Is it possible that I generally agree with Kevin Drum ...

The fight against Islamic jihadism is essentially a vast, global counterinsurgency, something that the United States is lousy at. But we'd better get good at it fast, and the first step is to discard the fatuous notion that more violence is the obvious answer when the current amount of violence isn't doing the job.[***]

... over Glenn Reynolds in a GWoT debate?

While I think that Drum's comparison with U.S. and Israeli strategy today with Soviet strategy in Afghanistan -- if that's what he means, which isn't quite clear to me -- is wrong, I think that his reference to "casual genocide" as the preferred strategy of pro-war people is pretty clear, and pretty absurd. Yeah, you see that kind of thing in blog comments sometime, but I think most people support current U.S. military efforts because they fear that ignoring the problem is likely to produce more death and violence over the long term, not less. (Hence the frequent invocations of 1936 and 1938). That's certainly my view.

Why, yes.

Don't get me wrong, I mostly agree with Reynolds' post as well, but I think that he's glossing over a rather common sentiment in the right-wing blogosphere with a coat of his own views. As my recent criticism of Ace and dust-up with Bill Quick highlighted, there's a common idea, almost exclusively promoted among right-wing pundits, that more force is necessarily more effective force. It's an instinctive position among those that share the Jacksonian mindset. I should know, as I also instinctively gravitate towards an aggressive default position, and the weight of precedent is on this judgment's side: the vast majority of conflicts throughout human history have been a contest won by those willing and able to apply the maximum amount of force.

But the global war on terror is a wildly asymmetrical conflict that's only going to grow more frustrating and complex as the ubiquitization of destructive technology erases the easy lines of malicious nation states, and consequently mutes the effect of the kind of total warfare that historically pushes political solutions. As a result, much of the bluster about ditching Queensbury rules and going "Dubya Dubya Too" on our "enemies" as an evident solution to the conflict is simply that: bluster. I'm not saying that it won't happen at some point, in response to a particularly terrible terrorist attack or three on US soil; I'm saying that after a certain tipping point in history, total war probably won't be effective in stopping religious maniacs with custom viruses synthesized in a London basement. And if one could effectively stop said maniacs by irradiating a third of the world's surface, the result would be hopelessly pyrrhic.

I don't quite share Drum's default morality ...

Since it would appear that mere appeals to human decency aren't going to carry much weight with this crowd,

... but he goes on to sing my favorite song:

... how about a practical objection instead?

The amount of force required to effect total war as a practical solution to Islamic terrorism among a diverse set of countries and cultures is ludicrously large, and on a dramatically rising trend line that holds a direct relationship to the ease of obtention of destructive technology and the rise of global interconnectedness - economies, resources, cultures, demographics. At a certain moment, perhaps already in the past or quickly approaching, we'll have passed a tipping point where no amount of traditional total war would possibly force an effective political solution. "Nuking Mecca" won't do a whit of good, and in fact accomplish the opposite of any cowing intent. Ironically, I think that this conceptual tipping point buttresses the neoconservative strategy of applying targeted force to spur reform now, while our society still holds structural advantages to effect change and strategically diminish radical elements with accelerated political paradigm shifts.

I think that it's time for some right-wing pundits to either move beyond the lazy general concept of "more force" is necessarily "better force," or at least present a practical, detailed plan for an aggressive subjugation of "the enemy" that goes beyond "we need to get serious! If only those ******s in Washington would take the gloves off!"

Elucidate the modern version of Sherman's March to the Sea. Crystallize it.

So I can fisk it.

Also read Drum's follow-up post. He again goes too far in the assumption that guerilla wars can't be won (perhaps too many viewings of "Platoon?" Some examples of effective counterinsurgencies are mentioned in this book, which actually focuses on ineffective counterinsurgencies, arguing that they didn't use enough force), but I agree with much of his analysis:

The idea is to slowly but steadily promote democratic rule, liberal institutions, education of women, and international commerce. When military responses are necessary, they should be short, highly targeted, and designed to piss off the surrounding citizenry as little as possible. This will, needless to say, take a very long time and a lot of self restraint, but it won't succeed at all if every few years we set things back a decade with a conventional war.

And what if this doesn't work? What if we make progress among the great majority, but the committed jihadists retain enough support to become dangerous on a much broader scale than they are today? What if they nuke Manhattan anyway?

