AwesomeCapital

Thursday, October 17, 2024

Cardinal Dolan blasts Harris for skipping Smith Dinner, says she’s ‘sending one of those Zooms’

Timothy Cardinal Dolan, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York, criticized Vice President Kamala Harris for skipping out on Thursday’s Al Smith Dinner — saying she was sending “one of those Zooms” instead.

“I am a little nervous, obviously still disappointed because the vice president isn’t coming,” Dolan told the Good Newsroom website about the annual charity event, known for featuring the major parties’ presidential nominees every four years.

“I blew it yesterday on my [radio] show in announcing that she is sending one of those Zooms or something.”

Republican nominee Donald Trump will attend in person alongside his wife Melania, but Harris, the Democratic choice, announced late last month she would not attend.

The veep will instead appear via a pre-recorded video message, which the archdiocese only recently got the heads-up about.

Dolan, 74, has repeatedly stressed that the dinner, first held in 1946, is meant to bring politicians together in a spirit of bipartisan unity.

“I really thought and I tried to press this, Jim, with their people, this is literally up her alley,” Dolan told comedian Jim Gaffigan in The Good Newsroom interview. “I mean, here you got somebody talking about ‘Oh, can’t we bring amity and unity?’

“It’s not a campaign speech. It’s not a stump speech,” he added. “Now, some candidates might use it for that, but that’s not the nature or purpose of the evening, either. You know, Ronald Reagan’s line [was] the Al Smith dinner is the rare time where politicians act like statesmen.

“The Al Smith dinner is not red or blue. It’s red, white and blue. It’s all about patriotism, it’s all about the country and it’s all about humor,” the cardinal concluded.

The dinner is expected to raise $10 million for charities and other organizations supporting vulnerable women and children.

The event is named in honor of former New York Gov. Al Smith, who in 1928 became the first Roman Catholic to be nominated for president by a major party.

https://nypost.com/2024/10/17/us-news/cardinal-dolan-blasts-harris-for-skipping-al-smith-dinner-reveals-shes-sending-one-of-those-zooms-or-something/

Ted Cruz conducts a candidate fact check clinic

More than 60 million dollars is being spent by Democrats to help House of Representatives member Collin Allred defeat Republican Senator Ted Cruz. Tuesday night’s debate was an important opportunity for Allred to perhaps upset the incumbent senator who is in a race that might be as narrow as three percentage points. The debate demonstrated Senator Cruz’s exceptional debate skills. In particular, Cruz demonstrated the potential for political candidates to conduct their own fact checking rather relying upon journalist moderators in these critical public debates.

Gallup recently completed an annual survey once again showing that public trust in mainstream media is at all-time lows. During the 2012 Presidential debate, CNN journalist moderator Candy Crowley insisted on correcting Mitt Romney in his debate with President Barack Obama. In 2024, debates have swung back and forth between aggressive journalist moderator “fact checking” more restrained approaches like the CNN debate on June 27. The public is better served by journalists abstaining from these clear interventions. In the Vance/Walz debate, CBS moderators conducted five fact checks of Vance with zero for Walz. A recent Harvard study of fact checking found that fact checking organizations follow a profound ideological pattern that excludes conservative fact checkers. The Harvard study found:

0% were very right wing or fairly right wing
5% were slightly right of center
10% were “center”
85% were slightly left, fairly left or very left wing.
Among that 85%, 4% were “very left wing”

These are good reasons why journalist fact checking during the debates is a bad idea. Fact checking became an urgent consideration of left-leaning journalists when Biden showed himself unable to rebut the aggressive assertions of Trump in the June 27 debate.

Cruz conducted a clinic on candidate fact checking that should be the norm going forward in political candidate debates. The Cruz team utilized an increasingly normative tool in political debates by having a live website ready. This allowed viewers to immediately examine more in-depth information about Allred’s position as a Dallas-area House member. In his opening remarks, Senator Cruz promised that he would examine Allred’s House record and compare it to his own Senate record and make a clear political case for his candidacy based on that distinction. Allred appeared genuinely surprised by the level of detail provided by Cruz in the debate.

