TIM WORSTALL on what Burt Rutan and Paul Allen have achieved:

So while I congratulate Burt Rutan and Paul Allen on their achievement I’m also remembering the advice of Frederic Bastiat to economists: always look for the hidden. What is important about Spaceship One is not that a private organization has done it once, but that now that it has been done once free markets will continue to make it better, faster, cheaper and someone, one amongst our fellow humans, will work out what to actually do with it, in a manner that none of us today has any inkling of. That’s why free markets are important, that’s why the first private space trip is important and that’s why Paul Allen has done a great deal more than fund a rich man’s toy.

Indeed. Here’s more from The Economist:

The craft’s sponsor, Paul Allen (who co-founded Microsoft), could have spent as much, or more, on a luxury yacht. Furthermore, there is cause for modest optimism about the changes that the flight of SpaceShipOne signals in the broader space business, as a new breed of entrepreneur creates a thoroughly modern industry.

I think that’s right. And as Andrew Case notes: “the giggle factor is pretty much dead as far as investors are concerned.”

Here’s more from Newsweek, and here’s a Leonard David article on space tourism. Back when I was doing legislative work for the National Space Society over ten years ago, we were pushing this — and the “giggle factor” was pretty significant then. Not anymore.

UPDATE: Worstall has more thoughts on his blog, here.

SOME COGENT THOUGHTS ON HOMELAND SECURITY, from this column in the Washington Post:

A first review of the Sept. 11 commission’s report indicates that the system failed, but that is wrong. While the U.S. air defense system did fail to halt the attacks, our improvised, high-tech citizen defense “system” was extraordinarily successful.

Confronted by a cruel and diabolical surprise that day, those with formal responsibility for protecting our country from air attack could not defend us. . . .

What is surprising is that an alternative defense system, one with no formal authority or security funding, did succeed, and probably saved our seat of government. The downing of United Flight 93 in Pennsylvania was a heroic feat executed by the plane’s passengers. But it was more: the culmination of a strikingly efficient chain of responses by networked Americans.

Requiring less time than it took the White House to gather intelligence and issue an attack order (which was in fact not acted on), American citizens gathered information from national media and relayed that information to citizens aboard the flight, who organized themselves and effectively carried out a counterattack against the terrorists, foiling their plans. Armed with television and cell phones, quick-thinking, courageous citizens who were fed information by loved ones probably saved the White House or Congress from devastation. . . .

From a military perspective, our only effective weapon against the terrorists on Sept. 11 was a connected, smart-thinking citizenry. Educating and equipping critical-thinking, network-savvy citizens will be key to winning this war of infiltration and surprise.

This point was made shortly after 9/11 by Brad Todd in his famous 109 Minutes column, and I’ve made it myself a time or two, but it’s worth repeating, as the lesson does not appear to have penetrated to the decisionmakers.

THE DARFUR INFORMATION CENTER is a link-rich source of information on the looming Darfur genocide, going back a couple of years.

BLACKFIVE has questions about the CIA.

EARLIER, I linked to Will Baude’s TNR piece, but the link I gave was subscriber-only. Here’s a link that will work for everybody.

THIS WEEK’S CARNIVAL OF THE VANITIES is up. Don’t miss it!

UNSCAM UPDATE: William Safire is keeping the heat on the oil-for-food scandal. Meanwhile Congressional investigators say that Paul Bremer is hindering the investigation. Kojo Annan’s company Cotecna is playing a major role, and Safire speculates that Bremer’s foot-dragging is part of a White House effort not to offend the U.N. As I’ve said before, I think that the White House will, once again, get little of value from the U.N.

LAW PROFESSOR ANN ALTHOUSE has comments on Judge Guido Calabresi’s outburst earlier this week, and concludes:

I can’t help thinking that Judge Calabresi and his American Constitution Society audience would not have taken the same position about Presidential power if the election had fallen out the other way and Gore had become President.

Yes, had Gore won, I think we’d be hearing about the nobility of the Electoral College, and the dangers of populist democracy — not to mention the absolute criticality of a strong executive, a la FDR, in wartime. . . .

PROF. YVETTE PEARSON writes in the Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law, that the White House is playing politics with bioethics.

PAN-O-RAMA: Movie Guru Clint Daniels doesn’t think much of The Stepford Wives;

Updated version of a cult classic is simply dreadful . . . . an unbearable, muddled farce that’s best avoided at all costs.

Ouch. Meanwhile Melissa Schwartz didn’t like Fahrenheit 9/11:

I finally put my finger on why, exactly, Moore bothers me so much: he is not smarter than me (and I think it’s safe to identify myself as being a typical American), though he thinks that he is. . . .

Instead, he’s full of either obvious-isms or underdeveloped (and often conveniently edited), emotionally-driven thought. I get the feeling that F9/11 is a bunch of factoids culled together to poke fun and make a vague point (but as long as the rage is there, it’s okay!)

Indeed. But nobody — even Christopher Hitchens — can top Jeff Jarvis in the Moore-dissection sweepstakes. I won’t excerpt it — just read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Moore seems to have been flummoxed by a 17-year-old — though one who, unlike Moore, had his facts in order.

Meanwhile Melissa clarifies her post — it’s not the movie she dislikes (yet, anyway), but rather Moore himself.