If that happens, then we really do have World War III on our hands. There are no guarantees of success, after all. But a series of conventional wars pretty much guarantees this outcome, whereas the counterinsurgency mindset at least has a chance of success. If we're serious about our future, it's the best option we have.

Except for what's surely a fundamental difference in opinion about when to apply force to "promote" these changes, Drum almost perfectly describes neo-conservative foreign policy.

*** Note: I specifically left off the last sentence from the initial Drum excerpt because I explicitly disagree with it:

But we'd better get good at it fast, and the first step is to discard the fatuous notion that more violence is the obvious answer when the current amount of violence isn't doing the job.History suggests very strongly that the truth is exactly the opposite.

An analytical bridge too far: "History" actually largely suggests the opposite of Drum's statement: aside from specific prisms like Vietnam and the Soviet invasion of Afganistan, more force usually works; a nation simply has to achieve a high enough level of absolute violence.***** Where I come into agreement with Drum is the idea that more violence is not necessarily better, and that certain historical trends don't apply to present and future conflicts, especially ones involving Democracies that can't easily acquire the political capital to enact such terrible force.

**** Beggars can't be choosers addendum: Apologies for any structural incoherence or typos. I don't have time to edit.

***** UPDATE: SeanH points out that more force does not "usually" work in modern counterinsurgencies. He's right. But I was referring to the trend in all of recorded history, and certain modern yet ruthless societies. There is a threshold of violence that works just fine in crushing insurgencies; it's simply not crossed by modern Western powers, a truism which makes agitating for a more aggressive military approach all the more unrealistic.

UPDATE: Drum responds. And I respond to his response.

"We'll be right back. Don't touch that dial."

me: YOU AREN'T THE BOSS OF ME, MEREDITH VIEIRA!*

Back later.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki addressed Congress today:

Let me begin by thanking the American people, through you, on behalf of the Iraqi people, for supporting our people and ousting dictatorship. Iraq will not forget those who stood with her and who continues to stand with her in times of need.

Thank you for your continued resolve in helping us fight the terrorists plaguing Iraq, which is a struggle to defend our nation's democracy and our people who aspire to liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. All of those are not Western values; they are universal values for humanity.

The war on terror is a real war against those who wish to burn out the flame of freedom. And we are in this vanguard for defending the values of humanity.

I know that some of you here question whether Iraq is part of the war on terror. Let me be very clear: This is a battle between true Islam, for which a person's liberty and rights constitute essential cornerstones, and terrorism, which wraps itself in a fake Islamic cloak; in reality, waging a war on Islam and Muslims and values.

Read the whole thing. Twice, if need be.

Video here.

(Via Dean)

*** Here's a scary story from our legal system. A man is murdered. Two years later, Chuck Erickson reads about it in the paper, then "remembers" that he and his friend Ryan did it. He "remembers" it in a dream. Chuck does not, however, remember things such as: how many times they hit the man, what they used to strangle him, or where exactly the murder occurred.

Then there's the physical evidence in the case: none. Well, actually, there is quite a bit, it's just that none of it ties either Chuck or Ryan to the murder. A hair in the murdered man's hand matches neither. Ditto on a bloody shoeprint. The crime scene was so bloody and messy "that even investigators first on the scene thought it could be a 'contract killing.”'" Not a drop of blood was found in Ryan's car.

Ryan Ferguson has repeatedly said he is innocent, and that he was in no way involved with the murder. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison. He will be eligible for parole in Sept. 2042, when he will be 57 years old. (He is 21 years old.) What convinced the jury to convict? Convinced them that he should spend most of his life in jail?

"I never felt like that Chuck Erickson had made it up," another male juror said.

"He looked over at Mr. Ferguson and the pleading look in his eye like, 'Come on buddy, you know you did it.' It really cinched it for me," a female juror added.

And the jurors didn't believe Chuck's memories were false memories implanted by the police as the defense memory expert had testified. Did that at all seem possible?

"Not in my mind. Just common sense. What was the reason that you'd make something up like that?" one juror said.

Another juror said he was won over by the janitor who, while initially unable to describe the killers, pointed to Ryan in court. "He'd seen 'em and pointed 'em out, and that was pretty much all you needed right there," the male juror said.

The jurors say they were not really bothered by the lack of physical evidence. It all came down to which witness was most believable.

*** Here are two examples of why separation of church and state is a good thing. The first is written by Chuck Smalkowski, father of a young girl who was suspended for refusing to recite a prayer with her team following basketball games. (The school called the police during the "incident.") (UPDATE: The police were called when she was being suspended, not during a basketball game.)

