RUTHFULLY YOURS

A version of this column will be posted Monday, Nov. 17, 2014, on the website http://yeoldecrabb.com/

The Chinese Riddle

A servile media has again misrepresented the important if unproductive Asian tour of Pres. Barack Hussein Obama, most importantly the promised engagement with China which failed to materialize.

The ballyhooed U.S.-China climate change agreement, appealing to the fashionable, signed between the U.S and China was much less than meets the eye. It committed America – until it gets to a Congress which will have a different sense – to a rigorous cutback in industrial carbon emissions to be achieved at the price of economic growth and jobs.

It couldn’t be more bogus. Beijing, by far the world’s greatest polluter and not only through carbon emissions but through poisoning of its arable land and most of its water, only formally signed on for something ambiguous down the road. Worse still, as Japanese and South Korean consumers have found – and those Walmart customers may one day learn too at their peril — it exports its poisons through cheaper processed foods.

Recent history is littered with the evidence of failures of the Chinese Communist adherence to international agreements it has signed. Ironically, many of them were pushed through international forums by Washington administrations, both Republican and Democrat, anxious to bring “a rising China” into the world family. For example, none of China’s promises have been fulfilled after the U.S. shoehorned it against considerable opposition into the World Trade Organization with all its benefits.

As previous administrations, most notably the two Bush II terms, Washington did not take on China’s manipulation of its currency and its subsidized exports which have disemboweled American manufacturing. That Chinese thrust had to be met at the same time U.S. industry was trying to cope with the digital revolution, with its enormous increases in productivity but an absence of low and medium-skilled job creation.

Mottos carved in granite over our nation’s universities carry words like “wisdom,” “truth,” “knowledge,” “virtue,” and “justice.” They are generally inscribed in Latin, which emits an even greater sense of solemnity and reverence. They are noble words that convey impartiality, places where contrary opinions can be debated and knowledge is imparted didactically. They suggest institutions from which students will graduate with unlimited possibilities.

Unfortunately those words lie. It is ideology not knowledge that students today are taught and that they master. Most of today’s great universities no longer search for an illusive “truth.” The quaint concept of “virtue,” or the fairness embedded in “justice” are just words whose definitions are irrelevant. Professors offer opinions as fact.

There are no ivy-covered arches etched with the words, “Ignorantia vos Servitus,” yet that motto would more accurately capture many of today’s universities. Too many students graduate ignorant of ideas and opinions that do not accord with those of their teachers and fellow students. Consequently, too many grow up dependent, either on family or government. It is curious how closely aligned are the traits, rebellion and conformity. Today’s students are both rebellious and conformists. They rebel against the evil they are told is personified in the Koch brothers, while admitting no one into their circle that does not conform to their political leanings. They shun independent thinking. They feel sanctimonious, yet lack virtue. It is an attitude both arrogant and supercilious. It is elitism at its most foul. It is not education these students are receiving; it’s indoctrination.

One manifestation has been the reluctance of teachers and administrators to allow those deemed politically incorrect to speak on their campuses. Last spring, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was denied the opportunity at Rutgers, despite her being the first African-American woman to serve in that role. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Muslim convert to atheism and a woman who suffered genital mutilation as a child, was denied a promised honorary degree and disinvited from speaking at Babson this past spring.

Islam’s Assault on Women’s Sexuality — on The Glazov Gang
A former Islamic Imam unveils the misogynist texts of Islam — and their earthly incarnations.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/islams-assault-on-womens-sexuality-on-the-glazov-gang/

FILE – In this undated file photo provided by his family, Peter Kassig stands in front of a truck filled with supplies for Syrian refugees. The Indianapolis, Indiana, aid worker being held by the Islamic State group told family and teachers that he’d found his calling in 2012 when he decided to stay in the Middle East instead of returning to college, according to an email released Tuesday, Oct. 14, 2014 by his family. (AP Photo/Courtesy Kassig Family, File)

BEIRUT (AP) – The Islamic State group released a graphic video Sunday in which a black-clad militant claims to have beheaded U.S. aid worker Peter Kassig, who was captured last year.
The militant was standing over a severed head, but it was not immediately possible to confirm that Kassig, 26, was pictured in the video. Family representatives were not immediately available for comment.
The video, which was posted on websites used by the group in the past, appeared to be the latest in a series of grisly messages to the U.S. warning of further brutality if it does not abandon its air campaign in Iraq and Syria.
“This is Peter Edward Kassig, a U.S. citizen, of your country; Peter who fought against the Muslims in Iraq, while serving as a soldier,” the militant says near the end of the nearly 16-minute video. He speaks in an audible British accent despite his voice being distorted to make it more difficult to identify him.
The video also shows what appears to be the mass beheading of several Syrian soldiers captured by the group. The militants warn that U.S. soldiers will meet a similar fate.

