Option 1: Congress and all of the voices joining us to Israel's hip in the minds of the rest of the world are so utterly clueless that the simple cause-and-effect relationship Juan Cole notes is simply beyond them.

Option 2: Said persons actually understand the cause-and-effect relationship, and for some reason are willing to tolerate, or actually seek to bring about the foreseeable effects of such a policy.

But door #2 would only make sense if, there are significant factions that benefit in some way from massive conflict in the Mideast and terror at home. So that couldn't be it.

Any other options?

Oh, and the J Street thing? Massively disappointing, precisely because their statement is so utterly opaque. So what do we need them for? Milquetoast is already plentiful in Washington.

I'll wait for the transcript, but the summary seems to nail the key points I would have expected.

I am against handing Caroline a Senate seat. My reasons have nothing to do with who she is on her own merits. The problem here is that the reasons she is being considered have nothing to do with who she is on her own merits, either.

It isn't just politics. Hollywood seems to be going in the same direction -- people use name recognition as a replacement for evaluation of skill.

The lengths to which people will go to avoid thinking never cease to amaze.

Could the fact that more elected Representatives and Senators have been Democrats be evidence that Republicans are more likely to vote for a product of a dynasty?

To the extent that you look at primaries, voters of the opposite persuasion are irrelevant. But in a general, if more Republicans will vote for the "known" Democrat than a Democrat of less certain pedigree, it could well be the crossover voters who make the difference.

In closely contested districts/states, it will be the voters on the margin who make the difference. And for a Democrat, arguably the marginal voters are Republicans.

Tom Friedman, like Cheney and Bush and other enablers, now tiptoe increasingly close to their elephant in the room -- yes, we torture and commit acts of terror, gladly.

Brandon Friedman, like Greenwald and other critics, seem reluctant to embrace our own elephant -- the unspeakable knowledge of the real cause for their elephant.

Pathology.

When we say "these people are sick," we are not just engaging in hyperbole -- they ARE demonstrably psychologically deficient.

(Rather than repeat the argument yet again, I will just point to my "other letters" link.)

If anyone has a better explanation, I'd love to hear it; otherwise, I'd be gratified to see our elephant more widely acknowledged.

1. Denial

2. Denial

3. Denial

4. Denial

5. Denial

18th century thinker Vico claimed that man could best understand the things made by people. But he didn't count on 21st century Villagers, who are so resolute in refusing to understand the messes they themselves make.

Since you are implicitly (and with justification) arguing that lawyers are in a better position than non-lawyers to interpret a judicial opinion, and thus that lawyers are to be especially criticized for failing to make the kinds of distinctions you clearly point out:

I think it is appropriate to point out that the NRO's Andy McCarthy is also an attorney:

McCarthy Bio

Andrew C. McCarthy is a former federal prosecutor and a Contributor at National Review Online. From 1993 through 1996, while an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, he led the prosecution against the jihad organization of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, in which a dozen Islamic militants were convicted of conducting a war of urban terrorism against the United States that included the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to bomb New York City landmarks. Mr. McCarthy also made major contributions to the prosecutions of the bombers of the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the Millennium plot attack Los Angeles International Airport.

Following the September 11 attacks, Mr. McCarthy supervised the U.S. Attorney's Anti-Terrorism Command Post in New York City, coordinating investigative and preventive efforts with numerous federal and state law enforcement and intelligence agencies. From 1999 through 2003, he was the Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District's satellite office, responsible for federal law enforcement in six counties north of New York City.

Mr. McCarthy is the recipient of numerous awards, including the Justice Department's highest honors: the Attorney General's Exceptional Service Award (1996) and Distinguished Service Award (1988). He has served as a Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and as an Associate Independent Counsel in the investigation of a former cabinet official. He has also been an Adjunct Professor of Law both at the Fordham University School of Law and at New York Law School.

Currently, Mr. McCarthy practices law in the New York area. He writes extensively on a variety of legal, social and political issues for National Review and Commentary, among other publications, as well as providing commentary for various television and radio broadcasts. He also does consulting work for the Investigative Project, a private counterterrorism research organization in Washington, D.C.

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11773865&Itemid=351

What a tool.

Lawyers do not and ought not have a monopoly on such expertise or credibility. And watching "lay" commenters destroy buffoons like McCarthy is especially enjoyable.

All logical fallacies do mischief, but "appeal to authority" is one of the most pernicious.