Bob Lamb, a nephew who accompanied Mr. Coffman on his visit, said the sales staff at Miles Chevrolet was a bit skeptical of a 101-year-old man who came in looking for the $38,000 Camaro but more than happy to make the deal when they realized he was serious. “He told me, ‘If I keep that 10 or 12 years, it will be worth about $100,000,’” Mr. Lamb said. “He’s very optimistic.”

God bless him. I hope he does keep it ten or twelve years.

Next, we have the 911 call from a woman reporting that a cow fell into her pool (audio at the link).

911 Telecommunicator: “Anderson County 911.”
Kathy Wydareny: “I’m home alone and a cow is in my pool and I don’t have any clue what to do.”
911 Telecommunicator: “The cow is in your pool?”
Wydareny: “Yes, it fell in my pool.”

911 Telecommunicator: “Is it a small cow or a big cow?”
Wydareny: “No, it’s a big cow. It’s a really big cow.”

I’m sorry, what? The woman is calling to tell you that a cow fell in her pool, and you’re asking her if it was a small cow or a big cow? Seriously? What, is there a script somewhere in 911 Training School labeled “Cow in Pool” that directs the 911 operator to ask how big the cow is? Because, like, it matters?

In any case, the good news is that Bessie did not drown, and no one was hurt.

Have a tissue or three handy if you watch the kids one.

Barry Rubin summarized the administration’s efforts in the Middle East like this:

The president of the United States has said that he wants talks resumed immediately and believes it possible to make a breakthrough. The Palestinian leadership is thwarting him on both points. In other words, they are responsible for the failure of a major U.S. policy.

So when the administration, specifically, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton points this out and it brings howls of protest from the Arab world what is the administration’s response?

The New York Times:

Arab officials expressed alarm that the United States seemed to be easing pressure on Israel after Mrs. Clinton said in Jerusalem on Saturday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s proposal of restrained settlement building was better than anything previous Israeli governments had offered.

Mrs. Clinton said the administration would not stop pushing Mr. Netanyahu to do more. But she said that in trying to revive a stalled peace process, she wanted to offer Israel encouragement for moving in the right direction, even if that movement fell short of what the United States wanted.

“I will offer positive reinforcement to the parties when I believe they are taking steps that support the objective of reaching a two-state solution,” she said here, on the eve of a conference of Arab and Western countries. “I will also push them as I have in public and private to do even more.”

The Washington Post:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton tried to soothe Arab uneasiness Monday over weekend statements she made praising the Israeli government’s offer to “restrain” growth in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, saying it “falls far short” of the Obama administration’s hopes and is “not enough.”

Reflecting her concern over the Arab reaction, Clinton decided to extend her week-long trip to the region, scheduled to end Tuesday, with a previously unplanned stop in Cairo on Wednesday to meet with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. On Sunday, Egypt backed the Palestinian stance that negotiations cannot resume until Israel stops all settlement construction.

Clinton insisted that the administration still considers settlement activity on disputed territory “illegitimate” and advocates a freeze. But she repeated at a news conference here that Israel’s offer was “unprecedented” and that it “holds the promise of moving a step closer to a two-state solution.”

So faced with Arab displeasure, the administration backtracked. But the Washington Post observed:

Clinton’s comments represented a shift in the dynamics since Obama took office, with initial pressure on Israel giving way over the past several weeks to apparent impatience over the refusal of Palestinian officials to resume peace talks in the absence of a settlement freeze.

And the NYT quoted Arab League Secretary General, Amr Moussa:

Amr Moussa, the secretary general of the Arab League, urged the administration not to accept what he called a “slap in the face” by Israel. He said he hoped the Americans would “try hard and in a firmer way.”

And how would you characterize the official Palestinian response to Secretary of State Clinton’s remarks in Israel?

“Why, Mrs. Hillary? How much did the Zionists pay you as a bribe?” taunted an article in today’s edition of Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, which is controlled by the office of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

That’s the “moderate” Palestinian response. And check out the cartoon. The Arab world actually slapped the administration in the face and the administration meekly backs down. The Palestinians, supported by the Arab world, show that they’re uninterested in peace and the administration simply tolerates it.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

President Obama is applying the same tools to international diplomacy that he once used as a community organizer on Chicago’s South Side, constructing appeals to shared interests and attempting to bring the government’s conduct in line with its ideals.

