If CNN didn't offer copies, then their so-called neutrality helps anti-Western Islamists who would do anything to destroy the freedoms that allow CNN to do its job.

When CNN bought the al-Qaeda training tapes, were copies given to the U.S. government to be used for analysis in the Islamist War? If not, then why not?

There is, however, one problem: this litany is not supported by the evidence. Energy and other natural resources have become more abundant, not less so. More food is now produced per capita than at any time in the world's history. Fewer people are starving. Species are, it is true, becoming extinct. But only about 0.7 percent of them are expected to disappear in the next 50 years, not the 20 percent to 50 percent that some have predicted. Most forms of environmental pollution look as though they have either been exaggerated or are transient--associated with the early phases of industrialization. They are best cured not by restricting economic growth but by accelerating it.

This was not the work of the gods, or the consequence of a series of physical and chemical reactions ("[i]t would be simplifying things, but not by much, to conclude that it was paperwork that brought the South Tower down"), it was the act of enemies of the United States who will act again. I know that Langewiesche knows this; but his articles are in their way complicit in the transformation of September 11 into "September 11," which was in large part a dissociation of the event's political and strategic aspects from the event's social and emotional aspects, so that what remained was a holy day and a homily about heroism. This concentrated the American spirit, but it dispersed the American will. What we will be commemorating on September 11, after all, is the beginning of a war.

It's true that the voices of moderate Islam are scarce, they're intimidated, they're disorganized and they're in retreat. I think therefore there are two goals we need to pursue in our current war. One is to destroy militant Islam as we destroyed Fascism in WW2. The second goal, more subtle but no less important, is to build up and guide moderate Islam.

If you asked me that question ten years ago I would have said, "yes by 2010 a resolution to the conflict is possible." Because of the enormous reverses that resulted from the Oslo process I now think that a full resolution is decades away. The Oslo process set things back by twenty to thirty years.

I believe the historical record shows that closure comes only when there is clear victory or clear defeat and in this case that would mean either the Arab destruction of Israel or the Israelis winning the acceptance of their neighbors. Assuming it's the second that we're looking at, that acceptance has been retarded by the Oslo process but it is feasible. It can happen eventually when the Arabs come to the realization that their decades long attempt to destroy Israel has failed, that they better find something else to do with themselves.

The site should primarily be set aside as a memorial, not covered with office buildings for commerce. It is a burial ground and a historic site people will want to see 100 years from now.

That´s a personal opinion. There´s no clear and present danger to the United States we know of right now. If there were, we would take action to prevent an attack against our country.

Children who receive one-on-one homeschooling will learn more than others, giving them an unfair advantage in the marketplace. This is undemocratic.

The idea that people are poor doesn't mean that they are not living good lives.

There is a solution to climate change and pollution. We saw it happen to Russia when their economy collapsed. Their industrial plants closed down, the skies got clear. Their air is a lot cleaner now.