>
Top: Great Grandma Dotty Dill holding Dagny Frances!
Bottom: Tired but proud parents - Abby, Brian and Dagny!
Dagny France's Nelson, 6 lbs and 11oz and 20 inches was born today, Dagny is our 6th grandchild.
Her birth got me to thinking about what her life is likely to be like, what I have seen, what I am likely to live long enough to yet see and what I will miss.
We were in Pittsburgh when our son in law called to tell us Abby was at the hospital. Lynn was so excited she changed our reservations at a cost of over $500 so we could return on Sunday instead of Monday. I told her we could have bought Dagny $500 worth of "don't elect Obama signs" and started her off 'right' in life ( Dagny is named after Ayn Rand's Dagny Taggart in "Atlas Shrugged")
Tonight is the anniversary of my own mother's death she and my father flew to France to meet their first Grandchild, Debra, as I was in service and stationed in Orleans. I doubt their total trip came to Delta's today changed ticket cost.
If you do not believe me just fly the friendly skies of Delta and you will discover, after spending $500 plus, that airlines are as friendly as were American auto makers in the '50's and '60's, just before American car buyers got wise and started walking out of their showrooms.
I have decided to either gain weight, so I don't need a belt, and walk barefoot to toughen the soles of my feet,so I don't have to wear shoes I have to take off, because some Islamist terrorist is pissed off at the world. On second thought, I can be civilized and drive from now on when I want to go somewhere.
While in Pittsburgh we were visiting our son and daughter in law, who is also expecting their first in May. We were there to see their new bakery operation in which we have poured a lot more dough than the cost of the air fare Lynn just spent and they have sold. The next several weeks could make it all worth while because their product is getting so well accepted and known local stores of national chains are actually calling them inquiring why they have not been approached.
In discussions with my son, I came up with some great marketing ideas which Daniel then explains will not work because things have changed. You just can't sell cookies directly to a hospital to give away with each new birth as a marketing idea because of health and food regulations, nor can you even distribute Sweet Tammy's information in the form of fliers because doing so is now considered littering. As we now know if you are a kid you have to get a license from city hall to sell lemonade as some unlucky kids have discovered after being arrested.
Alas Dagny, you will live in a less humorless and more uptight world. It is the world, Ayn Rand, Freidrich Hayek and the author of animal farm warned us about and we are now experiencing. Sad when you think about it.
I have lived to see many wonderful things happen and some not so good. Yes, we are living longer so we have more time to complain about the old age problems we are experiencing.
We are living longer and watching our freedoms float away as they get crushed and entangled in a web of more oppressive rules and dumb regulations brought upon us by a bureaucratic government and president hell bent on making sure we are miserable (more about that in 1 below.)
While on the plane, I sat next to someone who was glued to his electronic equipment. I do not own a cell phone and will not buy any more technology until Steve Jobs invents a machine that explains, in language I can understand, how to use all the crap I refuse to buy because I cannot understand the instructions that come with them and since he just died I doubt I am going to be visiting Best Buys too frequently or are they even still in business?
Well Lynn leaves tomorrow to welcome Dagny into the family and I will follow several days later because I have the "Meet Meg Heap" event to host, then my annual physical which I cannot miss or it will be another year before I can get to see the doctor and then I need to have my car tires rotated before I haul baby furniture to Orlando.
Dagny will, hopefully, see plenty of me over the ensuing years and lets face it,she should not be exposed to too much cynicism before 3 years of age or she could be ruined for life. My advice Dagny - don't become a fluke!
In a few months I will turn 79 and I doubt I will be here to see her get married nor her cousin who is due to arrive May 4 but, though I don't show it outwardly, I am excited to know she is healthy, that my Abby is a mother and that Brian is her father. I know they will make great parents and if they are smart will raise Dagny with a good dose of what I call 'healthy neglect.'
I also know Lynn will now pay less attention to me but then that is the price one pays when a new grandchild arrives. Oh well, I am sure little Dagny will prove to be more than worth it. (See 1 below.)