Obama’s approach to the world as a community of nations, more alike than different in outlook and interest, has elevated America’s standing abroad and won him the Nobel Peace Prize. But on the farthest-reaching U.S. foreign policy challenges, he is struggling to translate his own popularity into American influence, even with allies that have celebrated his break from the Bush administration’s emphasis on military strength, unilateral action and personal chemistry.

Of course as a community organizer he could claim that all sides shared the same goals, but if he was organzing against a business, the business likely had self interest involved. Its goals would not have been shared with those Obama was representing, but the business likely would have preferred to cede some of its own interests rather than getting labeled as insensitive or uncaring.

We actually get some wisdom from Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch:

“There’s an appropriate reaction to the crusading moralism of the Bush administration, but it sometimes goes too far in the direction of hoping that reasoned and quiet persuasion will convince cynical and self-interested authoritarian governments to change their ways,” Malinowski said.

Thought I don’t agree the first part, he has the second part exactly right..

In September, taking a tangible step to improve relations with Russia, Obama abandoned Bush-era plans to station a ballistic-missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland designed to protect the United States from Iran’s arsenal. The Russian government had for years complained that the system posed a security threat to the country, already squeezed by NATO’s expansion, in a region it has long considered part of its sphere of influence.

Obama announced a scaled-back system that he said would better protect Eastern Europe from attack. The Czech and Polish governments accepted the new plans last month, but conservatives argue that the shift only rewarded an aggressive Russian government to win its help with Iran.

“This was a clear signal that Washington is more interested in currying favor with its strategic competitors than in building or even maintaining its alliances with its traditional allies,” said Nile Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “There is no evidence the Obama doctrine is reaping benefits. On the contrary, the United States is increasingly viewed as weak and unreliable by some of its traditional allies.”

U.S. and Iranian officials held the highest-level talks in three decades in early October, and later that month they agreed to a plan that appeared to mark a victory for Obama’s approach.

Under the draft agreement, Iran would ship most of its low-grade nuclear fuel to Russia for further enrichment so it could be sent back to Iran later for use as medical isotopes. The deal, conceived by the Obama administration, would leave too little uranium inside Iran to produce a nuclear weapon in the short term.

But last week Iran’s government reversed course in a sign that its own domestic calculations are still exerting more influence than Obama’s brand of international diplomacy.

In other words it didn’t work.

Towards the end of an article Wilson writes:

Obama also has spoken candidly to Israel’s government, calling its West Bank settlements “illegitimate” while asking Arab nations to make a series of diplomatic and economic gestures toward the Jewish state. His call for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to freeze settlement construction — a Palestinian condition for opening peace talks — has so far been ignored.

This inaccurate. Barry Rubin writes:

In fact, at the time it signed the original peace process agreement–often called the Oslo accord–in 1993, that’s 16 years ago–Israel put forward its interpretation of the agreement. It said that there would be no new Jewish settlements and no geographical expansion of existing settlements. But Israel made it clear that it would continue to build apartments on existing settlements. That position was not challenged by the Palestinians at the time and it has never held up talks before now.

It only became a condition because President Obama made it one. Barry Rubin again:

Indeed, another Washington Post article of November 1, this one by Howard Schneider, pointed out–though only indirectly–why things got even worse:

“However, Obama’s election raised expectations among Palestinians and throughout the Arab states that the peace process would yield quicker results from an administration willing to openly criticize Israel and, it seemed, elevate Palestinian interests.”

More than that, it was the Obama Administration which called for a total freeze, distances itself from Israel, and took other steps leading the PA and Arab states to believe that by being intransigent they could get Washington to deliver Israel on their own terms. In other words, while everyone is being too polite to say so, the Obama Administration was responsible for the situation deteriorating.

Similarly, Meryl wrote:

But if you look at those words, and the words of Obama’s Cairo speech, there is a cognitive dissonance that explains why the Palestinians continue to use the lack of a freeze as a reason to halt negotiations. Because the Obama administration opened the door for it use. And the Palestinians have never, ever not used an excuse to refuse to negotiate with Israel.

