Displaying posts published in

July 2016

Dr. Horwitz’s Guide to Gunshot Wounds, Circa 1862

The confluence of developments in medical knowledge and military technology enabled doctors to learn a great deal about surgery during the American Civil War. Since, at the war’s outset, very few physicians had any experience treating gunshot wounds, P.J. Horwitz—a Jew from Baltimore and the Union navy’s surgeon general—authored a brief manual on the subject.

At the Start of the Civil War, Few Union Army Surgeons Had Ever Treated a Gunshot Wound By Rebecca Onion

In this three-page, handwritten document, Baltimorean P.J. Horwitz, who served as surgeon general of the Navy for the Union during the Civil War, tries to get his fellow medical officers up to speed on the presentation and treatment of gunshot wounds.

The document is included in an online exhibition,”Passages Through the Fire: Jews and the Civil War,” put together by the Shapell Manuscript Foundation. In introducing Horwitz’s treatise, the anonymous curator notes: “At the outset of the war, the Union medical corps consisted of 83 surgeons and assistant surgeons, few if any of whom had ever treated a gunshot wound.”

The basic information in Horwitz’s treatise, written in January 1862, reflects physicians’ need for rudimentary advice, at this early stage of the war. “One of the first things to be done is to stop the hemorrhage, if there be any, and then carefully examine the wound to see that no foreign body is lodged there in, and then after bathing the flesh in cold water, apply to the wound a piece of lint on which may be spread a little cerate [an ointment],” Horwitz writes.

While the medical corps may have started the war laughably unready for the types and volume of wounds it would see, it would make many improvements in the next four years. “Each side was woefully unprepared, in all aspects, for the extent of the war,” argues Robert F. Reilly, M.D., in an assessment of the performance of physicians and surgeons during the conflict. “Despite this, many medical advances and discoveries occurred as a result of the work of dedicated physicians on both sides”—advances including the safer use of anesthetics, the organization of large hospitals, and the performance of rudimentary neurosurgery.

A transcript follows the document images.


Whoopi Goldberg said on the view that black women wearing blond hair weaves amounts to “cultural appropriation.”

“I think there’s a lot of appropriation going back and forth, the weave . . . the weave doesn’t look like this,” Goldberg said, grabbing her own hair, and then adding “the weave kind of looks like this,” while pointing to the hair of her blonde co host.

“If you are going to talk about appropriating and what’s cool and what’s not, then we are all in deep doo-doo because we are doing it to each other constantly. Everybody is appropriating. Japanese are appropriating. Black folks are appropriating. Spanish people appropriate. We are appropriating each other. It’s not just a black thing.”

In an article for Jet Magazine, Zainib Karim stated that although “to the naked eye, Goldberg’s words might hold some truth,” “what she is speaking of is not cultural appropriation; it’s assimilation.”

“Assimilation is the sister-wife that sprung from white supremacist standards of beauty, living, and social practices,” he writes.

Appropriation is, as another View co host, Sunny Hostin, put it: When “a dominant group in society exploits the culture of a less privileged group without understanding that group’s experience.”

Basically, Goldberg didn’t understand that just because someone uses something from another culture, it doesn’t necessarily mean that that person is engaging in “cultural appropriation.”

But is this misunderstanding really that surprising?

After all, it does seem that, particularly in social justice circles and on college campuses, any use of something from another culture – regardless of the circumstances or intent — is fair game for being called out as “cultural appropriation.” Everything from yoga to toe rings to sumo-wrestling fat suits have earned this label, and perhaps it’s time that more people take a look at actual impacts and definitions before knee-jerk shaming others.

Another Yale Controversy For activists, smashing old stuff is okay if it offends you and the cause is just. By Noah Daponte-Smith

Even in the heat of summer, when the streets of downtown New Haven have emptied of students, Yale can’t escape the clutches of controversy.

