That proposal will protect the pilots and people on the ground, but what about the flight attendants and passengers? While the pilots are locked in the cockpit, the innocents in the back are being murdered by terrorists trying to convince the pilot to let them in. Some have advocated giving flight attendants stun guns. I have a much simpler solution: change the job and the type of people that are hired.

The current flight attendant is an outgrowth of the original stewardess, "waitress of the sky," from the early days of aviation. In the beginning their main job was to flash a winning smile, look pretty, and serve drinks. Sometime in the 70s that changed and, while most flight attendants (the PC name now) are still pretty women, their main job is safety, keeping order, and, yes, serving drinks. In the 90s, a new phenomenon developed that challenged airline crews: air rage.

Here you have petite women (and sometimes men) having to restrain unruly, belligerent passengers, being issued riot cuffs for the purpose. (Some news reports suggest that those riot cuffs were used on the flight attendants on the flights crashed in the World Trade Center).

The time has come to change the flight attendant and her job. Imagine an aircrew of 200+ lb men with martial arts training (not necessarily armed). Do you think the terrorists would have been able to subdue them as easily? Do you think the drunken, belligerent passenger is as likely to get out of control?

One of the reasons that the flight attendant profession has been dominated by the sexy, smiling woman stereotype for so long is that her main role was to project calm, confidence, and happiness at the passengers. But now I just want to know that he or she can protect themselves and me in the event the guy sitting next to me decides to challenge them.

LOS ANGELES (AP) - NBC's White House drama "The West Wing" will respond to the East Coast terrorist attacks with a special episode written by series creator Aaron Sorkin, the network said Friday.

Production on the episode, titled "Isaac and Ishmael," has begun and post-production will be hurried to make the Oct. 3 broadcast, NBC said.

"Aaron is a brilliant writer who has something he wants to say. We have great faith in his abilities to interpret last week's events in a manner that will make this an important hour of television," NBC Entertainment President Jeff Zucker said.

There's no such thing as an important hour of television.

When every other media outlet has shelved or delayed anything having to do with terrorists, bombs, or airplanes, the drug-addled Sorkin has decided to take advantage and put his typical liberal spin on this tragedy. I can't wait.

But the real offensive part of the show—something that should have caused a lot more outrage—was this:

Bill Maher: But religion is extremism. It's extreme to believe in things that your rational mind knows are not true. I mean, they wanna know what's on this black box from these flights. I'll tell you what it is. It's a guy in Arabic going, "God is great," at the moment of the impact. That's what's on the black box. Save your trouble. You don't have to find it. That's what's—

Dinesh D'Souza: You said religion is believing what you know isn't true. Do you know that God does not exist?

Bill: I — I believe God — I believe God exists, but they believe, as we believe, a lot of stupid Muslim tricks and stupid Christian tricks, okay? They believe a lot of things, and it's such a fundamental belief that, if the other guy doesn't agree with you, he's gotta go.

This kind of attack on religion is the norm for Maher and his show. I urge everyone to reject this kind of bilge.

"The idea of government databases scares some people silly. But there's no way to stop it. The information is there, it's on computers, no one wants airliners or trade centers or government buildings bombed by wild-eyed maniacs with a righteous cause. Ergo, government agencies share databases."

Look at the three targets he lists. I got chills when I read it. By the way, it's a good book.

I have been hearing from some Catholic friends and others that the proposed military response to the terrorism last week would violate Christian principles, and have even heard Pope John Paul’s name invoked to justify that position. The short version of the argument is that further violence only continues the cycle and that any military action will take more innocent lives, presumably Afghanis.

The argument is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Pope has said, what Catholic teaching is, and what the Bush administration has proposed.

First, President Bush has declared a new war on terrorism and has said that terrorists and those who harbor them will be punished. What he is not said is that we will begin lobbing cruise missiles will-nilly or bombing government target or cities in any country. That’s the old way and has been an ineffective way. When terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, destroyed the army barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996, attacked the USS Cole in Yemen last year, and committed countless other crimes, the response of the US was the same: bomb some factories and tents and use harsh words. Well, look where that has led us—to the deaths of thousands last week.

The war we will fight is unlike any other. It may be closer to what we have called the Drug War, although we hope more effective. It will involve many small units of commandos, backed up by larger units of elite troops. It will involve countries other than Afghanistan since there are other countries which sponsor and harbor terrorists.