Later on Barry Rubin observes in regard to events in the Middle East:

And so we have come to the point where it is becoming clear even to those who have been ruled by wishful thinking that there is not going to be any peace and that the Palestinian-Arab side is responsible for this situation.

It is quite probable–and this is extremely important to understand–that there is nothing the Obama Administration can say or do in order to make them change their mind. After all, this is the ideal position from the standpoint of the PA, Egypt, Jordan, and others. Refuse to support talks, reap benefits by showing their militancy, and be able to blame it on Israel.

After all his efforts and alleged popularity, Obama has absolutely zero credit and no leverage in the Arabic-speaking world.

How is this going to affect Obama Administration policy and thinking?

If the conclusion of Wilson’s article is any indication, not at all.

“Our interests are the same with our allies and our adversaries,” Rhodes said. “We’re saying the same thing to everybody. Our interests are the same no matter what country we’re talking to.”

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

After its first annual convention last week, J-Street stands exposed as left wing organization that is very attractive to critics of Israel. So its leaders went to the New York Times, presented their talking points and got reporters Neil Lewis and Mark Landler to write a sympathetic press release Moderate in America’s Jewish Lobby Causes a Stir

Did I get the headline correct? J-Street is moderate? Let me quote from two sources who are not as far to right as I am. First David Bernstein:

Opposing the war in Gaza put JStreet far outside the mainstream of Jewish opinion in Israel (and the U.S., for that matter); even the left-wing Meretz party supported the war, as did over 90% of the Jewish Israeli public. So JStreet is respositioning itself from left of Meretz to right of Labor?

and Yaacov Lozowick:

In spite of the difference between them, they are both pro-Israel. What stuck me was the degree of their disconnect (both) from the Israeli reality. Certainly Yglesias, and probably also Chiat, would fit into the Meretz part of the Israeli political spectrum – yet there’s a reason Meretz hovers on the edge of political extinction these days. I’m not saying the Meretz position is illegitimate – but it does have to deal with a whole set of facts known to every Israeli; most deal by abandoning the Meretz positions, and a small number deal and manage to maintain their positions. These two fine young men – I’m not being facetious – are engaged in a conversation about Israel that doesn’t relate to the world Israelis live in.

No matter how many times Jeremy Ben Ami and his associates say “we’re moderate” the truth is that they are way out of the mainstream of the Israeli political spectrum. They also are not in the mainstream of American Jewish politics. In fact most of the people who associate with J-Street’s positions are in fact anti-Zionists and hostile to Israel as the J-Street bloggers panel showed. (h/t Israel Matzav)

Here’s the meat of the NYT’s report:

J Street has only a small fraction of the resources and membership of more established pro-Israel groups, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and it remains unclear how potent it will be in presenting itself as an alternative. Nonetheless, it has had great success in quickly becoming a major reference point in the complicated debate over President Obama’s Middle East policy as well as the more emotional issue of the appropriate role for American Jews in supporting Israel.

While opinions in the Jewish community have never been uniform or monolithic, several analysts, elected officials and pollsters said the debate over Mr. Obama’s approach to Israel and its neighbors has sharpened boundaries between those who strongly support him and those who have grown more wary.

J Street has tried to position itself as a counterweight to groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, which J Street supporters say require the United States to support the Israeli government too reflexively.

This sounds a lot more like J-Street’s talking points. Since when does an objective news report use the phrase “it has had great success?”

The reason J-Street has had great success in getting its message out is because it is 1) well funded 2) politically connected and 3) can find sympathetic reporters to reprint their main talking points.

Landler and Lewis also write:

The issue of how much any American administration should press an Israeli government to make concessions for peace is at the heart of delicate and long-unresolved questions among American Jews. At the least, say the traditional supporters of Israel, any disagreements should not be aired publicly.

I think that debate’s been over for some 30 years at least. No what’s at issue is how pressure on Israel will help the cause of peace, when there’s no reciprocal pressure on the Arabs. Or how further Israeli concessions will further the cause of peace, when Israeli concessions over the past 16 years have not led to any softening of the Palestinian position.

Towards the end of the article, one more bit of support is brought for J-Street:

Jim Gerstein, one of J Street’s founders, said his research and other polls found that most American Jews were uncomfortable with Israel’s settlement policy. But he said Orthodox Jews generally did support it.

