Brendan Nyhan (once again, and it should be needlessly) points out the nonsense.
Sorry to upset your delusions, Bill.
“Overrated” Follow Up
In response to yesterday’s post, Greg Scoblete emails:
I read your post “Overrated” following an Instapundit link. I think you’re right, re: doctors, but I noticed you derided the notion that the jihad has any basis in U.S. policy. I think you simplify the argument. There is absolutely some causality between the two, just as there is causality between Islamic fundamentalism and violence. There is ample evidence of this in the writings of bin Laden and among analysts who study Islamic terrorism. (I wrote as much at TCS Daily here).
Nor is it a “progressive” myth. George Bush, Wolfowitz, and other administration officials have explicitly linked U.S. policy to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. This isn’t in the spirit of blaming the victim but of knowing your enemy. Believing we’re being attacked solely out of religious animus is a comforting myth, but not one that will help us win a needed victory over jihadist terrorism.
Of course, I oversimplified. The post was running long as it was.
Of course we have made foreign policy mistakes that have resulted in the current mess, going back for decades.
My point was that they’re not the mistakes that the “progressives” and transnationalists think they are, and that it’s not because we do things that make the Caliphists and hirabis upset, or explain “why they hate us,” which is the prevailing mind set.
Our foreign policy mistakes have been to give in to them, and thereby encourage them. Terrorism is not an ideology of hopelessness, but of hope. Hope that by making us fear them sufficiently, we will give in to their unreasonable, savage, medieval demands.
[sigh]
It will take a long essay to explain this properly.
“Overrated” Follow Up
In response to yesterday’s post, Greg Scoblete emails:
I read your post “Overrated” following an Instapundit link. I think you’re right, re: doctors, but I noticed you derided the notion that the jihad has any basis in U.S. policy. I think you simplify the argument. There is absolutely some causality between the two, just as there is causality between Islamic fundamentalism and violence. There is ample evidence of this in the writings of bin Laden and among analysts who study Islamic terrorism. (I wrote as much at TCS Daily here).
Nor is it a “progressive” myth. George Bush, Wolfowitz, and other administration officials have explicitly linked U.S. policy to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. This isn’t in the spirit of blaming the victim but of knowing your enemy. Believing we’re being attacked solely out of religious animus is a comforting myth, but not one that will help us win a needed victory over jihadist terrorism.
Of course, I oversimplified. The post was running long as it was.
Of course we have made foreign policy mistakes that have resulted in the current mess, going back for decades.
My point was that they’re not the mistakes that the “progressives” and transnationalists think they are, and that it’s not because we do things that make the Caliphists and hirabis upset, or explain “why they hate us,” which is the prevailing mind set.
Our foreign policy mistakes have been to give in to them, and thereby encourage them. Terrorism is not an ideology of hopelessness, but of hope. Hope that by making us fear them sufficiently, we will give in to their unreasonable, savage, medieval demands.
[sigh]
It will take a long essay to explain this properly.
“Overrated” Follow Up
In response to yesterday’s post, Greg Scoblete emails:
I read your post “Overrated” following an Instapundit link. I think you’re right, re: doctors, but I noticed you derided the notion that the jihad has any basis in U.S. policy. I think you simplify the argument. There is absolutely some causality between the two, just as there is causality between Islamic fundamentalism and violence. There is ample evidence of this in the writings of bin Laden and among analysts who study Islamic terrorism. (I wrote as much at TCS Daily here).
Nor is it a “progressive” myth. George Bush, Wolfowitz, and other administration officials have explicitly linked U.S. policy to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. This isn’t in the spirit of blaming the victim but of knowing your enemy. Believing we’re being attacked solely out of religious animus is a comforting myth, but not one that will help us win a needed victory over jihadist terrorism.
Of course, I oversimplified. The post was running long as it was.
Of course we have made foreign policy mistakes that have resulted in the current mess, going back for decades.
My point was that they’re not the mistakes that the “progressives” and transnationalists think they are, and that it’s not because we do things that make the Caliphists and hirabis upset, or explain “why they hate us,” which is the prevailing mind set.
Our foreign policy mistakes have been to give in to them, and thereby encourage them. Terrorism is not an ideology of hopelessness, but of hope. Hope that by making us fear them sufficiently, we will give in to their unreasonable, savage, medieval demands.
[sigh]
It will take a long essay to explain this properly.
Only The Little Fish
Does anyone really believe that Hillary didn’t know about this?
Rosen’s attorney, Paul Mark Sandler, did not return a call asking for comment. Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer on campaign finance matters, David Kendall, said, “The Senate Campaign Committee has fully cooperated with the investigation. Mr. Rosen worked hard for the campaign, and we trust that when all the facts are in, he will be cleared.”
The businessman who hosted the event, Peter Paul, has told federal authorities that it cost more than $1 million and that he had been surprised when he saw that most of the contributions were not reported.
The money from the fund-raiser went to Mrs. Clinton’s successful campaign for a Senate seat from New York, the Democrats’ national Senate campaign organization and a state Democratic Party committee.
The joint fund raising made the rules more complicated because the gala raised both “hard money” — funds given to candidates subject to federal limits — and “soft money” that was unregulated and unlimited under the former campaign finance law.
Underreporting the cost of the event allowed the committee to spend less of the coveted hard money, contributions that unlike soft money could be used to cover Clinton’s campaigning costs.
Federal law governing such joint fund-raisers was designed to prevent joint committees from circumventing restrictions on the contributions given directly to candidates.
Peter Paul claims she did. I wonder if she’ll have to take the stand in a trial? And whether or not she will “recall” anything?
An Octosquid
This is pretty cool:
While the smallest of the rat-tail fish was still alive — until the octosquid made a meal of it — the other creatures were dead. War said the fish that come up the NELHA pipeline quickly die or are already dead because the change in atmospheric pressure expands and eventually ruptures a fish’s swim bladders.
But invertebrates — animals with no backbones — are seemingly unaffected by the pressure change. The light may have bothered the octosquid, though, since it is pitch black at the 3,000-foot depth. War said the exceptionally clear waters off Keahole Point allow light from the sun to penetrate to about 500 and 600 feet.
When we were diving in Kona last fall, we went down to the top of the pipeline, which is at a depth of about sixty feet. It’s kind of eerie to look down it, and then look at the outside of it, as it descends almost half a mile into the depths, down the undersea slope of Mauna Kea.
Missing The Point (Part Two)
Michael Gerson somehow imagines that Second Life proves that libertarianism doesn’t work. Ramesh Ponnuru (no libertarian) points out the flaw in his “argument” (such as it is).
Heinleinorama
Instapundit and John Miller remember Robert Heinlein, whose centennial celebration will be held tomorrow in Kansas City, the town of his birth. I wish I could attend.
I should note, though, that Glenn omits probably the most influential book on space entrepreneurs: The Man Who Sold The Moon
Update From Baqubah
Another very interesting dispatch from Michael Yon, with stories (and photos) that we continue to not get from the MSM:
The big news on the streets today is that the people of Baqubah are generally ecstatic, although many hold in reserve a serious concern that we will abandon them again. For many Iraqis, we have morphed from being invaders to occupiers to members of a tribe. I call it the
Back Home
Henry Cate, who originated the Carnival of Space a couple months ago, is hosting the tenth one this week.