The whole family was under constant stress. Police trying to get search warrants to the property by having ex-employees file false statements. Other cops trying to hire ex-cons to beat me up. The whole town knows of it! The Sheriff trying to have my bond pulled by the bail bondsman when there was no legal way to do it. My kids have been out of school since November. Principal's son saying should he get a gun when he sees my daughter and my son. DA has yet to reply to our concerns. The Department of Human Services comes to my place saying they received a complaint that I starve my kids. It was even obvious to them the charge was bogus.

We have become very good at using back roads. The police follow us around. Traffic tickets that when challenged were dropped in court. Not to mention the stares and whispers, the betrayal from employees, one of my healthy dogs dying. Brush fires starting up upwind.

An FBI agent even said, "You aren't kidding". When it was obvious someone followed us and was watching our meeting out in the middle of nowhere. I was told about a few things. All I can say is that some of the crooks out here now charged with crimes wore badges and guns! But he could not help my family and me. Not without witnesses willing to come forward. One scared witness left the state. The last words she spoke to me were, Chuck I don't want to end up dead in a ditch!

Just what you would expect life to be like out here in the Bible belt!

Smalkowski discusses not only his federal case against school in prayer, but case in which he was falsely accused of assault.

The other example is the Jewish family forced to flee Delaware:

The district spreads over a considerable portion of southeast Delaware. The families' complaint, filed in federal court in February 2005, alleges that the district had created an "environment of religious exclusion" and unconstitutional state-sponsored religion.

Among numerous specific examples in the complaint was what happened at plaintiff Samantha Dobrich's graduation in 2004 from the district's high school. She was the only Jewish student in her graduating class. The complaint relates that local pastor, Jerry Fike, in his invocation, followed requests for "our heavenly Father's" guidance for the graduates with:

"I also pray for one specific student, that You be with her and guide her in the path that You have for her. And we ask all these things in Jesus' name."

...

The complaint recounts a raucous crowd that applauded the board's opening prayer and then, when sixth-grader Alexander Dobrich stood up to read a statement, yelled at him "take your yarmulke off!" His statement, read by Samantha, confided "I feel bad when kids in my class call me Jew boy."

...

Classmates accused Alex Dobrich of "killing Christ" and he became fearful about wearing his yarmulke, the complaint recounts.

Trent Reznor, Jeordie White, Peter Murphy: A Strange Kind of Love

(Via Flea. Kind of)

... and the bloggin's easy.

Geppetto's jumpin', and Goldstein's
still
(very, very)
high

Leopold's lyin', and this lady's "feisty" loony
But hush little baby, don't you cry

Because one of these mornings
We're goin' to rise up singing
Then we'll spread our wings
And we'll take to the sky
But 'till that morning
There's a nothin' can harm us
With such memories of days gone by

Tony Snow and Leslie West: Stormy Monday

*** Val Prieto:

Most of you non-bloggers Im sure can imagine how difficult it is sometimes to blog on a daily basis and those of you with blogs know exactly how difficult it is. It isnt just the time required or waking up early and reading news feeds or going through tons of emails or writing entries and maintaining some kind of posting schedule. When you focus on a subject like Cuba, there are alot of other things that go along with it: daily frustration, hate mail, the emotional toll, the hopelessness, the stress. Did I mention the frustration?

I really do often ask myself Why are you doing this Val? Why dont you just enjoy your life? Why dont you just spend more time with your family? Why dont you just write some fiction instead? Why continue dealing with all the bs? Why? Why? Why?

Because of people like Grammy in Philly.

Go check out Grammy's letter.

Though personally, I blog to get girls.

*** Interesting: Bush "Aces ... NAACP Speech" Much of the analysis is wincingly patronizing, but interesting nonetheless.

*** Can we call Pat Buchanan an anti-semite yet?

*** Fun video number one: The Vader Sessions:

(Via Hot Air)

*** Fun video number two: Kevin Smith Pegs Hollywood. 20 minutes long, but if you can spare 'em, worth every one. Especially for the punchline.

(Via Flea)

Who stole Glenn Greenwald's IP address? The world may never know. But someone better call Greenwald (pictured here) quick, the comments are coming from inside the house!

Current count of sock puppets defending Glenn Greenwald : 5. A handy chart can be found here.

