HERE’S A GREAT SLATE ARTICLE on free-lance heroism on 9/11:

But it’s also clear Karnes is a hero in a smaller, less national, less public, less publicized way than the cops and firefighters are heroes. He’s hardly been overlooked—the program I work for, 60 Minutes II, interviewed him as part of a piece on Jimeno’s rescue—but the great televised glory machine has so far not picked him. Why? One reason seems obvious—the cops and firefighters are part of big, respected, institutional support networks. Americans are grateful for the sacrifices their entire organizations made a year ago. Plus, the police and firefighting institutions are tribal brotherhoods. The firefighters help and support and console each other; the cops do the same. They find it harder to make room for outsiders like Karnes (or Chuck Sereika). And, it must be said, at some macho level it’s vaguely embarrassing that the professional rescuers weren’t the ones who found the two survivors. While the pros were pulled back out of legitimate caution, the job fell to an outsider, who drove down from Connecticut and just walked onto the burning pile.

Read the whole thing.

NELSON MANDELA is making a fool of himself.

UPDATE: A reader writes:

Why is Iraq “black” and Israel “white?” Israel clearly has more “negro” citizens than Iraq (over 100,000 Ethiopians), and the average Israeli is probably about the same swarthiness as the average Iraqi. What a load of crap!

Well, blackness is a term of art, sometimes.

STEVEN SKUBINNA has an answer to Hesiod Theogeny that is, I think, dispositive. He’s enlisted. Read the post.

“AS THOUGH SOMEONE HAD CAST THE THREE STOOGES in a Bergman movie.” Jesse Walker has finally gotten a blog.

EUGENE VOLOKH REPORTS that although a recent Freedom Forum poll shows support for press freedom declining, it shows support for another constitutional right growing:

LIBERAL GROUP FINDS THAT 79% OF AMERICANS BELIEVE “THE RIGHT TO OWN FIREARMS” IS “ESSENTIAL” (48%) OR “IMPORTANT” (31%). Yup, that’s what the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center’s State of the First Amendment 2002 survey (1012 respondents) finds. What’s the more, the number is up from 64% in 1997 (33% essential, 31% important) to 79% in 2002 (48% essential, 31% important).

What’s interesting, reports Volokh, is that although there were lots of press reports involving this survey, not one mentioned the increased support for the right to own firearms. Go figure.

I’ve been saying for a while that there’s a sea change in attitudes underway. Here’s more evidence.

GREAT PHOTO over at Brad Delong’s.

I HAVEN’T FOLLOWED THE ISSUE VERY CLOSELY, but I can’t help but feel that the proper conclusion to this TAPPED post is “. . . someone who was actually elected to governmental office.”

Heck at least they’re posting. Hey, Kuttner: more gnomes!

AS FAR AS I’M CONCERNED, Buzz did the right thing.

THE CUSTOMS SERVICE REPORTS that it has seized a shipment of cellphones bound for Al Qaida operatives.

Nice work. But next time, how about bugging them, or rigging them to explode, or to relay false instructions (“Suicide bombing at the Iraqi embassy! Now!”). That would not only do more good, it would have a certain Wile E. Coyote charm to it.

UPDATE: The Cynic Of The Week Award goes to Jim Henley who emails:

Glenn, be reasonable. How is bugging cell phones or rigging them to explode or otherwise perform some active function to defeat our enemies going to get headlines for the customs service?

Ordinarily I have to look to Rand Simberg for barbs this sharp and deep.

HESIOD THEOGENY RESPONDS to the “Shropshire challenge.”

It’s not a bad post, but I think that Hesiod and a lot of others misunderstand the seriousness of pro-war people. You can know that people get killed in a war and still be for one, after all. It doesn’t have to be a good thing — only the best of the available alternatives. And I think that’s the case now.

UPDATE: Here’s an interesting comment from a reservist bound for duty, posted on Stephen Green’s site:

From what I observe around me, most of the people I talk to day in and day out are simply scared of doing anything violent. I am a reservist who is leaving relatively soon and the overall sentiment is “you don’t have to go do you?”, “that stinks doesn’t it?”, “can’t you get out?” Depressed isn’t even close to how I feel.

The same guy comments later in the same thread:

I would like to thank all who wished me well with my upcoming deployment. I really appreciate it.

They killed 3,000 of my country’s men and women, The time for talking is over.

