"Al-Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will."

So says the Vice President. But isn't it more likely that Al-Qaeda intends to draw the United States into unending battles that drain our treasury, weaken our military, distract our foreign policy, and yet never reverse our willingness to go on fighting. It's the American will to fight without end and arguably without judgment or flexibility that Al-Qaeda is counting on, isn't it? Dealt with as a small, criminal, despicable, subhuman gang, Al-Qaeda has minimal stature in geopolitics. Elevated into a titanic global opponent by the rhetoric of a contest of national will, Al-Qaeda is lifted to a level of prominence, and probably fund-raising and recruiting, that it could not reach on its own. That's the contrary view to the Vice President.

Take a peek at MoDo today. She took my advice posted here. Went on campaign trail with a Republican. Saw clearly. Wrote it right. On road to recovery of context; not as snarky when observing world objectively of course. Hope she goes to Oscars on her West Coast swing, manages to praise Gore movie -- that would be a breakthrough!

Well, by attacking Senator Obama she didn't really pull a B.Spears, but in the world of words, she's heading in that direction.

Helpful tip to MoDo: actually go spend a day on the campaign trail. And with any Republican. Then write it straight or skewed. Call it rehab; call it a test; call it a search for context.

I'm wondering if Roger Ailes and Ms. Dowd are really the same person. Or use the same writer.

There's not much doubt that for far less than what the United States has spent in and on Iraq, scientists, technologists, and entrepreneurs already could have taken critical steps toward creating a high-growth and low-carbon emitting economy for America, ending our dependence on oil, gas, and coal. We wouldn't have gotten to the desired state yet, but we would be much farther on the way. The Manhattan Project and the Race to the Moon are good analogies. If we throw a lot of money at a huge technology problem in five years, with a long-term commitment to more funding over the next 15 or 20 years, we can accomplish a huge amount in a hurry, given the vast scientific resources of the United States. Of course, if we had taken or now take such steps, we could expect later to return the investment many times over by exporting the crucial non-carbon technologies to the rest of the world, especially to those countries that lack access to oil, gas, and coal.

Some MSM commentators beat up politicians for not passing taxes on gasoline at the pump, but such taxes would have little impact on R&D into non-carbon energy technologies for many years, would hardly alter transportation practices, and at least under the current budget policy would paradoxically help fund the military occupation of the oil and gas fields of Iraq. Not just taxing, but spending is critical to developing the new non-carbon energy inventions that the world needs. No other country has the combination of wealth and incentive possessed by the United States.

Read more »