The most recent incident in the long-running saga of Yale’s Calhoun College, named after the former South Carolina senator and vice president John C. Calhoun, comes at a time of national racial tensions that only heightens the sense of drama. Calhoun, who served as vice president under John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson in the early 19th century, was famous in his day for his staunch advocacy of slavery. Months of student agitation to change the college’s name came to naught this spring when Yale refused to do so. Corey Menafee, a black man who worked as a dishwasher in Calhoun College, smashed a windowpane in the college’s dining hall that depicted two slaves carrying bales of cotton on their heads. According to his remarks in the New Haven Independent, he acted on an impulse and climbed up with a broomstick to smash the panel. He was promptly arrested and has now resigned from his job; he says that Yale agreed not to press charges if he resigned.

Yale is keeping its part of the bargain, but that probably doesn’t matter to Menafee right now, because the state is doing what Yale refused to do. Despite Yale’s stance, Connecticut is charging Menafee with a felony and a misdemeanor, leading to a progressive outcry over the incident. Charging Menafee with a felony might seem harsh (convicted felons lose voting rights), but it is in compliance with the letter of the law: In Connecticut, first-degree criminal mischief, the felony with which Menafee is charged, involves property damage in excess of $1,500 (which, if you ask me, seems rather low for a felony charge, but the law is the law. The window he smashed was worth at least that much). Yale’s administration, ever the butt of criticism from student activists, does not support the criminal charges, is not seeking restitution, and seems content to sever ties with Menafee. Yale is also removing from the common room other stained-glass windows that depict scenes from the life of Calhoun.

None of that, of course, has stopped the usual brigade of progressive crusaders from defending Menafee, to the point of demanding that he be rehired by the university whose property he destroyed. “Thank you for taking down racist imagery,” read one sign hoisted by demonstrators outside the New Haven courthouse where Menafee appeared earlier today. According to another protester, Yale must also “stop exposing workers to racism,” whatever that means and however one might go about it. John Lugo, a frequent activist in New Haven, has said that Yale should rehire Menafee. In a statement reported in the New Haven Independent, Lugo asked, “What is more valuable to Yale: a stained glassed window of enslaved people picking cotton, or the humanity of the African American people who work at Yale?”

The First Iran War Caroline Glick

The war Israel fought in the summer of 2006 against Hezbollah was not the same as the war Israel fought against the PLO in 1982. The war of 2006 was not a Lebanese war. It was an Iranian war.

July 12, 2006 was the first day of what has become known as the Second Lebanon War. The name of the war, like most of the lessons taken from it, is off.

It was the first Iran war.

Hezbollah, acting as Iran’s foreign legion, initiated the war with a massive mortar and rocket assault on communities in northern Israel. Under mortar cover, a Hezbollah unit crossed the border and attacked an IDF convoy traveling close to Kibbutz Zarit.

Five soldiers were killed in the missile attack. Members of the Hezbollah squad stole the bodies of two of the dead, IDF reservists Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser and spirited them to Lebanon.

A rescue mission to bring them back failed, after the tank, tasked with the job was hit by a land mine. Five more soldiers were killed.

Hezbollah’s assault was not the opening salvo of the war. That happened two and a half weeks earlier along the border with Gaza. The July 12 attack was a carbon copy of Hamas’s June 25 assault.

At dawn that day, Hamas forces opened a salvo of mortar fire on IDF positions along the border with Gaza. Under cover of the fire, a Hamas cell penetrated Israel through an underground tunnel. The terrorists attacked a tank, killing two soldiers and abducting IDF corporal Gilad Shalit.

Following the opening assault, Hamas maintained its mortar, missile and rocket offensive against Israel for weeks.

In 2006, Hamas acted as a wholly-owned and operated Iranian proxy. Iran began massively funding the Muslim Brotherhood group in 2005. Hamas operatives, like their Hezbollah counterparts and colleagues from the Muslim Brotherhood in Sinai, were brought to Iran for training. Iran smuggled massive quantities of weaponry to Gaza, through Egypt.

In other words, the misnamed Second Lebanon War was a two-front war. It was a coordinated assault on Israel by two Iranian controlled terror armies. They operated with a near identical doctrine and operations guide, albeit, with different capabilities.