Glad that the reporters acknowledged that Gerstein is affiliated with J-Street, but as Noah Pollak observed, this means:

So J Street not only commissions polls—it writes the questions, conducts them, analyzes the results, and then carries out promotional campaigns with the findings. If you were wondering how it was possible that J Street could repeatedly produce “polling data” that almost perfectly complements the group’s political agenda, now we have one important clue.

Given how battered Jeremy Ben Ami must have felt after his convention was over, he must feel relieved that there were two New York Times reporters he could count on to help rehabilitate his organization’s image.

UPDATE: One last thing. The Times fails to report one of the more bewildering aspects of J-Street’s “pro-Israel” approach. Its university outreach arm, decided to drop “pro-Israel” from its self description. I know that the J-Street leaders have since said that they are undoubtedly “pro-Israel,” but really here is an example of actions speaking louder than words. J-Street U knows that its pool of potential recruits is very small among those who consider themselves pro-Israel. That speaks volumes about where J-Street actually stands in the pro-Israel constellation. In a different galaxy altogether.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

In fact, one trouble is the profoundly emotional and irrational nature of many of the Arab demands and expectations—almost an inability to recognize the hard facts of life. The Arabs have seen Israel prosper on soil from which they barely scratched a living when they had it; Israel’s success is not only a blow to their pride but a constant rebuke to the dismal poverty in which most of the Arab world lives.

Then I started searching through Time’s archives to get a sense of how Time’s attitude towards Israel changed over the years. I’m just going to take arbitrary paragraphs. Some are from news stories; others from opinion pieces. And, of course, you can follow the links to see the whole context.

Israel and its enemies (June 22, 1970) focused on the threat presented by the Arab world armed by Russia.

It is on the ground that the odds are longest against the Israelis—at least in terms of numbers. With a population of 2,800.000 v. 51 million Arabs, Israel can mobilize an army of 275,000 against Arab armies of 398,000 men. The Israelis depend on air superiority and wits to protect themselves. One reason that Israeli soldiers have hunkered down for so long on the Bar-Lev Line under barely tolerable siege conditions is that their string of hedgehog forts and minefields serve as a kind of trip wire. The line, using relatively few men, is designed to delay any kind of major Egyptian cross-canal attack until troops stationed in the desert behind them can come up to help.

For a mobile army whose motto has always been “Attack,” the static warfare of the Bar-Lev Line is an often demoralizing experience. So is the war of attrition that Israel is being forced to fight on all its borders. Casualties have been heavy. In May, 61 soldiers and civilians were killed, the heaviest one-month toll since the 1967 war; on the basis of population, this is the equivalent of losing 4,300 U.S. troops in one month in Viet Nam. During the six days of the ‘67 war, 777 soldiers and 26 Israeli civilians were killed. Since the war, 558 soldiers and 112 civilians have died, and the nation is feeling uneasy. “Before the Six-Day War,” says Bar-Lev, “there was general danger but day-to-day security. Today we have general security but day-to-day danger.”

A Nation sorely Beseiged ( 1974) also seems rather sympathetic, but has a mention of the “occupied West Bank.”.

The weekend alert could prove to be merely the opening drum roll of yet another crisis. Nov. 30 is the expiration date of the mandate for the presence of some 1,250 United Nations troops stationed along the Golan Heights cease-fire line, placed there last June under the cease-fire agreement worked out by Kissinger. Israel emphatically favors renewal of the mandate by the Security Council and might in fact regard nonrenewal as a casus belli.

To the ultrasensitive Israelis, the present period is all too reminiscent of the situation that existed in May 1967. Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser loudly proclaimed his revocation of the U.N. mandate in the Sinai, the Israelis mobilized, and U.N. Secretary-General U Thant precipitately withdrew U.N. forces, thereby setting the stage for the Six-Day War.

American Jews and Israel, ( March 10, 1975) I think, serves as a marker for when attitudes started to change.

Belatedly, the Arabs discovered public relations and began to cultivate U.S. opinion. For all of these reasons, Americans paid more attention to the area’s problems than ever before and began to examine the Arab cause more sympathetically.

