One of the most significant side effects of 9/11 is how international travel has been impacted. The ability for a variety of people around the word to meet, recreate, and conduct business was a vital and robust part of economic and cultural exchange. The delays and headaches of travel since that fateful day have been well documented, and the fallout continues.

The United States, in an effort to better track the comings and goings of foreign visitors recently implemented a program to fingerprint and photograph many who enter the country with a visa.

Despite significant concerns, the travel industry appears to be mollified that the system works well. Logistically most were pleased “the problems were minimal and that the procedure added perhaps a minute at most to immigration processing.”

As always in matters such as these, some wonder if the delicate balance between liberty and security was tipped in a dire direction. Also cause for concern is how this might impact America’s perception by other nations. Brazil recently began a retaliatory fingerprinting program aimed at American tourists entering their country. The program is being lobbied against heavily by Rio and other tourist-centric Brazilian cities. Ironically proving once again how desperately people thirst for unfettered travel.

America’s efforts to bring terror suspects to trial has suffered some embarrassing setbacks in recent weeks. The decision to try some suspects in special military tribunals and other’s in federal courtrooms has been perceived by some to be unfair or unjust and certainly has the taint of arbitrariness. The conundrum, as Thomas Powers writes, is that there is a need for openness and due process that is at odds with the premium placed on secrecy.

Ordinary criminal courts are not designed for trying terrorism suspects. As a practical matter, they do not routinely provide the kind of security for witnesses, judges, and jurors that is required where terrorist attack and reprisal are a concern. More important, they cannot meet the need for secrecy that may arise from the use of sensitive testimony derived from confidential sources.

He suggests that a third way should be embarked upon, federal terrorism courts.

To deal with terrorism cases that could be handled under the ordinary criminal law (as were, for example, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City federal building bombing, and the case of Zacarias Moussaoui), Congress should create a new specialized court. This terrorism court would incorporate special security measures, protect the secrecy of sensitive information and sources, and make provision in its evidentiary rules for the peculiar situations arising from operations on a battlefield or its equivalent. Terror suspects should know the charges against them, have access to attorneys (specially trained, with the proper security clearances), and enjoy a right of appeal. To ensure independence from executive branch influence, federal judges with lifetime appointments should fill the bench. A terrorism court would provide a framework for the emergence of a body of precedent and the development of a cadre of specially trained expert judges and lawyers. There is some precedent for a roughly similar arrangement in the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, created in 1978 and expanded under the Patriot Act.

If the rule of law is to be used to combat the horrors of terrorism is there a way to balance the need for secrecy with the desire for justice?

Strike three, life sentence, for cheating on a driver's exam. Only in America.

While there is no shortage of threats to life and liberty -- from international terrorism to poverty-inducing trade barriers to the deadly war on drugs -- these are indeed high times for a magazine devoted to exploring the promises of "Free Minds and Free Markets." For all of its many problems, the world we live in is dizzying in its variety, breathtaking in its riches, and wide-ranging in its options. Malcontents on the right and left who diagnose modernity as suffering from "affluenza" or "options anxiety" will admit this much: These days we’ve even got a greater choice of ways to be unhappy. Which may be as close to a definition of utopia as we’re likely to come.

Reason loves freedom, and in that spirit they have created a list of the 35 people they feel have made significant contributions to the cause since 1968 (the date of Reason’s birth). As lists are intended to do, it’s fodder for controversy and discussion with a diverse group of honorees.

John Ashcroft, Jeff Bezos, Curt Flood, William Burroughs, Milton Friedman, Les Paul, and Ayn Rand all make the cut.

Since we are free to disagree, I ask who has been left off of the list and who should be cut?

The absolute abortion that is the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) has committed its latest crime against humanity. Like a bad plot twist from T3, or a Matrix prequel, the computer that decides college football's championship game has decided that Ohio State is a better football team than USC. Both teams have one loss and are aiming to play Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl to decide the championship. Never mind that USC has absolutely destroyed their opponents and defending national champs Ohio State have barely eked by the competition regardless of ranking, the computer has decided that Ohio State is the second best team in all the land. (The "flawed" other polls which are based upon human assessments of talent have Ohio State as the 4th best team and USC the in their rightful place at number 2)

If there is one thing we know from the movies, the computers begin by corrupting the "small" things and continue until they reach their ultimate goal of destroying mankind. Be warned, if USC doesn't play in the Sugar Bowl this year, it will be the beginning of the End Times.

We've discussed the Simpsons a couple of times before, but like Iraq or Bush's IQ it's a topic that's never tiresome. The good news is that the Simpsons are back!

After too many seasons of lo-brow, over-the-top humor, John Bonne writes:

The show has finally evolved into a modern incarnation that retains its heart without feeling tired or bouncing from gag to gag like Homer tumbling down the side of Springfield Gorge.

Moving away from an all-Homer all the time format into one that allows other characters to shine and in the process offers more of the subtle satire and soul that infused earlier seasons. Part of the credit goes to Al Jean who has returned as executive producer.

So is this a renaissance of the Simpsons or a short-lived blip in the cartoon's inevitable creative demise? And for that matter are the Homer-heavy episodes of the recent past really so bad?

Kinsley on the incoherence of Bush's stem-cell stance:

It's not a complicated point. If stem-cell research is morally questionable, the procedures used in fertility clinics are worse. You cannot logically outlaw the one and praise the other. And surely logical coherence is a measure of moral sincerity.

Just in time for Christams. Ann Coulter dolls....