All joking aside, none of this should be construed as a serious criticism of Greenwald. It's just hilarious. Bottom line is, it is certainly possible Glenn Greenwald is telling the truth when he says he always comments under his own name. He should not be blamed for the actions of another. And scurrilous accusations about Greenwald living in his mother's basement are unwarranted.

Maybe Glenn Greenwald lives with his mom?

Originally noted here. More here and here.

UPDATE: Sharp-eyed AoS commenter Pablo spots a relevant bit of biographical information from Greenwald:

The country in which I have now lived for a year, Brazil, is by far the largest and most populous country in South America, and Brazilians had, prior to the war in Iraq, an overwhelmingly favorable view of the United States.

Perhaps relevant, because the IP traces to the "Latin American and Caribbean IP address Regional Registry."

UPDATE: Post's original joke was swapped out for a better one.

UPDATE: Greenwald implies that someone else in his household (likely his partner) is doing the defensive commenting:

Not frequently, I leave comments at blogs which criticize or respond to something I have written. I always, in every single instance, use my own name when doing so. I have never left a single comment at any other blog using any name other than my own, at least not since I began blogging. IP addresses signify the Internet account one uses, not any one individual. Those in the same household have the same IP address. In response to the personal attacks that have been oozing forth these last couple of weeks, others have left comments responding to them and correcting the factual inaccuracies, as have I. In each case when I did, I have used my own name.

Honestly, I don't find this explanation implausible. His analysis, on the other hand ...

*** Feeling powerful regret that I didn't write this line first:

I think that's the proper way to write it according to Strunk & White's The Elements of Batshit Crazy.

*** Ooh-fa! A 'hallibut' beating.

*** I'd "cry" too.

*** Yeah, we dated.

***

(Related.)

*** Do not try this at home: A monkey with humongous balls. Figurative "balls", you won't see any monkey genitals. (Sorry to disappoint you, Bill.)

*** The Firefly/Serenity documentary Done The Impossible has gone "gold master". Wish I had preordered it.

*** For some slightly more serious links, here's the video of an exchange between Tony Snow and Helen Thomas. I say slightly more serious, because it sounds more like a blogger responding to a troll than a White House Press Secretary responding to a journalist. (via the Brothers Judd, who dubbed her "Helenbollah.")

*** Bush is going to speak at an NAACP convention.

*** The planet Earth is tiny. (via WWR)

*** If you're in the Baltimore area, you may wish to attend this symposium on the use of internet resources in participatory democracy on August 3rd. (At the Sheraton Inner Harbor Hotel.)

*** For anyone interested, here's a pdf version of the Army's new field manual on counterinsurgency.

Robbo the Llamabutcher's complaining about the brutal heat, exquisitely suffered during this summer's ozone-choked morning commute into downtown DC.

Terrible, isn't it?

And one would hope - as a slight upside - that the sun's merciless forge would at least drive the tourists away, singeing them back to their jabbering nests in North Nebraskohio like midwestern-accented vampires bedecked in Ray-Ban knock-offs and nylon fanny packs.

"Ooh miy gead. Sooh hat riyght naao."

Or even better, flash-melt them into flesh and floursecent-colored puddles that inflict no more inconvenience than a stickily iridescent film on the bottom of one's shoes.

But no. They're still here. Jostling, babbling, retina-scalding traffic cones getting in my f*&^%$@ way as a starched collar fuses to the back of my neck during the morning Metro rugby scrum.

This may be Hell.

What is at stake in Iraq?

Might be a few days before I post. Might be later today.

Feel the suspense light your body on fire.

In the meantime, chew with your mouth closed, George.

(Via Hot Air)

UPDATE: And here's some more Floyd for your Monday Music:

Pink Floyd: Time (Live)

Can't get enough? Me neither.

Thank heavens for the out-and-out genius of Pink Floyd. And YouTube, for that matter.

(Via Dean, who has additional commentary on this famous synchronicity)

Many bloggers are talking about whether anyone is obligated to denounce others whose only connection involves sharing certain beliefs. They essentially make the point that there is no obligation to do so. (A point made on this very site. This post by Mindles H. Dreck is a particularly funny take.) The general consensus seems to be that although it may be admirable to do so, it is not an obligation. It doesn't say anything larger about whether "my side" is more virtuous than "your side."

Sweeping generalizations of people who share certain beliefs should not be based on a perceived lack of condemnation of others with whom they otherwise have no other connection.

Unless, of course, you're talking about Islam. Then it's ok to make those kind of criticisms, and even contemplate genocide.

