Diane Sawyer marked the one-week mark from last week's tragedy with this comment: "Last week at this hour, we were discussing... God knows what trivial thing we were discussing before..."

Diane, you should not condemn the triviality, for you and all your peers will quickly be focused on it again. In some sense, there is still triviality in your words, for it is evident that while the facts have changed, no broadcasting paradigm has.

One of the blessings of last weekend was the paucity of sports games blaring through the airwaves.

The only thing that would prevent a World Trade Center-type attack from happening again and simultaneously prevent the shooting-down of planes is to have some sort of mechanism to disable everyone on the plane and put the plane into autopilot until it can be brought to the ground remotely. But even then, the attackers could learn how to circumvent whatever was designed to disable them and also circumvent the autopilot system. It goes back to the modern adage that you can't thwart a thief who's dead-set on taking something from you.

I need to focus in one practice area at work. Maybe bankruptcy and, for variety, immigration. They're both form-intensive, and I can streamline the firm's form system in both areas. They're also code-intensive, which I like.

We don't need to change the world's tenor; we don't need to declare war. Say instead, "We are at peace, and those who violate that peace will be punished."

We need starships. Tractor beams, sensors, transporters. Let's invent them right away and deal with the terrorists once and for all. (If only we could keep the same technology out of their hands, too...)

Lessons from Star Trek 6:

Secrecy is the terrorist's greatest asset. We should arm ourselves with the same weapon, refusing to release information which is not relevant to the American public's daily life but can be used against us in times like last Tuesday. We should step up our law enforcement but not detail how we plan to do it. We should randomize our measures, as well, eliminating predictability which is as informative as a press release. We should defend ourselves not just with force, but with strategy, as well.

I got this e-mail from the litigation team leaders at my firm:

We want to let everyone know that R____ has announced her decision to resign from B___ and accept an offer to join the law firm of D___ . R____'s last day with us will be September 28, 2001.

Since joining B___ three years ago, R____ became one of our rising stars, and we are extremely sorry to see her go. R____ is a talented lawyer and quickly became an integral part of the litigation team. R____ has handled many cases on her own, has worked closely with nearly every member of our team on a wide variety of cases, has worked with many of you on other practice teams, and has been an invaluable resource and teacher for our newer associates. R____ has gained the respect of the judges before whom she has appeared and opposing counsel against whom she has litigated. R____ has always enthusiastically participated in the firm's recruiting and summer associate programs. We sincerely appreciate all of R____ contributions to the firm.

R____ is a friend and colleague to many of us. We will miss working with her, but look forward to maintaining our friendship with her both in and outside the courtroom. Please join us in wishing R____ all the best as she pursues her new opportunity.

I wish that could be said about me.

Q: Doesn't the bombing shake your faith?

A: Yes. But despite the loss of others' lives, I am for some reason still here, and I can tell that my faith, though shaken, is not gone. I read that this test of my faith will work to produce perseverance in me, and for that I am to be joyful. But clearly it is also appropriate to mourn in sorrow and humility. That is the dichotomy of these tragic days.

from the Bible, James 4
Now listen, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, "If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that." As it is, you boast and brag.

It seems every time I've turned to the Bible the past few days, the text is acutely relevant.

Q: The main argument goes like this (taken from The New York Times):
"Microsoft just rolled out the final Window XP code to computer manufacturers. Some critics have charged that the rollout is evidence that the company continues to use its dominance to muscle into new markets. Windows XP includes many new features that are currently standalone products made by competitors, including a program for storing digital photos and an instant messaging system."

My question to you is: why do competitors have the right to cry about microsoft including these things (eg, instant messaging) in their package? I am not as a consumer "forced" to use them. i can choose to ignore them and use the competitors product if i so choose. how is microsoft "monopolizing"?

A: It has to do with tying. Once you're a monopolist (and being a monopolist is legal), you're not allowed to do the same things you did when you weren't a monopolist. One of those prohibited activities is tying, which I would call bundling. When you have a monopoly in one product, you can't use your monopoly to gain ground in other products. That's tying, or bundling. In this case, Microsoft has an OS monopoly (that's one of the court rulings that hasn't been overturned), and it's tying to/bundling with its OS the standalone products like imaging and messaging tools. The law does not require a showing that the tying will actually cause consumers to drift toward the monopolist's tied products. The idea is to prohibit a monopolist from using a monopoly in one area to compete in other areas. Otherwise, the monopolist would have an advantage in a market when he hasn't done anything in the market to deserve an advantage, and the competitors wouldn't be able to manufacture that kind of advantage for themselves except by obtaining their own monopoly in some other market. In the eyes of current U.S. antitrust law, that's not what free market competition is all about.