In a particularly telling exchange, Cruz explained that a public endorsement of Allred as “bipartisan” was based on a group of Democratic governors who do not look at voting records for those that they categorize in this manner. Allred pivoted to say that he also won an award from the Chamber of Commerce, which is not a radical group. Cruz in his response explained that this was true and the Chamber of Commerce has endorsed his campaign for the Senate seat. Allred appeared unprepared for a discussion of one of the most common Cruz assertions regarding Allred’s vote on male participation in women’s sports. When challenged by Allred for a bipartisan record by Cruz, the senators listed two specific infrastructure bills for Texas highways cosponsored by two different Democratic senators. Allred had no comparable details for his work in the House.

Political candidates face exceptional constraints in these debates because they are not allowed to bring notes to the podium. This means they must commit to memory any details they hope to deploy in journalist interrogations. Journalists do not face similar constraints and do have extensive notes for their questions.

Cruz’s successful fact checking of Allred and the relatively weak response of Allred demonstrates that journalist fact checks are not necessary for political candidates settle factual differences. The pattern of favoring democratic candidates in debates and interviews is leaving these candidates weak and ill prepared to defend their ideas in free and fair debate. This is an important development for the potential of political debates that serve the public interest.

Dr. Ben Voth is professor of rhetoric and director of debate at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. He is the author of several academic books regarding political communication, presidential rhetoric, and genocide.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/10/ted_cruz_conducts_a_candidate_fact_check_clinic.html

Doctors Have Responsibility But No Authority

Nothing proves the title better than the recent reinstatement of a mask mandate in San Francisco hospitals. Every clinical doctor knows the data overwhelmingly proves they don’t work “to prevent the spread of the flu, COVID and other seasonal illnesses,” the ostensible, official reason for re-masking.

Note the adjective “clinical” doctor to contrast MDs in the trenches caring for sick people with bureaucrat MDs who, like Fauci, have never cared for patients in the real world but who dictate how the clinicians must practice medicine.

For most viruses, a cloth surgical mask is as effective as a screen door on a submarine. When (not if) patients get sick with the flu despite healthcare workers wearing masks, who will be responsible to care for them? When patients complain that masks did not prevent illness, who will they blame?

For decades, federal regulations and bureaucratic doctors have been chipping away at doctors’ independence, authority, and valuation. The heart surgeon with the best results can charge more than the surgeon with poor results, yet both are paid the same: an amount much less than their charges and what Medicare determines as “allowable reimbursements.” These are not reimbursements — they are government-pre-determined, low-ball payments.

As an interventional pediatric cardiologist, this author’s charges for a cardiac catheterization in a critically ill newborn baby ranged from $1,500 to as much as $9,000 if a device were implanted. Medicaid paid the maximum allowable reimbursement: $387.

In the past, general physicians would refer their patients to surgeons with the best results for the operation the patient needed. Now they must send the patient to whatever institution (not even who) the insurance company has a contract with.

A personal physician is no longer chosen by the patient. The enrollee, not patient, is assigned a provider on a health plan panel. People wait months to get in for a 15-minute appointment during which the doctor spends most of the time looking at a computer screen and filling out forms. No one takes a history or does a physical exam anymore.

Patients leave doctors’ offices frustrated because they do not get what they need: time to talk to the physician with a sympathetic ear, have the doctor explain what is going on, describe the rationale for the treatment plan including risks, benefits, and what to do if it fails. All that takes time, but efficiency benchmarks do not reward the doctor who spends time with the patient. On a clinical scorecard, talking with the patient is an inefficient waste of time.

Patients expect their doctors to order the best medications for that patient’s condition and needs. That does not happen because the physician must use Step Therapy or “fail first” approach, choosing from a short list created by a pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) a medicine that is cheapest, safest, and therefore least likely to be effective. After the drug fails to work and the doctor documents this, he or she may move to the next level of approved and somewhat stronger drugs, which still may not include the one best for this particular patient. When patients are frustrated with lack of improvement, they won’t blame the PBM.

CoViD demonstrated how little authority remains with the clinical doctor — none! When physicians tried to use ivermectin, the FDA prohibited the drug, and doctors were censured and even fired. When clinical researchers tried to publish data showing the dangers of mRNA injections, their reports were censored, labeled misinformation, and the authors were canceled and banned from social media.