Partly because of their continued insistence on security through territory, the Israelis suddenly seem intransigent to many people. The perception comes at a time when, globally, Israel is increasingly isolated. The nations of Western Europe appear willing to bargain away Israel’s security in return for access to Arabian oil. Arab petropower seems aimed at blacklisting Jews from many transactions in international finance, causing President Gerald Ford last week sharply to condemn such practices (see ECONOMY & BUSINESS). Last fall UNESCO voted to exclude Israel from some of its activities, and the United Nations General Assembly applauded the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Yasser Arafat, who frankly spoke at the U.N. of generations of war against Israel, as a legitimate spokesman for Palestinians.

In this atmosphere, minor and major events are seen as portents. Kissinger jokingly tries on an Arab headdress in Jordan; to some Jews this symbolizes his wooing of the Arabs (and because he himself is Jewish, he is believed by some other Jews to be bending over backward to demonstrate his impartiality). General George Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declares that there is strong Jewish-Israeli influence on Congress (true) and that Jews dominate most U.S. banks and newspapers (false). The simplistic statement is seen as a harbinger of antiSemitism. There is also alarm when such longtime friends of Israel as Senators Charles Percy and Henry Jackson dare to urge Israel to be flexible.

(Charles Percy was once considered friendly to Israel! I didn’t know that.)

Stroke Talbott took a sharply anti-Israel stand in What to do about Israel ( September 7, 1981):

Israel argues that it is strong, stable and pro-Western, while most of the Arab states are weak, fractious and radical. But one reason the Arabs are that way, and becoming more so, is precisely because of their impasse with Israel. The tragedy and chaos that have engulfed the once peaceful, prosperous nation of Lebanon are a direct spillover of the Palestinian problem. Anwar Sadat’s position both within Egypt and among his Arab brethren elsewhere will remain precarious unless he can point to some success in the Palestinian autonomy talks initiated by the Camp David agreements and due to resume in three weeks. By and large Sadat has shown forbearance over Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem and flexibility over the delicate issue of West Bank water rights. Israel, for its part, has done everything it could to prevent the West Bank Arabs from genuinely governing themselves—a goal set by the Camp David accords.

That’s a much different attitude from what was reported in 1967! In 1967 it was the lack of Arabi realism that was the main problem in the MIddle East, but fourteen years later it was Israel’s failings that were responsible for Arab radicalism.

And in an essay title Israel at 40: The dream confronts Palestinian fury (despite the date, it must be from 1988) we have this:

Herein lies Israel’s biggest dilemma. When the virtues of Israel are enumerated, almost the first to be mentioned by Israelis and their supporters is the fact that it is the only democracy in the Middle East. But when it comes to the Palestinians who live in the occupied territories, the Israelis are anything but democratic; Arabs have been denied fundamental civil and political rights. If present trends continue, Israel will have to choose between its democratic principles — which would eventually require sharing political power with Arabs — and its other profound ambition, to offer to Jews around the world a land they can always call their own. The Palestinian problem cannot be brushed aside by rhetoric or obliterated by military force.

Finally, in the February 26, 1990, Charles Krauthammer took aim at the prevailing media biases regarding Israel, in Judging Israel:

Last fall Anthony Lewis excoriated Israel for putting down a tax revolt in the town of Beit Sahour. He wrote: “Suppose the people of some small American town decided to protest Federal Government policy by withholding their taxes. The Government responded by sending in the Army . . . Unthinkable? Of course it is in this country. But it is happening in another . . . Israel.”

Middle East scholar Clinton Bailey tried to point out just how false this analogy is. Protesting Federal Government policy? The West Bank is not Selma. Palestinians are not demanding service at the lunch counter. They demand a flag and an army. This is insurrection for independence. They are part of a movement whose covenant explicitly declares its mission to be the abolition of the state of Israel.

Bailey tried manfully for the better analogy. It required him to posit 1) a pre-glasnost Soviet Union, 2) a communist Mexico demanding the return of “occupied Mexican” territory lost in the Mexican War (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada and California) and 3) insurrection by former Mexicans living in these territories demanding secession from the Union. Then imagine, Bailey continued, that the insurrectionists, supported and financed by Mexico and other communist states in Latin America, obstruct communications; attack civilians and police with stones and fire bombs; kill former Mexicans holding U.S. Government jobs (”collaborators”); and then begin a tax revolt. Now you have the correct analogy. Would the U.S., like Israel, then send in the Army? Of course.

