RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/from-the-buzzfeed-psychodrama-to-the-covington-video-melodrama/

In the current polarized climate concerning the shutdown, Trump, the media, etc., it would be wise for everyone to take a deep breath and wait at least 24 hours before snap editorializing, in response to the latest sensational morality tale flashing across electronic media.

In the present climate, one video (or even three or four videos from different angles and elevations) is not necessarily worth a thousand words.

Similarly, co-authored sensational scoops might not be so sensational if the old anonymous “sources say” modus operandi has no verifiable supporting documentary evidence as alleged — and if, at the outset, the co-authors cannot substantiate their story, and especially if they also cannot substantiate it later when challenged by the special counsel. (NB: In both the Michael Cohen and Covington stories, BuzzFeed ran with stories that were not substantiated but that did reflect its own predictable agendas).

I doubt we will know exactly what happened at the Washington, D.C., march until more eye-witnesses, videos, interviews, etc. are all collated (other than the fact that different groups were shouting different things, sometimes at each other). But the result will probably be a lot more complicated than the initial narrative of “white spoiled MAGA Catholic youth approached, surrounded, and taunted noble Native American elder,” a narrative that has induced an epidemic of virtue-signaling.

Trump’s freewheeling past should not lend automatic credibility to the latest media charge against him (which, a nanosecond after hitting the media, was followed by demands for his impeachment).

So, too, that a co-author of the BuzzFeed piece, Jason Leopold, had been a confessed felon, had been fired or repudiated by various news venues for alleged unprofessional conduct, and had been an admitted prevaricator did not ipso facto mean that his latest “scoop” had to be immediately written off as false. Just a few hours of gestation would make that clear enough.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13593/womens-march-antisemitism

Consider the front page story in the New York Times Sunday Review, which singled out the Palestinian issue as “one of the great moral challenges of our time” — ignoring Syria, Ukraine, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, Tibet, Cyprus and many far greater moral challenges, which are largely ignored by the hard left.

Recall that Hitler was not elected by anti-Semites or because of his anti-Semitism. He was elected as the result of his economic and other policies by people who gave him a pass for his anti-Semitism because they approved of his other policies.

People who support Louis Farrakhan because of the alleged good he does for the Black community and despite his overt anti-Semitism are complicit in bigotry, and those who march under the banner of such bigots are only one degree removed from such complicity.

Those women and men who marched in the Women’s March under the leadership of Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory colluded with anti-Semitism. These two leaders of the Women’s March worship the most influential anti-Semite in the United States today, Louis Farrakhan. They claim to disagree with his crass anti-Jewish (and anti-gay and anti-feminist) preaching — although there is reason to doubt this, as it relates to Jews — but they admire him for his impact on elements of the Black community. They must understand that this impact includes influencing hundreds of thousands of Blacks to consider Jews to be “termites” and destroyers of the world. But they do not care. They regard him as great — Mallory has called him “the GOAT” (“Greatest of All Time”).

Marching with these supporters of an anti-Semite is the equivalent of marching under the banner of David Duke, who inspires white supremacists with the same sort of bigotry with which Farrakhan preaches Black supremacy. Hitler inspired pride in Aryans, Mussolini made the trains run on time, and Stalin spread the wealth. But would the women who marched with Farrakhan’s admirers have marched with these bigots?

http://swtotd.blogspot.com/

This essay is about Donald Trump, but it could have been about Martin Luther King whose birthday we celebrate today. Democracies must always be challenged, else they atrophy. The Reverend Doctor King did so in the 1950s and 1960s to great effect. Mr. Trump did so in his campaign and has continued to do so thus far in his Presidency, but to an effect yet unknown.

In Hans Christian Anderson’s tale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” a small boy calls attention to the fact that the Emperor is naked – that the clothes sold him by an unscrupulous merchant who appealed to his vanity were, in fact, nothing. None of the people who watched the Emperor as he paraded by said anything, as they didn’t want to admit they were too ignorant to see his fine suit of clothes. It took a small boy to call out the truth, that the Emperor was indeed naked. Today, it is Donald J. Trump who has called our attention to the corruption, stagnation and cronyism of political systems populated with elites who think they live beyond the boundaries of criticism. For doing so, he has been vilified.

But disruption is natural to life. It is everywhere, and for that we should be thankful. Joseph Schumpeter popularized the concept of creative destruction – that progress requires destroying old technologies. It has always been so. Cars replaced horse-drawn carriages. The telegraph ended the Pony Express. Trains made obsolete the Erie Canal. Machine guns and tanks changed the way war was conducted on land, as submarines did on the seas. Wireless phones are eliminating the need for land-line phones. Amazon has changed the way we shop, and Netflix the way we are entertained. 401ks have replaced defined benefit retirement plans. Charter schools, facing pressure from unions and the politicians who rely on them, have competed against and made better traditional public schools. Norman Borlaug, in using plant pathology and genetics, dramatically increased crop supplies around the world. Without disruption, we would be poorer.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/mark-kot-anti-obamacare-doctor/

Good for Dr. Kot, but there is nothing new here. At New York City’s Weill Cornell Hospital, finding a private doctor that takes Medicare is impossible, even among those who accept other insurance…..And their waiting rooms are full because enough people are willing to pay for a doctor…..I am among them and my internist looks at me and not a computer…..rsk

Meet the man trying out a new way to deliver health care.

Dr. Mark Kot, an urgent-care specialist and the owner of Southampton Urgent Medical Care in Southampton, N.Y., is the anti-Obamacare doctor. He does not participate in most insurance plans and is not in any Affordable Care Act network. He feels sorry for the patients with this restricted insurance, and when they come to his door with a bad cough or a painful foot and ask to be seen, he does his best to provide them great care for a limited cost. The insurance card they got through Obamacare remains in their pocket, useless.

Kot is not a “concierge” doctor. He does not charge a membership fee, and he does not charge for follow-up visits, where he determines whether the initial treatment was effective.

Kot works with four nurses and staff, performs and interprets his own x-rays, and administers intravenous medications when needed. There is little waiting time, and the visits are efficient — geared to the complexity of care provided. He generally sees over 40 patients per day and performs rapid flu tests; treats ankle sprains, bronchitis, pneumonia, and sinus infections; and during the summer and fall sees several cases of suspected Lyme disease each day. Kot purchases antibiotics from a supplier so he can give his patients samples. He charges a base inclusive fee ($220 per initial visit); office procedures and tests may have additional charges, and some patients with good out-of-network coverage get reimbursed by their insurance. But reimbursement isn’t Kot’s focus, because he provides an affordable product and is paid up front.

Whereas Kot provides instant access to care, Obamacare erects barriers to it, such as high deductibles and narrow networks. Doctors fight for reimbursements and patients encounter bureaucratic obstacles to tests and treatments. While it is true that Obamacare has reduced the number of uninsured in the U.S. from 44 million in 2013 to less than 28 million in 2017, at the same time it has done a poor job of ensuring access to quality doctors.