PAUL BELIEN on Ralph Peters on Europe. And I should have linked this item from Mark Steyn the other day, too.

LOOKING INTO THE ETYMOLOGY OF “Christianism.”

I continue to think that the term draws an unfair equivalence between Islamist terror, and mere Christian social conservatism, which are hardly comparable. I disagree with the latter, but those people aren’t the enemy, just people with whom I disagree.

UPDATE: Now this is beyond the pale.

But apparently the “Christianists” continue to wreak destruction:

The controversial broadcast of MADONNA’s CONFESSIONS tour special on US TV failed to lure viewers and ended up finishing fourth in its time slot.

Either that or she’s just, you know, over.

ANOTHER UPDATE: What he said: “It says quite a lot about Sullivan and his ilk that they’ve managed to get a person like me — who deeply loathes Christian fundamentalism and supports gay marriage — to actually defend fundamentalist Christians against unfair smears by gay marriage supporters.”

Yeah, I dread the day Sullivan starts promoting nanotechnology or digital cameras . . . .

More on that here: “I think it’s intended to do more than link those Christians whose politics Sullivan doesn’t like with Islamists; it is also meant to be undefinable, which, by being unfair to everyone, does great mischief. Because, if only Andrew Sullivan knows what the word means (assuming he does), then he gets to behave as the Red Queen and label anyone he wishes as a Christianist. Or not. . . . I’m sorry, but this is getting really wacky.”

Yes, it is. But the illustration is amusing!

MORE: Further thoughts from the suddenly reenergized Prof. Bainbridge.

OUTDOOR SURVIVAL TIPS, from the folks at Popular Mechanics. Not quite the same as the disaster-preparedness stuff that has been covered here before, but close enough that some people may be interested. “Got a condom aging in your wallet? In a pinch, it can carry a gallon of water. (Unlubricated tastes best.)”

OVER AT RAND SIMBERG’S they’re discussing innovative policy ideas from the Democrats.

HOWARD KURTZ on Secretary of State Matt Lauer.

UPDATE: If you don’t defer to Lauer’s expertise, you might want to read John Keegan on the subject.

FOUAD AJAMI ON “THE REALISTS” AND REALITY:

It was not naive idealism, it should be recalled, that gave birth to Bush’s diplomacy of freedom. That diplomacy issued out of a reading of the Arab-Muslim political condition and of America’s vulnerability to the disorder of Arab politics. The ruling regimes in the region had displaced their troubles onto America; their stability had come at America’s expense, as the scapegoating and the anti-Americanism had poisoned Arab political life. Iraq and the struggle for a decent polity in it had been America’s way of trying to extirpate these Arab troubles. The American project in Iraq has been unimaginably difficult, its heartbreak a grim daily affair. But the impulse that gave rise to the war was shrewd and justified.

Nowadays, more and more people despair of the Iraq venture. And voices could be heard counseling that the matter of Iraq is, for all practical purposes, sealed and that failure is around the corner. Now and then, the memory of the Vietnam War is summoned. America had lost the battle for Vietnam but had won the war for East Asia. That American defeat had brought ruin to Vietnam and Cambodia, but the systems of political and economic freedom in Asia had held, and the region had cushioned the American defeat, and left a huge protective role for American power. Fair enough: There was Japan in East Asia, providing political anchorage and an example of economic success. There is no Japan in that arc of trouble in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are poor pillars, themselves prey to forces of radicalism–the first weak in the scales of military power, the second a brittle, crowded land with immense troubles of its own. That overall strategic landscape, too, should be considered as we debate and anguish over Iraq.

If, as seems disturbingly likely, Bush takes the Baker approach, I think we’ll pay dearly in the future.

ATLANTA SHOOTING UPDATE:

Officials say the FBI will lead an investigation into the fatal shooting of an elderly Atlanta woman during a drug raid last week.

The announcement was made by Police Chief Richard Pennington at a news conference Monday afternoon, where he was joined by officials from the FBI, the US Attorney’s Office, the GBI and Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard. . . .

Police have said “Sam” had sold drugs from inside Johnston’s home to an informant, prompting the officers to seek a “no-knock” warrant. Such warrants are frequently used by police to get inside a home before suspects have a chance to get rid of drugs.

But a local television station aired an interview on Monday evening with a man who said he was the informant, and he said he never told officers that he bought drugs at Johnston’s house.

Pennington said at a news conference on Sunday that the department will review its policy on “no-knock” warrants and its use of confidential informants.

I think that should be happening nationwide. In fact, I think it’s time for federal legislation.

CATHY YOUNG:

Maybe the next frontier in the academic battle against all varieties of oppression should be “drunk studies.” Why not an academic program championing the idea that “alcohol abuse” is an artificial construct based on the mainstream culture’s oppressive notions of what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate consumption of alcohol? “Drunk studies” could tell us that the stigmatization of drunkenness stems from the Western valorization of such dubious values as self-control, rationality, and obedience to social norms, and reflects a pernicious fear of rebellion against inhibitions and authority. Of course, it would also question conventional wisdom — supposedly based on scientific evidence, but really rooted in anti-drunk bias — about the deleterious health consequences of alcohol abuse and the dangers of drunk driving. After all, the goal of “drunk studies” would be to empower drunks!

