RUTHFULLY YOURS

We can applaud health workers and take the prudent steps at the same time.

President Barack Obama and Kaci Hickox, a nurse who returned from treating Ebola patients in Sierra Leone on October 24, are attacking states’ efforts to keep returning health-care workers away from the public for 21 days. Governors in New Jersey, Illinois, Maine, Connecticut, and other states say it’s a wise precaution to prevent the virus from possibly spreading. But Obama claims that these regulations are based on fear, not science. And Hickox has successfully defied Maine’s effort to restrict her to her home, bashing the quarantine as “unnecessary” and “not evidence-based.” Judge Charles C. LaVerdiere ruled on Friday that Hickox is free to travel without restrictions.

But, in fact, science is against Obama, Hickox, and the judge. Evidence shows that to protect the public, travelers from Ebola-plagued West Africa, especially doctors and nurses who battled the virus, should be quarantined for 21 days.

FEVER MONITORING Is UNRELIABLE
At least 100 people, including about five health-care workers, enter the U.S. each day from Ebola-infected countries in West Africa. At departure from there and arrival here, their temperatures are checked by airport workers. But data from over 4,000 Ebola cases (the most complete analysis ever) published October 16 in the New England Journal of Medicine show that 13 percent of patients don’t develop a fever early on.

Thomas Duncan, who brought Ebola to Texas and infected two nurses, was able to get through fever screening. It also failed to identify Craig Spencer, the physician with Doctors without Borders, who returned home to New York infected with Ebola and then went bowling, dined out, and took the subway. Now he is fighting for his life in Bellevue Hospital, and public-health officials are scrambling to identify the people who may have been exposed to him.

Spiking temperatures eventually alerted Duncan and Spencer. But the research shows that in 13 percent of Ebola cases, the patient is already quite ill and diagnosed with the virus but still does not have a fever.

ARE AMERICANS AT RISK OF CATCHING EBOLA?
For most Americans, the known risk of catching Ebola is currently small. Ebola is most contagious in the later stages of illness, when victims here presumably would be in a hospital, putting hospital workers at severe risk but not the rest of us. Better sanitation facilities here than in Africa make it less likely that Americans will be exposed to infectious bodily fluids.

There is no “stigma,” and comparisons to criminal imprisonment are absurd.

The first responsibility of the president of the United States is national security. In the absence of presidential leadership as Ebola makes inroads in our country, state officials such as New Jersey governor Chris Christie have stepped into the security breach, taking commonsense steps to protect their citizens from the deadly virus. One of those measures is to quarantine those who have been exposed to Ebola, including health-care professionals who have risked their own lives to fight the disease.

As a public-health precaution, it is entirely reasonable for states to impose a 21-day quarantine that (a) reflects the virus’s incubation period according to scientific research and (b) applies regardless of whether the exposed person is manifesting symptoms. The objections to quarantine, rooted in a skewed construction of the Constitution and the make-it-up-as-you-go-along corpus of international “human rights” law, are frivolous. Yet, they have gotten traction, for at least three reasons.

The first, of course, is the president. What an American president thinks is always a big deal, even if — especially if — it is nonsense. On Ebola as on much else, we deal with our citizen-of-the-world president’s apathy — if not antipathy — when it comes to American national interests. Once again, the responsibilities of his office are subordinated to Obama’s post-American ideological agenda, this time by expending our funds, deploying our troops, and gratuitously endangering our homeland to burnish his legacy as an international humanitarian.

A second reason is Kaci Hickox. She is the nurse and global-altruist-turned-domestic-diva who has very publicly opposed the efforts of New Jersey and, now, Maine to quarantine her after her return from working with Ebola patients in Sierra Leone. On Friday, she found a likeminded judge, Charles C. LaVerdiere, who blithely ordered the quarantine lifted over the objection of the state officials responsible for the security of Maine’s citizens. Third, there is legal commentary, particularly of the libertarian-hedonist stripe, that portrays quarantine confinement as if it were criminal prosecution.

Last Tuesday, the 28th, was the 100th anniversary of Jonas Salk’s birth. Salk’s polio vaccine turned the tide against a particularly vicious and destructive disease; because of Salk’s work, polio exists today only in a few Third World enclaves. If the new anti-vaccine fetish is brought under control, polio will be completely eradicated in the next few years.
Salk was a very great man, and — through a trick of fate — was a very great man who is very well known. Everyone knows Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin; almost no one remembers Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, and Bill Anders. People know Pasteur but not Harvey, Patton but not Bradley, Feynman but not Pauli. Some men are remembered, some aren’t. It’s just one of those things. Jonas Salk was born in 1914; the Jonas Salk of the 19th century was born in 1860, and was named Waldemar Haffkine.

