IN DEFENSE OF OFFICE ROMANCE: It seems to have worked out at Nerve, according to this article from the New York Times, even in the post-breakup phase.

This isn't a big surprise to me. But then, someone once told me that I didn't have an "old boys' network" so much as an "old girlfriend network," so maybe I'm unusual. But I always figured that if you liked someone well enough to date them -- really date them, I mean, not just a few times -- then you probably ought to like them even when you're not dating anymore.

There seem to be two classes of people on this one: those who think such an attitude is "sick" (as someone once told me), and those to whom it's obvious. That probably signifies something deep, but I'm not sure exactly what it is.

TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE: VIRGINIA POSTREL has a suggestion that she calls "so crazy it just might work:"

How about we tell the Palestinians they can have Saudi Arabia if they'll move and leave the Israelis alone? The Palestinians are hard working and entrepreneurial, unlike the Saudis, so they might actually make something of the opportunity afforded by all that oil. And, while their leaders are thugs, it's unlikely they'd be any worse in the terrorism, oppression, and fundamentalism departments. The Palestinians aren't going to get Jerusalem. Maybe they'd settle for Mecca and Medina.

Given the many reasons for not regarding the Saudis as our friends (many of them outlined above this item on Virginia's page), expect to see more proposals like this. The Saudi royal family has spent a lot of time propitiating the terrorists on the assumption that the United States is far away and doesn't care much. This may turn out to be a colossal error.

And, honestly, just how much would anyone in the region really miss the Saudi royal family?

THIS ARTICLE from tomorrow's Washington Post says that there's a new and more constructive tone in politics, and that it is causing Americans to think more positively of government.

This is true -- but within some very sharp limits. A more accurate statement would be that we've broken a cycle of nastiness and advantage-taking. But although we've hit the reset button, trust in government isn't something that can be taken for granted. That's what got us into trouble the last time.

If you want people to trust the government, the government must be trustworthy. If we go back to the kind of sleazy business-as-usual that marked the pre-9/11 era, trust in government will drop again, and -- because of disappointment -- probably to even lower levels than before.

Don't blow it, guys.

BAIL OUT AMAZON! Forget the airlines. Patrick Ruffini makes a good case for a government bailout of Amazon.com. His interesting point is that Amazon's real value isn't as a bookseller: it's the huge store of information that it makes public (which, he suggests, might more profitably, but less socially usefully, have been kept secret and sold to publishers) -- and now Amazon is making lots of sample chapters available online, too, something that is expensive and that probably won't pay for itself in terms of book sales.

Despite the idiotic one-click patent fiasco, and the elastic (non)privacy policy, this is the reason why I love Amazon. And, I have to say, I haven't loved the airlines since about 1973.

SAUDI ROYAL FAMILY DEEPLY INVOLVED WITH BIN LADEN: That's what Matt Drudge says Seymour Hersh is reporting in next week's New Yorker. This Hashemite-restoration idea is starting to gather some steam.

WHY, EXACTLY, IS THE CAMPAIGN FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT marching against the U.S. raids on the Taliban? If anything, those raids are about enforcing nuclear disarmanent on the Ladenites. This is more proof of the incoherence of the so-called global peace movement -- or, rather, of its inability to cohere around anything other than a simplistic anti-Americanism. Why haven't they marched on the embassies of countries -- like Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Yemen or Libya -- that support terrorism? Or of the North Koreans, who are busy building a nuclear capability?

Don't bother answering -- we all know the reason.

SORRY for the slower posting rate. I've been doing family stuff (we have a lovely pumpkin on our front porch now; I'm going to carve it to look like Osama Bert Laden later). I've also done some minor work on the site, as you may (or may not) have noticed.

BJORN STAERK presents some results of a poll of Palestinians, which he says has made him feel less favorable toward them than he did. His old attitude of neutrality, it seems, isn't holding up well in the face of general anti-Western attitudes.

I see where he's coming from. But (as a recovering political operative) when I read the poll, what I saw were a lot of potential points of attack for political and psychological warfare. 64%, for example, feel that the attacks on American civilians are un-Islamic. Let's hit 'em with that Pro-American Fatwa!

MORE TALIBAN / AL-KAIDA THREATS: They're warning Americans not to fly or go into skyscrapers. Bah. These threats are either designed to misdirect us from some other kind of follow-on attack, or they're meant to scare us because they don't have a follow-on attack. Either way they're worthy of no attention, and some measure of scorn.

UPDATE: Reader Dale Leopold has this response to the Al-Kaida threats: "Stay out of tall buildings and airplanes, huh? Feh! We'd suggest you do the same. Oops--I forgot, you don't have any airplanes or tall buildings left. And you're running out of short ones, too."

IMPISH HUMOR: With the threat of bioterrorism appearing higher, many experts are calling for countermeasures like increased immunization and the stockpiling of antibiotics and vaccines. One such article led WSJ reader Reid Reynolds (no relation) to invoke a comparison with SDI programs by making the following observation:

Of course, the peace lobby will argue that the stockpiling of vaccines or agents of nonspecific immunity is a provocative act that will simply invite our enemies to use their weapons against us before they are rendered impotent.

Another reader on the same page makes a point that InstaPundit has been flogging for days: the anthrax-by-mail attacks have been a bioterrorism dud. Almost their entire effect has been as the result of media hysteria. If these were presented honestly -- as cloddish failures -- it would do a lot to take the "terror" out of "bioterrorism." But the media crowd just can't resist the temptation to hype a fear story, even when they must realize they're playing into the terrorists' hands.

FREE SPEECH ON CAMPUS -- SUDDENLY THE LEFT CARES: As Peter Beinart points out, the left suddenly cares about fighting censorship and supporting free speech on campus -- now that it's leftists who are being targeted. When it was PC-police targeting conservatives or libertarians, free speech was an unimportant value. Now that it's leftist professors being targeted, it matters. This all sounds a tad hypocritical:

A professor who declares that he is voting for Osama bin Laden for president should suffer no retaliation whatsoever from his university. But you don't have much credibility on that point unless you're equally wary of censoring language that offends ethnic and racial minorities. And, for the last 20 years, the left hasn't been wary of that at all -- quite the contrary.

He's right. It's also worth noticing that, in fact, the biggest victim of "censorship" since 9/11 is Ann Coulter, who hardly qualifies as a lefty. I don't think there's anything wrong with what NRO did in dropping her column (and InstaPundit was among the first places to criticize her) but nonetheless, she suffered a lot more for her speech than Bill Maher has suffered for his.

BAY AREA HATEWATCH UPDATE: An interesting account of a group of teen punkers' sort-of apology for defacing the flag at a VFW hall. The VFW guys come off as the more openminded, which may or may not surprise you.

ANTI-AMERICAN PROTESTS IN PAKISTAN are drawing smaller-than-expected crowds, according to this L.A. Times story. The quotes from bystanders suggest they're not exactly lighting a fire under people, either:

Many Peshawar residents stood back on the sidewalks rather than join the protest. One of those onlookers, 43-year-old pharmaceutical salesman Mohammed Mushaq, quietly voiced his disapproval.

"This is a farce," he said. "If they're so upset about all this, why don't they go to Afghanistan and help?"

Some Quetta residents also welcomed the heavy police presence to keep the protests orderly.

"If they want to wage jihad, they should go there to fight and leave us here. Don't disrupt my livelihood," said Ghulam Hussain, a vendor selling pieces of sugar cane from a cart near Quetta's main square.

"I don't support the bombing of Afghanistan, but I also don't support protesters destroying Pakistani property in Pakistan," he said.

UPI COLUMNIST JIM BENNETT writes about my earlier post on the futility of "federalizing" airport security, and the desirability of, instead, "militarizing" it as a separate uniformed branch -- without civil service rules, union grievances, etc. Bennett says:

Right again! One of my pet peeves has been the idea that the Civil Service was something good. It was copied by the Brits from the Chinese Empire: a great formula for a static agricultural pre-industrial despotism. The Western idea has always been something I call the Corps -- small, dedicated to the specific task, high espirit de corps, usually a small academy you go into when you're 18 so the whole officer corps knows each other personally. It works well for the Marines and the Coast Guard. Under military discipline if you are going in harm's way.

An Air Transport Security Corps as a quasi-military service could be under the Coast Guard model. part of a civilian department in peacetime and under the DOD in wartime. It should take over airport security and the air marshall's service. You could actually continue to have routine screening work under private contractors, but regulated, inspected, and disciplined by the ATSC. Maybe one ATSC officer at the screening area overseeing five or ten private employees.

This approach would be highly superior. What it wouldn't do -- and maybe this is the sticking point -- is add new members to the public-employee-union rolls. Has some sort of a deal been cut here?

THE REAL CAUSE OF THIRD WORLD POVERTY ISN'T AMERICA, notes this insightful editorial in the Omaha World-Herald -- it's Third World governments. This is absolutely true, and has been repeatedly demonstrated by economists ranging from David Landes to Hernando de Soto. Here's a good quote:

But anti-American critics are ignoring an important truth: Economic hardship in developing countries stems in large measure from the actions of Third World governments themselves - from their mismanagement and inefficiencies in many cases, from their corruption and greed in others.