Bureaucrat MDs such as Fauci and Walensky were in charge of all patients while responsible for none and accountable to no one.

A 2003 study asked physicians why they were dissatisfied with practicing medicine. The most common answer was, “responsibility without requisite authority.” In fact, that was why many were quitting clinical care and a primary reason for the doctor shortage. In the past 21 years, physicians’ responsibility has remained unchanged, i.e., total, and yet their authority has been reduced to simply following orders from those higher up on the food chain — executives and bureaucrats, some with MD degrees.

The reinstitution of a mask mandate shows that doctors are now robots. They must follow orders they know are unscientific. They are forced to give patients a false impression of safety from contagion. When patients get the flu or CoViD (masks don’t protect), patients blame the doctors (and nurses too) thinking the caregivers are giving them bad advice.

Whether it is wearing a mask, taking a medicine, having an operation, when medical care happens and by whom, the unaccountable are in charge and those held responsible are powerless.

Welcome to government-run U.S. healthcare.

Deane Waldman, M.D., MBA is Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics, Pathology, and Decision Science; former Director of Center for Healthcare Policy at Texas Public Policy Foundation; former Director of New Mexico Health Insurance Exchange; and author of 12 books, including multi-award winning, Curing the Cancer in U.S. Healthcare: StatesCare and Market-Based Medicine. Follow him on X.com at @DrDeaneW or contact via www.deanewaldman.com.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/10/doctors_have_responsibility_but_no_authority.html

EU leaders urge new laws to speed up migrant returns

EU leaders called Thursday for urgent new legislation to increase and speed up migrant returns, after a Brussels summit that crystallised a rightward shift in the bloc's rhetoric.

The 27 European leaders said their day-long talks saw "in-depth" discussions on migration -- an issue that has shot up the political agenda following hard-right gains in several countries.

"The European Council calls for determined action at all levels to facilitate, increase and speed up returns from the European Union," they wrote in summit conclusions, asking the European Commission to submit new legislation.

New ways to prevent and counter irregular migration should also be considered, the text read, in an apparent reference to controversial proposals to create return centres outside the European Union, which did not get an outright mention.

Such a move would not be "trivial" but had been discussed, EU chief Ursula von der Leyen told a press conference.

Currently less than 20 percent of people ordered to leave the bloc are returned to their country of origin, according to EU data.

Italy's hard-right Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni hosted a talks on migration ahead of the main event with 10 like-minded countries, including Denmark, the Netherlands, Hungary and Greece.

In a nod to the growing influence of immigration hawks, von der Leyen was also present.

But divisions remained on the next steps, with no concrete plans laid out in the final text. Disagreements caused a previous effort to overhaul migrant return rules to fail in 2018.

- 'Innovative solutions' -

Some countries poured cold water on the more radical ideas, with von der Leyen admitting that "open questions" remained on the creation of so-called "return hubs" -- an issue fraught with legal and ethical concerns.

Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said such schemes created more problems than they solved and noted the need for regular migration routes amid a workforce shortage and an ageing population.

"Orderly and responsible migration is a response to the demographic challenge facing Europe," he said.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said Berlin preferred an early implementation of a landmark migration pact struck this year, which hardens border procedures and requires countries to take in asylum seekers from "frontline" states or provide money and resources.

"If we all followed the rules we have together, we would already be much further ahead," he said.

Others say the package, set to come into force in June 2026, falls short.

The call to speed up returns echoed an appeal by most states earlier this year for the EU to explore "innovative solutions" to deal with migration.

In a letter this week, von der Leyen promised action and said the bloc will draw lessons from a deal Italy struck with Albania to send some migrants there for processing.

On Thursday the EU chief said other ideas discussed at the summit included reviewing the concept of "safe third country" -- nations asylum seekers can be legally sent back to -- and working with UN agencies to help "stranded" migrants to return to their country of origin.

Italy has been pushing to ease the return of Syrian refugees, amid fears that Israel's war in Lebanon -- where many Syrians fled their country's civil war -- could spark a new migratory wave towards Europe.

