Click on WORD or PDF for full content
In the WSJ, Mark Helprin reminds us of the slowly tightening vise that grips Israel. Netanyahu has been wise to wait before striking until the president is rebuked by voters. But then, he must act.
… Partly as a result of the steady development of Saudi air power in response to Iraq and Iran, Israel’s potential antagonists are closing the gap in numbers and quality, and the Israeli Air Force does not offer the same margin of safety that once it did. With the Arabs’ approaching 1.3/1 advantage in first-line aircraft, 2.9/1 in second-line aircraft, and an enormous 12/1 advantage in mobile air defense, many new options open if Arab unity coalesces as it did prior to the three major Arab- Israeli wars, in all of which Israel’s existence was at stake and the result unpredictable. If Turkey is included, as it might be, Israel’s prospects become seriously darker.
Other than a direct nuclear strike, what it most has to fear is that a combination of states will throw all their aircraft against it at once while advancing a surface-to-air-missile umbrella to threaten Israeli planes and provide sanctuary for its own. Though the Israeli Air Force is qualitatively superior and its imaginative responses cannot be counted out, the steadily improving professionalism of the Arab air forces, their first rate American and European equipment, their surface-to-air-missile shield, and most importantly their mass, are potentially a mortal threat. For if the Israeli Air Force is sufficiently degraded, Israel’s prospects on the ground will follow proportionately.
In light of the fact that the conventional balance can change and is changing, one of the many purposes of Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons is not merely to wait for a lucky shot at Tel Aviv but to neutralize Israel’s nuclear deterrent so as to allow a series of conventional battles to advance Israel’s downfall incrementally. …
David Harsanyi makes fun of the White House campaign machine gone awry. Perhaps they misunderstood the concept of October surprise.
So who’s left to demonize? The Girl Scouts? Rotary Clubs, maybe?
…A recent ad by Democrats makes the charge — dutifully echoed through the blogosphere and by talking heads — that the Chamber was part of a cabal out to “steal our democracy,” accepting foreign cash and then using the funds to campaign against candidates on the left. Though, admittedly, they have no proof of any wrongdoing, Democrats have threatened that investigations will soon uncover this reprehensible criminal activity.
…”Stealing democracy,” as you may know, loosely translated, means: Holy crap, Republicans are going to win an election.
…If the United States Chamber of Commerce — composed of some of the most moderate, milquetoast, government- friendly saps in the country — are now on the Enemies List, who exactly does the president think is reasonable? If the crony capitalists aren’t good enough for Barack Obama, who is? …
Craig Pirrong hopes that Obama keeps insulting the electorate.
‘At a Saturday-evening fundraiser held in the home of a wealthy Massachusetts hospital executive, President Obama suggested Democrats are having difficulties in midterm campaigning because Americans simply aren’t thinking clearly. … “Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared,” Obama told the assembled Democrats, who paid $15,200 a person to attend. “And the country is scared.”…
The mind boggles. It’s hard to know whether he believes this or not, or which alternative is worse. Let’s consider. Doesn’t believe it: we have president who’s willing to heap slurs on the emotional balance of those disenchanted with him to rationalize his political nosedive. Believes it: we have a delusional president who is so invested in his Olympian self-image that he is incapable of responding to feedback that screams that he’s careened off course, and actually believes that diagnosing vast swathes of America as emotionally crippled PTSD victims is a winning political pitch.
Whatever the explanation, I hope he sticks with it. The more he condescends, the lower his fortunes, and those of his party, will descend.
Jennifer Rubin also criticizes the complainer in chief.
Mickey Kaus considers Obama’s outbursts against the electorate to be “a form of political malpractice—making yourself look good to supporters, and to history, and to yourself, at the expense of the fellow Dems who are on the ballot.” But this is vintage Obama. It is always about him and his inability to reconcile his own self-image with the results he has achieved and the reaction he engenders. …
…he reverts to partisan sniping, at times sounding rather loopy:
“He swiped repeatedly at Republicans, invoking Abraham Lincoln at one point and positing that the 16th president would have trouble winning the Republican nomination if he were a candidate today.”
Because the modern GOP is in favor of slavery? Because, well … oh forget it. Even his insults are incoherent these days.