In what ways do these governments demonstrate such behavior? By clandestinely siphoning off millions of dollars in foreign aid and dispersing it among cronies. By keeping major segments of the national economy under government control and imposing heavy taxes on the remainder, stifling economic growth. By failing to ensure protection of property rights. By refusing to guarantee an independent judiciary. By demanding bribes. By keeping the government contracting process a secret so that citizens won't discover the bid-rigging. By denying women a full role in the national economy and persecuting members of other religions, steps whose negative effects include choking off opportunities for economic growth.

Specific examples are easily cited. Consider the findings of Shyam Kamath, a professor at California State University at Hayward. He studied India's state-run irrigation system and discovered widespread inefficiencies and corruption.

He wrote: "Public-sector irrigation systems everywhere are typically plagued with cost and time overruns, endemic inefficiency, chronic excess demands and widespread corruption and rent-seeking. In India, government functionaries and system operators - who control the allocation of water supplies - routinely extort high rents from farmers."

Consider how a banker in Bulgaria described circumstances in his country in 1996: "You've got a corrupt system that enabled a group of people to steal other people's savings. ... Banks took people's savings and continued to lend to state-owned enterprises that were making losses and to private enterprises - none of which had any intention of repaying."

Then there is the example of Air Afrique, an airline owned by 11 West Africa governments. In July, a New York Times article quoted an African diplomat who said the airline is so poorly run that it has become easier and often cheaper for African travelers to fly through Paris to another West African country than to use Air Afrique.

The airline, according to the article, is "a political creation, not a business" and "has suffered from many of the political pitfalls that have plagued the region: corruption, nepotism, bloated payrolls and a lack of accountability."

Such mismanagement and corruption are not peripheral economic factors. They lie at the heart of the poverty that weighs so heavily on people in the Third World. Indeed, when anti-American critics shine a spotlight on U.S. actions alone, they give governments in developing countries an excuse to avoid self-responsibility and accountability.

More evidence is that countries that leave behind corrupt, statist regimes inevitably prosper afterwards. Of course, if you happen to be a corrupt, statist regime, it's a lot easier to spout anti-American propaganda.

THE LOVELY AND TALENTED ANDREA SEE points up this column by Harun Rashid from Malaysiakini.com. For Americans who don't know much about the Islamic world, this should serve as a reminder that there are plenty of reasonable people there, who don't agree with the Ladenites. Quote:

The constitution of the US strictly forbids interference in the affairs of government by the various organised religions, and the government is forbidden to restrict the freedom of the people to worship as they please. Islam is one the beneficiaries of this enlightened policy, and America is now among the many Western countries with a significant and increasing Muslim population.

Muslims are permitted to participate equally in the political affairs of these Western countries. Osama bin Laden and his team of terrorists do nothing to promote the interests of Islam there. On the contrary, his activities are counter-productive, bringing shame and fear to Muslim communities everywhere. There are millions of Muslims in the West, and surely Osama cannot be referring to them as “enemies of Islam”. He seems indifferent to this aspect, and over 1,500 Muslim brothers were killed in the collapse of the World Trade Center. . . .

The world today is still a hospitable place for Muslims, in spite of Osama bin Laden and his team of terrorists. Muslims are being educated in Western universities. All the latest techniques and manufacturing secrets are being shared. Muslims are learning valuable laboratory techniques and other technological skills. They hold executive positions with impressive salaries and learn to use modern management tools. Developing Islamic countries are receiving much more than they are able to immediately repay. Osama and his terrorists threaten to destroy the trust Muslims enjoy in cooperation with the West.

The American press should be reporting more on such moderate Islamic views. And where's the coverage of the Pro-U.S. Fatwa? I still haven't seen any mainstream coverage. Are they all too busy overreporting anthrax-in-the-mail hysteria?

ANTHRAX HYSTERIA: The media folks are flogging this anthrax-in-the-mail story to death. But it's actually been a near-total bust from a biowar standpoint: one persion dead, a handful of others who need treatment.

From a terrorism standpoint it has done rather better -- and that's entirely because of the media hysteria. By making a huge deal out of this, they guarantee the spread of fear, and they guarantee that lots of copycats, hoaxes, and hysterical false reports will occur, spreading more fear and absorbing valuable law-enforcement and public health resources on unproductive ends.

So far, when it comes to dealing with terrorism the media organizations are the weakest, most hysterical, and least successful element of American society.

STILL MORE ON WOMEN: Reader Marian Booker writes:

I moved to Saudi Arabia when the oil well fires were still burning after the Gulf War. There it is illegal for women to drive, we must dressmodestly when out in public (I was always covered from neck to wrists to ankles), and the religious police (mutawahs) are always on the lookout for a woman who is bending the rules. The mutawah felt free to strike women on the ankles if they were inappropriately covered.

Periodically a mutawah would get frisky and force the police to arrest an American servicewoman who was driving and packing heat. Those men didn't understand that she had the right to shoot to kill any person who was interfering with her orders. It was always a ticklish diplomatic situation when the mutawah was forced to let the woman go. The Saudi government relocated several mutawahs who were
overzealous in their pursuit of the suppression of servicewomen.

I think the worst part for them was their worry that the local populace would be corrupted by the sight, and expect some rights and respect, too. There were several times a bunch of Saudi women got in cars and drove, but these efforts were always put down.

Eventually fewer servicewomen were seen on the streets. I suppose they were rotated back to the U.S., to help keep things quiet.

You are right. Beating the Taliban with girls would be more than a win. It would be emasculation from which they might never recover.

Sounds good to me.

PRO-US FATWA: Five leading clerics have issued a fatwa supporting the U.S. war on terrorism according to Yahoo! News:

An international Muslim religious ruling endorsed the morality of the U.S.-led military effort against terrorists, a statement important because of the prominence of one of its authors. . . .

The new fatwa cited the words of God in the Quran and authoritative Hadith, traditions of the teachings and practices of the Prophet Muhammad.

``All Muslims ought to be united against all those who terrorize the innocents, and those who permit the killing of non-combatants without a justifiable reason,'' the fatwa said.

The text was dated Sept. 27 and released in Washington by the Fiqh Council of North America, an 11-member panel formed in 1986 under auspices of the Islamic Society of North America to offer legal rulings for Muslims in the United States and Canada.

The ruling was requested by Army Capt. Abdul-Rashid Muhammad, the first Muslim chaplain in the American military. Muhammad asked whether it was proper for the 15,000 American Muslims in uniform to participate in retaliation against those thought to have planned and financed the terror attacks and to eliminate their safe haven in Afghanistan and elsewhere. . . .

The five jurists also said Muslims have a duty to speak up about the faith's anti-terrorism stand.

I don't know how much traction this will have, but it can't hurt -- nor can the fact that it was requested by a Muslim chaplain in the U.S. military. It seems to me that we ought to be making as much of this as we can, but so far it doesn't seem to have gotten much attention. I hadn't noticed it until reader Paul Lockwood brought it to my attention, and (I guess it's obvious) I spend a lot of time surfing news sites.

THE PAYPAL DONATION BUTTON that some people have requested is up. Use it in good health!

REPUBLICS AND EMPIRES: Earlier I mentioned some good discussion on the "national greatness" move for neo-Imperialism; now there's a new page on Jerry Pournelle's site where he discusses the subject at length. Like me, he's not in favor of neo-Imperialism, and doubts that the American public wants it. Unlike me, he has some romantic attachment to the trappings of empire anyway, though he's smart enough to see the danger they bring. Worth reading.

STILL MORE ON WOMEN from reader Rand Simberg:

Full-length garb that the Taliban insists that women wear is a good way to stash lots of weaponry, all the way up to an Uzi with extra belts. And the prudish SOB's are too a'skiirt of women's bodies to search them. T'would be poetic justice...

Indeed -- though around these parts we say "askeered" not "a'skiirt."

MORE ON WOMEN: After I posted the item below, it occurred to me: we should be making a big deal about this women-in-combat stuff. Ultimately, the goal is not simply to beat the Ladenites, but to crush their spirits, and the spirits of those who support them. If we simply squash them like bugs, well, maybe they'll feel like retaliating.

But if we beat 'em with women, they're likely to be not only humiliated, but discredited. We should be playing up the roles of female soldiers, not muting them to avoid pissing Islamists off. The people who would be bothered by that stuff already hate us now.

BELLICOSE SOCCER MOMS, CONT'D: The "America United Double Issue" of The Star contains a special section on women and war -- with special emphasis on the role of women in combat from the Gulf War, to women serving today on aircraft carriers, to a sidebar on 17-year-old British female sailor Jodie Jones of HMS Illustrious ("I'm ready for action!"), and a profile of a woman three-star general that concludes "as the nation launches an all-out counterattack on Osama bin Laden and his evil henchmen, we couldn't be in better hands." (There's also a feature on the "defiantly lipstick-wearing" female anti-Taliban guerrillas in Afghanistan.)

Oooh, you know the Taliban would hate this stuff. And when we beat 'em, we can rub their nose in the fact that they got their butts kicked by girls!