The Films Hillary and Her Cronies Don’t Want You to See An interview with fearless filmmaker Phelim McAleer by Mark Tapson

If you’re not familiar with the name Phelim McAleer, then you’re unaware of one the most fearless independent filmmakers working today. The producer and director of films such as Mine Your Own Business: The Dark Side of Environmentalism (2006), Not Evil Just Wrong: The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria (2009), and FrackNation (2013), all of which proved to be very inconvenient truths to the left, McAleer also crowdfunded his way to producing a film about abortion monster Gosnell: America’s Biggest Serial Killer, directed by actor and conservative gadfly Nick Searcy and written by novelist/political humorist Andrew Klavan.

Somewhere amid all that, McAleer also produced a play called Ferguson about the controversial killing of Black Lives Matter martyr Michael Brown by white officer Darren Wilson, reenacted onstage using only unaltered Grand Jury testimony. McAleer is not afraid to use film and theater works to force the left to face the truth about such issues.

For his latest project, McAleer has turned to the controversy over Hillary Clinton’s illegal private email server. Her staff are currently giving depositions about it under oath and on film, but Hillary’s lawyers have persuaded the judge to block the release of the tapes because they could damage her chances in the election.

McAleer finds this unconscionable and “unacceptable – that films showing the truth are being blocked from the American people. George Orwell described journalism as ‘something somebody somewhere doesn’t want published.’ So we are going to commit a series of acts of journalism.” What that means is, McAleer is creating a series of short film re-enactments of highlights from the depositions, scripted from the transcripts themselves.

Here, for example, is a video of Cheryl Mills’ deposition highlights, in her own words from the transcript. Mills worked for the Clintons for almost 30 years. She was Hillary’s Chief of Staff at the State Department. Her testimony is “amazing,” writes McAleer, “full of classic Clintonian evasions. She used the phrase ‘I don’t remember’ or ‘don’t recall’ 189 times. This deserves to be brought to a wider audience, not censored and hidden away. And we now have it on film.”

There will be a total of five short films, ending with the deposition of Hillary aide Huma Abedin, who was talkative and very casual about emailing government business with Hillary when both of them were using the server in Hillary’s basement:

Obama’s Exploitation of the Dallas Massacre Exploiting dead police officers to promote #BlackLivesMatter. Daniel Greenfield

In Dallas, Obama mentioned the name of dead sex offender Alton Sterling more times than those of the murdered police officers whom he was pretending to memorialize. After quickly dispensing with the formalities of eulogizing the slain officers, Obama demanded that “even those who dislike the phrase ‘black lives matter’” should “be able to hear the pain of Alton Sterling’s family”.

Alton Sterling was a convicted sex offender, burglar and violent criminal who was shot while reaching for a gun. His family may mourn him, just as every criminal’s family mourns their own, but it was obscene to class him together with five police officers who were murdered by a violent racist while doing their duty.

It is even more obscene when Obama’s favorite sex offender displaces the murdered police officers.

And yet that was Obama’s theme in Dallas. Murdered police officers were contrasted with dead criminals. The proper thing for Americans to do, as Obama told us, was to mourn both officers and criminals, to respect the sacrifices of the police and the anti-police accusations of #BlackLivesMatter.

Obama did not come to Dallas to mourn the murdered police officers, but to defend the ideology that took their lives. And this is what he has done from the very beginning.

Before the shootings, Obama expressed his “condolences for the families of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile” and insisted that the criminal justice system was racist. His statements and speeches after the shootings echoed the same talking points and spin complete with the claims that accusing the police of racism is “not to be against law enforcement”.

“When people say ‘Black Lives Matter,’ that doesn’t mean blue lives don’t matter”, he famously said.

That’s true. Black Lives Matter doesn’t mean that blue lives don’t matter. It means that blue lives are evil. As Ta-Nehisi Coates, an author on Obama’s reading list, wrote of the dead police officers who gave their lives on September 11, “They were not human to me.” That’s the kindest thing that the black nationalists whose cause Obama has championed have said of the police.