http://verygoodnewsisrael.blogspot.com/

ISRAEL’S MEDICAL ACHIEVEMENTS

Detecting preemie respiratory distress. (Thanks to Israel21c) Israeli startup Pneumedicare has developed the Pneumonitor to monitor premature babies on ventilation machines. A ventilator can cause pneumothorax, in which the infant’s tiny air sacs over-inflate and burst. Pneumonitor’s alarm sounds an hour before any problem arises. http://www.israel21c.org/headlines/helping-preemies-breathe-easier/

Discovery of the infertility gene. Tel Aviv University scientists have discovered that the genetic deletion of the protein Interleukin-1 (IL-1) improves fertility. It could help increase the effectiveness of IVF treatment. The discovery was made accidentally during research at TAU into IL-1’s role in the hardening of the arteries.

http://jewishbusinessnews.com/2014/10/30/tel-aviv-u-study-neutralizing-immune-gene-improves-success-of-fertility-treatments/

Israel funds cancer research. (Thanks to Israel21c) The Israel Cancer Research Fund (ICRF) has made 94 new research grants for the 2014/15 year, totaling a record $3,453,332. Since 1977, ICRF has made 2,115 grants, totaling over $52 million. Successes include 3 top cancer treatments and two major genetic discoveries.

http://www.israel21c.org/news/3-45-million-for-cancer-research/

Violinist continues to improve. Naomi Elishuv made headlines in September when she played the violin while Israeli surgeons implanted two electrodes in her brain to stop her tremors. Doctors say Naomi is recovering impressively and they hope the type of implant will soon be used in other cases.

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=21153

Treatment for prostate problems. BPH won’t kill you – it stands for benign prostatic hyperplasia – but it can make life uncomfortable for 50% of men over 50 years old and 80% of men over 80. ClearRing from Israel’s ProArc Medical can address BPH in 10 minutes by a urologist, with no sedation required, and no complications

http://www.israel21c.org/headlines/hope-for-men-with-bladder-and-prostate-problems/

Treating burns in children. Israel’s MediWound has commenced a Phase 3 study to valuate the efficacy and safety of its innovative NexoBrid treatment for severe burns in children. The study plans to be conducted in around 25 sites in Europe and Israel. NexoBrid removes dead or damaged skin without harming viable tissue.

http://ir.mediwound.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=879786

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Israel develops the car of the future. (Thanks to Israel21c) All major auto manufacturers, including Volvo, Toyota, Renault, Fiat and BMW, seek after Israeli car-tech. Israel has about 150 companies developing some of the most advanced security and vision systems for the vehicles of today and tomorrow.

http://www.israel21c.org/headlines/israel-develops-the-car-of-the-future-audio/

Ford buys Israeli navigation system. The Ford Motor Company has signed a deal with Israel’s Mishor 3D, which develops augmented reality navigation systems for automobiles. Ford will fit Mishor’s navigation systems into future Ford vehicles. Mishor’s ShadowBox displays vital information onto the car’s windshield.

http://jewishbusinessnews.com/2014/10/31/ford-picks-israeli-mishor-3ds-navigation-systems/

IN the months since President Obama first seem poised — as he now seems poised again — to issue a sweeping executive amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, we’ve learned two important things about how this administration approaches its constitutional obligations.

First, we now have a clear sense of the legal arguments that will be used to justify the kind of move Obama himself previously described as a betrayal of our political order. They are, as expected, lawyerly in the worst sense, persuasive only if abstracted from any sense of precedent or proportion or political normality.

Second, we now have a clearer sense of just how anti-democratically this president may be willing to proceed.
The legal issues first. The White House’s case is straightforward: It has “prosecutorial discretion” in which illegal immigrants it deports, it has precedent-grounded power to protect particular groups from deportation, and it has statutory authority to grant work permits to those protected. Therefore, there can be no legal bar to applying discretion, granting protections and issuing work permits to roughly half the illegal-immigrant population.