Seriously, I think that the female-bellicosity angle is a big, and so far underreported, issue. The emotional and political tone in this country, and in Europe, is largely set by middle-class married women. And -- for reasons that, when you think about it, are perfectly reasonable -- they seem to be exceptionally pissed at the Taliban.

"I WASN'T HAVING CONVULSIONS -- I WAS DANCING!" That's what Raiders placekicker Sebastian Janikowski says, and (as those who have seen me dance will understand) I sympathize completely. On the other hand, if he dances the way I do it's not really fair to blame onlookers for their conclusions, either.

SO MUCH FOR MY HOPES that the House would cool the Senate's hysteria. It has passed the Senate bill with only minor changes, chiefly a 5-year sunset on some of the wiretap provisions. I can't seem to find whether the miserable computer-crime provisions of the bill (which I suspect were snuck in by the RIAA and/or MPAA and which have nothing to do with terrorism) made it to the final version, but I fear the worst.

Congress has shamed itself with this one, but will likely feel no shame.

HOURLY RATES: Reader Glen Hoffing writes:

Hellooooooo, Professor Reynolds!

$500 for one day is a "buck or two an hour"? Maybe on Neptune. No wonder lawyers routinely overcharge. THEY THINK THERE ARE 250 BILLABLE HOURS IN A DAY! I am thinking of reporting you to overlawyered.com.

Chortle. I was actually spreading the money over the entire life of InstaPundit to date, based on my (correct) guess that today would pale in comparison to yesterday (about fifty bucks so far). But Hoffing's comments (which he follows with some very nice words of praise) are very amusing.

Oh, and by the way, at my old law firm, they required 250 billable hours per day. Or at least, that's what it felt like at times. . . .

WHY THEY HATE US: A little while ago, out at Storehouse looking at furniture, I ran into a former neighbor, a lovely Saudi woman who was very reserved and reclusive when her family lived across the street. She now looks extremely chic, is working outside the home, has gone from reserved to outgoing, and, from all visible signs, has become totally Americanized. She is a soccer mom herself.

She doesn't like Osama, either. Which, when you think about it, is no surprise.

INSTAPUNDIT is the lead item in a USA TODAY story on weblogs. The opening makes me sound a bit more bellicose than I really am, but what the heck: they spelled the name right, at least.

SOCCER MOMS AT WAR: Even in Canada, as this item from Patricia Pearson suggests, the impact of terror isn't really what bin Laden wants.

If you're looking for a constituency that may well be in favor of an absolutely genocidal solution to our problems, the "soccer mom" constituency is the one. If bin Laden is trying to scare them, the result may be the abolition of Islam, worldwide, by the most genocidal campaign in history. And no, I'm not exaggerating for effect.

WISDOM FROM VICTOR DAVIS HANSON in the National Review Online:

Our visionaries must be far clearer and more eloquent about the nature of our struggle. In their understandable efforts to say what we are not doing — fighting Islam or provoking Arab peoples — they have failed utterly to voice what we are doing: preserving Western civilization and its uniquely tolerant and humane traditions of freedom, consensual government, disinterested inquiry, and religious and political tolerance. In this regard, we must especially distinguish, in the manner of Roosevelt and Churchill, the historic ties between Great Britain and America — something either ridiculed or forgotten in the current fashions of multiculturalism.

He's 100 % right. But there should be a role for Bugs Bunny, too.

DON'T FEDERALIZE -- MILITARIZE: The Senate voted 100-0 to federalize airport security. This is one of those things that sounds like a good idea, but isn't. It won't be Delta Force doing these screenings. Most likely, it'll be the same bunch of incompetents who are doing it now -- only they'll have Civil Service status and be almost impossible to fire when they screw up. (The Senate version would make them easier to fire -- but you watch how long that lasts if this becomes law). They'll be forbidden to strike, but not forbidden to unionize, which means that they can torment supervisors with grievances.

The model for this won't be Delta Force. It's the Post Office -- which can't even stop its own employees from running amok with AK-47s. Here's my proposal instead. If you're serious about federalizing this, create a new uniformed service. Run it like the Army: military discipline, physical fitness, and no job security if you screw up. No unions, no grievances, no games of intimidate-the-supervisor-with-bureaucratic-bullshit. That would work. It won't be tried.

UPDATE: Stuart Buck points out how lame(r) Paul Krugman's diatribe against "fanatical" Republicans looks after the unanimous vote.

THE HONOR SYSTEM DONATION TOTAL for the first day is just shy of $500. That works out to about a buck or two an hour, but it's pretty damn cool anyway. InstaPundit is a labor of love; the money is just a nice show of appreciation.

Quite a few have requested a PayPal link, and I'll have one up soon. Quite a few (actually, pretty much the same "quite a few") of you don't do business with Amazon because of their idiotic one-click patent attempt, or their protean "privacy" policy. Both are reasonable things to complain about. I've thought about it for some time myself. I think that Jeff Bezos (who I don't know personally beyond an email or two but with whom I have several mutual friends) is a good guy, and I think that Amazon is a great bookstore. For me, that's tempered my unhappiness with these unlovable policies -- but I can see how people might feel otherwise.

KOFI ANNAN GETS THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE? Okay, after the Kissinger/DucTho debacle, and the Arafat debacle, this is no surprise.

And it's sour grapes on my part, too. One of the few perks of being a law professor is nominating people for the Peace Prize. I've nominated Arthur C. Clarke (inventor of the telecommunications satellite and science fiction writer) for the prize twice on the theory that the communications satellite has done more for peace than most diplomacy. I thought he might have a real chance in 2001, for obvious reasons.

What Kofi Annan has done to deserve the prize is beyond me. But then, how long has it been since the prize went to anyone who had, you know, actually promoted peace?

UPDATE: Nice essay on this from Norwegian Bjorn Staerk.

SOCCER MOMS TO WAR: Reader Robert Brooks suggests that anthrax mailings aimed at the National Enquirer and MSNBC are part of an attempt to terrorize soccer moms. Watch out Ricki Lake!

On the other hand, if this email from reader Moira Breen is any guide, the strategy is backfiring miserably:

Thanks especially for the Shapiro, etc. links, as I've been experiencinga rising irritation with the hysterics who are trying to project their jelly-spines onto the rest of us. . . .

I'm not sure of the best way to go about attacking these attitudes; writing cranky letters to, say, the fluffy-heads at CNN hardly seems useful - though they are among the worst offenders, with their "scares"
and their invariably squeaking, querulous tone concerning the war within and without. This morning they introduced a piece on Bush's speech with a photo and a large caption reading "No End in Sight". I had to
scratch my head and wonder what they were trying to convey by that phrasing. Are they suggesting that Americans are so freaking stupid (or weak) that we cannot comprehend or tolerate "long haul" and "no silver bullet"? Or have they reached the limits of their own attention spans, and decided to start informing us that feelings of futility are now replacing our, ahem, jitters? I dunno. I got really...irritated... and
didn't stay tuned.

Do you hear that, CNN? Soccer moms are tuning out!! If that doesn't shift the tone of their coverage, I don't know what will. (And, he noted smugly, InstaPundit has already predicted that a hysterical tone will shrink audiences).

COWARDICE: One reader writes that he doesn't like my discussions of courage and cowardice, which he views as adolescent name-calling.

I don't think so. What has disturbed me for years is the way -- as Peggy Noonan discusses today -- that our culture has actually elevated cowardice into what amounts to a virtue. We tell people not to get involved, that it's better not to take chances, that if we just give bad guys what they want they'll go away, and that doing so is the "smart thing." I don't think that any culture can survive with such attitudes, and I'm happy to see signs that they're changing. Where's the name-calling in that?

A society in which courage cannot be contrasted with cowardice for fear of being thought adolescent isn't a healthy society.

DIPLOMACY: Okay, you've probably seen this Internet cartoon already. But just in case you haven't . . .

GOOD SENSE ON "FEAR" FROM NEAL BOORTZ:

So, am I afraid about these reports? Well, let me tell you how unafraid I am. Right now my wife is in Florida. Today there will be painters working in my home. This paint crew is from Bangladesh. They’re Muslims --- every one of them. No problem. I know they’ll do a great job and I’m not the least bit afraid of leaving my home in their hands.

Tomorrow I’ll fly to Florida. I don’t particularly like the weather forecast, so I’m booked on AirTran. Worried? Not in the slightest.

No, I’m not afraid. Cautious and maybe a little more aware and observant? Yes, but not afraid. Our fear is a victory for the terrorists. Don’t give that victory to them.

Bravo.

CIVILIAN CASUALTIES: An interesting observation from reader Kevin Shaum:

I notice that the Taliban is now claiming 200 civilian casualties since the bombing started. If nothing else, the Taliban now actually seems to care what happens to their civilians.

In fact, what would you like to bet that in the course of five days of pre-9/11 business-as-usual, the Taliban would have killed at least 200 Afghan civilians, probably a lot more?

Wouldn't it be ironic if an all-out bombing campaign by the United States resulted in a net *improvement* in the safety of the Afghan people?

Hmm. I'd be interested in seeing the "typical" civilian death rate in Afghanistan over the past five or ten years, and comparing it to 200 in 5 days. Shaum's suggestion is highly plausible.