Like Salk, Haffkine was a Russian Jew. Unlike Salk, he had the great misfortune of actually living in Russia. In 1879, Haffkine was a brilliant young biologist; he was also a member of the Odessa League of Self-Defense. During a pogrom, he tried to stop a group of Russian army cadets from destroying a Jew’s home; he was injured, arrested, and imprisoned. Future Nobel laureate Élie Metchnikoff, who counted Haffkine as a protégé, intervened on his behalf; Haffkine was released and allowed to travel west. In 1889, he settled in Paris and began to work on vaccines under the aegis of Louis Pasteur.

The 19th century was punctuated by cholera outbreaks that killed tens of millions of people. That was where Haffkine directed his work. By 1892, he had a working cholera vaccine; he knew it worked because he performed the first human test on himself. The cholera situation was especially bad in India — about 30 million Indians had died — so Haffkine moved his lab to the subcontinent. A local Muslim group decided that India didn’t need help from Jewish doctors and tried to murder him; nonetheless, Haffkine succeeded in performing 55,000 vaccinations and stanching the epidemic.

According to Dr. William Derek Foster, Haffkine produced “the first vaccinations for bacterial disease in man the utility of which seemed reasonably certain” — that is, Haffkine’s cholera vaccine was the first vaccine that worked. It paved the way for Salk and every other great preventive-medicine man. The great surgeon and surgical innovator Sir Joseph Lister described Waldemar Haffkine as “a savior of humanity.” But the cholera vaccine was only Haffkine’s opening act.

Since he assumed office nearly six years ago, US President Barack Hussein Obama has been dogged by allegations of managerial incompetence. Obama, his critics allege, had no managerial experience before he was elected. His lack of such experience, they claim, is reflected in what they see as his incompetent handling of the challenges of the presidency.

In everything from dealing with the Congress, to reining in radical ideologues at the IRS, to handling the chaos at the Mexican border, to putting together coordinated strategies for dealing with everything from Ebola to Islamic State (IS), Obama’s critics claim that he is out of his league. That he is incompetent.

But if Israel’s experience with him is any guide, then his critics are the ones who are out to sea. Because at least in his handling of US relations with the Jewish state, Obama has exhibited a mastery of the tools of the executive branch unmatched by most of his predecessors.

Obama is a master of mendacity, a virtuoso of malciousness. Consider two recent news stories.

First, in an article published in Comment: How the US first agreed and then refused to help locate a missing IDF soldier (10/17), terrorism analyst and investigative reporter Steven Emerson revealed how the highest echelons of the administration blocked the FBI and the US Attorney’s Office from assisting Israel in finding the remains of IDF soldier Oron Shaul.

Shaul was one of seven soldiers from the Golani Infantry Brigade killed July 20 when Hamas terrorists fired a rocket at their armored personnel carrier in Gaza’s Shejeia neighborhood.

As Emerson related, after stealing his remains, Hamas terrorists hacked into Shaul’s Facebook page and posted announcements that he was being held by Hamas.

Among other things it did to locate Shaul and ascertain whether or not he was still alive, the IDF formally requested that the FBI intervene with Facebook to get the IP address of the persons who posted on Oron’s page. If such information was acquired quickly, the IDF might be able to locate Oron, or at least find people with knowledge of his whereabouts.

Doctors and patients get burned by the world’s worst middleman.

In the first circle of Dante’s Hell, things aren’t so bad: The unbaptized and the virtuous pagans get to kick back, forever, with Homer and Ovid, watch Julius Caesar and Saladin do the limbo, etc. But things take a pretty sharp turn for the worse thereafter: Paris, Tristan, and Cleopatra get buffeted about by the winds of lust in the second circle, Cavalcante de’ Cavalcanti suffers a ghastly punishment for his heresy in the sixth, and soon enough you’ve got Satan himself gnawing on Brutus, Cassius, and Judas. But even with Virgil to guide him, Dante never looked into the little-known tenth circle of Hell, the joint headquarters of the federal health-care bureaucracies, i.e., Satan’s outhouse.

And if you think spending eternity submerged in a river of excrement sounds bad, try getting an appointment with a dermatologist. Dante had “Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here,” but we have “Please hold and your call will be answered in the order it was received.”

Researchers at JAMA Dermatology decided to do a little investigative journalism and cracked open the physicians’ directories for Medicare Advantage in twelve metropolitan areas. They invented a father with a suspicious itch, and started trying to make appointments. (Reuters provides an excellent summary of their findings here.) With 4,754 dermatologists to choose from, you’d think that would be pretty easy — and it’s lucky for you that there’s not a level of Hell for the naïve.

