so have the cyber intrusions and threats from malware and hackers requiring restructuring of priorities and missions.

According to Chuck Brooks, a successful 4.0 cyber threat consequences strategy requires stepping up assessing situational awareness, information sharing, and especially resilience. Cyber resilience is an area that must be further developed both in processes and technologies because no matter what, breaches will happen.

Currently, Ransomware mostly via Phishing activities is the top threat. In the recent past, 2014 code vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed, Shellshock, Wirelurke, POODLE and other open source repositories caused chaos and harm. There is a growing understanding the seriousness and sophistication of the threats, especially denial of service and the adversarial actors that include states, organized crimes, and loosely affiliated hackers.

In the US, most (approximately 85%) of the cybersecurity critical infrastructure including defense, oil, and gas, electric power grids, healthcare, utilities, communications, transportation, banking, and finance is owned by the private sector and regulated by the public sector. DHS has recognized the importance of private sector input into cyber security requirements across these verticals and along with NIST in developing a strategy to ameliorate shortcomings.

The Strategic Grid, in the US and Europe, is in great need for enhanced security. An accelerated effort to fund and design new technologies to protect the utilities from natural or man-made electromagnetic surges; further, harden hardware and software in SCADA networks from cyber-attack, and provide enhanced physical security for the grid.

Mobile management that involves securing millions of BYOD devices is currently a challenge for information security both in government and in the private sector. Cloud computing has also taken center stage and securing cloud applications. There is always a need for better encryption, biometrics, smarter analytics and automated network security in all categories.

Supercomputing, machine learning, and quantum computing technologies are an exciting area of current exploration that may remedy many of the threats.

Chuck’s Brooks list of future cyber security 4.0 priorities includes:

Internet of Things (society on new verge of exponential interconnectivity)
Wearables
Drones and Robots
Artificial intelligence
Smart Cities
Connected transportation

The full interview by Ludmila Morozova-Buss can be read here.

Editor’s Note: This Article originally appeared on IIOT World, and is featured here with Author permission.

ISIS Borrows a Tactic from Hamas : Evelyn Gordon

The U.S. Army recently announced that it has horrifying video footage of Islamic State fighters herding Iraqi civilians into buildings in Mosul. The plan was not to use them as human shields–that is, to announce their presence in the hope of deterring American airstrikes. Rather, ISIS was deliberately trying to ensure that American troops killed them, by “smuggling civilians into buildings, so we won’t see them and trying to bait the coalition to attack,” an army spokesman saidat a briefing for Pentagon reporters. The motive, he explained, was hope that massive civilian casualties would produce such an outcry that the U.S. would halt airstrikes altogether.

There’s an important point to this story which the spokesman neglected to mention: This tactic is borrowed directly from Hamas. And it was borrowed because the world’s response to successive Hamas-Israel wars convinced ISIS that creating massive civilian casualties among residents of its own territory is an effective strategy. Admittedly, Hamas hasn’t yet been caught on video actually herding civilians into buildings before launching attacks from them. But there’s plenty of evidence that Hamas prevented civilians from leaving areas whence it was launching rockets or other attacks at Israel, thereby deliberately exposing them to retaliatory strikes.

During the 2014 Gaza war, for instance, the Israel Defense Forces warned civilians to evacuate the town of Beit Lahiya before launching air strikes at Hamas positions. But according to Palestinian human rights activist Bassem Eid, who based himself on interviews with Palestinians in Gaza, Hamas gunmen showed up and warned that anyone who left the town would be treated as a collaborator. Since Hamas executes collaborators, that was equivalent to saying that anyone who tried to leave would be killed on the spot. Thus, faced with the alternative of certain death at Hamas’s hands, most Beit Lahiya residents understandably opted to stay and take their chances with the IDF.

There’s also plenty of evidence that Hamas deliberately launched attacks from buildings where it knew civilians were present. Just last month, for instance, I wrote about a case during the 2009 Gaza war in which Hamas directed sniper fire at Israeli troops from the third floor of a well-known doctor’s home, thereby forcing the soldiers to choose between becoming sitting ducks or shooting back and risking civilian casualties. Unbeknownst to the soldiers, Hamas was also storing explosives in the house (using civilian buildings as arms caches or wiring them with explosives is standard practice for Hamas). Consequently, when the soldiers fired at the Hamas position, an unexpectedly large explosion ensued, killing three of the doctor’s daughters and one of his nieces.

