RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/07/treating_early_saves_lives_a_tale_of_three_covid_patients.html

I have been treating those infected with COVID-19 since the beginning of the pandemic. Our interventions have made it abundantly clear that early treatment is critical to preventing hospitalization and death, regardless of the underlying risk factors that may be involved.

The following stories deal with real patients, only their names have been changed for obvious reasons.

Jane is 77 years old and has significant ongoing health issues. She called me shortly after testing positive for COVID-19. She had no symptoms. Since she said she felt well, she was inclined to wait and watch and simply isolate herself in her house. I convinced her that because she was at a high risk for a troublesome outcome, waiting for symptoms was a bad idea. Instead, we started her on a treatment involving Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) + zinc + Vitamin D3 + Vitamin C.

It has now been more than two weeks and she continues to be symptom free. We will retest her weekly until she is no longer positive.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/07/were_christians_always_so_leftwing.html

Those observing the cultural landscape in America attempt to understand why Jews vote for leftwing policies that run counter to their own safety and existence.  But many Catholic institutions are also active in disseminating radical left-wing ideology.  It was not always thus.

At this site, one can see the American Catholic pamphlet series on Communism that highlighted the dangers of this murderous ideology.  The following were published in 1947:

Communism and Fascism: two of a kind by Hermann Borchardt
Communism means slavery by Henry William Chamberlin
Enemy in our schools by Eugene Lyons

Regarding  Eugene Lyons, Harry Stein has written:

[I]n The Red Decade, Lyons was, in fact, describing the Communist-dominated American Left of the Depression-wracked 1930s and 1940s.  Lyons’ observations [are] even more meaningful, for it is sobering to be confronted with how little has been gained by hard experience.  The celebration of feelings over reason?  The certainty of moral virtue?  The disdain for tradition and the revising of history for ideological ends?  The embrace of the latest definition of correct thought?  Lyons was one of the most gifted reporters of his time, and among the bravest, and his story of the spell cast by Stalinist-tinged social-justice activism over that day’s purported best and brightest — literary titans, Hollywood celebrities, leading academics, religious leaders, media heavies — would be jaw-dropping if it weren’t so eerily familiar.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/07/25/justice-gorsuchs-dissent-in-the-nevada-church-supreme-court-case-is-short-but-epic-n697490

On Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts inexplicably sided with the liberal wing of the Supreme Court, denying Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley’s request to strike down Nevada’s blatantly unconstitutional 50-person cap on worship services. Here is Neal Gorsuch’s dissent:

“This is a simple case,” the dissent begins. “Under the Governor’s edict, a 10- screen ‘multiplex’ may host 500 moviegoers at any time. A casino, too, may cater to hundreds at once, with perhaps six people huddled at each craps table here and a similar number gathered around every roulette wheel there. Large numbers and close quarters are fine in such places. But churches, synagogues, and mosques are banned from admitting more than 50 worshippers—no matter how large the building, how distant the individuals, how many wear face masks, no matter the precautions at all.”

“In Nevada, it seems, it is better to be in entertainment than religion. Maybe that is nothing new. But the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion. The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-else-cuomo-crushed-11595631048?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo claims to have crushed the coronavirus curve, and we’ll leave that debate for another time. But he didn’t have to crush his state’s economy at the same time. That’s one takeaway from last week’s Labor Department state employment report for June, which shows how many states have managed to keep the virus more or less under control while doing far less economic damage.

Job losses in Northeastern states have been more severe than in the rest of the country. But New York stands out even in the Northeast for the size and scope of job losses, which have resulted from Mr. Cuomo’s reluctance to ease his lockdown orders even now that new infections are under control.

Over the last year employment has declined by 15.3% in New York compared to 14.4% in Massachusetts, 13.4% in New Jersey, 11.8% in Rhode Island and 10.3% in Connecticut. The only state that has lost more jobs than New York is Hawaii (16%), but its economy relies mostly on tourism and travel.