But even this analogy falls flat because it is simply impossible to imagine an America in a position of conflict and vulnerability analogous to Israel’s. Milan Kundera once defined a small nation as “one whose very existence may be put in question at any moment; a small nation can disappear and knows it.” Czechoslovakia is a small nation. Judea was. Israel is. The U.S. is not.

A recent ADL poll shows that Americans support Israel roughly at three times the rate they support the Palestinians. It’s quite remarkable that the ratio is that good given the propaganda that is so often passed off as news. It makes me wonder what support for Israel would be if the media made any effort to be evenhanded.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Addendum from Meryl: Then there’s this little gem from 1977 that made me cancel my subscription then and forever.

His first name means “comforter.”

Menachem Begin (rhymes with Fagin) has been anything but that to his numerous antagonists.

My grandfather had been telling me for years that Time was anti-Semitic. This was the item that proved it to me.

A Proctor man driving a motorized La-Z-Boy lounge chair hit a parked vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

There’s a picture at the link.

Anderson claimed he was driving the chair fine until a woman jumped on it and knocked the chair off course. He has one prior DWI conviction. He couldn’t be reached for comment Wednesday.

Proctor Deputy Police Chief Troy Foucault said the chair was powered by a converted lawnmower with a Briggs & Stratton engine. It has a stereo, cup holders and other custom options, including different power levels.

Happy Friday, folks. I have a twin b’nai mitzvah to attend tonight and tomorrow. My ex-students are all growing up. Hopefully, none of them will grow up into anything like this guy.

I want to be careful, but there is an increasing feeling that the main thread of the foreign policy is favoring extreme caution and even direct “disengagement” steps all over the world where there is a chance of political collision with other major players.

Recently I read an interesting article by a Russian journalist Vladimir Abarinov*, touching on several aspects of Obama’s foreign travails. With the author’s kind permission and with some assistance from Google, I’ve translated the article and am posting it here in its entirety:

It’s unfashionable to recall Barack Obama’s Berlin and Prague speeches today in Washington. Then he needed the sympathy of Europeans and to show Americans aTV picture of the crowd cheering the coming of the messiah. Today it doesn’t matter anymore. In response to the mention of Berlin and Prague’s speeches displeased Obama’s administration officials cringe and blush, as if caught in an unseemly act.

In Berlin Obama, then still a presidential candidate, expressively recited the text about the Berlin blockade, recalling how 60 years ago the U.S. established an air bridge to supply the city:

On that day, much of this continent still lay in ruin. The rubble of this city had yet to be built into a wall. The Soviet shadow had swept across Eastern Europe, while in the West, America, Britain, and France took stock of their losses, and pondered how the world might be remade. … The streets where we stand were filled with hungry families who had no comfort from the cold. But in the darkest hours, the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning.

How archaic these words they sound today! Voices from the past: Ich bin ein Berliner, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall …

In Prague, the U.S. president reiterated the intergovernmental agreement on the deployment of the missile defense sites in the Czech Republic and Poland, concluded by his predecessor, shall remain in force. Here is a quote… :

Let me be clear: Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we intend to go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe at this time will be removed.

The Iranian threat has not disappeared but it does not matter.

I do not even want to delve into the arguments of the White House and the Pentagon. Experts say that Moscow has actually won nothing, that the new mobile missile defense network is a technological breakthrough, impossible to achieve for Russia. But it does not matter. I’m not interested in the compensation that the Czechs and Poles will receive. This is not a technical question. For Moscow it was a matter of principle. Moscow scored a political victory, and Washington knows it. Even the media loyal to Obama says that this is a capitulation.

President made not only a politically irresponsible but an immoral decision. Its forerunner was the lack of participation in the events in Gdansk to mark the 70 anniversary of the Second World War. Three months Warsaw couldn’t get a reply to their invitation. Finally Warsaw was told that there was no one available to go, everyone is on a Labor Day vacation. Hearing this, a Polish diplomat apologized for the fact that Hitler started the war on September 1, without waiting for an American holiday to be over. In the end the U.S. delegation in Gdansk was led by an Obama’s national security adviser, General James Jones. It is as if Russia sent its Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev.

