If there's any time that Bush needs to keep his bipartisanship promises (remember them ?),
it's now. (Salon)
The middle of a fascinating triple of short pieces from Slate's "Idea of the Day" column.
I don't know who is worse, embarassments to representative government like Bob Barr (R-Idiots) who wanted the US to bomb Afghanistan the day after the attacks, or pacifists who seem to almost want the mayhem to start so that they can take the moral high ground. Perhaps the US government isn't about to take the blundering path that so many sophisticated people think it's going to take. Delay is good for a whole bunch of reasons. (Slate)
Almost any alliance against the new fascism (if you think I'm exagerating, watch Behind the Veil next time CNN shows it -- sure, I'd read about all this before, but to see it happening to real people...) is going to require parties that one would ordinarily cross the other side of the street to avoid. In the past such alliances have been justified because there was a greater danger to stave off. If the 9-11 attacks really are part of a grand plan (starting with the 1993 WTC bombings), then a long commitment to solely fighting the anti-terrorism fight will be needed and have its own unpleasant consquences, according to William Saletan of Slate, even if it succeeds. Anyone got a better idea ?