Discontent Is a Global Disease America’s perceived partisan rift is actually a manifestation of the global gulf between elites and discontents.By Antony Davies and James R. Harrigan

“As the people become ever more fed up with being treated as impediments and afterthoughts, the ruling elite will find themselves with only two options.They can stop telling people what to do, how to think, how to live and whom to accept as their countrymen. In short, they can stop acting like the soft despots they have become. Or the elite can double down. They can continue down the same path of growing and glorifying the state that has led to the present point of massive mistrust.If they choose to double down, all that lies ahead is more discontent. The world has changed. Typical partisan rifts no longer define the political universe. Any politics that turns a blind eye to the new reality is likely only to stoke a smoldering fire. Because as things now stand, the great unwashed have not yet spoken their full piece. And that should be enough to make any of the governing elite think twice.”

As election season rolls around, prepare to be subjected to near-endless analyses of how America has divided into red and blue camps. There will be hand-wringing about the growing rift and about how people on the left and the right barricade themselves in echo chambers, unwilling to engage with the other side except to cast aspersions and call names.

The pundits who will worry over these things will all have a point. But it won’t be the right point.

We forget that partisan rancor has been much worse in our history. The election of 1800, to pick just one example, demonstrates the point. One of Thomas Jefferson’s surrogates accused President John Adams of having a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.” Adams and his friends were arguably worse. Both sides threw thick mud for months.

So partisan rancor is nothing new, and it has rarely reached the depths seen in 1800. Yet, there is a lingering feeling that some kind of gulf is widening in the American electorate. But when future historians write about it, they will place the phenomenon in a global, not a particularly American, context.

Because what we perceive to be a widening gulf between the right and the left is really just the American manifestation of a global disease. And that disease is the widening gulf between the governing elites and their supporters on the one hand, and those they consider the great unwashed on the other.

The Trump and Sanders candidacies rode this wave in the United States, and there was sufficient anger on the part of the unwashed to lock one into the Republican nomination, and carry the other to within striking distance of the Democratic nomination. How palpable is the anger? Donald Trump may well become president of the United States of America for one thing, and he may win that office precisely because of his unwillingness to show a shred of class, not in spite of it. How better to differentiate himself from the spit and polished elites with their carefully constructed, globally acceptable, politically correct attitudes? For his part, Bernie Sanders was cut from the same cloth, though with a slightly higher thread count. He differentiated himself by playing the part of the aging, cranky member of the proletariat.

The Iran of Old One year after the nuclear deal, Iran remains as anti-American as ever. Lawrence Haas

As the global nuclear deal with Iran marks its one-year anniversary this week, Tehran is maintaining its fierce anti-Americanism, receiving $100 billion-plus in sanctions relief with which it can better confront the United States in its region and beyond, and apparently trying to cheat its way to nuclear weaponry.

Notwithstanding President Barack Obama’s boast in announcing the deal last July 14 that it “makes our country, and the world, safer and more secure,” evidence continues to mount that it’s doing just the opposite.

With the deal coming together in the spring of 2015, Obama expressed hope that it would empower moderate Iranian forces who would convince the regime to invest the billions in sanctions relief in its economy rather than its “war machine.” But Tehran offers no signs of moderation, and if anything is doubling down on the anti-Americanism that has fueled the regime since the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

In recent days, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei blamed “recent bombings in Muslim countries” on the “security services of America, the Zionist regime and England” and said Tehran will “never cooperate” with Washington on Syria and other regional problems. And with tens of thousands of Iranians chanting “death to America” at Quds Day rallies on July 1, President Hassan Rouhani declared that “the global arrogance” (a euphemism for America and its allies) “wants to create discord among Muslims.”

Tehran’s latest anti-American vitriol coincides with revelations about Iranian nuclear-related activities that conflict with the nuclear deal as well as with related United Nations Security Council resolutions.

For starters, Iran has mounted a “clandestine” effort to acquire illicit nuclear technology and equipment from German companies “at what is, even by international standards, a quantitatively high level,” including at least nine attempts to acquire technology that could be used for nuclear weapons, according to Germany’s domestic intelligence agency. Iran, the agency predicted, “will continue its intensive procurement activities in Germany using clandestine methods to achieve its objectives.”