NOW IT'S AN NBC EMPLOYEE WHO HAS ANTHRAX according to this report from MSNBC. It's the not-so-serious "cutaneous" antrax rather than the mostly-lethal "pulmonary anthrax" and it appears to have come from handling "suspicious mail."

This is in keeping with the Ladenite approach. It's low-tech, but cleverly planned to promote panic. Aiming it at the media ensures that it will get a disproportionate amount of attention.

But it should actually reassure people. Anthrax-by-mail is, in biowar terms, a joke. Compared to the mass-death scenarios associated with aerial spraying of sophisticated anthrax mixtures, this is meaningless. And the reliance on stuff like this strongly suggests that it's all they've got.

A REAL ANTITERROR PROPOSAL: Here's a proposed amendment for the "antiterrorism" bill, one that would actually do some good. Let's have a provision that any member of Congress who leaks information about military or law enforcement operations relating to terrorists shall immediately be expelled from Congress and shall be ineligible to hold any government office thereafter.

Does anyone doubt that this would make more of a difference than many of the "antiterror" provisions that the Senate just passed almost unanimously?

Does anyone doubt that there's no chance of them doing this?

Does anyone doubt that this proves they're not serious?

RICH GALEN has an amusing parody of modern media coverage. The press, and members of Congress, seem to be the slowest to grasp the realities of the new situation. Maybe that's because they had the most invested in the way things used to be?

OIL PRICES ARE PLUMMETING, which is not what you'd expect from a mid-east "crisis." What does the market know that the rest of us are missing?

I think the market expects the West to win; if the market foresaw the triumph of Ladenism throughout the region, prices -- particularly futures prices -- would be headed for the roof, wouldn't they? Larry Kudlow credits Russia, and there's something to this, but I don't think it's the whole story.

THE FAILURE OF COURAGE: The Senate passed a hysterical "anti-terror" bill, full of things that have much to do with increasing government power and missing many things that might actually help fight terrorism. Russ Feingold was the only one with the courage to vote against it. Cowards. They're more spooked than the American people. Maybe the cool deliberation of the House will overcome the hysteria of the Senate....

THE RETURN OF COURAGE III: Peggy Noonan writes about the returning appreciation for traditional manly virtues in OpinionJournal. Very insightfully, she blames Woody Allen for making cowardly schnookism seem not just amusing, but somehow cool. But, of course, it worked for Woody because there were a lot of people -- afraid of the responsibilities that being courageous requires -- who were very pleased to announce that courage is uncool. It's not hard to persuade people to give up responsibilities. But being an adult in a free society carries responsibility with it.

THE VOICE OF REASON: No sooner did I post the item below than I visited Virginia Postrel's site and found this gem: "I've taken four flights since September 11, the first on September 22 to Washington. I'm getting on another plane on Tuesday, to go to give a speech in Hershey, Pennsylvania. Nobody on the planes I've been on seemed the least bit frightened, and the last one was so packed that the best my Platinum status could get me was a last-row window seat. I slept through every flight, same as always.The only flying cowards seem to be talk show hosts. Could someone please tell Chris Matthews to stop whining?" Bravo.

IS THE GOVERNMENT SCARING US TO DEATH? Andrew Sullivan thinks so. He says that these repeated, nonspecific warnings are more about government ass-covering than anything else and adds: "I was feeling fine until this evening. And my low-level anxiety tonight is not going to help anyone. In future, the warnings should be specific or none at all."

I guess he's right -- though I had more low-level anxiety going last night over the fact that State Farm appears not to have gotten my car insurance check (they suck anyway; I think I'm going to switch to somebody else once this is straightened out) than over any vague warnings of terrorist attacks. To be fair, the feds are in a bind. I'm sure that their first instinct is to say nothing about these warnings, but they know they'll be raked over the coals about "coverups" if they keep quiet. And, unfortunately, their intelligence data will usually be nonspecific: we may know that people we're watching are acting like something is about to happen, but it's much harder to know what is going to happen.

That said, I think they're better off restricting their public statements to something like: "We know these people don't like us, and will try to hit back. Watch for suspicious packages, unattended trucks, guys who look like terrorists acting suspiciously." Any upping of alert levels should be directed solely at law enforcement.

The more I think about it, the righter I think Nathan Freeman was about Bush's missed opportunity. Bush should say "The American people aren't wimps. They know there's a risk. But as they've proved in several airliner incidents already, they're ready to respond. I pity the fool who gets in their way." Okay, maybe the oblique "Mr. T" reference is over the top. But, really, ordinary Americans don't seem that terrorized. It's the media and government folks who seem scared. The bad guys will do their worst. It may be pretty bad: conceivably, they'll do something worse than September 11. But this is war, and in war you expect the enemy to do bad things to you if he can. Nobody likes that, but it's not necessary to be "terrorized" by it.

Perhaps the government and media folks are so used to seeing the American people as helpless children -- a staple of pre 9/11 thought in those circles -- that they haven't yet figured out how wrong they are. In this, like the Ladenites, they have a lot to learn.

COURAGE IS IN STYLE, BUT WIMPERY HASN'T GIVEN UP: A British teachers' union decided that Land of Hope and Glory was too "jingoistic" for a time of war (er, but not for a time of peace?) and forced a rewrite of the lyrics. Jeez. It would be a teachers' union, wouldn't it?

COURAGE COMES BACK IN STYLE, PART II: From a Salon interview:

What are you going to do, say, "We're Western. We believe in the dignity of each individual life," and as a result we're not going to do what it takes to protect ourselves? It's stark, raving mad. First we have to secure our own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. . . .

We've gotten to the point where we're thought of as objects of contempt by tough, warrior-minded people -- like certain Islamic fundamentalists, for example. We're not willing for even one troop to die before we'll leave Somalia. We aren't willing to die anymore, for anything. And when they sense that, they have nothing but contempt for us and will not believe any threats we make. I take it as the decline of our virtue that we can somehow see 6,000 of our citizens blown up and start to make excuses for the people who blew us up instead of first defending ourselves, and getting them back so they don't do it again. I don't want to have too much understanding for the guy who rapes my daughter.

But there is something to be said for not lashing out unthinkingly in a way that makes the situation even worse.

I think that sometimes we have to not be so rational. Sometimes it's more important for moral purposes to punch back and not worry about whether we're making more of a mess. . . .

I do think that there's a certain kind of cowardice that masquerades as high moral principle. I don't want to say sympathy and fellow feeling is not a good thing. It is -- I'm loaded with it myself. But sometimes, it's the veneer we put on cowardice. We feel that if we understand the pain of the other, then we should sit back and cower and cringe and let them beat us to a pulp. That looks like masochism and cravenness to me.

Did I mention this was in Salon? I told you there was a sea change in attitudes going on.

PROCONSULS? Tom Ricks' excellent article in today's Washington Post about military reform contains this interesting passage:

Nonetheless, the changes being formulated could encounter fierce resistance from the regional "CinCs," who in the post-Cold War era have become powerful proconsuls, jetting from one capital to another as they oversee regional security strategies.

"They're going to hate it," said one person familiar with the contemplated changes, some of which recently were sent to the CinCs in a briefing paper. "They don't want to lose their empires."

Okay, the comparison with the Roman Empire is probably a bit forced, but it's still an unfortunate turn of phrase. Reader Timothy Sheridon, who pointed this passage (which I had overlooked on skimming the piece) has this observation:

Proconsuls is certainly a provocative word. It speaks more to an Empire than a Republic. The libertarian side of the web has long argued (in internet time frames, anyway) that the United States was sliding into empire. Now, it appears, the mainstream press is beginning to adopt the words of empire. This seems to be nothing more than an acknowledgement of the facts. Given the American domination of the Technological, Financial, Entertainment and Military sectors of the planet, the imperial trend is probably inevitable. Our own success dooms us to the course of empire. . . .

It may be that all successful free civilizations turn into empire. They have the organizational skills and the desire to get ahead. Therefore, the real challenge may be, how does one create a libertarian empire? Since our own dominance prohibits a retreat back to the simple yeoman republic of our forebears.

There have been some provocative discussions of this topic over at Jerry Pournelle's website. And it's something to worry about. But the main difference between a Republic and an Empire (there's something about this that seems to call for capital letters) is the spirit of the people. I don't see an Imperial turn of mind in the United States, and though events might conspire to create one, we're a long way from that at the moment.

A MINOR WORRY: The use of NATO forces to defend the United States (though so far only in the form of 5 AWACS aircraft) is beginning to stir some of the wackier people on the right fringe. Most militia groups, if they're doing anything, are gearing up to volunteer in support of homeland security type stuff (though their offered help is unlikely to be accepted). These folks are, for the most part, harmless.

But here's an email from the "Republic of Texas" forces, supplied to me by one of my many spies:

Let me remind everyone of the seriousness of our situation. The US occupational government is getting involved in things that will drag Texas and her people into dangerous conditions. Our worst fears are being realized and most in the American patriot community are reacting by forming pro-homeland units and aligning with current US policy. There is no evidence of any training or heightened activity besides an increase in emails. The time for talk is over gentlemen. It is time to get serious about defending our nation and our people and do something of substance. I hope you all will give careful thought to your obligations and make the right choice. It is time to stand up and be counted in a just cause. May God bless you all.

