RUTHFULLY YOURS

BOYCOTT THIS YOU USELESS IDIOTS!!!
THANKS TO MY ISRAELI E-PAL MICHAEL ORDMAN I GET GREAT NEWS FROM AMAZING ISRAEL….

www.verygoodnewsisrael.blogspot.com

One billion products sold last year contained microchips from Israel’s CEVA.

20,000 doctors use G-Med. (Thanks to Israel21c) Israel’s G-Med, the world’s first and only global social-professional network exclusively for physicians, allows doctors anywhere to consult with colleagues, and manage multinational research projects. Launched in 2013, G-Med now has 20,000 users in over 50 countries.
http://www.israel21c.org/headlines/first-global-social-network-for-doctors/

Diagnosing liver disease. A multi-center trial is to commence of the innovative diagnosis device developed by Israel’s Exalenz Bioscience to detect liver disease. The device is already used to examine a patient’s breath in order to detect bacteria in the stomach that causes ulcers.
http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-exalenz-bioscience-starts-liver-trial-1000979820

A treatment for bone infections. Israeli biotech PolyPid is raising funds for trials of its BonyPid process and device that can release medication over a long period of time. Currently, infections of dental implants and fractures may need treating by repeated surgery. BonyPid needs inserting only once.
http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-polypid-releases-prospectus-for-nasdaq-offering-1000979098
http://www.polypid.com/plex-platform/

READ MORE AT:http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=76919&action=edit

“Dishonest science is more than a spat between academics. It is a matter of critical national importance. It is time for the public to start demanding action and political leaders to see that it happens. A formal mechanism for the critical evaluation of science, with sanctions for malpractice, is long overdue and sorely needed.”

Walter Starck is one of Australia’s most experienced marine biologists, with a particular interest in coral-reef and marine-fishery ecosystems

They have built careers, lined pockets and plundered the public purse on the strength of prophecies that have failed conspicuously to match real world trends. Worse, they have suborned and debased science. It’s time those who insist consensus trumps evidence were made to answer for their damage
Alarmists have often ridiculed suggestions of scientific misconduct in climate science as wild conspiracy theories while simultaneously accusing their critics of being in the pay of fossil fuel interests. In the absence of evidence for their own defence they have relied heavily upon claims of support by an overwhelming consensus of climate “experts”, with a fabled majority of 97% frequently cited. This is a curious defence for a scientific hypothesis, as it is the antithesis of science’s very essence, which is the primacy of empirical evidence over any claim to authority. Simply put, any appeal to authority in a scientific debate amounts to a tacit admission of weak evidence.

Even apart from matters of science, accusations of conspiracy and the claim of consensus seem a poor tactic, as the ethical associations of the latter are, if anything, even poorer than the former. Conspiracists at least retain some capacity to recognise what they are doing is improper and try to hide what they are up to. Then, too, conspiracies are generally optional — individuals may join or abstain at their own discretion. By contrast, a claim of expert consensus presents itself as the sole option for right-thinking people to embrace. Any dissent is thus implied to be not just mistaken but willfully immoral. The Holocaust, genocide in Rwanda, slavery and the socially entrenched abuse of women in some societies arise from consensus, not conspiracy. Indeed, it is no stretch to say that all mass atrocities stem from the same root. The abandonment of standards and ethics, even of fundamental humanity, in pursuit of some imagined higher purpose is not achieved by a conspiracy. It is arrived at by declaring a consensus.

The norm in science is disagreement and debate, with evidence being the final arbiter. A claim of consensus is only made when supporting evidence is weak. Its primary function is to stifle opposing argument by implying that only fools and knaves could possibly disagree. The claim of a scientific consensus is an oxymoron. A consensus seeks to suppress evidence-based open debate, which should be the very foundation of science. It is a claim to authority which seeks to dismiss conflicting evidence and denigrate all questioning. The matter is treated as closed to discussion, as in that familiar warmist mantra, “the science is settled.”

Amid all the assurances of Islam’s gentle soul, young men continue to wage war on the societies that have never questioned their right to draw inspiration from the Koran. Unless that sacred text’s invocations to violence are repudiated openly and often, there is not the slightest hope of peace
No sooner had we seen Western Sydney teenager Abu Khaled (aka Abdullah Elmir) fronting up on YouTube and promising to fly the black flag over Buckingham Palace, among other places, than out came the soothing brigade on the ABC. Two fresh-faced women under hijabs conveyed the shock and concern of their community and suggested that more money should be provided to imams (from taxpayers, I assume) to teach young Muslim men that it was not OK to cut off people’s heads if you don’t like their religion. Well, the lady in question didn’t exactly say that, but what else could it be?