That population of 4,754 dermatologists turns out to have been decimated — about a tenth of them had moved on to one of the three sections of The Divine Comedy, or, short of that, had retired or were no longer practicing medicine. But the headcount has to be reduced further, and drastically: About half of the physicians were double-listed; unsurprisingly, the federal government is a much more attentive bookkeeper when it comes to your tax liabilities than it is when it comes to your health care. Another 18 percent were simply unreachable, and 9 percent were not taking new patients. Of those 4,754 theoretical dermatologists, there turned out to be 1,266 actual dermatologists still among the living, practicing medicine, and willing to make an appointment. But not for everybody: In some cases, there was not one dermatologist willing to see patients with certain Medicare Advantage plans. That’s what happens when you put politicians in charge of health care: You get a great deal on an insurance policy that no one accepts.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-bds-movement-an-orwellian-campaign-to-destroy-israel

http://www.mideastoutpost.com/archives/the-bds-movement-an-orwellian-campaign-to-destroy-israel-ruth-king.html

In 2010 the British writer Howard Jacobson won the prestigious Man Booker prize for his book The Finkler Question which satirizes writers, artists and academics who belong to a Jewish group named “ASH-amed.” The title refers to their shame and sorrow that the Jews of Israel stoop to the venal sin of defending their nation against its enemies.

While ASHamed was a parody, the BDS movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel has become a powerful threat to the economy and existence of Israel.

Far more insidious than the hazy, hypocritical, ignorant and selective preaching and preening of leftists who moan and groan about settlements and occupation in Israel, are celebrities, performers and academics who level destructive libels of ethnic cleansing and apartheid, using Nazi metaphors to delegitimize the only real democracy in the entire region.

Much has been written on the subject, but The London Center for Policy Research, a think tank founded and headed by Herbert London has produced a first and essential book The BDS War Against Israel-The Orwellian Campaign to Destroy Israel Through the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement. It exposes the radical agenda and willing participation of companies, organizations, charities, academics, and a motley group of useful Jewish idiots who demonize Israel under the pretense of “humanitarian” concerns.

How did it start and how did it gain such traction?

The authors, Jed Babbin and Herbert London, meticulously expose the founding, the funding, the participating groups, the tactics and the underlying anti-Semitism of the BDS movement, which sells itself under the disguise of the pursuit of “social justice.” It uses propaganda, disinformation, and outright libel to shift world opinion by depicting Israel as a rogue nation that routinely oppresses and disenfranchises a beleaguered minority of hapless Arabs. Thus, is Israel placed among nations ruled by despots and barbarians such as North Korea and Cuba, and, ironically, its surrounding Arab enemies.
The success of the movement is staggering. In nine years the BDS movement has persuaded a gullible left, both internationally and in the United States to 1. create global boycotts of Israeli universities and industries (purportedly only those that do business in the “occupied” West Bank) 2. to persuade nations, banks, companies and industries to divest themselves of investments in banks, companies and industries in Israel 3.to obtain international sanctions against Israel, its economy, and its people.

On Thursday, Sweden finally solved all the problems in the Middle East by recognizing the State of Palestine. For decades all the instability in the region had been blamed on the lack of a PLO state. Foreign policy experts stood in line to tell us all that the only thing that could end terrorism in the Middle East was a terrorist state.

It was a plan so crazy that it was bound to either work or kill a lot of people. Mostly it’s done the latter.

But our leaders kept the faith. The White House’s Middle East coordinator insisted that Israel’s obstinate refusal to create a Palestinian State, against the wishes of the unelected president of the Palestinian Authority who refuses to negotiate one or to stop the terrorism, was causing instability in the region.

Secretary of State John Kerry had denied that ISIS was Islamic, but blamed Israel for ISIS recruitment.

But it wasn’t John Kerry who saved the Middle East from instability. Instead Sweden did it by recognizing a terror state whose leaders stopped bothering with the onerous duty of holding elections once they realized that the Eurocrats and Obama would keep shoveling money at them even if they chose their unelected terrorist leaders by playing Russian Roulette.

Sweden’s new Palestine not only dispensed with elections, routing the business of governance through its core PLO organizations, but also has no economy, instead employing an army of people who are paid not to run a country that doesn’t exist with money sent over by America, Europe and Japan.

This is what the Islamization of a Western country looks like. Good luck with your integration and your moderate Islam. All the empty words in the world can’t change the fact that what’s happening in Iraq and Syria will be coming to the UK… sooner than you think.

One in seven young British adults has “warm feelings” towards Islamic State, according to a poll.

A tenth of Londoners and one in 12 Scots view Islamic State (Isis) favourably, but sympathy for the militant group reaches its highest levels among the under-25s, the Populus survey found.

Although an overwhelming majority of the public — 88 per cent — gave Isis a low score, 5.2 per cent of 18 to 34-year-olds gave it a nine or a ten. Overall, 14 per cent of under-25s and 12 per cent of 25 to 34-year-olds gave Islamic State a score of between six and ten, implying a degree of sympathy.