Yeah, the email I get from military folks seems to be realistically pro-war. Not a one has written to say “I don’t want to fight but warmongering civilians are making me.” In fact, the only negative email I’ve ever gotten from someone in the military was this, and it’s not even close. The main worry seems to be that civilians will screw things up — as in 1991 — by not letting them finish the job, not that civilians are too anxious for war. Which is why I think the whole “chickenhawk” argument is bogus in the extreme.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Hesiod Theogeny emails that it’s “dishonest” for me to post this reservist’s comment as a response to the “chickenhawk” complaints, but I’m still not quite clear why. He says that he supports a war against Al Qaeda, but not a war against Iraq. My understanding of the whole “chickenhawk” argument was that anti-war types thought it hypocritical to support a war when you’re not going to fight in it. Now, it seems, that it’s only hypocritical to support some wars if you’re not going to fight in them. To me, this position seems to be completely incoherent, and to make the “chickenhawk” name-calling even more nonsensical than before. But maybe I’m still misunderstanding things.

JEFF COOPER HAS A GOOD OBSERVATION on homeland security:

The president’s insistence that employees in the proposed Department of Homeland Security should not have civil service and collective bargaining protections, so that they can be fired as needed, would have a lot more credibility if he would actually fire a few of the higher-ups with responsibility for the domestic security and counter-terrorism bunglings of the past year. As long as all those folks remain on the job, the Homeland Security proposal looks like union-busting, pure and simple.

What can I say? He’s right.

CLONE WARS: Rand Simberg has an update, and some thoughts.

SUSAN SONTAG MAY HAVE A CLUE, but the shrinking center of sure-enough idiotarianism holds, as this dumb cartoon by Ted Rall makes clear. (Via Geitner Simmons — what, you think I look at Rall’s cartoons on my own initiative? I didn’t like ’em even before 9/11).

UPDATE: A reader says that this is enough to refute all those who say dissent is being crushed. Nice to know Rall serves some purpose. Call him a “useful idiotarian.”

BERNARD LEWIS writes eloquently and persuasively on the “why they hate us” topic.

MAX P0WER writes that the stock market’s non-reaction to the raising of the threat level to orange indicates that the color-coding and warning system has no credibility.

Probably. The other possibility is that the stock market has already reflected the same thing that the threat warning is reflecting: the vague sense that something might happen on the anniversary. In which case the market’s non-reaction would be, well, not exactly a sign that the warning system works, but a sign that the stock market is evaluating risks the same way. The real test will take place when and if the threat level goes up in an unforeseen fashion. If the market doesn’t react then, it’ll be much stronger evidence of the threat warning system’s uselessness.

SAME STORY, DIFFERENT SPIN: Carla Passino observes the different treatment given the same study of Saddam’s nuclear capabilities in two diffferent papers.

ANOTHER PROFESSORIAL BLOG, though unlike most it’s written under a pseudonym. Although the blogger calls him (her?)self “The Colonel,” and that was my nickname in law school, this is not an alter ego of mine.

“ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM AND ARAB NATIONAL SOCIALISM” — Michael Gove looks at the mideast’s toxic brew. Excerpt:

The most important lesson of the past year is that the world’s security now depends on dealing with these poisons. And the surest way of doing so is to tackle the cultures in which they grow. For the real root causes of the conflict which has become known as the War on Terror are the failures of Arab and Islamic elites.

No Arab nation is a democracy, none enjoys a free press or speech. None can guarantee basic human rights, whether it be respect for property, life or conscience. Whether they are oil-rich or resource poor, they prefer to keep their people in ignorance and poverty. In the wider Islamic world there are related problems. Few Islamic nations, perhaps only Turkey and Malaysia, have made any halfway satisfactory progress into the modern age.

There is nothing intrinsic either in Arab life or Islamic belief which means this state of affairs is preordained. The success of Arab and Islamic individuals in the West, when they enjoy freedom of thought, association and speech as well as security of person and property, proves that. Arab nations and Islamic states could provide their peoples with the opportunity to prosper. The talents which currently flower only in the West could make a garden of desert lands. But that will not happen as long as corrupt sheikhs, military strongmen and assorted other kleptocrats remain in power.

Which, one hopes, won’t be too terribly long now.

IRANIAN STUDENTS ARE CALLING FOR PRO-AMERICAN DEMONSTRATIONS MARKING 9/11:

A Public Call For Rememberance of the 9/11 Tragedy

SMCCDI Political Committee

September 10, 2002

Free spirited Iranians,

It has been a year since the terrorist attack on the military and commercial centers of the United States of America. Consequences of the events of that fateful day were so immense and far reaching that they truly will be known as the turning point in the recent political history of the world.

On those days that America was mourning and Iran was directly or implicitly being called a “haven for terrorists”, we remember how, despite the violent crack down and repression of the “Hezbollah” forces roaming the streets, hundreds of our youth poured into the streets and lit candles in memory of the victims of that tragedy and showed the world that they sympathized with the families of the victims and extended their condolences to them.

That night, our youth made it crystal clear that they were with the world coalition for the elimination of “religious” terrorism.