Do ‘moderate Muslims’ ever wonder what the heck is going on? Do they ever attempt to join the dots? Another head rolls in the name of Islam and the Koran and the Prophet, and another and another and another. There is nothing to see here — nothing to do with us! — nothing to do with the Religion of Peace. Hmm!

Put aside the carnage going on in the Muslim world — in Sudan; in Somalia; in Yemen; in Libya; in Syria; in Iraq — two attacks have occurred this week in Canada and one in New York. In the first a man mowed down two soldiers in his car, killing one. In the second, a man shot and killed a soldier on duty at a war memorial before rampaging through parliament. In the third, a man used a hatchet to attack a group of policemen. Two policemen were injured, one critically, before their assailant was shot dead.

All of these so-called lone wolf attackers appear to have been influenced by Islamic jihad. One or all of the perpetrators may have been mentally deranged, to use the designation favoured by the liberal media. “Mentally deranged man on killing rampage” is a lot more PC than “Muslim man on killing rampage”.

Apparently Major Hasan’s murder of thirteen US soldiers on an army base in 2009 is still called “workplace violence”. Surely that should be ‘workplace violence by a mentally deranged serviceman influenced by a religious affiliation we are reluctant to dwell upon.’

I don’t care whether people who go around cutting other people’s heads off are diagnosed as deranged. I know they are deranged. I consider all of the ISIS crew to be deranged.

We are told that one in four of us will suffer some kind of mental illness in our lifetimes. I don’t know what percentage of such people (notice I am excluding myself) will become deranged. What I do know, from experience, is that however deranged they may become, they are unlikely to go around cutting off people’s heads. The ‘deranged’ thing alone doesn’t do it for me.

I hate to disagree with my friend and e-pal Daniel Greenfield….but it was not only the left which supported the “Arab Spring”…..so did some esteemed conservatives and neo-cons such as William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer who virtually swooned with delusions of Arab democracy…..Otherwise I have no cavil with this superb column…..rsk

The left’s worst crime in the Middle East has been its support for the region’s Arab-Muslim majority at the expense of its minorities. It has supported the majority’s terrorism, atrocities, ethnic cleansing and repression of the region’s minorities. Very rarely has it raised a voice in their support, and when it has done so, it was in muted tones completely different from their vigorous defenses of the nationalism of the Arab Muslim majority.
The left backed the Arab Spring which rewarded the ambitions of Arabist and Islamist activists at the expense of Coptic, African and other minorities. Its great regional obsession is statehood for the Arab Muslims of Israel, (better known by their local Palestinian brand), but has little to say about the Kurds in Turkey or the Azeri in Iran. The million Jewish refugees and the vanishing Christians of the region never come up in conversation. They certainly don’t get their own lefty protest rallies.

The Africans of Sudan could have used an entire UN organization dedicated to their welfare, which the Arab Muslims who had failed to wipe out the region’s Jewish minority are the beneficiaries of. But they had to make do with third tier aid.

Unlike the Arab nationalists and Islamists of Libya, the French, English and American air force did not come to their rescue. It came to the rescue of the Libyans who showed their gratitude in the time honored way of the Arab majority by massacring the African minority and then killing some Americans. But what’s a little genocide between friends?

The left embraced Pan-Arabism, a race based nationalism, in line with the Soviet Union’s expansionist foreign policy. Pan-Arabism’s socialism made it easy for the left to ignore its overt racism along with the admiration of many of its leading lights for Nazi Germany. The same left which refused to see the Gulags and the ethnic cleansing under the red flag, turned an equally blind eye to the contradiction of condemning Zionism for its ethnic basis, while supporting Pan-Arabism, which was ethnically based.

Will radical Muslims line up to be deprogrammed and end up teaching kindergarten or devising a twelve-step program for their younger siblings? Since the start of deradicalization programs, the number of radicalized Muslims has risen.