This is a bit oblique, but it sounds worrisome to me. The RTX's "Commander Kenney" doesn't seem to like the idea of "aligning with current US policy." One thing that I'm concerned about is that the Ladenites might make common cause with some of the wackier and more dangerous right-wing and environmental groups (some of both have already expressed their happiness at the WTC/Pentagon attacks). These domestic American groups aren't a big threat on their own, but could be very valuable homegrown assets if funded and linked to a richer and more capable foreign organization. With everyone on the alert for "Middle Eastern" types, they could pass scrutiny easily. I hope that somebody is keeping close tabs on them with this in mind.

THE TALIBAN ACCUSE US OF "TARGETING" CIVILIANS, claiming 140 civilian deaths. I don't know if I believe it (they're not very reliable) but if we were targeting civilians, you could add three or four zeros to that, don't you think?

THE RESPONSE TO THE AMAZON HONORS DONATION button has been terrific. I'm moving up from Natural Light to Michelob Lite! In response to many requests, I'll also add a PayPal link in the near future. Thanks for all your support; I appreciate it.

READER NATHAN FREEMAN WRITES (I really need to set up a "Letters" page, don't I?) that Bush dropped the ball in his news conference. When asked about fear among Americans, says Freeman, he should have answered "Flight 93." Freeman goes on to note something that I've observed -- Americans aren't all that afraid! People are living their lives and going about their business. It seems to be the government and the commentariat (present company excepted) who are banging the drum of American fear the loudest.

MILITARY COMMISSIONS: Reader Chuck Blanchard writes:

When I was General Counsel of the Army, we had to deal with the power of military commissions to try crimes of war in resolving a challenge to the conviction, by such a military conviction, of alleged Lincoln assassination conspirator Dr. Samuel Mudd. In that case, the issue for the Secretary was whether a military commission could have jurisdiction over a citizen of a non-belligerent state. We concluded that the military commission did have such jurisdiction. The U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia affirmed our decision after engaging in de novo review. the decision can be found at http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/97-2946a.pdf. For purposes of determining whether a military commission would have jurisdiction to try terrorists, I agree with you that the Yamashita case is questionable precedent. Far more relevant is Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), in which the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a military commission to try the case of several Nazi saboteurs who landed on the east coast by submarine. One of the Nazis was a US Citizen who had moved to Germany to join the German Army. I think Ex parte Quirin offers strong support for the use of a military court to try terrorists--even ones caught in the United States.

Well, terrorists who are not citizens or legal residents, maybe. (If I'm not mistaken, under the law at the time, a U.S. citizen who joined the German army would have automatically lost his citizenship, even in the absence of war.)

TONY BLAIR'S WEBSITE is now presenting his antiterrorism statement in 13, count 'em, 13 languages. We need to do more of that sort of thing in the United States. Thanks to William Dupuy of lefile.com for this point.

THE SAUDIS HAVE A BIG PR PROBLEM. Part of it is due to the, ahem, ill-considered remarks of Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Alsaud in New York, in which he blamed the United States' (unspecified) role in the Palestinian problem for terrorism. Actually, Osama bin Laden is much more unhappy with our role in saving the Prince's sorry butt from the Iraqis, and in continuing to prop up his shaky monarchy with our troops to this very day. The talking heads tonight -- even NPR's Mara Liasson on Brit Hume's show -- were savaging the Saudis, not so much for that remark as for their uncooperativeness in things like freezing bin Laden's assets (discussed below on InstaPundit), and their complete ingratitude for said butt-saving.

The odds of a new Hashemite kingdom in Arabia are still slim, but they just increased tenfold.

IDIOCY WATCH: FIRST IT WAS BILL CLINTON, THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT; now its America, the first "niggerized" superpower, according to Cornel West. West also criticized the response to terrorism:

"Sounds an awful lot like reparations to me," West said to shouts of "Amen!" from the crowd. "I didn't think America was into reparations."

West was always a showboating intellectual lightweight. Now he's made that clear to anyone who had any doubts.

KEN LAYNE makes an important point:

Something weird is happening in this country, and it's not just Anthrax and suicide hijackers. The rational people on the Right and Left are finding -- surprise! -- that we have very much in common. We like it here, and we like the world. We like writing, we like stirring up some trouble, we like being alive and free to do what we want, even if that freedom can leave us unemployed now and then. We like to make stupid jokes, we like to insult public figures, and we like to bitch about our government and the cops and the IRS. But if some medieval nut sandwich wants to Tread On Me, I will gladly stand up with Joe Farah and Andrew Sullivan and Al Giordano and Tony Pierce and G.W. Bush and Amy Langfield and Matt Drudge and Matt Welch and Maureen Dowd and Chris Rock and Tom Petty and Kobe Bryant and Heather Havrilesky and Jeff Whalen and we will smite any motherfuckers who want to blow up the world.

I found the reference to this on another cool site, Matt Welch's Warblog. Layne calls me a warblogger (actually, he calls me a "warblogging machine" or something like that). I didn't mean for InstaPundit to be a warblog. It's just the main thing to write about right now. I'm trying to touch on other things, and I look forward to the day when things here look more like they looked just over a month ago. But it's hard to get as excited about the "lockbox" debate right now -- or it would be, if we were having one. I do have plans to do something more on stem cells and cloning when things settle down.

BERKELEY HATEWATCH UPDATE: The Berkeley resolution attacking the Daily Californian passed. Here's a report from a Berkeley observer:

The Senate debates ended too late last night for anyone to have the news, but ASUC Senate Bill 67, the censorship one, passed last night. The final version was a condemnation and call for diversity training, with no practical effects. I don't know the exact language.

No major news media attended, and the whole exercise had a rote quality to it. The supporters flooded the room with tearful Muslim students bearing stories of how friends of their friends were assaulted by racists. The few opponents began their speeches by saying 'The cartoon was inappropriate and offensive, but...' Senators got more incensed over a later spending bill that many felt went overboard.

And the next morning, with the usual post-Senate flurry of e-mails, no one mentioned the bill. This was simply another exercise for them in boring victim-claimancy, nothing new in Berkeley.

And this, of course, is why Berkeley isn't taken seriously. People in Berkeley still think this kind of thing is cute -- the way people in Mississippi in 1955 still thought racist jokes were cute.

OIL! OIL! Robert Samuelson has a pretty good piece on oil. Would reducing our dependence on oil solve our problems? No. But it would give us more flexibility in dealing with them. Most of his suggestions are sensible enough -- he's certainly thinking more clearly than Tom Daschle.

LAW PROFESSOR DOUG KMIEC argues that terrorists can be seized and tried in military courts, rather than under civilian principles of due process. He's probably right about this, though he doesn't help his case by his too-facile invocation of the prosecution of Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita -- who is regarded by many as a possibly-innocent scapegoat whose prosecution was primarily intended to prevent more serious actions against higher-ups in the Japanese government. His invocation of the Supreme Court's opinion is a bit facile, too. Here's an important quote from Justice Murphy's dissent: The case is at 327 U.S. 1 (1946) if you want to look it up.

But there is not a suggestion in the findings that petitioner personally participated in, was present at the occurrence of, or ordered any of these incidents, with the exception of the wholly inferential suggestion noted below. Nor is there any express finding that he knew of any one of the incidents in particular or of all taken together. The only inferential findings that he had knowledge, or that the commission so found, are in the statement that 'the crimes alleged to have been permitted by the accused in violation of the laws of war may be grouped into three categories' set out below, in the further statement that 'the prosecution presented evidence to show that the crimes were so extensive and so widespread, both as to time and area, that they must either have been wilfully permitted by the accused, or secretly ordered by' him; and in the conclusion of guilt and the sentence. Indeed the commission's ultimate findings [FN16] draw no express conclusion of knowledge, but state only two things: (1) the fact of widespread atrocities and crimes; (2) that petitioner 'failed to provide effective control * * * as required by the circumstances.' . . .

The failure of the military commission to obey the dictates of the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment is apparent in this case. The petitioner was the commander of an army totally destroyed by the superior power of this nation. While under heavy and destructive attack by our forces, his troops committed many brutal atrocities and other high crimes. Hostilities ceased and he voluntarily surrendered. At that point he was entitled, as an individual protected by the due process clause of the Fifth amendment, to be treated fairly and justly according to the accepted rules of law and procedure. He was also entitled to a fair trial as to any alleged crimes and to be free from charges of legally unrecognized crimes that would serve only to permit his accusers to satisfy their desires for revenge.

While it's true that the Supreme Court let the execution go forward, still it's (1) not clear that the Court would do something like this today; and (2) very clear that the court regarded the prosecution of Yamashita as very dubious -- just outside the power of the Court to prevent. Not exactly the kind of endorsement that Kmiec makes it sound like.

Yamashita's case was different from that of the terrorists -- who, by waging war out of uniform can probably be shot out of hand under the Geneva Convention anyway -- but Kmiec shouldn't have relied on this decision. It's the proverbial thirteenth chime of the clock: not only wrong in itself, but calling into question everything that has come before.