Dead Company Walking! How Skype may be the final nail in Verizon's coffin.

Rummy is bearish on the War on Terror. According to this memo.

Greg Easterbrook, an editor at The New Republic, was fired from ESPN.com for anti-semetic comments he made on his blog about the Quentin Tarantino movie Kill Bill. Easterbrook, for those of you who don’t know, is one of the best sportswriters in America, having entertained and informed millions with his weekly football column Tuesday Morning Quarterback (TMQ). He is also a man of letters, having penned a well-regarded book about religion while also writing articles on a variety of subjects for The New Republic, The Atlantic, and others.

Easterbrook’s TMQ column ran on ESPN.com, which is owned, by Disney, the same company that owns Miramax, the company that released Kill Bill. He criticized Disney CEO Michael Eisner and Miramax Chairman Harvey Weinstein (both who are Jewish) for chasing profit at the expense of morals by releasing the hyper-violent Kill Bill. After pointing out that the two executives are Jewish, he went on:

Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice.

Some have said that his wording, awkward at best, out right disgusting at worst, shows the limits of blogging as a journalism tool. Revision, reflection, and editing being the tools of the writer’s craft, Easterbrook’s misstep was destined to strike the blogsphere. Others have expressed larger concerns. Once again media consolidation and the ability for a few people to silence smaller voices is a worry. As Lawrence Lessig wrote on his blog:

If ESPN fired Easterbrook because it overreacted to his comment, then that’s an injustice to Easterbrook, and a slight to society.

But it it fired Easterbrook because Easterbrook criticized the owner, that’s an offense to society, whatever the injustice to Easterbrook — at least when fewer and fewer control access to media. No doubt, anti-semitism has done infinitely greater harm than misused media mogul power. But if firing your critics becomes the norm in American media, then there will be much more than insensitivity to anti-semitism to worry about in the future.

Some critics of the recall results consider Schwarzenegger’s election as a triumph of style versus substance, the empty headed masses deluded by big screen dreams and empty rhetoric into voting first for a recall that was unwarranted and then to vote for a candidate who was unqualified. "Finally", they proclaimed, "the inevitable triumph of all that is trite in American culture. The ignorant have had their say".

Others aren’t so sure. Andrew Sullivan is a supporter (if not a voter) of the new way shown by the Governor. As he wrote in the Sunday's Times:

Schwarzenegger used his celebrity power to forge a new politics. That politics - the missing element in American life right now - is a blend of fiscal conservatism, social liberalism and foreign policy hawkishness. As governor, Arnold's foreign policy aspect is minimal. But here is a Republican who is pro-choice on abortion, environmentally-conscious, and comfortable with gay people his whole life. But he's also very tough on taxation and very skeptical of excessive government power. When he complained that Californians pay a tax each time they flush the toilet in the morning, he was tapping into deep conservative instincts. But in his transition team, announced last Thursday, he included the left-wing mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown, and former Michael Dukakis campaign manager, Susan Estrich. He's also married to the Kennedys. This left-right combo plays directly to the new American center. It's far more potent than Howard Dean's bitter Michael-Moore routine. And it's far fresher than Dubya's Texan propriety.

Other high profile pre-election supporters include Mickey Kaus, Most of the Kennedy family, and Warren Buffett. However the latest blow to the “Arnold-voters-are-ignorant-masses-blinded-by-their-lack-of-understanding-of-political-dynamics” meme was the shocking announcement by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer that he voted for Arnold. Interestingly enough his announcement came at a conference populated by a feuding and confused Democratic party still reeling and struggling to make sense of what happened. Since state Democrats are still clearly befuddled, can someone explain what happened? Is there a way for politicians, of every stripe to harness this movement? Is this is a phenomenon or are there larger implications for American politics?

Maybe in America’s most diverse state a new political standard has erupted. If you listen closely, you can hear the old ways scream as they die.

Kaus on the Easterbrook affair.

The FDA is studying if cloned meat is OK for human consumption.

Wild. The Supremes say medical pot is OK!

Harry Truman had a sign on his desk reading "The Buck Stops Here." He felt a leader ultimately holds the responsibility. Tired of politicians constantly shifting blame to others, Californian voters today recalled Gray Davis and replaced him with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Neither the vote on the recall, nor the race to replace Davis was particularly close. The economy, once again, was the deciding factor in an election almost as noticeable for its high voter turnout as it was for its diverse list of candidates. Some consider this a populist vote reflective of the ever changing and accelerating state of political affairs. Others consider the recall campaign another in a long line of efforts to undermine the spirit, if not the law, of high-profile elections. California has once again shown the fearsome power and Faustian bargain that is democracy.

The always engaging Dahlia Lithwick on the Constitutional "smackdown" at the heart of the Do-Not-Call case.

"Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors." Bush Sr. at a 1999 dedication.

Does Andrew Sullivan really think this is much ado about nothing?

Nextel says it doesn't actually "own" the color yellow afterall. Millions of crayon-pushing school kids rejoice.

Does California wine really suck? Mike Steinberger thinks so.

Personally, I think the 1970s and 1980s was the golden age of California winemaking; the most successful wines of that era—Ridge Monte Bello, Phelps Eisele Vineyard, Heitz Martha's Vineyard—had ripeness and power, but they also had finesse and elegance, qualities not currently found in many California wines. These days, the signature California style is flashy and in-your-face—"hedonistic fruit bombs," in the Parker vernacular. Though these wines tend to flow across the palate with all the subtlety and grace of the Soviet Army rolling into Prague, they do have a certain burlesque appeal