by JAMES TARANTO
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 2:20 P.M. EDT

A Terrorist Nuke? No Zbiggie!
Der Spiegel has an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as President Carter's national security adviser:

Spiegel: Dr. Brzezinski, President Bush compares the dangers of terrorism with the dangers of the Cold War. He has even spoken repeatedly of a "nation at war" and will only accept "complete victory." Is he right or is he using exaggerated rhetoric?

Brzezinski: He is fundamentally wrong. Whether that is deliberate demagoguery or simply historical ignorance, I do not know. For four years I was responsible for coordinating the U.S. response in the event of a nuclear attack. And I can assure you that a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union on a comprehensive scale would have killed 160 to 180 million people within 24 hours.

No terrorist threat is comparable to that in the foreseeable future. . . .

Spiegel: Is fear, as at the thought of a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists, not something very natural?

Brzezinski: Certainly, such a notion is not entirely unrealistic, but on the other hand we are not confronted with the Soviet nuclear weapons arsenal. I do not wish to minimize the danger of a single or even multiple terrorist acts, but their scale is simply not comparable.

Remember those old bumper stickers that said "One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day"? Not Zbig's day!

Keller Instinct
In a long--no, make that looooong--profile of Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, New York magazine reveals his response to the Bush administration's criticism of his paper for publicizing a program for tracking terror finances:

"They pissed me off," he says. "I think the administration is genuinely distressed that we ran the story over their objections. I think they were embarrassed by it, by the fact that this most secretive of administrations has so much trouble keeping its secrets. I think they were probably sincere in their anxiety that publicizing this program might jeopardize it. And, you know, that's all fair, but when they stir up a partisan hatefest and impugn your integrity and patriotism, that is, to borrow a word from the White House list of talking points, disgraceful."

So Keller acknowledges that concern about jeopardizing the program--and thus increasing the risk of terrorist attacks--is "fair," but apparently does not acknowledge that the Times has any responsibility to withhold information that would jeopardize Americans.

Further, it's amazing how thin-skinned people in the media can be. The Times criticizes the administration all the time. Why shouldn't the administration fire back? If the press assumes for itself an "adversarial" role vis-à-vis the government, it seems only natural that the government would act like an adversary.

On a related note, reader David Farkas makes an incisive point in response to yesterday's item on world-wide anti-American attitudes:

Apropos the myth that we squandered good will, the New York Times may also ask why everyone attacks them first, when their news reporting is on the same shoddy level as everyone else's. The answer is that everyone likes to knock the big guy down, and other than the WSJ, the NYT is the biggest paper.

The analogy seems obvious, but only once you think about it.

Cult-Con Vicarious Terrorism
Libertarian blogger Radley Balko and Slate's Timothy Noah point with outrage to a forthcoming book by Dinesh D'Souza, described on his publisher's Web site:

In THE ENEMY AT HOME, bestselling author Dinesh D'Souza makes the startling claim that the 9/11 attacks and other terrorist acts around the world can be directly traced to the ideas and attitudes perpetrated by America's cultural left.

D'Souza shows that liberals--people like Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Bill Moyers, and Michael Moore--are responsible for fostering a culture that angers and repulses not just Muslim countries but also traditional and religious societies around the world. Their outspoken opposition to American foreign policy--including the way the Bush administration is conducting the war on terror--contributes to the growing hostility, encouraging people both at home and abroad to blame America for the problems of the world. He argues that it is not our exercise of freedom that enrages our enemies, but our abuse of that freedom--from the sexual liberty of women to the support of gay marriage, birth control, and no-fault divorce, to the aggressive exportation of our vulgar, licentious popular culture.

The cultural wars at home and the global war on terror are usually viewed as separate problems. In this groundbreaking book, D'Souza shows that they are one and the same. It is only by curtailing the left's attacks on religion, family, and traditional values that we can persuade moderate Muslims and others around the world to cooperate with us and begin to shun the extremists in their own countries.

Noah and especially Balko get a bit overheated in their responses. Balko, for example, writes (ellipsis on original):

What in the world could D'Souza mean by "It is only by curtailing the left's attacks on religion, family, and traditional values . . ."?

Is he suggesting that critics of family values policies not be allowed to criticize them? Is he suggesting we outlaw "women's sexual liberation?" Should we forbid Hollywood from "exporting" our "vulgar and licentious culture?"

We haven't read the book (release date isn't till January), so we don't know what methods D'Souza is advocating to advance the end of "curtailing the left's attacks," but there's nothing in the publisher's description that suggests he's calling for censorship. Just about everyone agrees that it's a good thing to "curtail" racist speech, but fewer people would argue for censoring. There is such a thing as moral suasion.

Still, D'Souza's critics have a point. In 2002 we coined the term "vicarious terrorism" to refer to those--in that case George McGovern--who argue that if only their policies were adopted, the terrorists would leave us alone. In one sense, D'Souza is echoing President Bush, who argues that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms. But whereas the president wants to defend those freedoms, D'Souza wants to roll them back.

We are not a libertarian, and we can think of good reasons to agree with some of what D'Souza advocates. But appeasing the terrorists is not one of them.

Groundhog Day
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reports on this week's summit of the Nonaligned Movement in Cuba:

All eyes will . . . be on Havana to see whether ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro emerges for the first time since his hospitalization, to address summit participants.

And if he sees his shadow, that will mean six more decades of tyranny. According to writer Njei Moses Timah--hey, isn't that the kid in the wheelchair from "South Park"?--Castro already "is gradually emerging as a reinvigorated icon and global symbol of heroic resistance against hegemony and imperialism." Not to mention intestinal bleeding!