This argument’s logic, at once consistent and deliberately obtuse, raises one obvious question: Why stop at half? (Activists are already asking.) After all, under this theory of what counts as faithfully executing the law, all that matters is that somebody, somewhere, is being deported; anyone and everyone else can be allowed to work and stay. So the president could “temporarily” legalize 99.9 percent of illegal immigrants and direct the Border Patrol to hand out work visas to every subsequent border crosser, so long as a few thousand aliens were deported for felonies every year.

The reality is there is no agreed-upon limit to the scope of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law because no president has attempted anything remotely like what Obama is contemplating. In past cases, presidents used the powers he’s invoking to grant work permits to modest, clearly defined populations facing some obvious impediment (war, persecution, natural disaster) to returning home. None of those moves even approached this plan’s scale, none attempted to transform a major public policy debate, and none were deployed as blackmail against a Congress unwilling to work the president’s will.

Between an ambitious India and a North American energy renaissance, Iran’s horizons narrow.

The Middle East is where generalizations go to die, but suffer a few: The Whac-A-Mole approach to jihadist franchises more or less closely affiliated with al-Qaeda will necessarily continue for the foreseeable future, and those organizations, though they pose a real threat, will be a relatively small problem except where they enjoy state sponsorship and the resources and safe haven that go along with it. Sunni–Shiite cooperation in jihadist projects, uneasy though it may be, will continue to present dangers beyond the expectations of many American analysts. Potential allies in and around Iraq, having been burnt more than once by a seemingly fickle United States that is unsure of itself and its interests, will seek out regional allies and hedge their positions vis-à-vis American power. All of which serves to underline a point repeated by a half-dozen military and foreign-affairs scholars during National Review’s floating policy salon aboard the Allure of the Seas last week: The short-term problem in the Middle East may be the Islamic State or some other du jour gang of stateless beheaders, but the long-term problem is Iran.

Iran is, in a sense, the sort of problem we want to have in the Middle East. It is not an amorphous, slithering coalition of non-state organizations and ad hoc militias; rather, it is a nation-state with infrastructure, institutions, and interests — i.e., a target-rich environment with a great many vulnerabilities. Its young people are restive, and recent sanctions showed Tehran — and the world — exactly what sort of sandy foundation its economy rests upon: Iranian exports fell by half, and the rial lost some 80 percent of its value. And by “Iranian exports” we mean petroleum and minerals, after which dates and figs loom large in the Iranian economy.

It is unknown whether or how or when military action might be undertaken to prevent Tehran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, which would be a truly catastrophic development. Some of Israel’s most sincere and well-informed admirers believe that Benjamin Netanyahu, recently denounced as a “chickens***” by one of Barack Obama’s suavity-dripping diplomatic lieutenants, does not in fact have the military capacity to undo Iran’s nuclear program, a mission that would be quite a bit more complex and challenging than the bombing of an Iraqi reactor in Operation Opera a generation ago. It is also unknown whether the United States would stand alongside its only reliable ally in the Middle East during the inevitably bloodthirsty retaliation from such an action. Likewise, the timing and conditions of any future U.S. military engagements in the area are impossible to forecast.

But some long-term developments are foreseeable, and the United States should make the most of these in its confrontation with Iran, forcing the Tehran regime to fight a war — economic, diplomatic, cultural, and, if it comes to it, military — on two fronts.

In writing Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment, I had a purpose: Explain that the capacity of Congress to oust a lawless president is central to the Framers’ design of our governing system. Because executive power is awesome, and intended to be that way, certain abuses of it can be discouraged only by the credible threat that Congress will remove the president from power — or, if discouragement fails, can be remediated only by the president’s actual removal. That is why Madison believed that the inclusion of impeachment in Congress’s arsenal was “indispensible” to preserving the Constitution’s framework of liberty vouchsafed by divided power.

Abuse of the executive’s power over immigration enforcement now belongs in this category of maladministration that impeachment alone can counter. One must use the qualifier “now” because this was not always the case. Immigration enforcement was originally a state responsibility. Washington has supplanted the states since the early 20th century, an erosion of federalism largely responsible for our current immigration crisis. That, however, is a subject for another day. Like it or not (I don’t), the federal courts’ ill-conceived application of preemption principles has left the states and the American people vulnerable to a lawless president who refuses to protect them from illegal immigration while preventing them from protecting themselves. (Obama’s theory that disarming the state somehow promotes security works about as well in Arizona as it does in Ukraine.)

