Obama explained

Add this to other attempts to explain Obama's meteoric rise from mildly unsuccessful community organizer through mildly ineffective (but present!) state and US senator to failed president.

This is a pretty succinct explanation of how he rose to such dizzying heights (his supporters were gulled by his narcissistic self confidence) only to fail abysmally (plain old incompetence):

Narcissists rise to the top. That's because other people think their qualities-- confidence, dominance, authority, and self-esteem -- make them good leaders.

Is that true? "Our research shows that the opposite seems to be true," says Barbora Nevicka, a PhD candidate in organizational psychology, describing a new study she undertook with University of Amsterdam colleagues Femke Ten Velden, Annebel De Hoogh, and Annelies Van Vianen. The study found that the narcissists' preoccupation with their own brilliance inhibits a crucial element of successful group decision-making and performance: the free and creative exchange of information and ideas.

Although Obama plays the part of a non-partisan advancer of worthy ideas, it often seems to be when he faces resistance that he doesn't understand and doesn't want to deal with. He may compromise too readily and duck tough decisions, but he sure does think the world of himself. Just count the number of times he refers to himself in speeches to see that not only does he think the world revolves around him, he thinks it ought to.

The take away from the study? I leave it one of the co-authors: "You have to ask: Are the competencies they project valid, or are they merely in the eyes of the beholder?"

In this case, the beholders were duped, but hopefully not lastingly.

Bad news for the Obama household

Oops, Bo, the supposedly hypoallergenic dog brought in to the Whitehouse with great fanfare, and subsequently largely abandoned, may not be so allergy friendly after all.

From Science Daily:

[...] "We found no scientific basis to the claim hypoallergenic dogs have less allergen," says Christine Cole Johnson, Ph.D., MPH, chair of Henry Ford's Department of Public Health Sciences and senior author of the study.

"Based on previous allergy studies conducted here at Henry Ford,
exposure to a dog early in life provides protection against dog allergy
development. But the idea that you can buy a certain breed of dog and think it
will cause less allergy problems for a person already dog-allergic is not borne
out by our study." [....]

Will Bo see the underside of the bus? Probably not as he's still a pretty good stage prop. But extended banishment from The Obama's presence seems a given.

Shades of Russia 1917 as Muslim Brotherhood moves into vacuum

After having sat on their hands during the February revolution that overthrew the Czar, Russia's Bolsheviks were not going to let another opportunity slip by when October brought renewed strikes and unrest to Petersburg. They took over in a largely bloodless coup with relatively few men.

Seen what's happening in Egypt? The NYT has the details:

In post-revolutionary Egypt, where hope and confusion collide in the daily struggle to build a new nation, religion has emerged as a powerful political force, following an uprising that was based on secular ideals. The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group once banned by the state, is at the forefront, transformed into a tacit partner with the military government that many fear will thwart fundamental changes.

It is also clear that the young, educated secular activists who initially propelled the nonideological revolution are no longer the driving political force — at least not at the moment.

During the movement to topple Mubarak, the Brotherhood were nowhere to be found. Now they are on the cusp of capturing power in a followup revolution.

Well, done, President Present. Way to use America's influence. Those last minute phone calls to Mubarak were doubtless expected to sway him with your charm (which worked so well with your own electorate), but sadly failed to set Egypt on a course of moderization and political freedom.

So we see history being made by a foolish president. The way things are going, it is not surprising that he launched an attack on Libya. At least there he can produce the bloody head of Col. Crazy as a sort of trophy (and make no mistake, now that he's attacked, leaving Kaddafy in power would be to invite another Lockerbie, only this time on a grander scale. Kaddafy's head on a pike will forestall that outcome). Kaddafy is literally a dead dictator walking unless he leaves for exile.

Saw the article first at Hot Air

This is what happens when you vote present as president

Famous for voting present during his time in the state legislature and US Senate, Obama is discovering that doing so as president has consequences.

Now we have the Muslim Brotherhood and El ("I've been mandated by the people") Baradei declaring themselves the new rulers of Egypt. Of course, this may never happen, but that the situation has gotten so far out of hand is in itself alarming.