In a related matter, the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington, D.C. nonproliferation think tank, reported that Iran recently tried to buy “tons of controlled carbon fiber,” which is used to build advanced centrifuges that can enrich uranium to atomic weapons-grade levels, from another nation. Since Iran already has enough carbon fiber to replace its existing advanced centrifuges, the Institute’s David Albright and Andrea Stricker wrote, it may be preparing to bypass the nuclear deal and build far more advanced centrifuges than the deal allows.

Meanwhile, Iran’s tests of its increasingly sophisticated ballistic missiles, on which it could later mount nuclear warheads, remain a central concern of global leaders. Reuters reported last week that in a confidential report to the Security Council, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that Iran’s missile tests “are not consistent with the constructive spirit” of the nuclear deal. That’s something of an understatement; in its resolution that approved the nuclear deal, the Security Council “called upon” Iran not to work on ballistic missiles that could carry nuclear warheads for up to eight years.

Brexit Disrupts Nonchalant European Union Meddling by Malcolm Lowe

In respect of the Palestinian problem, the European political elites have only the means to destabilize the status quo without installing an alternative. But Israel’s leaders can take heart. Any declarations made at French President François Hollande’s conference will be unenforceable, because the EU on its own lacks the means and because its energies must now focus on stopping its own disintegration.

The underlying reasons for Brexit and for EU disintegration in general have still not been widely understood. Brexit was not merely a vote of no confidence in the EU but also in the UK establishment. Similar gaps between establishment and electorate now exist in several other major European states. In some cases, however, governments are united with their electorates in detesting the EU dictatorship in Brussels.

The June 23 vote by the United Kingdom electorate to leave the European Union should be seen in the context of two other recent European events. Three days earlier, on June 20, the EU’s Foreign Ministers Council decided to solve the Palestinian problem by Christmas with its endorsement of French President François Hollande’s “peace initiative.” Three days after the vote, on June 26, the second election in Spain within a few months failed once again to produce a viable majority for any government. Worse still, the steadily rising popularity of nationalist parties in France, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands suggests that political paralysis in other EU countries is on the way.

In short, the ambitions of the ruling political cliques of Europe to solve the problems of the world are being undermined by their own neglected electorates, which are increasingly furious at the failure of those cliques to solve the problems of Europe itself. Four years ago, we wrote about Europe’s Imminent Revolution. Two years ago, about the attempt and failure of those cliques to turn the EU into a make-believe copy of the United States. Today, that revolution is creeping ahead month by month.

Before threatening Israel’s security and local supremacy, the EU foreign ministers could have recalled the results of their previous nonchalant meddling in the area. We were all rightly horrified by the threat of Muammar Gaddafi to hunt down his enemies “street by street, house by house,” as he began by shooting hundreds in his capital, in February 2011. Hollande’s predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy, rallied European leaders — first and foremost the UK’s David Cameron — to do something about it. President Obama turned up to give a speech, something that he is good at. More importantly, Obama supplied warplanes from the NATO base in Naples. The idea was to enable victory for the Libyan rebel forces by paralyzing Gaddafi’s own air force and bombing his land forces.

Victory was achieved. But the rebels were united only in their hatred of Gaddafi. So Libya has descended into a chaos that could have been prevented only by a massive long-term presence of European land forces, which Europe — after repeated cuts in army strength — does not have. Now it is the local franchise of the Islamic State, among others, that is hunting down enemies house by house.

Europe was incapable of achieving anything in Libya without the United States, and incapable of replacing a detestable regime with a superior alternative. The lesson could have been learned from Iraq. Here, a massive American military presence accompanied a constitutional revolution and the beginnings of parliamentary rule. But the whole costly achievement collapsed when Obama decided to remove even the residual military presence needed to perpetuate it.

VIDEO — “Gangster Islam” in Europe

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8459/gangster-islam-europe “Gangster Islam,” a crime wave packing prisons and overtaking Europe, is a problem the mainstream media will not report. Ordinary Europeans — for fear of being called “racist” or even being imprisoned for “hate speech” — are afraid even to talk about it. Timon Dias, Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute, discusses the […]