And I know just the guy to head up the program: Professor Zane Lamprey of MOJOHD’s Three Sheets. Hell, that show’s an education all in itself.

BRUCE KESLER has more on the big media’s problem with stringers in Iraq reporting, with a list of some of the bogus stories it has produced. “The key question that must be answered is where the funding will come from for a major, credible examination of major media reporting in Iraq? It’s not coming from the major media, or J-schools, or J-journals. Their paychecks depend upon not revealing the Emperor’s illusory threads.”

A LOOK AT THE ROLE OF OUTSIDERS in university tenure decisions. This seems right to me: “Educational institutions may appoint whomever they wish, but they cannot expect immunity from public criticism.”

ANN ALTHOUSE: “Why not engage with me instead of trying to make me into your enemy? I have supported gay marriage in numerous posts on this blog for almost three years, and I am a law professor who teaches a course in Religion and the Constitution. Why don’t you see me as a valuable ally or, at the least, a person to avoid reprinting lies about?”

I could ask the same thing. In fact, I have!

SCALIA THE civil libertarian?

MICKEY KAUS: “With the midterm election safely in the past, the NYT’s Robert Pear reveals that the Bush administration delegated the task of saving the Medicare drug plan to … a competent civil servant.” Analysts say that this business of holding positive stories until after the election is common media behavior . . . .

PROFESSOR BAINBRIDGE looks at the Alcee Hastings vs. Jane Harman battle: “In 1989, the Democrat-controlled House impeached hastings by a vote of 413-3, with none other than Nancy Pelosi voting for impeachment. After a trial before a Senate committee, Hastings was convicted of the requisite ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ and duly removed from office by the Senate. Hastings was only the sixth federal judge to be impeached and removed from office in the entire 200+ year history of the US judiciary. If you’ll pardon the pun, given Harman’s unimpeachable credentials, this seems like a very easy choice.” And note the sensible observation from Kevin Drum.

FREE BOOKS FOR THE TROOPS: John Scalzi has arranged for soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan to get free copies of his book, The Ghost Brigades.

If that’s you, or someone you know, go here to find out how.

MORE REPORTS OF BOGUS IRAQ STORIES FROM A.P.: Kind of makes you wonder about the reporting from Iraq. Okay, it’s more like “confirms your suspicions” than “makes you wonder,” really.

PUTIN: Set up by the Jews?

Claudia Rosett has a different view.

ATLANTA SHOOTING UPDATE: The story just got a lot worse:

The confidential informant on whose word Atlanta police raided the house of an 88-year-old woman is now saying he never purchased drugs from her house and was told by police to lie and say he did.

Chief Richard Pennington, in a press conference Monday evening, said his department learned two days ago that the informant — who has been used reliably in the past by the narcotics unit — denied providing information to officers about a drug deal at 933 Neal Street in northwest Atlanta.

“The informant said he had no knowledge of going into that house and purchasing drugs,” Pennington said. “We don’t know if he’s telling the truth.”

The search warrant used by Atlanta police to raid the house says that a confidential informant had bought crack cocaine at the residence, using $50 in city funds, several hours before the raid.

In the document, officers said that the informant told them the house had surveillance cameras that the suspected drug dealer, called “Sam,” monitored.

Pennington on Monday evening said the informant told the Internal Affairs Unit hat he did not tell officers that the house had surveillance equipment, and that he was asked to lie.

If this is true, the cops involved should face serious jail time. And this is just more evidence that we need legal protections against these sorts of raids.

EUGENE VOLOKH looks at the romance of engineering.

A LIST OF “insanely great gadgets.” Some of them were news to me, and I’m a gadget kind of guy.

YOU DON’T SAY: “Lure of great wealth affects career choices.”

Plus, this shocker: “The bigger the prize, the greater the effort that people are making to get it.” Someone rewrite the economics textbooks, stat! (Via Ann Althouse),

UPDATE: Reader Byron Scott emails: “The linked article ‘Lure of great wealth affects career choices’ is all about middle-class people moving into upper-class incomes. Just a month ago (you know, prior to the Democrats taking power) all I remember hearing about was how the great divide between the poor and the wealthy was widening. It’s amazing how quickly things turn! Those Democrats must be better than even they tried to convince us they are.”

Heh.

THE DOGS OF CONSTANTINOPLE: Joshua Trevino is blogging from Istanbul.

WINDS OF CHANGE HAS ITS REGULAR IRAQ ROUNDUP posted.

Plus, trying to create an American Madrid?

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH: “Not friends of starving Africans.”

I don’t know — they seem pretty friendly to the idea of starving Africans, to me. . . .