--
Israel don't expect your back is safe or that you can fully trust Obama (See 2 and 2a and the video tag below)
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) I believe any law or regulation that is incomprehensible and/or written in such a manner that it is nothing but 'bureaucrateeze gobbledygook,' ipso facto, should be held unconstitutional and we can begin with 'Obamascare.' Why? Because we have been guaranteed by our Declaration of Independence that we have the 'right to pursue a life of happiness' and how can one be happy knowing he must live under laws which cause uncertainty, are quarrelsome and leave one querulous?
---
2)Why Israel Has Doubts About Obama
Even Democrats have publicly questioned U.S. statements and policies toward America's most important Mideast ally.
By DAN SENOR
'I try not to pat myself too much on the back," President Barack Obama immodestly told a group of Jewish donors last October, "but this administration has done more in terms of the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration."
Mr. Obama struck a similar tone at the annual policy conference of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) in Washington Sunday, assuring the group that "I have Israel's back." And it's little wonder why. Monday he meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu amid growing concern that a military strike will be necessary to end Iran's nuclear weapons program. He also knows that he lost a portion of the Jewish vote when he publicly pressured Israel to commence negotiations with the Palestinians based on the 1967 borders with land swaps. With the election nine months away, he's scrambling to win back Jewish voters and donors.
It is true that there has been increased U.S. funding for Israeli defense programs, the bulk of which comes from Mr. Obama maintaining a 10-year commitment made by President George W. Bush to Israel's government in 2007.
But a key element of Israel's security is deterrence. That deterrence rests on many parts, including the perception among its adversaries that Israel will defend itself, and that if Israel must take action America will stand by Israel. Now consider how Israel's adversaries must view this deterrence capability in recent months:
October 2011: Speaking to reporters traveling with him to Israel, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta raised provocative questions about Israel. "Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you're isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena?"
This characterization of self-created isolation surprised Israeli officials. After all, for almost three years President Obama had pressured Israel to make unilateral concessions in the peace process. And his administration had publicly confronted Israel's leaders, making unprecedented demands for a complete settlement freeze—which Israel met in 2010.
The president's stern lectures to Israel's leaders were delivered repeatedly and very publicly at the United Nations, in Egypt and Turkey, all while he did not make a single visit to Israel to express solidarity. Thus, having helped foment an image of Israeli obstinacy, the Obama administration was now using this image of isolation against Israel's government. Mr. Panetta's criticism was promptly endorsed by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a harsh critic of Israel, who said Mr. Panetta was "correct in his assumptions." Indeed, almost every time the Obama administration has scolded Israel, the charges have been repeated by Turkish officials.
November 2011: In advance of meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Mr. Panetta publicly previewed his message. He would warn Mr. Barak against a military strike on Iran's nuclear program: "There are going to be economic consequences . . . that could impact not just on our economy but the world economy." Even if the administration felt compelled to deliver this message privately, why undercut the perception of U.S.-Israel unity on the military option?
That same month, an open microphone caught part of a private conversation between Mr. Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Mr. Sarkozy said of Israel's premier, "I can't stand Netanyahu. He's a liar." Rather than defend Israel's back, Mr. Obama piled on: "You're tired of him; what about me? I have to deal with him every day."
December 2011: Again undercutting the credibility of the Israeli military option, Mr. Panetta used a high-profile speech to challenge the idea that an Israeli strike could eliminate or substantially delay Iran's nuclear program, and he warned that "the United States would obviously be blamed."
Mr. Panetta also addressed the Israeli-Palestinian peace process by lecturing Israel to "just get to the damn table." This, despite the fact that Israel had been actively pursuing direct negotiations with the Palestinians, only to watch the Palestinian president abandon talks and unilaterally pursue statehood at the U.N. The Obama team thought the problem was with Israel?
January 2012: In an interview, Mr. Obama referred to Prime Minister Erdogan as one of the five world leaders with whom he has developed "bonds of trust." According to Mr. Obama, these bonds have "allowed us to execute effective diplomacy." The Turkish government had earlier sanctioned a six-ship flotilla to penetrate Israel's naval blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza. Mr. Erdogan had said that Israel's defensive response was "cause for war."
February 2012: At a conference in Tunis, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked about Mr. Obama pandering to "Zionist lobbies." She acknowledged that it was "a fair question" and went on to explain that during an election season "there are comments made that certainly don't reflect our foreign policy."