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

“They should all live together on an equal footing; merit to be their only road to eminence,and the disgrace of evil and credit of worthy acts their one measure of difference between man and man.  Plutarch (c.47AD – c.119AD)

“I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University”

                                                                                                                                                William Buckley (1925-2008)

The word meritocracy has Latin and Greek roots. It is a system where economic goods and political power are vested in individuals on the basis of talent, effort and achievement, rather than on wealth or social class. The word was popularized in 1958 by Michael Young, a British sociologist and politician in a book The Rise of Meritocracy, which satirized the tripartite school system in England that put children, at age eleven, onto one of three paths toward future education opportunities: Grammar schools for those heading to university; technical training for those with mechanical skills, and secondary schooling for all others. Forty-three years later, Mr. Young wrote an article for The Guardian in which he said his satire had been stripped of its meaning and had been embraced by an elite to justify their status.

Meritocracy is under attack. In a piece for The New Yorker last September, “Is Meritocracy Making Everyone Miserable?”, Louis Menand, author of The Metaphysical Club, wrote: “In recent years, we have been focused on two problems, social mobility and income inequality…” Mr. Menand cited Daniel Markovits, author of The Meritocracy Trap who concluded “that the whole system is a Frankenstein’s monster. We created meritocracy with good intentions, and now we are its victims.” Meritocracy, it is true and like free-market capitalism, does create inequalities – a natural process. Victor Davis Hanson of Stanford’s Hoover Institute went further. “Merit,” he wrote earlier this month, “will soon become a dirty, counterrevolutionary word.” When it no longer works to the advantage of elites, it is renounced.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/claim-trump-wont-leave-office-if-he-loses-

T here have been many “interesting times” in human history, even if there is actually no ancient Chinese curse wishing that we may live in them. On the contrary, had some sage conjured up a hex along the lines of “May you live in stupid times,” our time would fit perfectly.

One could have that reaction daily to many media reports. This week, my nominee is this one in the Washington Post: “Trump’s assault on election integrity forces question: What would happen if he refused to accept a loss?”

The premise is that the president is engaged in “relentless efforts to sow doubts about the legitimacy of this year’s election” by “escalating attacks on the security of mail-in ballots.” This is coupled with Trump’s refusal, a priori, to accept the legitimacy of the election outcome, echoing the position he took in the last presidential campaign — you know, before the same Democrats who feigned outrage over Trump’s demurral began four years of mulishly refusing to accept the outcome of the 2016 election.

The Post distorts the president’s refusal to rubber-stamp an election that has not happened yet — under circumstances where there is immense reason for concern about mail-in ballots — as a “refusal … to reassure the country that he would abide by the voters’ will.” Of course, Trump is not saying he won’t abide by the result; only that he won’t concede at this point that it will be an honest result. Recall that Richard Nixon abided by the result in 1960 even though there were grounds to doubt that it was on the up and up.

The Post’s cold sweats are amplified by William A. Galston, a columnist and former Clinton administration official who is with the strenuously anti-Trump Brookings Institution. He declaims that Trump is “undermining confidence in the most basic democratic process we have” and “arousing his core supporters for a truly damaging crisis.” Galston is so disturbed that, he informs us, “Words almost fail me.” Almost.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YpfJgVZ5ow

https://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2020/02/06/the-unteachables-n2560821

Last week, I received a phone call from a professor who teaches in another department here at the University of North Carolina – Wilmington (UNCW), where I have taught for the past 27 years. He was reporting a case of possible discrimination, which resulted in a professor being denied tenure thus losing his livelihood very soon. When I received the call, I immediately began asking questions to assess the validity of his concern. After just a few questions, I came across some information that will shock the conscience of any clear thinking, rational individual.

By way of background information, professors at our university must pass through several hoops to get tenure after they are initially hired for a tenure-track position. The initial contract is only for a few years. If professors get reappointed, a few years later they have an opportunity to apply for lifetime tenure. But to get this tenure, they first have to get approval from a majority of the tenured professors in their department, their department chair, and their college dean. If applicants succeed at this, they face a final vote from the university-wide Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) Committee. Since every faculty member must pass through this committee, its chair is arguably the most powerful professor on campus.

In the case that was reported to me, the applicant had received all three initial approvals. But, then, the RTP committee chair rejected the application. When I learned this, I asked about who is currently on the RTP committee. That is when I learned that its chair is Dr. Kimberly Cook.