Obama has proved to be weak in a crisis, as Juan Williams candidly observed in June. He’s wasn’t up to the BP oil spill or terrorist attacks. And he’s not very good at managing his own political crisis. I suppose teaching law school, perpetually running for higher office, and writing semi-fictional books about himself weren’t the best preparation for the presidency.
Ed Morrissey picks up on an astounding piece. Obama has been piling it high when discussing shovel-ready projects, and David Brooks had this from the President’s mouth a year ago.
And of course, this wouldn’t have been news all the time while Barack Obama kept claiming that these “shovel ready jobs” had prosperity just around the corner, right? Brooks says that the admission came in an off-the-record session with the President, which kept him from reporting it. I wonder if Brooks or anyone else would have been that particular had George Bush admitted “off the record” that he knew Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction in 2003 or 2004, while continuing to make the argument that the war was necessary because of them. What happened to sourcing as “a senior administration official”? Did it not occur to Brooks that Obama was lying about these jobs over the past year to defend his economic policies, and that Brooks might have had a responsibility to make that known? Good to know that the New York Times prints all the news that fits — its agenda. …
Michelle Malkin also comments on shovel-gate and Brooks giving up his journalistic cred for the object of his political affection.
How much of a tool is New York Times columnist David Brooks?
This much: On the PBS NewsHour last night, Brooks admitted that President Obama told him a year ago that he knew that the “shovel-ready project” propaganda he employed to pass the massive porkulus bill was a steaming load of bullcrap.
Brooks’ New York Times colleague Peter Baker reported the newsworthy admission in an upcoming Sunday magazine piece. It’s an admission that received much deserved attention here in the blogosphere this week and that invited much deserved derision from Republican critics of the stimulus boondoggle.
Why didn’t Brooks report Obama’s damning admission sooner? In another serving of steaming bullcrap, he claims it’s because Baker was more skilled at getting Obama to talk on the record. Seems to me the real reason Brooks didn’t report it is because he had his nose so far up his bromance love object’s you-know-what that he didn’t see the scoop dropped right in his lap. …
In the Washington Examiner, Linda Chavez explains that the president’s ignorance and irresponsibility is being funded by taxpayers.
…When entrepreneurs fail, they’ve lost their own money and that of investors who have freely chosen to take the risk.
Government programs, however, play with other people’s money — since government has no money of its own. When government programs fail, the consequences aren’t born by the people making the decisions but by the taxpayers.
So when Obama finally realizes there’s no such thing as a shovel-ready project, he’s admitting he’s wasted our money — billions of dollars — not his own. But his only answer is to raise taxes so he can spend yet more. It’s the kind of thinking that dooms his presidency and our economy.
In Der Spiegel, Matthias Schulz writes how a genetic mutation, lactose tolerance, affected the demographics of ancient Europeans. Schulz explains how archaeologists think that the first milk drinkers of Europe originated in the Middle East, but started drinking milk after a genetic mutation occurred when the culture had migrated to central Europe.
New research has revealed that agriculture came to Europe amid a wave of immigration from the Middle East during the Neolithic period. The newcomers won out over the locals because of their sophisticated culture, mastery of agriculture — and their miracle food, milk. …
In a bid to solve the mystery, molecular biologists have sawed into and analyzed countless Neolithic bones. The breakthrough came last year, when scientists discovered that the first milk drinkers lived in the territory of present-day Austria, Hungary and Slovakia.
…The beginnings can now be delineated relatively well. About 12,000 years ago, the zone between the Zagros Mountains in present-day Iran, Palestine and Turkey was transformed into a giant field experiment.
…Oddly enough, the Mesopotamian farmers didn’t touch fresh milk. A few weeks ago, Joachim Burger returned from Turkey with a sack full of Neolithic bones from newly discovered cemeteries where the ancient farmers were buried.
When the bones were analyzed, there were no signs of lactose tolerance. “If these people had drunk milk, they would have felt sick,” says Burger. This means that at first the farmers only consumed fermented milk products like kefir, yogurt and cheese, which contain very little lactose. …
…As a result of “accelerated evolution,” says Burger, lactose tolerance was selected for on a large scale within the population in the space of about 100 generations. …
…The new food was especially beneficial for children. In the Neolithic Age, many small children died after being weaned in their fourth year of life. “As a result of consuming healthy milk, this could be greatly reduced,” Hamburg biologist Fritz Höffeler speculates. All of this led to population growth and, as a result, further geographical expansion. …