In an interview last week with the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, Mr. Obama dismissed domestic critics of his Israel policy as "a set of political actors who want to see if they can drive a wedge . . . between Barack Obama and the Jewish American vote." But what's glaring is how many of these criticisms have been leveled by Democrats.
Last December, New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez lambasted administration officials at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing. He had proposed sanctions on Iran's central bank and the administration was hurling a range of objections. "Published reports say we have about a year," said Mr. Menendez. "So I find it pretty outrageous that when the clock is ticking . . . you come here and say what you say."
Also last year, a number of leading Democrats, including Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Steny Hoyer, felt compelled to speak out in response to Mr. Obama's proposal for Israel to return to its indefensible pre-1967 borders. Rep. Eliot Engel told CNN that "for the president to emphasize that . . . was a very big mistake."
In April 2010, 38 Democratic senators signed a critical letter to Secretary Clinton following the administration's public (and private) dressing down of the Israeli government.
Sen. Charles Schumer used even stronger language in 2010 when he responded to "something I have never heard before," from the Obama State Department, "which is, the relationship of Israel and the United States depends on the pace of the negotiations. That is terrible. That is a dagger."
Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Democrat-turned-independent, said of Mr. Obama last year, "I think he's handled the relationship with Israel in a way that has encouraged Israel's enemies, and really unsettled the Israelis."
Election-year politics may bring some short-term improvements in the U.S. relationship with
Israel. But there's concern that a re-elected President Obama, with no more votes or donors to court, would be even more aggressive in his one-sided approach toward Israel.
If Mr. Obama wants a pat on the back, he should make it clear that he will do everything in his power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability, and that he will stand by Israel if it must act. He came one step closer to that stance on Sunday when he told Aipac, "Iran's leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States, just as they should not doubt Israel's sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs." Let's hope this is the beginning of a policy change and not just election year rhetoric.
Mr. Senor, co-author with Saul Singer of "Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle" (Twelve, 2011), served as a senior adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq in 2003-04, and is currently an adviser to the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney.
A version of this article appeared Mar. 5, 2012, on page A15 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Why Israel Has Doubts About Obama.
2a)Why Israel Still Can’t Trust That Obama Has Its Back
By Yossi Klein Halevi
When the President of the United States repeatedly says he’s got your back, and in precisely those words, what more can you ask for?
Yet as I read Obama’s interview with Jeff Goldberg in The Atlantic, then his speech to the AIPAC convention, and finally reports of his meeting with Netanyahu, I felt increasingly uneasy. True, Obama went farther than he ever has in reassuring Israel of his commitment to stopping a nuclear Iran. He explicitly mentioned the military option. He upheld Israel’s right to defend itself. He articulated the reasons why a nuclear Iran would be disastrous—from an accelerated nuclear arms race in the Middle East to the threat of a nuclear suitcase in the hands of terrorists. He affirmed, in other words, what we in Israel have been warning about for years.
Why, then, the unease? Because Obama wasn’t speaking primarily to Iran but to Israel. Even when he seemed to be warning Tehran, he was really warning Jerusalem. His goal these last days hasn’t been so much to deter them but us. The headlines got it right: Cool down the war talk. Give sanctions—and diplomacy—a chance.
If this were, say, two years ago, that would be a reasonable request. But it has taken Obama the better part of his first term to finally put in place serious sanctions—and at this late date, the sanctions may still not be strong enough to work. Speaking to AIPAC, Netanyahu implicitly responded to Obama: We gave diplomacy a chance for a decade, and sanctions for the last six years. If you’re asking for more time—when we are now looking at Iran achieving nuclear capacity in months rather than years—the sanctions had better be tougher.
Writing in The New York Times on Friday, Emanuele Ottolenghi of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies suggested one scenario for effective sanctions: “a complete United Nations-imposed oil embargo enforced by a naval blockade, as well as total diplomatic isolation.” And, he added, the West must unambiguously warn Iran that it is “willing to inflict devastating harm.”
Obama’s main argument for why Israel and its American friends should trust him on Iran is because he has been Israel’s most dependable ally all along. Look at my record, he’s argued. I believe Obama is a friend—but a problematic friend. True, security cooperation with Israel has been excellent, which is at least partly a result of George W. Bush’s agreement with Israel to enhance military cooperation over this decade – though Obama went farther than Bush in one crucial respect, providing Israel with bunker busters, which Bush withheld.
