Silly question whose answer I don't know
Who actually owns the land where the WTC towers collapsed? In particular, is it some private entity or the government?

If the former, then (I hate to say this but) it's really none of our business what the owner decides to do with the land. The uniquely decent thing to do is maintain some sort of tasteful memorial, but in addition to that whatever puts the land to good use (probably some combination of offices and trendy retail shops) is itself a manifestation of freedom and a "f*ck you" to the people who wanted to take that freedom way.

If it's the government... then I'm torn between doing nothing (leave it as a memorial) versus auctioning off the space (yes, you read that right!) on the theory that whoever buys up the land will do a much better job putting it to use than the government would have.

Managing this guy's hate mail
I really want to send this principal a message to the effect that he's a dork with no common sense who needs a clue.

My fear, though, is that it'll get lost in all the messages from people telling him he's (supposedly) a communist with no patriotism who needs a beat-down.

I wish there were some way to make both him and them go away.

This. Nobody to root for here.

Nader-McKinney?
I'm speechless. Opinion Journal hit the motherlode today.

(And if you cared, radio selection as I posted this: Barbra Streisand, "Somewhere")

Ted Kennedy
Has a dog named Splash. That is all.

"Which explains why they were such poor dressers."
Yeah. I don't know what to say about the gay wrestlers. Your take?

By total coincidence, currently playing on the radio station I'm listening to on-line is Judy Garland's "San Francisco."
San Francisco, I'm comin' home again, never to roam again...

Tiny Tiny Violin of the Day
Some reports have said that NGO workers were not happy with the special operations soldiers trying to fit in as it put those workers in danger.
--nugget from a CNN story about U.S. special forces troops in Afghanistan being forced to shave.

Let's put it this way: But for the valiance of U.S. troops (okay fine, but for the massive potency of U.S. munitions), those NGO's either wouldn't even be in Afghanistan or would be stuck kissing Taliban ass.

Thought for the day
why is it that the people who lecture the United States on its "arrogance" are always so arrogant themselves?
--Glenn Reynolds

The "Jingoistic Screed"
Read this if you haven't already. You may then declare, if you wish (see main-blog comment widget), It's not any more interesting or persuasive than any of the other jinogist screeds out there. (Think how much agony I could have spared myself and my friends in college if I'd just decided to label them instead of engaging them. Just call them "left-wing loonies" or somesuch and declare rhetorical victory.)

My favorite paragraph (and precisely where I think this guy differs, at least from the strawman version of a jingoist screed):
As a nation, we could probably become safe and neutral as Switzerland -- just with a bigger, fascist Army, and strip searches to get into the Post Office. But as a people, we could never accept the retreat and humiliation.

The thing is, the people who've decided to spend their political lives hating the Bush administration, hating the right, hating America, or hating whoever, it seems to me as though many of y'all want to have it both ways. You want to criticize the warmongers and criticize the loss of civil liberty.

I'm completely with you on civil liberties (as is this particular jingoist), but the best way to get back to a world where nobody even considers the jackbooted thug approach is to get rid of the terrorist in the first place. Analogously, I think we're a lot less likely to find ourselves having to build a bunch of bomb shelters or hold atomic disaster drills if we take out the thugs before they get the nukes.