There are about 1 million Muslim settlers in London where they make up 12 percent of the population. These figures suggest that the vast majority of them, perhaps as high as 80 percent , support ISIS.

There’s a lot of nonsense about skepticism among young people, but this isn’t about young people. It’s about Muslims.

The report, published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on May 16, shows that although Christianity is still the main religion in Britain—over 50% of the population describe themselves as such—nearly half of all Christians in Britain are over the age of 50, and, for the first time ever, fewer than half under the age of 25 describe themselves as Christian.

Military Dogs Sniff Out IEDs, Save Lives U.S. soldiers’ best friends use their superior senses to detect roadside bombs in ways no sensor ever could

—Ms. Frankel is a senior editor at Foreign Policy and the author of “War Dogs: Tales of Canine Heroism, History and Love,” recently published by Palgrave Macmillan.

As the desert air cooled and night fell, Staff Sgt. John Mariana looked down into the reassuring eyes of one of the most valuable comrades of his eight-month deployment to Afghanistan: Bronco, his military working dog.

Sgt. Mariana and Bronco were leading a U.S. patrol in June 2011, searching for roadside bombs. Bronco kept his head low, sniffing for buried explosives. Suddenly, ahead in the dark, Sgt. Mariana saw a man just 10 feet away, pointing an AK-47 at them. Sgt. Mariana shouted, and Bronco bolted toward the attacker, biting down hard. Then a shot rang out, and Sgt. Mariana saw the impact as a bullet hit his dog.

Bronco survived, as Sgt. Mariana told me a year later—and joined a long line of canine heroes. For centuries, dogs have been saving soldiers’ lives on battlefields. The ancient Egyptians used dogs to carry messages, the Corinthians surrounded their seashore citadel with guard dogs, and the Romans used dogs to raise alarms for their garrisons.

Dogs began appearing on U.S. battlefields during the Revolutionary War, though often as pets and mascots. During the Civil War, according to an 1862 article in Harper’s Weekly, a dog named Union Jack ran toward a spray of shells, barking as if he were chasing down the Confederate artillery.

The U.S. military didn’t officially add dogs to its ranks until World War II. This foreshadowed an unfortunate pattern—recognizing the combat value of dogs once a conflict erupts, only to forget their utility as it winds down. Messenger and scout dogs are thought to have saved the lives of tens of thousands of U.S. troops during World War II and Vietnam, according to author Michael Lemish. Yet the U.S. has never truly maintained its canine combat readiness—a mistake we may be repeating today.

Between 2006 and 2012, the Marines were using about 1,000 dogs, but since then, they have drawn down their numbers by some 650, says Bill Childress, manager of the Marine Corps’ dog program. He adds that it could take “three to four years” to rebuild the canine corps.

The U.S. and Britain have long considered themselves the standard-bearers for freedom of expression. Can this proud tradition survive the idea that ‘hurtful’ speech deserves no protection?
On Feb. 14, 1989, I happened to be on a panel on press freedom for the Columbia Journalism Review when someone in the audience told us of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s religious edict for blasphemy against the British novelist Salman Rushdie. What did we think? We didn’t, as I best recall, disgrace ourselves. We said most of the right things about defending freedom of thought and the imagination.

But the death sentence from Iran’s supreme leader seemed unreal—the sending of a thunderbolt from medieval Qom against modern Bloomsbury—and we didn’t treat it with the seriousness that it deserved. I recall, alas, making a very poor joke about literary deconstructionism. My colleagues, though more sensible, were baffled and hesitant. Was it even true—or perhaps just a mistranslation?

We knew soon enough that it was true. The literary, media and political worlds rallied in defense of Mr. Rushdie. He became a hero of free speech and a symbol—even if a slightly ambivalent postcolonial one—of Western liberal traditions. But he also went, very sensibly, behind a curtain of security that was to last many years.

And by degrees—when it seemed that not only Mr. Rushdie’s life but the lives of his publishers, editors and translators might be threatened—his base of support in the literary world thinned out. Sensitive intellectuals discovered that, in a multicultural world, respect for the Other meant understanding his traditions too, and these often were, well, sterner than ours. Freedom of speech was only one value to be set against…ahem, several other values. Fear, cowardice and rationalization spread outward.

Twenty-five years later, we can look back on a long series of similar events, including: the 2002 anti-Christian riots in Nigeria, in which more than 200 people were killed because a local tabloid had facetiously suggested that Miss World contestants would make suitable brides for Muhammad; the 2004 murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh for his movie “Submission,” in which passages from the Quran were printed on women’s bodies; the riots in Denmark and throughout the Middle East in 2005 in response to the publication of cartoons of Muhammad by a Danish magazine; the murder threats against Dutch politician Geert Wilders for his 2008 film “Fitna,” which interleaved passages from the Quran with clips of jihadist violence.