"WHEN BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD BAND NAMES:" The metal band Anthrax reports that:

In light of current events, we are changing the name of the band to something more friendly, "Basket Full Of Puppies". Actually, just the fact that we are making jokes about our name sucks.

In the twenty years we've been known as "Anthrax", we never thought the day would come that our name would actually mean what it really means. . . .

Before the tragedy of September 11th the only thing scary about Anthrax was our bad hair in the 80's and the "Fistful Of Metal" album cover. Most people associated the name Anthrax with the band, not the germ. Now in the wake of those events, our name symbolizes fear, paranoia and death. Suddenly our name is not so cool. To be associated with these things we are against is a strange and stressful situation. To us, and to millions of people, it is just a name. We don't want to change the name of the band, not because it would be a pain in the ass, but because we hope that no further negative events will happen and it won't be necessary. We hope and pray that this problem goes away quietly and we all grow old and fat together.

This is actually kind of, er, sweet. Note that they've renamed their tour with Judas Priest "Operation Enduring Metal." That's actually cooler than "Infinite Justice," isn't it?

MORE OF WHAT BUGS WOULD DO: Reader Alexander Del Castillo sends this link to a story about a firm that's marketing Osama bin Laden toilet paper.

JOURNALISM HATEWATCH: There's a lot of unseemly exulting over Rush Limbaugh's hearing loss from lefty journalists in the letters section of Jim Romenesko's MediaNews. Some time ago I wrote about "selective compassion." Now you can see it at work.

BERKELEY HATEWATCH UPDATE: Debra Saunders brings us the latest on student politicos' efforts to punish the Daily Californian for a cartoon that (in their own, apparently incurably racist, eyes and no one else's) was held to be anti-Muslim. The hero is Daily Californian editor Janny Hu, who is refusing to cave.

MEA CULPA: In my FoxNews.Com piece on Michael Bellesiles' Arming America yesterday, I didn't give proper credit to the National Review's Melissa Seckora, who had a big story on Bellesiles' dubious behavior break on September 11, which caused it to get less attention than it deserved, including from me. (It's also in the print edition of National Review dated October 15). Her piece is extremely thorough and substantive, and I should have mentioned it. If you're at all interested in this topic, you should read it. Quote:

Other scholars who have looked into the matter concur that Bellesiles's allegations are false. Lindgren "utterly devastates Bellesiles's research," says Albert Alschuler, a law professor at the University of Chicago and author of a recent biography of Oliver Wendell Holmes. Randolph Roth of Ohio State University, the leading expert on early-America homicide rates, has looked at Lindgren and Heather's counts of guns in the Providence inventories and found them correct. A third scholar, UCLA's Eric Monkkonen, one of the country's foremost quantitative historians, says, "Lindgren's data show that Bellesiles was not correct."
. . .
Those who have examined Arming America have documented hundreds of possibly intentional misconstructions of sources or outright falsehoods. The probate records aside, Bellesiles has egregious problems in the areas of homicide data, gun censuses, reports on militia arms, hunting accounts, travel accounts, the opinions of the anti-Federalists, and laws governing guns. So far it appears that Bellesiles has not been able to validate any of the challenged portions of his book. Indeed, in a new paperback edition of Arming America being released this fall, he has quietly capitulated on some of the critics' claims, retracting or altering the challenged statements about probate data from Providence.

This is very damning stuff, and these passages only scratch the surface. If you're concerned that academic research in America has become unduly politicized, and that the vaunted "gatekeeping" functions of peer review and professional editing aren't living up to their reputations, then you should read this piece to see your worst fears realized.

UPDATE: this post from a history email list details some other problems with Bellesiles' research, and casts enormous doubt on his claim that some inconsistencies result from his website being "hacked." This one from the same list provides a great deal of additional background, and something of a chronology.

DONATIONS keep coming in to the Amazon Honor System. Thanks. Over the past weeks, several of you have emailed me with Samuel Johnson's famous statement that only a fool writes for anything but money. Hey, maybe I'm not as dumb as I look!

NO YELLOW RIBBONS: Collin Levey writes in OpinionJournal that:

For all the real heartbreak and terror that followed in the wake of Sept. 11, the one thing unexpectedly absent has been the typical U.S. diet of soppy televisual sentimentality. In the early days after the attack, Lisa Beamer, whose husband is credited with helping bring down flight 93 in Pennsylvania, seemed almost to disappoint Larry King with her composure. Now even purveyors of bathos like Rosie O'Donnell are handling things with a greater dignity.

I've noticed this too, and it's a good thing. Frankly, wallowing in bathos is nothing to be proud of in peacetime; it's positively destructive now. Which must be obvious even to Rosie. And bravo to Lisa Beamer for instinctively realizing that despite television's appetite for tears, sometimes a stiff upper lip is the right thing.

IT HAS BEEN A MONTH and a lot has changed. Just look at InstaPundit from the week before the attacks to see how much. There are still a few folks -- like Tom Daschle (where ANWR is concerned) and the reflexive fear-mongers in the media that Walter Shapiro warned about yesterday, who haven't quite caught on to the fact that we're at war.

But we are at war. Risks that seemed frightening a month ago -- like shark attacks at the beach -- are now in perspective. Things that would have dominated the headlines, like plane crashes, barely get a mention.

More people will be killed. Our soldiers. Their soldiers. Our civilians. Their civilians. This is bad (well, except for the "their soldiers" part, which I suppose is sad in the abstract but I must confess doesn't move me particularly at the moment) but it's war. When the inevitable happens -- U.S. helicopters shot down, another act of terrorism in America, or a stray missile hitting a "Baby Milk Factory" or even a real civilian facility -- I hope that the press won't try to treat it the way they do in peacetime. It's war, and these things happen. The most dangerous thing is to chicken out. Safety is to be found only in the complete defeat of those who want to destroy us. It's fine to be magnanimous to a defeated enemy. But only after he's defeated.

SAUDI "STONEWALLING:" That's the term used for Saudi non-cooperation -- they still haven't frozen Osama bin Laden's assets! -- and it's deeply troubling. The Saudis are used to playing this double game, but these aren't normal times, and they are placing their position at risk with this stuff. The only explanation I can imagine is that some senior Saudis actively support bin Laden -- which we've already seen demonstrated -- and that they're still trying to protect him. Uh, guys, if you're on the other side, we could just always change the name to Yankee Arabia, you know. Then Tom Daschle could have his way on ANWR.

Of course, that would be an extreme step. But an oil-rich Saudi Arabia that supports people who are at war with the United States is completely intolerable. It can't be allowed to stand, and it won't be, for long. Would replacing the Saudi royal family with, say, Hashemites (who ruled before the Saudi takeover, and are the traditional overseers of Mecca and Medina) cause more problems? Maybe -- but that won't help the Saudis, who need to remember that what's a potential problem for us is the end of the road for them. Hey, maybe that's why King Abdullah, the last Hashemite ruler, is being so cooperative with the United States....

And what is Daschle thinking, anyway? I must say, I've been an agnostic on the ANWR thing, but I'm now convinced that Daschle is wrong and I'm utterly mystified by his timing in making an issue of this now -- he'll get rolled, or if he doesn't he'll get hammered if there's any sort of oil shortage in the next couple of years, and there will be. It's very much in our interest to have as much non-mideast oil available as possible. There was majority support for ANWR drilling before these attacks, and I don't know what Daschle is thinking by trying to block it now. Is he trying to get votes from the Earth Liberation Front?

WWBBD: What Would Bugs Bunny Do? Well, he probably wouldn't write this dirty limerick about Osama, but, then, his shows were always "G" rated. (Which doesn't explain the cross-dressing, but never mind....)

WHY ARE THE AIRLINES ALWAYS IN TROUBLE? Virginia Postrel answers that question in The New York Times today. Her mezine addresses a lot of other airline problems, too, and asks the big question: why are they going out of their way to chase off customers now?

COURAGE IS BACK IN STYLE, according to this report in The New York Times. The quotes from passengers are absolutely wonderful: "You can't just sit there anymore," ; "It's a sorry man that would sit still during a hijacking now,"; '"In the past, we allowed ourselves to be passive victims because we figured it was safer," said Nina Baker, flying from Seattle to Salt Lake. "Now we know it's not safer. I think anyone who's out to hijack a plane now should expect to be killed."'

These are just a few. This is a major change from what Jeffrey Snyder, in a famous 1993 essay in The Public Interest, called "A Nation of Cowards." The culture of passivity is dead, at least for the moment. I suspect that this will bear fruit well beyond the realm of air travel. The only big loser is Snyder, whose book based on that essay has just been published. But I don't think he'll complain too much.

DANG. IT'S NOT SCOTCH: Reader John Mansfield sends this link to a clearer picture that seems to indicate that the "Scotch" bottle is really just a blurry picture of the ceremonial dagger that Osama wears. Dang.

YESTERDAY'S TRAFFIC broke 15,000! I can't believe this. And thanks to the many people who've already paid in via the Amazon Honor System. I'm delighted that so many people find my ideas worth reading, and even worth paying for.