Here is what I think may happen in the short term: Intelligence forces will locate Osama bin Laden in a relatively large area of Afghanistan. Small units of 50 or so special forces soldiers will be dropped into those areas to sneak around and pinpoint him. Then either a large ground force of airborne troops or a flight of precision bombers will be sent in to destroy bin Laden and his infrastructure. And if the Taliban defy us and attempt to engage our troops, we will fight back and destroy whatever military targets are necessary to deter them.

And I believe that this is a pattern which will be repeated in other countries where we find terrorist networks operating. We’ll also see diplomats and lawyers engaged in this war, negotiating with recalcitrant governments and terrorists assets.

As for the Pope’s response, he has called for love, forgiveness, peace, and a rejection of vengeance and hatred. He is right and President Bush is right in line with him. The president has called for justice not revenge, and he has called for love of our Arab and Islamic neighbors, not hatred.

The president and our government have a duty to provide for the common defense of our people. The standard law and order measures have proven ineffective in dealing with terrorism. The only way to defend ourselves against people like bin Laden is with force. It is legitimate self-defense.

Here is what the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes says about war: “As long as the danger of war persists … governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.” Do you think the terrorists want to sit down and discuss peace with us?

The Catechism discusses the conditions for legitimate defense by military force. (CCC 2309):

1. The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. There must be serious prospects of success;
4. The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern destruction weighs heavily in evaluating this condition.

There can be no denying that the damage is grave, lasting, and certain and that other means of stopping the terrorists have been ineffective. Success, well only our military and diplomatic leaders can determine that. And so we have the last condition which bothers so many.

The use of weapons of mass destruction is forbidden. And no one is proposing we carpet bomb innocent people. The fact is that justice and prudence demands that we, as a nation and a community of nations, take swift and sure action now to root out and destroy these terror networks that have plagued us for so long.

We should also look at the roots of terrorism, the lack of freedom and opportunity in the countries where terrorism thrives, and take steps to let something else thrive; hope and peace. Of course, the men who performed this awful deed were not the poor and downtrodden. They were the elites of their countries—well-educated and well-off. Not unlike the home-grown terrorists of the 1960s like the Weather Underground, they are the children of the middle and upper-class who hates themselves for what they are and thus hate it when they see it in others. And they especially hate the United States for the freedom, hope, and opportunity it offers, but also what they perceive as our flaws—our export of arrogance of power, of pornography, of cultural morass, and of the erosion of civilization. But that is a thought for another day.

And don't for a moment think this is about tracking down Osama bin Laden. When he is dead, that is only the beginning of the effort to destroy the terror network. And this is not just restricted to the Middle East. All terrorists take note--even if you're in Asia, South America, Africa, or perhaps even Northern Ireland, you are a target if you conduct terrorist action. We will no longer avert our eyes and spout strong words. Now we will find you and punish you. As Sen. John McCain said, "God may have mercy on you, but we won't."

I enjoyed the book for the most part, although I was left wanting more at the end. I kept waiting for there to be more to the plot. The opening sequence didn't seem to fit with the rest of the book, Vlad's story was incomplete or too glibly finished, and the setup for the climax (the two attacks) seemed rushed as did the climax itself (or should I say anti-climax). I wanted more about the school and the training, more development of some of the secondary characters like Thud and the UFO fellow or Thud's dad. In short, there was lots of potential, but a lot of it was left on the table.

Movies that make you go 'eh: And I saw Charlie's Angels. You thought the 70s was full of sex! Innuendo galore, although no actual nudity. Some things stretched even my loose standards for believability: an Indy car chase down city streets culminating in a head on crash that catapults one car off a bridge and leaves the other undamaged? I bet the real Indy drivers wish they knew how to do that. And standing ten feet away from an exploding building, getting thrown into a car so hard you break the windshield with your back, and you walk away with soot smudges? It was an amusing romp, but the super slo-mo fights and the comic-book plot make me give it two Betts out of four.

My comments: Will we see Bishop Fiorenza, the president of the US bishops' conference, criticize Kennedy's stance as "morally unacceptable" like he did with President Bush's compromise? Why is it I only hear the bishops specifically criticize politicians who call themselves pro-life and take up a questionable position, but I never hear them criticize pro-abortion, "Catholic" politicians?