Bill Adds: I can't be certain, but I have the suspicion that dorkafork is using sarcasm about the Islam thing.

By now you've probably heard about how paleontologists found fossils of galloping flesh-eating kangaroos and a "demon duck of doom."

A team from the University of NSW (UNSW) made the discoveries in three new deposits during a recent two-week dig at the World Heritage Riversleigh fossil fields in Queensland.

Unfortunately, that is not all the team did.

Read More »

I've learned that my recent e-mail troubles mark me as the unfortunate recipient of something called a "Joe Job."

Aside to God: you misheard my plea.

Though in fairness, I garble my words when I'm drunk.

*** Here's a great Q & A with Bernard Lewis on Islam:

On the prospects for democracy in the Islamic world

A lot of things are being said about Islam now. There is a view, for example, that could be summed up this way: These people are incapable of decent, civilized, open government. Whatever we do, they will be ruled by corrupt tyrants. Therefore, the only aim of foreign policy should be to ensure that they are friendly tyrants rather than hostile tyrants.

We know versions of this approach produced well-known results in Central America, in Southeast Asia and other places.

To say that they are incapable of anything else is simply a falsification of history. What we have now come to regard as typical of Middle Eastern regimes is not typical of the past. The regime of Saddam Hussein, the regime of Hafez al-Assad, this kind of government, this kind of society, has no roots either in the Arab or in the Islamic past.
...
On Wahhabism

Wahhabism is about as central to Islam as, shall we say, the Ku Klux Klan to Christianity.

UPDATE: Here's the full transcript, thanks to JP in the comments.

*** Who will stop German supervillains? ME! Feel free to submit costume designs. Mr. Silent ("What's your kryptonite?" "Bullets, I'd imagine. Or knives.") has a pretty swanky costume. I need something that accessorizes well with atomic deathrays.

*** There's a new Rocky movie coming out. Here's a short clip. A longer trailer containing actual footage can be found here.

For some reason, when I woke up this morning, I found 102 pages of "Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender" e-mails in my inbox. In fact, there are scores of variations on that same message, in various languages, apparently written to what seem like real e-mail networks (yahoo, .edu addresses, etc.) Two things:

1. If you sent me an e-mail in the past 20 hours or so, I won't see it. Beyond being buried within the pile, my account isn't receiving until I reduce its size.

2. What the ...

Inside Higher Ed has a article on the brouhaha involving noted lunatic Deb Frisch. Very fair and balanced. Out of an approximately 700 word article, here is how Goldstein's side of the story is described:

Goldstein could not be reached for comment. But he posted details of Frisch’s comments and his reaction to them on his Web site.

About 3% of the story, but I guess it's quality, not quantity. Jeff has a response up at Protein Wisdom. I am taking the liberty of reproducing it below in case the link doesn't work due to the DoS attacks.

(Before I do, I want to note two things. First, the Inside Higher Ed story states "...Frisch is known for going on conservative sites she abhors and engaging in debate." This is laughable if you are at all familiar with her comments. Besides the comments at the post that started it all, there are comments she's left at other sites that run the gamut from infantile through moronic all the way to bug-eyed screaming. The second thing I'd like to note is that I think that Gail Hapke's description of DoS attacks as "Denial of Speech" attacks is quite apt. The DoS attacks are shameful in their own right, though that aspect is overshadowed by Frisch's creepiness.)

Jeff's response:

Read More »

*** It seems that Somalis are having some, um, cultural conflicts with the new Islamist element in town. Donna smells a special air-drop, and I smell a sequel with a dusky John Lithgow hopped up on khat leaves: Blackhawk Down Two: Mogadishu Boogaloo.

*** DC's panda cub celebrates its first birthday. I'm usually unmoved by the bizarrely intense hoopla surrounding this particular bear breed, but given the National Zoo's reputation as the Black Flag Roach Motel of man-made animal sanctuaries, I'm inspired by the little masked Chi-Com's stubborn anniversary on planet Earth. He's a survivor.

I went to the zoo a couple of times. Depressing. The lions glumly laid about or paced circles around the 25 square-yard concrete stepped enclosure intended to approximate the sweeping expanse of the African plain, while a particularly clever fellow in the Great Ape Room fogged the plexiglass and smudged "kil meee" after lancing my attention with his thousand-yard monkey stare.

The place did sell ice cream, though.