Hard to Please
Here's an amusing series of news headlines about the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Dollar figures in parentheses are the price of a barrel of crude at the time of the article:

• "OPEC Secretary-General Expresses Concern Over Rising Oil Prices"--May 16, 2004 ($40.77)
  
  
• "OPEC Says It's Lost Control of Oil Prices"--March 14, 2005 ("north of $50 a barrel and rising")
  
  
• "OPEC President Voices Concerns Over Rising Prices"--Aug. 28, 2005 ($66.13)
  
  
• "Falling Oil Prices Add to Opec's Worries"--Sept. 12, 2006 ($63.76)

OK, we can reconcile the last two headlines and conclude that the optimal price of oil is somewhere between $63.77 and $66.12. But how can $63.76 be too low while $40.77 is too high? It's Goldilocks in Bizarro World!

The Results
Just to follow up on our item about yesterday's primaries:

• Keith Ellison, a Muslim and onetime Louis Farrakhan apologist, won the Democratic primary for a Minnesota House seat. (PowerLineBlog rebuts some points in the Washington Post piece we cited yesterday.)
  
  
• Liberal Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee held off conservative populist challenger Steve Laffey in Rhode Island. That means the GOP has an even chance of holding the seat, albeit with a lawmaker who often votes against the party line.
  
  
• In Maryland, Rep. Ben Cardin dispatched Kweisi Mfume to win the Democratic nomination for an open Senate seat. Cardin is white, while Mfume and the GOP nominee, Michael Steele, are both black, so Steele's chances will depend on his ability to win over a significant number of black voters. Cardin is the favorite in this heavily Democratic state.

Metaphor Alert
From the Denver Post:

The Colorado and U.S. economies appear to be gliding to a soft landing heading into 2007, although a slowdown in consumer spending could cause them to sputter, economists said Thursday at a gathering of construction-industry workers.

"I don't see the U.S. economy going in the tank by any means," said Richard Wobbekind, a University of Colorado economist. "But if we were to see incredibly weak holiday sales, we should keep our seat belts fastened." . . .

Cliff Brewis, an economist with McGraw-Hill Construction, said the economy appears stable--although portions of the construction industry are poised for a slowdown.

He said the residential market has clearly softened, although "we don't expect it to fall off the shelf."

Outsourcing an Inconvenient Truth
"Gore Calls on China, India to Tackle Climate Change"--headline, Agence France-Presse, Sept. 12

John Kerry on Holiday
"French Presidential Hopeful Tours the U.S."--headline, New York Times, Sept. 13

'Hang In There, Our Speeches Are Really Long'
"Cheney, Rumsfeld Call for Perseverance at Pentagon Ceremony"--headline, Agence France-Presse, Sept. 11

'Farsi It Is'
"European Nations Agree on Iran Language"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 13

How Many Were Murders and How Many Suicides?
"2 Killed in Murder-Suicide at Prison"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 11

The Campus Clinic Christmas Party Is Hereby Canceled
"Stanford Won't Let Doctors Accept Gifts"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 12

Bring the Hoover Home From Herat
"Rice: Don't Leave Vacuum in Afghanistan"--headline, NewsMax.com, Sept. 12

Poor Hardest Hit Anyway
"World Doesn't End, Sect Upset"--headline, United Press International, Sept. 13

Bottom Stories of the Day

• "No News in McGavick's Divorce File"--headline, Seattle Times, Sept. 12
  
  
• "Air Supply Will Be Back on Taiwan Tour Next Month"--headline, China Post (Taipei), Sept. 13
  
  
• "Darien School Board Doesn't Decide on Lights"--headline, Advocate (Stamford, Conn.), Sept. 13
  
  
• "Sharpton Bashes Bush in UF Speech"--headline, Gainesville (Fla.) Sun, Sept. 13
  
  
• "Rumsfeld Criticized"--headline, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Sept. 13

Children of a Lesser God
A Baylor University study "found that Americans hold four different images of God," London's Times reports:

Nearly a third of Americans, 31.4 per cent, believe in an Authoritarian God, angry at earthly sin and willing to inflict divine retribution--including tsunamis and hurricanes. . . .

At the other end of the scale is the Distant God, seen by 24.4 per cent as a faceless, cosmic force that launched the world but leaves it alone. . . .

The Benevolent God, popular in America's Midwest among mainstream Protestants, Catholics and Jews, is one that sets absolute standards for man, but is also forgiving--engaged but not so angry. Caring for the sick is high on the list of priorities for these 23 per cent of believers. . . .

The Critical God, at 16 per cent, is viewed as the classic bearded old man, judgmental but not going to intervene or punish, and is popular on the East Coast.

That adds up to 94.8%, which leaves some room for other conceptions of God. Here are some we thought of:

• Totalitarian God. He is everywhere, and he is watching you.
  
  
• Multitasking God. Answers prayers by phone, fax and BlackBerry, all at the same time.
  
  
• Noncommittal God. Loves his children, but isn't "in love" with them.

Isn't this fun? If you can think of other "Gods," send them along and we'll publish a list of the best.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to John Krickus, Ed Lasky, Fritz Sands, Jason Luther, Jim Bowman, Evan Slatis, C.E. Dobkin, Jeff Dobbs, Dan O'Shea, Joe Browne, Mike Kumar, Matthew Perl, Russel Ready, Stefan Sharkansky, Dan Tracy, John Corrigan, Ted Gilson, Brydon DeWitt and Michael Segal. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Peter Stothard: What really happened in Britain last week?
• Andy McCarthy (from The New Criterion): The Founders didn't intend for the judiciary to handle national security.
• Richard Brookhiser: Why George Mason didn't put his John Hancock on the Constitution.