- 'New wind' -

The general hardening in tone comes despite a drop in detected irregular border crossings into the European Union, by more than 40 percent this year after reaching an almost 10-year peak in 2023.

"There is a new wind blowing in Europe," said Dutch politician Geert Wilders, in Brussels for a meeting of the far-right Patriots for Europe group in the European Parliament.

Hard-right parties, often riding anti-immigrant sentiment, performed strongly in European Parliament elections in June, and have topped recent national and regional votes in Austria, Germany and the Netherlands.

France also tilted to the right after a parliamentary election in July.

Germany tightened border controls in September in response to several suspected Islamist attacks.

And this month Poland said it would partially suspend asylum rights, accusing Russia and Belarus of pushing migrants over the border to destabilise the country -- a tactic the leaders vowed to confront in their summit conclusions.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky also attended the meeting to present Kyiv's "victory plan" to defeat Russia. EU leaders also discussed the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hard-talk-migration-expected-eu-052852160.html

'At 10-year mark, US and allies weigh future of Islamic State mission'

Ten years to the day after the formal launch of the U.S.-led operation against the Islamic State, the United States and its NATO allies gathered in Brussels on Thursday to discuss the future of a mission facing increasing headwinds.

Niger kicked out the U.S. military from its counter-terrorism base in West Africa this summer. Afghanistan has been largely off-limits since the Taliban's 2021 takeover. And Iraq wants the Pentagon to start reducing its personnel and end coalition operations there.

At the same time, American officials warn the global threat from Islamic State is growing in Africa and elsewhere, even as public attention has shifted to Russia's war in Ukraine and expanding conflicts in the Middle East.

U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who helped launch the U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State a decade ago as a four-star general, cautioned allies at NATO headquarters in Brussels that Islamic State was still a threat that required international attention.

"We're tackling a range of key challenges, including bullying from the People's Republic of China and Russia's reckless invasion of Ukraine," Austin said.

"But as we do so, we must not lose sight of the threat that ISIS still poses."

ATTACKS IN RUSSIA, IRAN

At the height of its powers, Islamic State claimed control over swathes of the combined territories of Iraq and Syria. Its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, declared his cross-border caliphate from the pulpit of Iraq's historic al-Nuri mosque in 2014 and vowed to rule it.

Although territorially defeated in Syria five years ago, and seven years ago in Iraq, Islamic State has managed some high-profile attacks while trying to rebuild.

Most recently, those include an assault on a Russian concert hall in March that killed at least 143 people and two explosions in the Iranian city of Kerman in January that killed nearly 100 people

A 19-year-old Austrian suspected of masterminding a planned suicide attack on a Taylor Swift concert in August had vowed allegiance to the Islamic State militant group's leader.

"It is a threat that is evolving," NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said at the talks.

"There is an increase in lone-wolf attacks. Terrorists are increasingly using new technologies and the epicenter is moving southwards into the Sahel, a region which is now accounting for almost half of all deaths from terrorism."

In Africa, jihadist groups with links to al Qaeda or Islamic State have killed thousands of civilians and displaced millions in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger.

Experts say these conflicts in the Sahel are contributing to a sharp rise in migration towards Europe at a time when anti-immigrant far-right parties are on the rise and some EU states are tightening their borders.

"There's been deliberate efforts (by Islamic State) to try to diversify not only their leadership but some of their combat power to Africa, to Central Asia," a senior U.S. defense official said.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the U.S. strategy was to ensure the Sahel-based threat doesn't spread south to Ghana, Ivory Coast, Benin, Togo and other countries in coastal West Africa.

It will not be easy. The United States is searching for a Plan B in West Africa after Niger's ruling junta in April ordered the U.S. to withdraw its nearly 1,000 military personnel.

In Iraq, an agreement between Washington and Baghdad will see the U.S.-led coalition's military mission end by September 2025, as Iraq turns to more traditional bilateral security partnerships.

The U.S. defense official said the details were being worked out but "all expectations are the footprint will shrink" over the next year. But it is unclear what kind of U.S. presence will remain in Iraq to support operations in Syria, which will continue.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/10-mark-us-allies-weigh-155207227.html

Search This Blog