*** Powerline documents Eeyore economic analysis at the New York Times:

Sometimes when you read the New York Times you just have to laugh. Tomorrow's edition includes an article on soaring federal revenues that manages to achieve a lugubrious tone even as it reports good news. The article is titled "Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Curbs U.S. Deficit." Of course, the jump in tax revenues was especially surprising to those, like the Times, who deprecate supply side economics and stubbornly refuse to learn from experience.

I blame the ghost of Walter Duranty, who malevolently roams the halls and threatens Times reporters with an icey reach-around if they dare buttress Capitalist Running Dog economic narratives.

(Via Dean)

*** Heh.

*** Right, wrong or French, this is one tough move:

I can't wait to try it out on the Metro.

PS - Viva Italia, bitchez.

(Via Commissar)

Deb Frisch continues to garnish "C-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-razy!" with its "capital C." As well as the 11 following "c's," and possibly the "y."

And the "a."

The "z" belongs to this guy, but the "r" is still up for grabs.

And make no mistake, the competition is fierce: despite a third Denial of Service attack on Goldstein's site getting underway at about 3PM today, he's receiving intermittent comments via e-mail. A couple of the finest:

(Warning: bad language, racism, homophobia, micropenis discrimination and rodentia)

Read More »

1. More fun with DU!

2. Meet Steve and Robert: the Llamabutchers:

So, I assume that you've heard about the "Deb Frisch Meltdown/Debacle." If not, Andy features one of the most succinct wrap-ups. Goldstein's original post is here, though access to his site has gone from non-existent to intermittent after a pair of DOS attacks. He informs me that he should be up an running soon.

Does this surprise me? Well, not as much as one might hope. A raised profile in aggressive political blogging sets a writer up as the target of some pretty special hatreds; a certain active form of maniac channels a lot of personal frustration and anger into comparatively abstract political opinions. And it's not wholly surprising that a clearly unstable individual would cross such a fundamental line as intimating threats against the two-year old child of a hated pundit who presents despised political opinions, which in turn serve as a proxy for personal demons and existential dissatisfaction. There are aggressive, crazy people in the world, after all, and odds are a few of them will grace the blogopshere with particularly vile leavings from time to time. And when possible, they should and will be thoroughly smited, professionally and rhetorically speaking. Thoroughly.

But what's truly surprising to me is the comments section at "Bitch PhD," the site of a relatively respected academic feminist blogger. There are voices of self-evident reason, to be sure:

Assuming the quotes are accurate, she was way, way over the line -- I can't say that, given the demographics of it all, that I'd call what she said scary threats, but they were implied sexual threats against a small child. Really not comparable to He Who Shall Not Be Named, who before he started suing was just irritating.

Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07- 8-06 01:01 PM

But then there's minimization like this:

Yeah, threatening people's kids is fucking gross. Guess what? It happens all the time. As do rape threats and threats of sexual violence, by the way. You can't take every asshole troll seriously.

Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07- 8-06 01:28 PM

"It happens all the time[?]" I wonder what online circles she travels in ... and supposing that she's writing more generally, lots of evil things "happen all the time" - does that make them unimportant or unworthy of serious treatment or consequence?

23: Yeah, it looks like the left says "that is not okay" when a leftie acts like an asshole, and the right either backs rightie assholes or just ignores them. But I haven't seen too many of these left/right bullshit dustups where the right has actually *condemened* their trolls.

Lest it appear that I'm a hypocrite, what this woman did is clearly stupid and obnoxious.

"Stupid" is aggressively asserting flimsy arguments. "Obnoxious" is placing your fingers millimeters from someone's face and chanting "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you." Commenting about the sexual violation and death of a person's child is neither of these things.

Bitch PhD continues:

I don't know whether she "deserved" to lose her job over it, but it is certainly to be expected. I just don't think that the "outrage" by Malkin and Goldstein's usual troop of monkeys is evidence of anything but their using small assholery as an excuse to perpetuate their much bigger assholery.

Speaking of threats, didn't Malkin publish some college student's address and contact info on her site and refuse to take it down even when they were predictably threatened by her readers? She's got no fucking call to get on her moral high horse over this one.

Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07- 8-06 01:34 PM

Ah, the "Hey, look over there!" defense. I'd wonder: just what form of speech might meet her standard for deserving to lose employment as a college professor? And Malkin published the contact information on a press release issued by adults. Agree with her or not, it's a ridiculously evident world of difference from the topic at hand.

And my favorite comment ...