Overly cautious in everything other than his campaign promises and homages to himself, Obama has missed the boat in the Middle East. Tunisia is small potatoes, but Egypt is a linchpin nation in the region, and his dithering -- notwithstanding his protestations of having implored Mubarak to straighten up and fly right (Mubarak's evident refusal to be charmed by our very own Nobel laureate must have stung)-- has thrown the region into chaos. Obama had every opportunity to make his feelings known by leveraging our economic aid, but instead chose to gin up his re-election machine.

Time to join Carter in the statecraft school of hard knocks, Obama. And take plenty of notes while there; the world can't afford too many more votes of "present".

German Chancellor Merkel: Multiculti has failed

Make that it has "utterly failed".

The left's most cherished dream and its solution to human conflict was multiculturism. Under this plan everyone would live together in peace and harmony so long as they would acknowledge and accept one another's cultural differences and quirks. The lion would lie down with the lamb and the rose would grow without thorn.

Well, not quite. Somehow they didn't anticipate that when immigrants are encouraged to keep their culture, it often means that the new country's culture must change to accomodate the newcomers -- especially if avoiding conflict is held to be more important than asking anything of the immigrants in return. Things like learning your new country's language, customs and laws.

Well, the Germans have had enough. They've long been known to bend over backwards in their desire to not demand anything from immigrants -- lest their history be thrown in their face. Now, though, the tide has turned. Europe as a whole is busy imposing laws designed to restrict how immigrants can behave (e.g., France's new anti burqa law) and requiring their places of worship conform to local standards (e.g., the Swiss law against building minarets).

Much of that is induced by anti-immigrant feeling, and won't do much to resolve the problems Europe's embrace of multiculti ushered in. What is truly needed is for Europe to demand that immigrants fully assimilate. And that means more than showing movies on how the locals behave (as has been done in the Netherlands and for potential immigrants).

What it requires is a drastic rollback of economic subsidies to immigrants. Only the prospect of economic failure will motivate immigrants to assimilate. This is how America -- the country with the most experience in successfully turning immigrants into productive citizens has done it for generations. Immigrants show up in American and in just a couple of generations they are doctors, lawyers and engineers and, most importantly, Americans.

Until Europe can take that all important step to force immigrants to fight for economic survival, the immigrant problem will continue to fester.

Just what kind of Socialist is Obama?

Given Obama's state-kleptomania tendencies (e.g., "[A]t some point, you've made enough"; letting government regulate private salaries, soak the rich rhetoric, etc.), it's pretty much beyond arguing that he has serious socialist aspirations.

Nevertheless it's important to determine just what sort of Socialist Obama is. To begin, let's pick two Socialists from the Russian revolution: Kerensky and Lenin. They were chosen because they are reasonably well known and (mostly) because I'm currently reading two books that mention both men in detail (A People's Tragedy and Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives).

Kerensky was the last prime minister of post revolutionary Russia, while Lenin was the man who replaced him and who did more than any other to destroy the Russian people -- bequething to Stalin a fully formed and functioning police state. Lenin quickly turned the October revolution into a grasp for total power over Russia's people and compromised the ideals of the 1905 and February revolutions.

The February revolution and subsequent abdication of the Tsar left a power vacuum. Lenin was still in exile and so the Bolsheviks missed their chance (some nine months later they would be ready). Kerensky, though, was in Petersburg, and already a politician of note. He was also convinced he was destined for greatness (sound familiar? How's this for comparison: "We are the ones we've been waiting for". Or this: "This was the moment [Obama's election] when the rise of the seas began to slow". Not too hubristic).

Both men were also wildly popular before their rise to power. It was said that all of Russia trusted Kerensky and thought him wise. By comparison, Obama managed to gull about 53% of voters (and nearly 100% of the media). Not quite the same level of adulation, but certainly enough to see his overweening pride find a place in the White House.

Finally, both men were part of a cult of personality. Both deliberately supported efforts to make themselves ubiquitious and important. Kerensky through such simple means as distributing postcards with his picture (where he looks farseeing, compassionate, honest and a leader), whereas Obama let the mass media and supporters do the apotheosis for him. And boy did they. Recall the songs, the peaeans written by the national press, the photos showing him with a halo, and the Democratic convention with its Roman pagentary.

As far as his comparison to Lenin: well, there really isn't much of one. Lenin was crosseyed in the intensity of his devotion to the revolution. He stayed on message like nobody's business. Obama flits from one message to another quicker than a butterfly -- and with as much impact. Only recently (coinciding with poor Democratic prospects for November) has he focused on the economy.