The Israel-Palestinian Peace Process Has Been a Massive Charade So long as Palestinian rejectionism runs rampant, debates about one-, two-, and three-state solutions are for naught. Daniel Pipes

Daniel Polisar of Shalem College in Jerusalem shook the debate over Palestinian-Israeli relations in November 2015 with his essay, “What Do Palestinians Want?” In it, having studied 330 polls to “understand the perspective of everyday Palestinians” toward Israel, Israelis, Jews, and the utility of violence against them, he found that Palestinian attackers are “venerated” by their society—with all that that implies. https://mosaicmagazine.com/response/2017/04/the-israel-palestinian-peace-process-has-been-a-massive-charade/

He’s done it again with “Do Palestinians Want a Two-State Solution?” This time, he pored over some 400 opinion polls of Palestinian views to find consistency among seemingly contradictory evidence on the topic of ways to resolve the conflict with Israel. From this confusing bulk, Polisar convincingly establishes that Palestinians collectively hold three related views of Israel: it has no historical or moral claim to exist, it is inherently rapacious and expansionist, and it is doomed to extinction. In combination, these attitudes explain and justify the widespread Palestinian demand for a state from “the river to the sea,” the grand Palestine of their maps that erases Israel.

With this analysis, Polisar has elegantly dissected the phenomenon that I call Palestinian rejectionism. That’s the policy first implemented by the monstrous mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, in 1921 and consistently followed over the next near-century. Rejectionism demands that Palestinians (and beyond them, Arabs and Muslims) repudiate every aspect of Zionism: deny Jewish ties to the land of Israel, fight Jewish ownership of that land, refuse to recognize Jewish political power, refuse to trade with Zionists, murder Zionists where possible, and ally with any foreign power, including Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, to eradicate Zionism.

The continuities are striking. All major Palestinian leaders—Amin al-Husseini, Ahmad al-Shukeiri, Yasir Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, and Yahya Sinwar (the new leader of Hamas in Gaza)—have made eliminating the Zionist presence their only goal. Yes, for tactical reasons, they occasionally compromised, most notably in the Oslo Accords of 1993, but then they reversed these exceptions as soon as possible.

In other words, the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” that began in 1989 has been a massive charade. As Israelis earnestly debated making “painful concessions,” their Palestinian counterparts issued promises they had had no intention of fulfilling, something Arafathad the gall publicly to signal to his constituency even as he signed the Oslo Accords, and many times subsequently.

So longas rejectionism runs rampant, debates about one-, two-, and three-state solutions, about carving up the Temple Mount into dual sovereign areas, or about electricity grids and water supplies, are for naught. There can be no resolution so long as most Palestinians dream of obliterating the Jewish state. Indeed, this makes negotiations counterproductive. The Oslo Accords and other signed pieces of paper have made matters much worse. The farce of negotiations, therefore, needs urgently to end.

Their Finest – A Review By Marilyn Penn

In one scene in this British film, two women who work together are having a conversation and one remarks to the other that she appears tired and worn out compared to how she looked some time before when she looked so ______; she searches for the right adjective, waits several beats and finally says “so vivid.” The retrieval of this uncommon “mot juste” as opposed to more generic possibilities, crystallizes what lifts this small movie into the realm of memorable film. The dialogue is precise and intelligent; the characters speak in complete sentences; they are adults living through the blitz during the second world war. There are no stock caricatures to be found. The narcissistic actor who craves the spotlight is also articulate and self-aware with redeemable charm. It’s a part tailor-made for Bill Nighy and his delivery is flawless. The ingenue, a young woman who gets recruited to help write a propaganda film to entice the U.S. to enter the war, is someone who already had the gumption to leave Wales and live with her lover. Her earnest collaborator wears serious glasses but is intuitive enough to have guessed much more about her background from a small detail which I won’t reveal. The two of them spar and circle each other but we feel their growing bond and cheer them on.

Since this is a movie that up-ends our expectations repeatedly, I won’t belabor the plot. I will say that the cast is perfect, the sentiments it arouses are authentic and , despite some harrowing scenes, there isn’t a maudlin moment in this screenplay. I can’t think of another movie about writing a movie that captures as perfectly as this one both the mechanics of constructing scenes along with the graceful talent it requires to lift the prosaic to rarified heavenly heights.