Thursday roundup

The only stand to take on this if you are acting from conservative principles:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) sharply criticized central elements of the emerging Senate Republican healthcare bill on Thursday, indicating that he will vote against it unless dramatic changes are made. 

Paul denounced as “new entitlements” two core elements of the Republican bill in both the House and Senate: a refundable tax credit to help people buy insurance and a “stabilization fund” of money to help bring down premiums.  

“I think we shouldn't have new entitlements that will go on forever in a Republican plan to fix healthcare,” Paul told a small group of reporters. “We can't pay for what we already have: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.”

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is another potential conservative “no” vote. Lee said Sunday that he has “grave concerns” about the way the bill is headed.

There is a lot of commentary out there today about the vile NYT editorial that tries to revive some kind of Sarah Palin implication in the Gabby Giffords shooting in the course of remarking on the Steve Scalese shooting, but the piece that's must-read is David French's at NRO.

Great Daren Jonescu piece entitled "On Being an Idiot." First few paragraphs:

A few days ago, I posted an article here as well as at American Thinker about London’s mayor calling for a travel ban against Donald Trump. As a matter of conscience, I began my piece by noting that I am not a Trump fan, to which one AT reader commented, “Yeah, we all know you are an idiot.” Another commenter replied to the first: “My question? (sic) After all that Trump has accomplished, why isn’t Jonescu an adherent?” To which Gentleman Number One answered, “Because he is an imbecile.” Another witty Trumpster accused me of being “a clueless dhimmi tool” — for writing an article in which I state that Britain has been undone by its perverted conception of tolerance regarding Islam. (!)

There were other choice remarks along these lines scattered among the three hundred readers’ comments — though, I am heartened to note, fewer than I had expected, and far fewer than I received when I wrote about Trump before the election. It seems the Trump cult’s online troll division has either (a) been reduced in size or fervor as the mostly establishment-friendly reality of President Trump leaves them somewhat disillusioned, or (b) gotten bored of trotting out the same stock insults incessantly — hamstrung as they are by the knowledge that, whatever their own brain capacities, it would be irreligious of them to use words their idol himself couldn’t use.

To summarize, then: One is not merely to support Trump, but to be “an adherent” — perfect cultist language, and I have written at length about the degree to which I believe what we are witnessing is not a metaphorical or parodic cult but a real, honest to goodness one. Furthermore, anyone who fails to adhere to Trump is an imbecile or worse, which, again, is consistent with the cult sensibility, as it is a judgment that conveniently circumvents any possibility of rational argument, and hence absolves the cultist of the responsibility of offering one. (Case in point: Amid the smattering of vitriol in the aforementioned readers’ comments, I find, “The author writes he is not a fan of Trump. Who is he a fan of Jeb Bush or Kasich?” The critic conveniently cites only the two most obviously establishment-aligned primary candidates as alternatives to Trump, ignoring all others, in order to smear me as establishmentarian by association, as though Trump had no rivals of a more principled nature — or as though not loving any other GOP candidate required one to love Trump, i.e., as though supporting a Republican candidate were an inescapable duty. So who’s the establishmentarian again?)

Actually, there is a war on women, and it's being waged by transgendered people.

Otto Warmbier's dad isn't buying North Korea's explanation (botulism) of why his son came home from that country in a coma.