Still, in recalling his record, Obama omitted some crucial details. Israelis still recall with disbelief how Obama refused to honor Bush’s written commitment to Ariel Sharon—that the U.S. would support settlement blocs being incorporated into Israel proper. And never has an American president treated an Israeli prime minister with such shabbiness as Obama has treated Netanyahu. Indeed one gets the impression that of all the world’s leaders, Obama most detests the prime minister of Israel.
Consider how Obama squandered Netanyahu’s ten-month settlement freeze. Rather than pressing the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table, Obama provoked an ugly public fight with Netanyahu over building in a Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem. The message conveyed to the international public by that and other humiliations was that the special relationship was fraying.
Obama’s resolve on Israel often comes too late, an attempt to compensate for his own clumsiness. Like his speech defending Israel to the U.N. General Assembly last September. It was a powerful speech—I wrote about it enthusiastically in TNR at the time. But in retrospect the speech was irrelevant. Except for the Jews, no one seemed to be listening. In the Arab world the speech was dismissed as electioneering. The missed moment was as much a part of the story as the speech itself. That was the speech Obama should have delivered in Cairo in 2009, when he had the attention of the Muslim world. Instead, he squandered a historic opportunity to affirm Israel’s legitimacy, and by the time he did deliver the right speech, it was too late.
All too often that defines Obama’s relationship to Israel. He finally says the right thing and it no longer matters. Because the context is wrong. Or the timing. Or because he seems to be addressing one audience while in fact addressing another—like seeming to talk tough to Iran while in fact trying to restrain Israel.
Nor does Obama’s record in the Middle East more broadly reassure Israelis. Perhaps the worst moment of his presidency was turning his back on the Iranian anti-government demonstrators in 2009, who chanted “Obama, are you with us or with the regime?” Obama’s silence was a historic missed opportunity. So is his current inaction on Syria, Iran’s most important ally. There appears to be no strategic coherence in his Middle East policy. Why, for example, help bring down Qaddafi, as odious as he was, after he had abandoned his nuclear program and his support of terrorism—while allowing Assad a free hand?
Instead of the increasingly harsh warnings we’ve been hearing from Washington in recent weeks against a preemptive Israeli strike, we are now being overwhelmed with reassurance. In fact that has been the pattern in Obama’s relationship to Israel all along: first abuse, then flowers.
Even with all the current goodwill, there was a nasty undertone to Obama’s message. It was this: I believe in a peaceful resolution to the Iranian crisis, while you Israelis are pushing for war.
Those who opposed sanctions in the past and now accuse Israel of war-mongering share at least some of the blame for the current crisis. Since 1993, when Yitzhak Rabin first defined the Iranian nuclear threat as the ultimate existential challenge facing Israel, successive Israeli governments, along with pro-Israel American Jews, have advocated sanctions as the way to avert a choice between preemptive strike and a nuclear Iran. It took five years before the Clinton administration accepted Israel’s assessment that the goal of Iran’s nuclear program was a bomb; and it took Europe a few years longer. And then it took nearly a decade before the international community adopted the Israeli position of real sanctions. Even at this late date, that remains the Israeli position: Only devastating sanctions can break the regime’s determination to produce a bomb. When Obama complains that war talk has forced up oil prices, what are Israelis to conclude except that he will not push sanctions to the limit?
For me to trust Obama on Israel’s ultimate security threat, I need him to speak directly to Iran, not to American Jews and the Israeli public. I need to know that he is as committed to a military solution as he is to a diplomatic solution, if the first option fails. I need to know what his red line is for determining when diplomacy has exhausted itself. Most of all, I need to know whether he is prepared to live with Iranian nuclear capability, just short of developing a bomb—a position he hinted at in his AIPAC speech, when he repeatedly spoke of opposing Iranian nuclear weapons, rather than the capability to produce those weapons.
Mr. President, I’m not reassured. On this one I need to watch my own back.
Yossi Klein Halevi is a contributing editor for The New Republic and a fellow of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem.
2b)
THIS IS A "MUST-SEE"!
No comments:
Post a Comment