In the most detailed accounting yet of the air defense situation last September 11, there’s an interesting article in Aviation Week. It says that the inadequately-armed pilots of the Air Guard F-16s considered ramming Flight 93.

Hutchison was probably airborne shortly after the alert F-16s from Langley arrived over Washington, although 121st FS pilots admit their timeline-recall “is fuzzy.” But it’s clear that Hutchison, Sasseville and Lucky knew their options were limited for bringing down a hijacked airliner headed for an undetermined target in the capital city. Although reluctant to talk about it, all three acknowledge they were prepared to ram a terrorist-flown aircraft, if necessary. Indeed, Hutchison–who might have been the first to encounter Flight 93 if it had, indeed, been flying low and fast down the Potomac–had no other choice.

Sasseville and Lucky each had 511 rounds of ammo, but that only provided roughly a 5-sec. burst of the 20-mm. gun. And where should they shoot to ensure a hijacked aircraft would be stopped? Sasseville planned to fire from behind and “try to saw off one wing. I needed to disable it as soon as possible– immediately interrupt its aerodynamics and bring it down.”

He admits there was no assurance that a 5-sec. burst of lead slugs could slice an air transport’s wing off, though. His alternative was “to hit it–cut the wing off with my wing. If I played it right, I’d be able to bail out. One hand on the stick and one hand on the ejection handle, trying to ram my airplane into the aft side of the [airliner’s] wing,” he said. “And do it skillfully enough to save the pink body . . . but understanding that it might not go as planned. It was a tough nut; we had no other ordnance.”

While Stacy at Sekimori does great stuff, she’s not the only web designer out there. Anyone looking for an upgrade might want to consider Bill Simon (not the one ineptly running against Gray Davis) at Next Paradigm for site design. As you can see, he just helped me do a little spiff up of the Transterrestrial site.

Those lucky Iraqis get to vote next month whether or not to keep Saddam as their fearless leader. And they say there’s no democracy in the Arab world.

Martin Walker says that America has had enough of European hypocrisy and lousy advice.

“When the Europeans demand some sort of veto over American actions, or want us to subordinate our national interest to a UN mandate, they forget that we do not think their track record is too good,” a senior U.S. diplomat said recently in private. “The Europeans told us they could win the Balkans wars all on their own. Wrong. They told us that the Russians would never accept National Missile Defense. Wrong. They said the Russians would never swallow NATO enlargement. Wrong. They told us 20 years ago that d

Many Democrats are afraid to have him campaign with, or for them.

When you do this search, you don’t get very many hits.

I suspect that in the future the list will grow. Let me add this post to it now.

Scott Ritter appears to be the Benedict Arnold of his generation.

Christopher Hitchens, (as always) a good read, has some thoughts about the past year from the left. Or perhaps no longer from the left–many of them now disown him. Whatever his other beliefs, he’s clearly not an idiotarian.

I disagree with him on Iran–he seems to confuse support for the government there with support for the aspirations of its people, but he’s definitely a Brit who understands America, and that it is not just a country, but an idea.

Tony Woodlief has some great ones. I particularly like numero dos–it’s my top peeve.

When I’m made Lord Emperor of the Universe, one of my first acts will be to remove all signs that say “Slower Traffic Keep Right,” and replace them with the more accurate “Left Lane For Passing Only.”

No one thinks that they’re slower traffic, so the first version isn’t effective. The second should be the rule, and it should be a hefty fine, perhaps even prison time, if you’re passed on the right by three consecutive cars. I kvetch about the Europeans a lot, but there are a few things they get right, and lane discipline (particularly in Germany) is one of them.

Of course, if you’re poking along down the autobahn at a mere 130 kph or so, you’re likely to get a Lamborghini or M3 rammed up your tailpipe…

I know, you expect this to some kind of profound query, and perhaps even a disquisition, into some cosmological conundrum.

No, I just want to know when and where the term “middle school” came into vogue. When I was a young lad, we went to elementary school through grade six, then we went to junior high from seven through nine, and then high school was grades ten, eleven and twelve. I never heard of “middle school” (which apparently encompasses six through eight) until I came to California.

I will confess that there was always something a little weird about the setup where I went, because in high school, we had sophomores, juniors and seniors, but no freshmen. The freshmen were the seniors at the junior high, though they didn’t call them that.

But still, it worked, and we all knew what it meant.

So is it a regional thing, or has the terminology changed over the past three decades? If I went back to Flint, MI today, would they be calling it middle school there as well?

If it’s a new thing, what was wrong with “junior high”? Too rough on the young adolescents’ self esteem?

Frankly, “junior high” sounds more high-falutin’ to me than the bland “middle school.” With junior high, it gives you something to aspire to, to practice for. Once we make it through “Junior” high, will be ready for the real thing–senior high school.

But “middle school” sounds like a Goldilocks kind of deal. That one was too young, and the next one is too old, but the middle one is juuussst right. Booooring.

Anyway, just curious. Inquiring minds, and all that.

John Ellis says:

Mr. Clinton, whose opinion on this matter may be the least sought-after piece of intellectual property on the planet, said that the Bush Administration should find and kill bin Laden first, then deal with Saddam Hussein later. As Paul Wolfowitz might say: “thanks for sharing.”

I’m not sure that it’s the least–Jimmy Carter’s advice will at least place, and might nose it out. And Tom Daschle’s will show.

Which brings us to the real link in this post–Mark Levin’s meticulous dissection of all three of these men’s past behavior and comments, and why we shouldn’t take any of them seriously now.