We remember how the reactionary, backwards, Taliban loving, self-elected rulers of Iran tried to down grade that humanistic and thoughtful sympathy action of our youth by calling them a “bunch of candle in hand sissies!,” and once again showed, with their short-sighted vision of reality, how far away they are from virtue of humanity.

Bravo to you nation who, despite lack of leadership, embarked in that spontaneous movement, and with your sensational presence in the streets of the capital, you saved Iran from a catastrophe, as you showed in the best possible way, Iranian nation’s excellence in love of humanity to the free world.

Now, with the first anniversary of 9/11 tragedy upon us, as SMCCDI expresses its sympathy to the families of the victims and survivors of that ungodly event, and the honorable nation of America; it invites all free spirited Iranians to honor the memory of the victims of that day by gathering and lighting a candle in front of the main entrance of the Tehran university and major public squares in Tehran, and the main squares in other cities and townships, from 6:00 PM till 9:00 PM, on Wednesday 11 September.

Also, from all those Iranians who feel they share the sorrow and pain of the American nation, it is requested that they turn off all their light on that same night from 10:30 PM till 11:30 PM in a silent, but much telling gesture of sympathy and solidarity with the bereaved nation of America. Without a doubt, in this age of high-resolution satellite cameras, your message of sympathy will reach the Americans loud and clear!

Tehran, September 10, 2002 (19 Shahrivar 1381)

The “Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran” (SMCCDI)

I love the satellite-camera angle. I hope that some newsagency will hire someone to take a look.

WHO WE’RE FIGHTING: This column by Austin Bay is from last fall, but it does a good job of pointing up the (described literally, not just pejoratively) imperialism and fascism of Saddam and the Ladenites.

I’M SURPRISED TO SAY that this piece by Susan Sontag isn’t entirely stupid. In fact, it could be read as expressing the same kind of concern about a “war on” (as in the “war on drugs” or the “war on poverty”) versus a “war” (as in “World War II”) that I’ve expressed before. Excerpts:

Wars on such enemies as cancer, poverty and drugs are understood to be endless wars. There will always be cancer, poverty and drugs. And there will always be despicable terrorists, mass murderers like those who perpetrated the attack a year ago tomorrow — as well as freedom fighters (like the French Resistance and the African National Congress) who were once called terrorists by those they opposed but were relabeled by history.

Okay, she’s covering her ass by mentioning the ANC and the Resistance to show she’s still okay with The Revolution, but she’s making clear that the Ladenites are despicable thugs, rather than understandable symptoms of American evil. And then she adds:

I do not question that we have a vicious, abhorrent enemy that opposes most of what I cherish — including democracy, pluralism, secularism, the equality of the sexes, beardless men, dancing (all kinds), skimpy clothing and, well, fun. And not for a moment do I question the obligation of the American government to protect the lives of its citizens. What I do question is the pseudo-declaration of pseudo-war. These necessary actions should not be called a “war.” There are no endless wars; but there are declarations of the extension of power by a state that believes it cannot be challenged.

America has every right to hunt down the perpetrators of these crimes and their accomplices. But this determination is not necessarily a war. Limited, focused military engagements do not translate into “wartime” at home. There are better ways to check America’s enemies, less destructive of constitutional rights and of international agreements that serve the public interest of all, than continuing to invoke the dangerous, lobotomizing notion of endless war.

Now, I agree with this entirely — though my definition of “perpetrators” and “limited, focused military engagements” is probably a lot broader than hers. But this is actually quite a statement coming from Sontag, and though people are criticizing other, dumber observations in her piece, it’s worth noting just how far someone who was identified as part of the Chomskyite Left last fall has come.

UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg says I’m wrong.

MEDIA MINDED has not added to its credibility with this post. And don’t expect me to follow suit.

EUGENE VOLOKH WRITES that the Los Angeles Times seems to think that John Ashcroft was Bill Clinton’s Attorney General.

HOWARD FIENBERG says CAIR’s polls are bogus.

AN INTERESTING OBSERVATION BY LILEKS (Yeah, I know, I should just write a script that’ll put this and a link at the top of each day’s entries). But still:

A year or so ago, the majority of bookmarks were institutional. Now the first tier are all individual names, which I’d list but it’s late at night and I’m too tired to link. (Soon, I promise, I will.)

I don’t know any of these guys, and I wouldn’t know them if I ran into them at the market. Well, maybe Glenn and Sullivan, because they have pictures, but Welch would have to wear the hat. Nevertheless, the names mean something right away – a tone, a particular view or concern. In one year, the blogosphere has accomplished what it takes newspapers years to do: make brand names out of individual writers.

I like the William Safire blog-excerpt, too. And the link between John Bunyan and Chuck Berry.