GET RICH QUICK: An idea from Jerry Pournelle's website: "I have been cruising the country back roads looking at dairy cows with cow pox. When I do find one, some farmer and I are going to make almost as much off of cattle as Hillary did."

BERT & BIN LADEN: Yet another incriminating photo. Poor Osama: from face of terror to figure of fun in about 12 hours, courtesy of the Internet.

I think that Bugs Bunny would do something like this. Don't you?

"America Season"
"Osama Season"
"America Season"
"America Season"
"Osama Season -- FIRE!"

READER STEVEN GREEN WRITES:

A friend turned me onto your site in the hours following the 9/11 attack, and I've been a daily, hourly regular visitor since. Let me tell you: I'm a huge fan of Virginia Postrel (hooked on her from her long tenure at Reason) and Andrew Sullivan (just because Brits write so damnably well. Or is that racist?) In any case, when it comes to what I want to read for "dessert" during my morning newsfest, forget VP and AS -- now it's always InstaPundit.

Your work is terrific, and four weeks is a reasonable pause before asking for help. It's time you signed up on Amazon's Honor System so that we all might thank you in the one way a writer truly appreciates -- with cold, hard cash.

Your wish is my command. But don't forget VP and AS -- I read 'em all the time, and love 'em. I've even donated money to their Honor System accounts.

OKAY, IT'S GOTTA BE A MOLE: Here's a blowup of the bin Laden poster. Above Bert's head is bin Laden with a bottle of Scotch. The CIA is behind this. Absolutely. And somebody deserves a raise. Thanks to Ken Layne for this shrewd observation.

HELL, if this kind of stuff keeps up, I'll almost feel good about paying my taxes for this year. Almost.

"GILLIGAN VS. THE TALIBAN:" A cool piece by Cathy Seipp in Reason. Really, with a title like that you can't go wrong. But it's right on target.

STUART BUCK also refers readers to this excellent piece by University of Texas law professor Ernest Young, rebutting the claims of some "opportunists" who feel that the current war is reason enough to abandon federalism entirely.

[W]e cannot separate the need to preserve individual liberties in wartime from the need to maintain constitutional limits on federal power. Our nation was born out of crisis and war. Our Framers chose to create a national government of limited authority, to operate in conjunction with a complex web of state and local bodies, despite the fact that they lived in a dangerous world surrounded by hostile powers. Now is not the time to forget who we are — either as a matter of individual rights or of constitutional structure.

Well said.

STUART BUCK has a wonderful riposte to Paul Krugman's thuggish diatribe on airport security and right wing "fanaticism:"

But why shouldn't conservatives distrust government? The government's idea of security so far has been to make ticket agents ask silly questions that no terrorist would ever answer truthfully, or to ban curbside check-in temporarily (as if the terrorists got on board by that means). To identify a market failure, in other words, is not to demonstrate that the government's attempts to solve it will make things any better.

Krugman's descent into self-caricature has been painful for me to watch, as I once admired his work, back when he did real economics. And, Paul, we know who the real "fanatics" are these days, so let's not throw that loaded term around quite so loosely, okay?

INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT: The Dutch newspaper where the Osama & Bert photo first appeared has now cropped the photo to cut out Bert. (You can see the original version with Scott Norvell's article here.) Now, why did they do that?

WOW. We've just passed 13,500 hits. Where is everybody coming from? Whatever; I'm glad you're here.

WISE WORDS FROM WALTER SHAPIRO: "Panic in the face of potential terrorism isn't a call for action; it is a destructive response that can jeopardize the bonds that hold us together as a free society. At a moment when Americans are more jittery than we have been in decades, the last thing that's needed is for well-intentioned experts to heedlessly sound alarm bells."

I hope Shapiro's fellow newsies take this advice. I've noticed that an awful lot of media coverage -- and not just on 24-hour cable channels, but also in The New York Times -- has been big on telling Americans how "scared," "terrified," or "jittery" they are. Actually, most people don't seem especially scared to me: they know that bad things can happen, but that they'll probably not happen to them or to their families, and that there's not a lot that can be done. This is a war after all.

But in a war, you don't spend a lot of time telling your own people to be scared. The hyping of fear is a hallowed peacetime media trope: aflatoxins in peanut butter: oh noooo! alar on apples: certain death! defective toys in happy meals: murder on a bun! It's stupid and destructive even when it's silly season. But it's not silly season, and media people need to restrain the hype reflexes that they've been honing over years of peace and comparatively little danger.

This is a war. People will be killed. They will be our civilians, and our soldiers. They will be other people's civilians, and soldiers. In some sense, all (well, most) of these deaths are tragedies. But they're also part of war, and they don't need to be hyped. In fact, the hyping is destructive, and disrespectful of both the dead and the living. I also think that, unlike peacetime, it will also chase audiences away, rather than sucking them in. The thrill of fake fear is one thing. The real thing is something different.

"I HAVE ALWAYS DEPENDED ON THE KINDNESS OF AMERICANS:" Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban, did something unusual, as reader Steven Den Beste points out. The Taliban's own radio stations have all been knocked out by American air strikes, but Omar wanted to deliver a speech to the people of Afghanistan and surrounding countries. So what's a Mullah to do? Why it's obvious: He taped his speech, and delivered the tape to the Voice of America and the BBC. Think about this for a minute. As Den Beste points out, "What's remarkable about this is that he asked. He actually asked his mortal enemies to help him communicate with his own people. Deep down, where even he doesn't let himself realize it, he knows that we're decent and fair."

And, of course, we did broadcast it, even though it was calling on Afghans to fight us to the last drop of blood, yada yada yada. But, you know, the knowledge that people presume upon us like this, under circumstances where they would certainly not return the favor if positions were reversed, is one reason Americans sometimes show a degree of exasperation that others sometimes read, not quite correctly, as arrogance.

I'VE GIVEN MONEY TO "Medecins Sans Frontieres" in the past, but after this stupid statement I won't be giving any more. Perhaps they should change their name, as reader Jay Cornell suggests, to "Humanitarians Against Humanitarian Aid."

What's really going on is simple: they know that there won't be serious US reprisals for these dumb statements, but that such statements will curry favor in Afghanistan and other nasty places where they do business. Well, as I said, they won't be getting any money from me, and I think their reputation will be tarnished in general.


SORRY FOR THE DELAYS: Blogger is still acting up. Sorry -- though we're already at nearly 11,000 today (yes, you read that right) so it's obviously not causing major problems.

A MILITARY READER WHO REQUESTS ANONYMITY MAKES THIS POINT ABOUT DEPLOYMENT CYCLES:

The six-month unit rotation has certainly been an improvement over individual rotations. But in Bosnia and Kosovo (the two deployments I've spent most of my time looking at), these six-month stays have created their own problems.

Four months turns out to be about exactly what units need to become acclimated to their surroundings, their missions, and their allied military and civilian partners (and keep in mind the allied military forces are there for a year or more, and the civilians for the duration, more or less). In fact, I've talked to more than a few soldiers from Balkans deployments who felt the six-month deployment cycle was a huge impediment to the mission there, since their units never really had a chance to get fully ramped up. The fact that these cycles are staggered (so that Unit A spends its last month helping to get Unit B acclimated in its first month) helps somewhat, but not as much as you would think.

Consider then, that our troops in Central Asia will likely need to forge solid relationships with military reps from the Northern Alliance and with allied and friendly militaries. The language barriers will certainly make personal relationships here incredibly important. The unfamiliar terrain (both geographic and pol-mil) will ttake a long time to get accustomed to. In the likely event of a Taleban collapse, US forces will almost certainly take part in humanitarian missions that will require close cooperation with NGO workers disinclined to work with military types.

A normal combat deployment is a full year long. The six-month cycle for Bosnia and Kosovo was, like so many of the caveats and blandishments that have surrounded the Balkans deployments, a rather sneaky admission by political leaders that such deployments were somehow unworthy of great sacrifice and toil (you can argue for or against these deployments, but it seems to me -- to break out the old cliche -- that something worth doing is worth doing right).

And now the six-month cycle will be the default in Central Asia. Yikes. Such a policy badly underestimates the ability of US military personnel and their families to bear the hardship of extended deployment, especially when the stakes are so much higher than in the Balkans. In Bosnia the cost of shortened deployments has been confusion, inertia and the failure to return tens of thousands of refugees. In Afghanistan, the cost -- in lost intelligence, capability and relationships -- could be far greater, and the consequences far more dire.

I hope that this issue is getting serious attention. One hopes, of course, that things in Afghanistan will be settled in less than six months. But only a fool plans for that -- and, in fact, planning for a short stay is one of the surest ways to have a long stay.

FOXNEWS' Scott Norvell has the story on Bert and Osama. InstaPundit reader Shane Bodrero notes that if you perform this Google image search you get a Bert 'n' Osama image on the first page. But it's not the same one that's appearing on the posters -- it's reversed right to left and the relative sizes of Bert and Osama don't match, among other things.

I think this is CIA psychological warfare. We want Osama to know that we have moles everywhere, and that we're corrupting his message before it gets out. The war of nerves will escalate Coming soon, we'll be substituting this image for those sent by Osama to Al-Jazeera TV. BUWAHAHAHA!