Why is there no Muslim Peace Movement campaigning for an end to violence in Muslim countries? Why do Muslims — and others — take to the streets to condemn democratic Israel, yet never march to protest Hamas’s use of Palestinians as human shields, or the violence of al-Qaeda, Boko Haram or any other jihadi group? Why not be angry at the way violent Muslims drag the image of non-violent Muslims in the mud? Many Muslims, however, complain about “Islamophobia” while ignoring the primary causes of hostility to themselves.

Muslims… are trapped, because the Qur’an and the Hadith, which make up the holy writ, all condone or command jihad and hatred for non-believers, and they do so abundantly. But commentators and politicians still wonder where the fighters of the Islamic State… or the killers of Theo van Gogh get their inspiration. A young man who sees the world through such a lens will easily turn to this to justify his desire to wage jihad.

It is still risky for anyone one in any Muslim country to call for a new approach to the most sacred texts.

British Prime Minister, David Cameron, announced on September 1, that British jihadists returning to this country would be forced to enter deradicalization programs. Now, the Danish government has offered a similar program to returning jihadists, without prosecution.

A reasonable idea, one might think, and one that we may all hope is successful. But is this latest round in the battle against Islamic radicalism likely to be any more effective than its predecessors? Will radical Muslims — call them Salafis, jihadis, Islamic State fighters or what you will — line up to be deprogrammed and end up teaching kindergarten or devising a twelve-step program for their younger siblings now queuing to take their place on the front line between Islam and unbelief?

A historical process is now threatened with failure: the reconciliation of the Turkish State with the Kurds living in Turkey.

Turkish guns point in every direction but that of Kobani, and the Turkish air force continues bombing the Kurdish PKK, not ISIS. Many Kurds believe that the Turkish state considers it acceptable for the “Islamic State” to murder Kurds, and would rather bomb the Kurds than help them against ISIS.

The world has watched the town of Kobani on the Turkish-Syrian border, where the Wahhabi terrorists of the so-called “Islamic State” [IS], also known as ISIS, ISIL, and, in Arabic, the “Daesh,” are fighting the Kurdish peshmerga, a word meaning “those facing death.” The Turkish authorities, under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the Islamist Justice and Development Party [AKP], have stood among the ambivalent observers of the battle for Kobani.

At the same time, he who is called “the man on the island” has put an ultimatum to Erdoğan. Abdullah Öcalan, in jail surrounded by the sea near Istanbul and still the real leader of the Kurdish Workers Party [PKK], has given the Turkish authorities more time to achieve a full agreement with its Kurdish subjects. If it does not, he says he can do “nothing more for the peace process.” But as reported by the London Financial Times on October 22, Öcalan said he remained “optimistic” about relations between Ankara and the Kurdish revolutionaries. The PKK is designated a terrorist group by the United States and various European governments, as well as Turkey.

Still, a historical process is now threatened with failure: the reconciliation of the Turkish state with the Kurds living in Turkey. The country’s Kurdish population stands at about 15 million, around one fifth of the total census. Kurds have been repressed since the founding of the Turkish Republic 90 years ago. In combat between the Turkish military and the PKK, almost 40,000 people have died.

Erdoğan’s shining moment may have come when he asked the Turkish parliament, on August 11, 2009, “Where would Turkey be today, if we had not wasted 25 years in conflict, unsolved murders, and forcibly-relocated [Kurdish] villages?” At the end of the speech, he declared, “Nobody won. Everybody lost.” Many legislators wept.

Why, yes, Mark Steyn does mention me in his new book, thanks.

Twice.

But leaving aside pages 228 and 409 for a moment:

Why (else) should you read The (Un)documented Mark Steyn?

For the same reason you’d buy — and maybe gift someone — The Who Hits 50! or Sound System:

Because a “greatest hits” collection — and that’s what Steyn’s new book is — is an ideal way to either introduce yourself to an artist’s work, or have all the “good ones” in one convenient package.

So no more having to google “Martha + Stewart + coxcomb + topiary” when Christmas rolls around.

If you’re looking for that pithy Mark Steyn quote that you just know will be perfect for your next best man speech or poli-sci 101 term paper, you’ll probably find it in here.

But while these columns have been previously published, remember:

The collection includes over 80 (!) columns that Steyn has written for various newspapers around the world.

