Dogs Drool.

"I love dogs. Really. Got one myself. See. Right here. Good doggy! And he don't drool. Just like a cat — nice 'n clean. Yup. Give me a dog any day. Just don't call me one. OK?"

Millions of Americans believe President Obama's a closet Muslim — which opinion raises two questions: Is he? and So what if he is? Regarding the first, here's a straw in the wind.

Speaking in Milwaukee this morning, the President went off teleprompter — never a swift move for the intellectually challenged — and unburdened himself:

"Some powerful interests who had been dominating the agenda in Washington for a very long time and they're not always happy with me. They talk about me like a dog. That's not in my prepared remarks, but it's true." [Emphasis added]

Hmm. There's been no dearth of insults directed the President's way, true. But I rather doubt that "dog" is one of them. And even if it were, it would pale in comparison with some of the others. So what's with the dog business?

I sought out Muriel, the "bodacious lady shrink" who spurned my friend Phil's advances way back when (see here), for advice. "What the President's saying," she explained, "is that he's been the object of unspeakable invective, poor dear! To prove it, he hauls out an extreme example."

"But calling someone a dog is hardly an insult extraordinaire, unless, of course, you're a cat."

"Or a Muslim!" My attempt at humor had fallen flat. "Muslims don't like dogs," she continued. "They think they're unclean, especially their saliva. Having them in the house is like displaying animate pictures — keeps the angels away."

Ah the perils of ad libbing when you've got so much to hide.

"You think Obama unintentionally dropped another hint, you know, like his 'Muslim faith,' as to his true proclivities? Is that why Bo flies solus?" I asked.

She shrugged. "Hard to say. But, like I said, Muslims don't like dogs. Mohammad was a cat man."

And, indeed, they don't. Consider, for example, the counsel offered by Mufti Ebrahim Desai to a young Muslim concerned that her mother might purchase a dog:

"You can share this answer with your mother, since it is she who has to make the decision. You must be very polite in talking to her about this issue and let your love and concern persuade her to the right action. If she still insists you may have to live with it. In that case make sure you understand the issue of purity and take necessary precautions." [Emphasis added]

The "issue of purity" refers to the matter of saliva.

"The saliva of a dog is Najis (impure). If it touches the clothes or body, that portion also becomes impure and must be washed."

Also go here.

Read more ...

Will Israel Stand with Us?

On the occasion of Israel's 62^nd Independence Day, Caroline Glick lays out the case for America's maintaining its historic alliance with Israel. Glick approaches this question from the American point of view. Among her arguments are the following:

• "Only Israel [by virtue of its democracy, and unlike other states in the region] ... is a reliable, permanent US ally."


• "The US and Israel share the same regional foes ... Israel['s] successes redound to the US's benefit."


• "Israel remains the US's most reliable source for accurate intelligence on the US's enemies in the region."


• "In both military and non-military spheres, Israeli technological achievements ... are shared with America."


• "A strong Israel is the best guarantor of ... [America's permanent strategic] interests[: 1] ensuring the smooth flow of affordable petroleum products from the region; [2] preventing the most radical regimes [and other entities] ... from acquiring the means to cause catastrophic harm; and [3] maintaining the US's capacity to project its power to the region."

Ms. Glick's reasoning is impeccable, but unlikely to resonate with the present administration. To see why, consider the following possible interpretations of BHO's behavior toward the Jewish state.

1. By virtue of stupidity and / or inexperience, he really doesn't understand what he's doing.


2. He's a people's republic kind of guy bent on transforming the U.S. from a representative democracy into a dictatorship of the proletariat. As such, and like Lenin, he will avoid the distraction of foreign entanglements.


3. He's a black supremacist who views the Arab-Israeli conflict through the prism of white, European exploitation of non-white, indigenous peoples — hence his sympathy for the Palestinians, whom he regards as the legitimate occupants of what is now Israel.


4. As imagined by some on the Right, he's a closet Muslim and sees Israel's enemies as his natural allies.

The first possibility, I believe, can be rejected out of hand. Obama may, indeed, be the "affirmative action President," but, his fondness for the teleprompter notwithstanding, he is obviously intelligent and politically adroit. To suggest that he is naive, that he doesn't recognize what the likes of Ahmadinejad, Abbas and Assad are about, is to strain credulity.

The remaining propositions are more plausible. Note that if even one of them holds true, appealing to BHO's sense of American self-interest is beside the point. Obama's America, the one that he is straining to bring into being, bears little relation to its historical antecedents. What is in its interest has little to do with American interests as they have been viewed traditionally, say since the end of World War II.