Actually Deb's got a point. The "she's threatening his child!!" thing is rich coming from a site where people seem to think sexual harassment is hilarious.

Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07- 8-06 01:40 PM

... equates subjectively interpreted commentary about a social and political issue to specific threats aimed at a person's two-year-old.

Rick Moran outlines a responsibility for lefty bloggers to condemn the attack on Goldstein or effectively endorse it via silence. While I often agree with Moran, and certainly agree with many of his larger points in the post, I'm not buying the argument - even someone as hypercritical of Goldstein as Atrios has no duty to comment on the actions of an online nut who shares no direct affiliation to him or his site. But much more indicative of a rotten core to mainstream swaths of the online leftosphere will be the extent to which things like BitchPhD's subsequent rationalizations and minimizations of Frisch's behavior both exist - and will be tolerated or validated by ideological fellow travelers.

Another blogger takes a shot at adequately expressing frustration with any minimization of Frisch's comments or the subsequent response to them:

Ms. Frisch's actions deserve condemnation. But I have run into a problem.

If Frisch deserves condemnation, what verb is adequate for the moral relativists who excuse, condone, minimize her actions?

Read the rest.

For my part, I'll simply say this: if you can't unequivocally condemn something like this, you've got a grubby soul.

In case you need something to read ...

Happy Fourth of July.

Go for the flags and ferrets, stay for the midi file medley.

Mujahid Wages Jihad

Recently quoted by Instapundit:

"If 2 percent of the continental United States were covered with photovoltaic systems with a net efficiency of 10 percent, we would be able to supply all the U.S. energy needs," said Bulovic, the KDD Associate Professor of Communications and Technology in MIT's Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

N.Z. Bear did the math, and came up with a figure of 59,180 square miles of photovoltaic systems. As a point of comparison:

If all the highways, streets, buildings, parking lots and other solid structures in the 48 contiguous United States were pieced together like a giant jigsaw puzzle, they would almost cover the state of Ohio.
...
As calculated by the researchers, the total impervious surface area of the 48 states and District of Columbia is approximately 112,610 square kilometers [43,480 square miles], and, for comparison, the total area of the state of Ohio is 116,534 square kilometers [44,994 square miles]. (emphasis added)

So it's just that easy! Just build enough photovoltaic systems to cover every single man-made structure in the United States, and then some, and we're set. We wouldn't have much power at night, and the power we got would be many times more expensive than coal, but we could do it. For the record, I think we should just transform Kansas and maybe Oklahoma into a solar collector. ANWR could hold half of it (total area: 30,900 square miles). I think it might be slightly easier to do it on that scale than trying to build canopies over highways and roads, and adding panels to every every residence, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse in the US.

Here's another comparison: GE is spending $75 million to build a 150-acre solar power plant in Portugal. 150 acres = 0.23 square miles. And if the cost per square mile is the same for the 59,180 square miles needed, that would come out to about $19.3 trillion. (Total federal outlays come out to about $2 trillion per year.) That does not consider the fact that solar costs about 3 to 10 times more per kilowatt hour than coal.

Michael Totten on "genuinely moderate Islamists*," a mixture that he labels "as hard to find as Zoroastrians in Nebraska."

Nevertheless, they exist:

When I went to the Middle East for a six-month extended visit I wanted to see if I could find a genuinely moderate Islamist political party, one that not only practices democracy but also believes in it. There was a slight chance Hezbollah might fit that description. Lebanon's Party of God has mellowed somewhat with age and participates in elections. But Hezbollah, unfortunately, is psychotic as ever. Hassan Nasrallah and his goon squad are instinctively belligerent and authoritarian even if Lebanon’s post-war democratic culture keeps them in check. Hezbollah is liberal and even pacifist compared with Hamas and Al Qaeda, but they nevertheless are a violent warmongering proxy militia for two despotic regimes in the Middle East.

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is better. They aren't armed, they don't even try to kill Israeli soldiers (let alone civilians), and they at least pretend to be opposed to terrorism. But they are only moderate compared with their violent fellow Islamists. Ideologically they don't differ much.

The Kurdistan Islamic Union, though, does seem to be genuinely moderate. Its leaders appear to have more in common with conservative Christian Democrats in Europe than with any terrorist organization or Middle Eastern religious dictatorship.

Read the rest.

(Via Dean)

* Note the distinction between "Islamist" and "Muslim." Many of the individuals that argue that "Islam = Violence" tend to equate the two.