Lenin likewise was very good at convincing his fellow socialists that he had the answers; he used his iron will and a relentless logic to win support for his ideas. Obama is decidely unpopular with fellow Dems -- many of whom won't utter his name or even their party affiliation in their election advertising. Indeed, Obama's ability to convince through oratory is limited to getting himself elected. Beyond that he is a fairly limited speaker with little influence in his party -- even ex-prez Clinton has more these days.

Kerensky's fate was failure and exile. Lenin's was a series of debilitating strokes and an early death. Obama's fate will be different. He will continue as a media favorite but will ultimately be known as the man who mortally wounded the American nation by severing us from what made us great.

Hey, maybe he is more like Lenin. Oh, and one more way they are similar: there is more than an echo of Lenin's slogan that the Bolsheviks should be "looting the looters" in Obama's relentless calls for wealthier Americans to give back what they took. The main difference between them is that Lenin wanted the lootees to eliminate the looters. Obama is happy to just "spread the wealth" and have the looters continue to fill the government's coffers.

Update: Just to be clear, I do not think Obama is comparable in a meaningful way to either Kerensky or Lenin. This was just something that occurred to me while reading histories of that period. On the other hand, there must have been dozens of comparisons of Bush to Hitler in which the writer meant the comparison to be taken seriously. So if you are offended, sorry, I'm just following precedent.

Star of David shaped nanoparticle discovered -- Islamists' heads explode

In news that ought to send Mr. Ahmadinejad out looking for rugs to chew in frustration (Teppichfresser in German -- the allusion is to Hitler, a noted Teppichfresser in his day), Hebrew University has found a nanoparticle with a hexagonal crystal structure with an uncommon resemblance to the Star of David. In the article's accompanying photo, they even colored it blue.

Allah is often not kind to his most devoted politicians. Doubtless the structure of the particle was manipulated by Jew scientists, eh, Mahmoud?

A spectre is haunting Europe -- again

This time it isn't communism, it's capitalism. Capitalism in the form of iron economic laws, that is. Europe's decades long holiday from economic reality has ended.

Europe long ago (well, in the 70s) traded growth for a well developed set of social safety nets and is discovering that if you want to tax folks to the extent that such nets are possible, you'd better have a market economy capable of delivering the growth neccessary to keep things afloat. Insufficient growth means those carefully and lovingly crafted nets are quickly swamped by rising costs. This is exactly what is happening in Europe. They spend beyond their public finances and worry more about legislating the shape of bananas than ensuring they follow proper market rules.

This is socialism's second go round in Europe. And it will be its second failure. The reason is simple: capitalism triumphs over socialism. It's really that simple. Capitalism takes into account that Man is an economic animal. We strive for more resources and seek to better our families' lives, and we put our capital where it will offer us the best return. Socialism seeks to alter our economic nature. It wants to eliminate risk, to bring about the brotherhood of man, and to do away with competition. Most imoprtantly: it doesn't work.

So now Europe is up against it. Endless bailouts won't solve the underlying problems. Only a return to market based economics and sufficient belt tightening can save Europe.

Capitalism in the form of a rampant China, India, and Brazil is stalking Europe. And it means business.

Karl Marx must be turning over in his grave. To go from elegant economic theory to bankrupt philosophy twice in a hundred years is enough to disrupt anyone's eternal rest.

It's on. America's Cup racing begins 8 Feb.

Finally, after numerous fits and starts, the decks are cleared of legal questions and the Swiss and US teams are ready to square off. Racing is due to begin on February 8th, of the shores of Valencia, Spain -- the same venue as last time.

The Swiss are defending the cup with a catamaran, while the California based challangers are campaigning a trimaran.

Normally I would favor the catamaran, except that the Swiss backer decided to take the helm himself -- a sure road to disaster. Sure hope I'm wrong.

Here is a link providing a background to the current rivalry. It also has links to the teams, the America's Cup, and the Swiss Institutes of Technology, which provided lots of input to the final design.

UPDATE: Crap. The Swiss lost the cup. Congrats to the Oracle team. As I search for a silver lining, I can point to the race taking place either in SF Bay, or offshore in the Pacific. Both locations are superior to Valencia.