Reader C.T. writes, “Here’s a question I haven’t seen in print.  Is Osama bin Laden safer than he was on 9/10/01?”

Sometimes one hungers to write; sometimes to read; sometimes to edit. I’ve been so distracted by the latter two that it seems I haven’t published in about a week, which is practically professional misconduct in these days of graphomania. But the diversion allowed me to finally catch, among other things, Jack Schaefer’s two-week-old diagnosis of the Lewis Lapham problem.

Lapham has, at least in the last few years whenever I’ve picked up the magazine, been on a strange, violent, and increasingly obscure tear against such big obvious targets as Bush and Ashcroft and American popular culture. The occasion for the Slate article was Reason magazine’s recent catching of Lapham writing about the Republican convention in advance of it taking place. The best line in Schaefer’s piece comes at the end: “Lapham’s magazine once contained multitudes, and so did he.”

Schaefer’s borrowing from the great poet of democracy Walt Whitman, and that line about multitudes makes a fine description of the basic claim of editing. Very presumptuously, you go around telling all kinds of people how to better sound like themselves and how to better write what they’re thinking. You know how to get them, you say, to where they want to go. In the ethereal movie George Washington that came out a few years ago, a strange little boy comes to inhabit a fantasy world after a terrible accident: He puts on a football helmet and a cape and starts directing traffic in the middle of town. In my, albeit limited, experience, editing is rather like that.

Beldar has a long post on whether or not CBS’s error was made in “good faith.” His conclusion differs from CJR’s.

I know Beldar is a lawyer and that he cites actual case-law and that he supports his argument with quotations from CBS, but maybe he should leave this sort of media criticism to the professionals. Silly Beldar. Divination is a very rigorous branch of science, and you can’t let facts get in the way.

Fantastic piece Lieutenant Colonel Powl Smith about why the correct historical parallel for Iraq isn’t Vietnam, but Guadalcanal.

Very interesting post by the Belmont Club on social dynamics and the size-limits of terrorist networks.

If you’re the type who likes serious journal reading, the New Atlantis is the best quarterly to come down the pike in a great while. Check out Christine Rosen’s fantastic essay in the current issue, Our Cell Phones, Ourselves. It’s funny, thoughtful, and well reported–everything I’ve come to expect from her writing. Plus, it’s got this gem:

“In France, cell phone companies were pressured by the public to censor the last four digits of phone numbers appearing on monthly statements, because so many French men and women were using them to confirm that their significant other was having an affair.”

Print it out and enjoy.

This story is the funniest thing you’re going to read today, tomorrow, or next week:

The incumbent has staked his campaign on the war on terror. But those who speak the language of the Trek warrior race–known to disdain dishonor, or quvHa’ghach–seem alienated by Iraq and other issues. . . .

“A good war is based on honor, not deception,” says K’tok (Earth name: Clyde Lewis), a 40-year-old Klingon from Lair Hill. “The first warrior, President Bush, deceived us all with this war.” . . .

“On the home world, if there had been a contested election between Gore and Bush, the honorable thing would be for Gore to kill Bush,” explained Khraanik (Earth name: Jason Lewis), a 38-year-old from Southeast Portland. “Or the other way around. And then ascend to the head of the High Council.”

It’s too early for Kerry to chill the ceremonial bloodwine, but Portland clinging are clearly warming to the cerebral Massachusetts Democrat.

“Kerry has shown his prowess,” says 33-year-old Neqha (Earth name: Eric King) of discard. “He saved his fellow warrior under the gun, and has been commended and awarded medals.”

Clearly. I mean, clearly.

In the midst of tedious committee meetings at the United Nations this week, German foreign minister Joschka Fischer announced that his country along with Brazil, India, and Japan all deserve to be permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. “The Security Council must further reflect the reality within the community of nations in the 21st century,” he said (my translation). But would this make America’s role in the world easier or more difficult? On the one hand, Germany and Brazil (under president Lula da Silva) would likely veto anything related to the Bush doctrine. On the other hand, India and Japan might offset such future diplomatic hostilities and prove useful allies within the council. Many other critical issues remain: Would China really allow Japan to join? And do new members get to wear the special jackets? Access to the Players’ Lounge? Free comps at the Waldorf-Astoria?