If one accepts the foregoing analysis, the question is not if Obama will stand with Israel, but rather if Israel will stand with the American people who are just now beginning to appreciate the true nature of "Hope and Change." Israel can do this by being brave, strong and independent, above all, by surviving. The inspiration afforded thereby will allow the real America to again one day be "a light unto the nations." For the present, that task defaults to others.

Read more ...

Triumph of the Slow Variables or 'Rat in a Box.'

More than one conservative commentator has suggested that President Obama’s (BHO's) redistributive agenda equates to European-style socialism. Sadly, there are other, more troubling possibilities. We discuss one of them and introduce a concept from mathematics that bears on how we reached this awful state of affairs. Like Tinky Winky, we save the rest for later.

Socialism.

1. Whatever one thinks of the merits of state ownership, income redistribution, etc., it is important to distinguish democratic socialism from Marxist-Leninism. The former can be voted out; the latter, not.


2. The available evidence suggests that BHO is a people's republic sort of guy. The academic-activist culture from which he emerged is rife with sympathy for countries and revolutionary movements that practice or promote dictatorship of the proletariat. BHO’s “odd” associations, his long-standing working relationships with Ayres, Wright, Khalidi, etc., his recent appointments, Holdren, Singer, etc. — all are explained. Pares cum paribus facilime congregantur, loosely, “birds of a feather flock together.”


3. Likewise explained are BHO’s radical inclinations, his sympathies, disparate reactions to Iran and El Salvador, not least of all, his vocabulary.


4. "Change we can believe in" arguably equals revolution, at the ballot box, thus far, but revolution nonetheless. BHO’s foreign policy positions are best understood as adjunctive to the same. They amount, above all else, to disengagement from the external world, much as the Soviet Union disengaged after the Bolshevik revolution. Overseeing a revolution consumes time, energy and money, in which circumstance, foreign entanglements are distracting.


5. The exception is when foreign policy can be used to support “transformative” initiatives at home. Keeping the army (sharp tip of the spear) elsewhere occupied (Afghanistan) is an obvious example. Appealing to particular constituencies in an ethnically diverse society is another.


6. BHO's proposed national service corps, a "community organization" armed and empowered by law, can only be comprehended as the iron hand beneath the glove.

Separation of Time Scales.

One approach to studying the behavior of complex systems is called "separation of time scales." Here, one sorts variables according to their rates of change. More precisely, one distinguishes "fast" variables from "slow." When this is possible, one can eliminate the fast variables, thereby simplifying the analysis — see, for example, Lin and Segel (1988). In short, it's the slow variables that call the shots," even when it's the rapidly fluctuating fast variables that catch one's attention.

Rat in a Box.

Now suppose we are performing an experiment and that the slow variables are experimental conditions we can control. For concreteness, imagine measuring the metabolic rate of a rat in a chamber, the temperature of which can be varied. Further suppose that we turn the knob slowly and that, after each twist, wait a while for the animal's physiology to adjust before taking data. Over a wide range of temperatures, the so-called "thermo-neutral region" (flat portion of the graph), there is little or no change in metabolism — the animal regulates its body temperature by constricting or dilating its peripheral blood vessels, thereby reducing or increasing heat loss to the environment. But reduce the external temperature below a certain point, and metabolic rate goes up — the animal shivers. Likewise, if the temperature is set too high, metabolic rate also increases — the animal pants. In both instances, passive temperature regulation is replaced by active, energy expenditure kicks in, and metabolic rate increases. Too hot or too cold, of course, and the animal cannot adjust; it dies (dashed lines in the figure).

Triumph of the Slow Variables.
BHO's election to the Presidency is a triumph of the slow variables — 40⁺ years of "progressive" policy innovations having eaten away, bit by incremental bit, at the country's shared presumptions, at the institutions that translate these presumptions into policy, at the professions that transmit the presumptions from one generation to the next. This is especially the case in education. That is what Annenberg / Ayres is all about, although it is worth noting that social engineering has become part and parcel of all manner of programs, some of them, for example, the awarding of National Science Foundation research grants (go here), quite far afield. In the case of complex systems generally, as in that of the unfortunate lab rat, the effects of such change can be abrupt and catastrophic. Sadly, we are the rat in the box. And we have just been pushed outside the thermo-neutral region.

SPQR.
Yes. The slow variables have triumphed. Preserving our democracy is now going to take considerably more effort than going down to the polls a couple of times a year. Lest we shrink from the task, remember this: the letters SPQR (Senate and People of Rome) continued to adorn the legions' standards long after Caesar was murdered in the forum, and the Senate, to convene. But the Roman republic was dead, having been replaced by the panoply of emperors, some good, some bad, who counted themselves as gods. Let not future historians write that these were the final days of its American counterpart.

Read more ...