I’M BACK: There was no blogging while on travel because, well, I had better things to do. The Insta-Wife managed to piggyback some business of her own (with the state psychology board she’s on) and accompanied me on the trip. We took the occasion to celebrate our tenth anniversary in a different city, without children. It was nice.

Blogging will resume later this evening.

I’LL BE OFF SUPPORTING SOCIALISM by delivering a Bar Review lecture. Blogging will be limited today and tomorrow. In the meantime, The Volokh Conspiracy is richly supplied with eminent guest bloggers, so drop by and check them out. And you might want to read Tom Maguire’s reflections on complaints that the problem with homeland security is not enough high-profile press conferences.

CBS BLOG SCOOP confirmed.

A LOT OF PEOPLE, including me, have criticized the GOP for being behind the curve on the Internet. But now Paul Boutin says they’re catching up.

ANDREW BOLT WRITES THAT WE’RE BEHEADING OURSELVES, and the media are the knife:

Not only did Saddam house and help terrorists, including Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Palestinian suicide bombers and a bomb-maker of the 1993 World Trade Centre attack, but his scientists worked on chemical and biological weapons up until the war, as the Iraq Survey Group now confirms. The day would surely come when Saddam’s weapons and the terrorists who wanted them finally met.

This is what Bush, Britain’s Tony Blair and our John Howard warned of. But now this history is being shamelessly rewritten in the media.

This week’s 9/11 commission reports also said Saddam approached al-Qaida at least three times when it was based in Sudan, and again, it seems, when it was in Afghanistan.

Al-Qaida boss Osama bin Laden asked for training camps and weapons, but, the reports claim, “Iraq apparently never responded”, and the talks “do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship”, although at least one Iraqi terrorist group did join his “broader Islamic army”.

The reports for some reason don’t discuss other reported links between Iraq and al-Qaida, but cautiously conclude: “We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida co-operated on attacks against the United States.”

So there were links between Saddam and al-Qaida, not to mention other terrorists, but no proof (yet) of active collaboration or co-operation in the September 11 attacks.

This is almost word for word what Bush has long said.

“We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th,” he repeated on CNN last year. But there was evidence “that he has been involved with al-Qaida”.

Yet ABC TV news said this week’s reports prove al-Qaida “had no links with Saddam Hussein, as suggested by the White House”, and ABC’s The World Today added: “One of the Bush administration’s central arguments for going to war with Iraq appears to be in tatters.” As if Bush had blamed Iraq for the September 11 attacks. The liar.

More of this and al-Nashami can take it easy. We’ll have cut our own throats already.

Ouch.

REMEMBER WHEN MOQTADA AL-SADR was going to lead a popular uprising across Iraq? (That was April’s we’re-losing story). Well, he didn’t, and here’s the story of how we won. I wonder how much attention it’ll get.

PEOPLE SOMETIMES ASK me how my wife feels about my blogging, and whether it interferes with family life. I always respond that she has plenty of outside pursuits of her own, and that we accommodate each other that way. As you can see from this picture of our den, she’s pursuing one of her projects now.

I’ve accommodated it mostly by staying out of the way. . . .

MICKEY KAUS talks about yesterday’s radio show (and provides a link):

Everyone was civil, unfortunately. . . .

I was surprised Instapundit agreed with Wright’s argument that the blog world has become more balkanized and “cocooned,” with people reading blogs with which they already agree and bloggers persuading the persuaded. … I’ve always been partial to the argument that blogs are less balkanized (than, say, talk radio and cable news) because bloggers argue with each other and hence read each other and occasionally even change their minds.

Both are true, I think. The blogosphere has become more divided, with less cross-talk than there used to be. The tipping point seems to me to have been the 2002 elections. That’s when the level of cross-blog name-calling went up, and I know I’m much less likely to read blogs that call me names. I suspect others are, too. Nonethless, I think there’s still a lot more diversity and conversation than there is in talk radio and cable news.

I’ve got some more thoughts over at GlennReynolds.com. And Mickey makes a good host — somebody should give him his own show!

THIS sounds promising:

A cancer treatment that uses a combination of gold nanoshells and near-infrared light to burn tumors while sparing healthy tissue has proven effective in mice.

The approach, being developed by researcher Jennifer West and colleagues at Rice University in Houston, Texas, could be a minimally invasive treatment for tumors in humans.

Let’s hope it pans out.

UPDATE: Some skepticism, here.

PLENTY OF READER REVIEWS for Clinton’s book over at Amazon now. You could write a dissertation in sociology or political science from these. And somebody probably will. . . .

DEATH BE NOT PROUD: My TechCentralStation column, an interview with Cambridge University biogerontologist Aubrey de Grey on aging research, is up.

JUSTIN KATZ looks at political meanness.

I’VE BEEN READING The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America by Adrian Woolridge and John Micklethwait, two Economist correspondents who cover American politics. I’m somewhat skeptical of their thesis, which is that America is moving almost inexorably rightward. There’s lots of interesting stuff, though, and I suspect that they’re right that Democrats are desperately afraid that this Presidential election might be their last chance to avoid a long term Republican ascendance. Anyhow, it’s pretty interesting, and if you like the “Lexington” column in The Economist you’ll probably like this.

ED CONE is declaring a pop-up jihad.

STANDING UP for free speech.