That means, for example, that non-Canadian readers will likely encounter for the first time samples of Steyn’s writing for Maclean’s magazine and the National Post, which is where I first made his acquaintance.

www.verygoodnewsisrael.blogspot.com  http://blogs.jpost.com/users/just-look-us-now One billion products sold last year contained microchips from Israel’s CEVA. ISRAEL’S MEDICAL ACHIEVEMENTS   20,000 doctors use G-Med.  (Thanks to Israel21c) Israel’s G-Med, the world’s first and only global social-professional network exclusively for physicians, allows doctors anywhere to consult with colleagues, and manage multinational research projects.  Launched in 2013, G-Med now has […]

NEW YORK STATE POLITICS- OUR GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO IS RUNNING FOR REELECTION….WITH A SIDEKICK KATHY HOCHUL FOR LT. GOVERNOR…IT IS INSTRUCTIVE THAT BOTH ARE RUNNING ON THE FUSION TICKETS- AS DEMOCRATS, INDEPENDENTS, AND WORKING FAMILIES AND WOMEN’S EQUALITY..PARTIES. EVEN LIBERALS LIKE CHUCK SHUMER ESCHEWS THE LATTER AND RUNS JUST AS A DEMOCRAT. KATHY HOCHUL WAS A REP. FOR NEW YORK’S DISTRICT 26 FROM JUNE 2011( WINNING IN A SPECIAL ELECTION) UNTIL SHE LOST IN 2012 AFTER AN UNDISTINGUISHED TERM……NEW YORK STATE IS ECONOMICALLY DEPRESSED AND CUOMO’S STEADFAST OPPOSITION TO FRACKING, THE XL PIPELINE HAS DOOMED RECOVERY. HE SHOULD LOSE HIS BID TO ROB ASTORINO…..RSK

Governor Andrew Cuomo thinks Westchester, N.Y., is a racially discriminatory county. He’s certainly entitled to his opinion, but if he really thinks that, you might ask, why does he continue to live there?

Cuomo’s opponent in this year’s gubernatorial race, Westchester County executive Rob Astorino, has received endless criticism from the left for refusing to comply with a federal housing settlement, culminating in a series of attacks ads from the Cuomo campaign effectively calling the county executive racist, saying that he is the “only county executive in the nation who refuses to comply . . . with federal anti-discrimination laws.”

Astorino has been battling with the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) since he took office in 2010. Astorino’s predecessor, Andrew Spano, signed an agreement with HUD that required the county to spend tens of millions of dollars building affordable housing in 31 of the wealthier Westchester communities. Astorino “vociferously opposed” the deal Spano reached, as he told National Review Online, but having no choice, adhered to the agreement once he took office.

The county is ahead of schedule in the building of the 750 affordable housing units, but HUD has demanded that the county go beyond the original agreement by spending more and allowing the federal government to have the power to change local zoning laws.

Astorino has adamantly refused. In a press release at one point, he explained, “I opposed the 2009 settlement because I was afraid it would open the door for the federal government to overpower the decision making authority of local communities. As it turns out, my fears have been realized.” In retaliation, HUD has withheld $20 million in grants from Westchester since 2011.

The borders of the United States are supposed to serve as a barrier to safeguard America and Americans from aliens whose presence in the United States would undermine national security, public safety, public health, employment opportunities and wages for American workers, or otherwise have a negative impact on our nation and our citizens.

The push for the eradication of America’s borders by a multitude of organizations and special interest groups has succeeded in creating a false narrative that claims that somehow securing U.S. borders and enforcing America’s immigration laws are unfair. These opponents of border security often resort to hurling vicious false accusations and invectives at those who want our borders made secure and our immigration laws effectively and fairly enforced.

Typically, supporters of border security and effective enforcement of our immigration laws are accused of lacking compassion and being “Anti-Immigrant.”

Stop and consider how preposterous this allegation is. Our immigration laws that the pro-enforcement Americans want applied not only provide the grounds for excluding and removing aliens (deportation), but also provide the grounds by which the U.S. admits more than one million lawful immigrants each year. Further, these laws provide for the naturalization of hundreds of thousands of new American citizens each and every year. How can supporting the effective and balanced enforcement of these very same laws constitute an “anti-immigrant” position?

As for “lacking compassion,” why is it acceptable to not be concerned about American citizens? Today, it is estimated that one in four American children lives below the poverty line, and the rates of poverty are even higher among America’s Latino and black communities.

Why is protecting Americans from dangerous communicable diseases, international terrorists and transnational criminals not considered “compassionate?”