Does America reduce its military-political presence in Europe? Difficult to believe, but you have to believe it. A bigger strategic error is difficult to imagine. Historical destinies of Europe and America are inextricably linked.

In XVII-XVIII centuries, the North American colonies participated in several European wars, spread to the New World – for the Palatinate, the Spanish and Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War. France and Spain were allies of the young American republic in the War of Independence. Bidding farewell to the nation, George Washington commanded her to refrain from strong alliances with European powers. “Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?“, He asked rhetorically, “Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice? ” But in 1801 the United States sent its Mediterranean squadron to war with the Muslim pirates and freed Europeans from this scourge.

The Monroe Doctrine is the manifesto of U.S. isolationism. But its proclamation in 1823 was a preemptive response to the plans for the intervention of the Holy Union in order to restore the status quo of the former Spanish colonies. In his statement, President James Monroe declared the colonization of America completed.

Europeans haven’t heeded the message. Until the end of the century, Washington had to protect the Western Hemisphere from European interference. And then came the World War II.

For U.S. isolationism remained an attractive but unrealized idea. To go back to it now means to try to turn history back, to forget the lessons of the XX century, it means to forgo – for free or for the sake of petty self-interest – the gains of the Cold War and the peaceful democratic revolutions in Central and Eastern Europe.

For Israel, the moment of truth has arrived. When a presidential candidate Obama during last year’s Middle East tour, said: “Let me state it clearly: Israel is the strong friend of Israel“, it was a slip of the tongue, but a Freudian slip. His then rival, Hillary Clinton, has promised to wipe Iran off the face of the earth if it dares to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. Obama answered humbly: “The last few years we have heard many promises to wipe out. Good results were something to be seen. So I am not inclined to cavalry assaults.“

The unity of Europe may prove to be illusory, lacking the deterrent factor of American involvement. Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel, prior to her trip to Gdansk, talked about the unfairness of the mass deportation of Germans from Eastern Europe after World War II, implying that the German Union of Displaced Persons remains a real factor in the German domestic politics.

This is only the first swallow. Coals of mutual grudges and pretensions in Europe continue to smolder and, in favorable circumstances, they will flare up.

This will be the beginning of the end of Obama’s era. But it will be insignificant then.

I hope you have enjoyed the article. Well, I don’t want to be the first who said it, but I am afraid that the American promoters of isolationism like the wondrous Ron Paul or the paleo-conservative dinosaur Pat Buchanan are cheering Obama and applaud, even if one-handed, from the gallery.

(*) Vladimir Abarinov – bio factoid:

By education – historian and screenwriter. Abarinov’s serious professional career began in “Literaturnaya Gazeta” as a journalist in the department of foreign culture. He was one of the “founding fathers” of “Nezavisimaya Gazeta”, then, with the same team worked in the newspaper “Today” and, finally, in “Russian Telegraph”. In all three he has been an editor of foreign relations desk. In this capacity he covered major international events, was included in the Kremlin pool of journalists. In 1998 he came to the U.S. as correspondent of “Izvestia, but the newspaper soon abandoned his services. Since then Mr Abarinov works with the Russian service of Radio Liberty, the newspaper “Top Secret” and the internet portal Grani.ru. After the Young Communist League, which he quit at his own will, he is not involved in any political parties, professional guilds and public organizations. Author of the book “Katyn maze” (”The Murderers of Katyn“), published also in the United States and Poland. Father of two adult sons and 11-year-old daughter. Lives in the United States. Personal blog – http://vlad-ab.livejournal.com/.

Cross-posted on Yourish.com

I’ll bet you thought from the headline this was a political post. Nope. I was at the Amelia County Fair, which featured a Demolition Derby tonight. This is the picture of the end of the derby.

It was awesome.

I have had great times at county and state fairs before, but nothing like this. The Amelia County State Fair has just gone on our must-go list. Sarah and Larry and the kids and I had an absolute blast.

More pictures, and video, if I have time to post them tomorrow. Otherwise, I’ll find time during my downtime next week. (Vacation time for me. Can’t wait.)