Say, isn't this the kind of thing Bugs Bunny would do?

SOME INTERESTING PARALLELS between the Barbary Pirates and the Ladenites are provided in a post to a history professors' discussion list. I'm not sure, though, that the ideological component was the same, though it may well have been.

ANTITERROR LEGISLATION: Slashdot features links to this table comparing various antiterrorism provisions, and to this definitive treatment in The Onion.

The biggest threat to military secrecy seems to come from leaking members of Congress and their staff. How about some laws providing strict penalties for them?

MUSLIM SCHOLARS IN YEMEN BACK THE TALIBAN in a statement by 172 of them. Yemen, which has been in low-grade civil war ever since it was united, is likely to be a trouble spot.

FROM THE HOIST-BY-YOUR-OWN-PETARD DEPT.: Reader Timothy Sheridon points out that Sunera Thobani, America-hating Canadian feminist, has now been charged with a hate crime, namely inciting hatred against Americans.

Against Americans? Everyone knows that hate crime laws aren't supposed to prohibit that! This is certainly Thobani's view:

"This is just pure harassment," she said. "They are trying to silence dissent in this country."

Thobani said her speech was intended to explain how U.S. foreign policy has affected life in many countries of the world.

"If you point to the factual record of U.S. foreign policy, you are now accused of spreading hate," she said. "It really is unbelievable."

Ah, well, neither truth nor good intentions have ever been a defense where charges of "hate" are involved. How could Thobani have overlooked that?

Naturally, I'm against "hate speech" laws, since their primary purpose is, in fact, to silence people. But although I'm against the laws, I'm all for them being enforced with absolute evenhandedness where they exist -- because that's that best way to get an unfair law overturned. It is, of course, the case that evenhanded enforcement will be of great disadvantage to the Left, since it is the Left that is generally making nasty racial and national-origin remarks these days. But that's not my fault.

READER CHARLES BLANCHARD WRITES:

You are correct that rotation of troops in Vietnam was a huge problem--largely because it interfered with unit cohesiveness essential to warfare. The Army's current rotation system, however, doesn't rotate individual soldiers--the Army rotates entire units. this allows an entire unit to be trained for the mission before deployment, and maintains unit solidarity. This has been done with great success in the Sinai MFO mission (where most Americans don't know we still have 2 battalions), Bosnia, Kosovo, and Kuwait. Given the logistic issues involved in rotation, I predict that the Army will use the 6 month rotation now used in Bosnia and Kosovo.

I find this encouraging.

BAY AREA SENSE WATCH: Hey, intelligence seems to be breaking out. Just read this item from Rob Morse:

In the Bay Area, folks are always saying history teaches us that answering violence with more violence only leads to more death and destruction. Well, duh.

The question is, whose death and destruction does it lead to? Hitler's violence had to be met with violence. Love bombing wouldn't have worked against Tiger tanks.

Killing bin Laden and his gang seems like a pretty good idea. However, bombers are clumsy, overpriced tools for stopping terrorists armed with box cutters. Bombers tend to kill innocents and harden an enemy's resolve.

Declaring peace won't stop terrorists either. History teaches us (pardon me) that you can't abolish violence. You can decry American imperialism, but wake up and breathe the anthrax -- you're still a target. You're an American and these guys hate you. You may be tolerant, but they aren't.

Well said.

"UP WITH WOMEN! DOWN WITH THE TALIBAN!" This was one sign at a counter-protest at Dartmouth that dwarfed the "peace" protest that set it off. Very interesting.

SPOTTING THE LOSERS: Reader Brian Alletto calls my attention to this 1998 article by LTC Ralph Peters from Parameters, the journal of the Army War College. It's called Spotting the Losers: Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States. I read Parameters occasionally (I'm a big fan of Charles Dunlap's articles on civilian/military relations) but I had missed this -- because I'm sure I'd remember it if I had read it. Now I have read it, and you should too. But since you may not have time, here are the seven signs:

Restrictions on the free flow of information.
The subjugation of women.
Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure.
The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization.
Domination by a restrictive religion.
A low valuation of education.
Low prestige assigned to work.

This explains a lot about why the Islamic countries (except, to some degree, Indonesia and Turkey) have lagged behind other countries, like, say, South Korea, over the past half century. Osama bin Laden, of course, would only make these things worse. Note this prophetic passage (italics mine):

As a final note, the biggest pitfall in international interactions is usually mutual misunderstanding. We do not understand them, but they do not understand us either--although, thanks to the Americanization of world media, they imagine they do. From mega-deals that collapsed because of Russian rapacity to Saddam's conviction that the United States would not fight, foreign counterparts, rivals, and opponents have whoppingly skewed perceptions of American behaviors. In the end, military operations and business partnerships are like dating--the advantage goes to the player who sees with the most clarity.

ROBERT SCHEER is put in his place by Spinsanity. I like the Spinsanity guys even though we sometimes disagree -- but they care about the truth, which sets them apart from, well, people like Scheer.

THE BIN LADEN / BUGS BUNNY CONNECTION: No, this isn't like the Bert thing. Back on September 22, I noted an excellent piece by Jesse Walker of Reason on options we could take in the war. I favored what Walker calls the "Bugs Bunny Option." I noted that "Bugs is extremely clever, and has a good sense of humor, as well as the ability to use his opponents' anger, self-absorption, and single-mindedness against them. As a result, Bugs, in many ways the quintessential American figure, might actually be a pretty good role model. "

The more I think about this, the more sense it makes. I was reminded of it by Andrew Sullivan's comments about humor today:

Can you imagine Bugs versus the Taliban? No contest. . . . As to finding humor in the conflict itself, I don't think we've made enough fun of bin Laden himself yet. Like Hitler, bin Laden is not just evil, he's ridiculous - and seeing his absurdity is a critical part of overcoming fear. Maybe it's because I'd just seen (for the umpteenth time) "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" but that video of the turbaned maniac surrounded by characters out of central casting struck me as faintly hilarious. Where are the knights that say "Ni!" when you need them? I see no reason why we shouldn't laugh at bin Laden's preposterous medievalism, with that microphone perched in front of him, like a cross between Phil Donahue and the Ayatollah Khomeini. Laughter is a vital response to terror: it neutralizes fear.

Osama bin Laden does look, and talk, like something out of Monty Python and Saturday Night Live. I think we should take advantage of that. Americans are very good at making fun of people, and he's an easy target. Deflated, he's no threat; he can't inspire terror, and if it's clear he's being mocked, he'll have trouble inspiring people who want to terrorize the West. Extra credit assignment: find a way to make fun of him that will resonate with muslims, especially Arabs.

BERT'S TERRORIST CONNECTIONS: It turns out, as several readers have emailed me, that Bert is a pretty unsavory character who has shown up in pretty dubious company before. He's also been known to associate with Osama bin Laden in the past.

Best theory: somebody involved with those protests either (1) was grabbing Osama photos off the web in a hurry and didn't notice what was in the image until it was too late; or (2) has a wicked sense of humor and not much love for bin Laden. Or, my favorite, (3) is a CIA mole and is sending the signal "Target Osama at LOCATION BERT."

TRAFFIC: 9,659 yesterday -- and not mostly by crazed search-engine robots. Cool!

JIHAD CALLS FAILING: The call for "Jihad" isn't resonating much. This should come as no surprise, really. The Islamic world talks a lot about unity for the same reason Berkeley talks a lot about freedom of speech -- they don't actually have much of it, so they have to substitute talk for reality.

Remember when Bosnian Muslims were being killed in camps by the Serbs? Who got angry enough about that to do something? The Islamic world? Nope, they hardly said a word. It was the United States. If honest-to-God genocide against Muslims (European Muslims, it's true, but still Muslims) wasn't enough to stir them up, going after bin Laden isn't likely to do it.

IF I WERE WRITING A NOVEL SET IN THESE TIMES, as someone undoubtedly will in a few years, I would use this summer's spate of shark attacks as foreshadowing, and a metaphor for terrorism. These deadly creatures, lurking in the depths, once hated and feared but now protected and with their man-eating character explained away or even justified by defenders in government and academic circles, suddenly emerging to savage the innocent.... You get the idea. If I did that, I might use this item about Australia's new shoot-on-sight policy for deadly sharks as a piece of background to show the, er, sea change in attitudes.

NOTE TO NOVELISTS: You're welcome to steal this idea. Just stick in a mention of InstaPundit somewhere and I 'll consider myself fully compensated.

A "STORM" OF HIJACK ATTACKS: That's what the Ladenites are threatening, and some are making much of it. Big deal. Two points: First, we already know that they're going to do as much harm as they can manage, making threats of harm pointless. (Besides, such bombast is typical third-world tinpot-leader posturing, since they think we're dumb enough to listen -- remember the "Mother of All Battles?") Second, if they're promising hijackings, it probably means that they're really planning something else anyway.

The big news is, they've now admitted everything. This point should be made -- forcefully -- to any sympathizers in the Islamic world who are still demanding "proof," or who are pretending to believe that this was a plot of the Mossad, the French, or whatever.