I drew on Faithless Execution in last weekend’s column and in a follow-up Corner post, positing that, short of credibly threatening impeachment, Congress and the courts can neither compel a president to enforce the laws nor stop him from using his plenary pardon authority to grant a sweeping amnesty. That gets Obama two-thirds of the prize he is pursuing — namely, several million aliens whose illegal status has been purged, put on the path to inevitable voting rights that will give Democrats an invincible electoral majority.

As for the remaining third, Congress could, in theory, block the president from granting illegal immigrants legal status and other positive benefits (such as work permits) without impeaching him. To do this in reality, though, Congress would have to use its power of the purse. Translation: It would take the credible threat of a government shutdown to check the president’s lawless conferral of benefits.

The most remarkable thing about Foxcatcher, a movie about two seriously damaged protagonists, is its refusal to offer anything resembling a psycho-babble interpretation for the unusual circumstances we have witnessed. There is no over-arching tying up of unraveled cords as frequently occurs in movies when the creators don’t trust their audience to parse the subtext accurately. Instead, the screenwriters, director and cast have all done their jobs so expertly that we have understood what the characters have thought and felt without any verbal explanations.

The plot concerns the interaction between John duPont, an eccentric scion of one of America’s wealthiest families and Mark Schulz, an Olympic gold medal wrestler who leads a solitary and inauspicious life. Du Pont entices Schulz to live on his opulent estate where he will be the hired coach – assistant to John – for what the mogul hopes will be the US wrestling team, combining his passion for the sport with his equally patriotic fervor for America. Played by Steve Carell with facial prosthetics that have him resembling his own nickname of golden eagle, the character is predatory, elusive and taciturn, leaving us to rely mainly on his body language and his very controlled reactions to the people around him, most significantly his aged mother (Vanessa Redgrave). Channing Tatum plays Mark in an equally transformative role, his normally handsome head looking more Neanderthal than we would have imagined possible, fitting well with his inarticulate longings and feelings of betrayal. Mark Ruffalo is Dave, his older brother, also a champion wrestler, but one who has transitioned into successful adulthood with a family of his own, a job and paternal concern for his younger brother. The scenes in which the two brothers physically interact with their wrestling moves are poignantly revealing of what they cannot express to each other in words. Dave tries over and over again to get Mark to tell him what’s bothering him but the younger man is no more capable of self-analysis than Lenny in Of Mice and Men. Tensions escalate at the Foxcatcher facility after du Pont hires Dave to be in charge of preparing the team for the world championships and after several other pivotal events that lead to a startling conclusion. Since this is a story based on real people, I thought that many in the audience would already know how this unfolds but suffice it to say that a collective gasp, from myself included, proved me wrong.

Daniel Kurtzer, a Princeton professor and former U.S. ambassador to Egypt and Israel, told the Daily Princetonian that the petition reflected a basic misconception of the Mideast conflict“To choose sides at this time is to trivialize history,” Kurtzer told the paper.( He served as U.S. ambassador to Egypt during the term of President Bill Clinton, and was the U.S. ambassador to Israel from 2001 to 2005 during the term of President George W Bush.)At least he took a mini-step here but does not realize that his bloviation about a 2 State Dissolution are useless and most recently (August 2014) touted the 2002, an Arab “Peace” Initiative as a “road map” for peace in the mideast…..rsk

Princeton University professors have opened a new front in the battle over Israel on campus with a petition signed by 60 tenured faculty members calling for the university to divest from companies backing the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands.

The explosive protest, the most powerful faculty-led effort at an Ivy League school in recent years, has triggered a wideranging debate over the Middle East conflict within the Jewish community at the bucolic New Jersey campus and sparked pro-Israel counter petitions from both students and faculty.
“The intention of our petition was to clarify that there is faculty support for divestment,” said Max Weiss, a professor of History and Near Eastern Studies at Princeton and one of the five authors of the petition. “There is already student activism which is operating on its own terms.”

The pro-divestment professors unveiled their petition in a campus newspaper early this month with 48 names. Weiss says the number of signatories has since risen to at least 60. Organizers say they limited the list to tenured faculty to protect junior faculty from having to take a stand on such a controversial topic.

The organizers plan to present the petition to Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber before Thanksgiving.

After the petition was published, pro-Israel professors responded with a petition of their own opposing divestment that was signed by at least 63 tenured and non-tenured faculty. A pro-Israel student group has gathered 300 student signatures on an anti-divestment petition and pro-Palestinian groups are working to build support too.