[T]he longer a blog discussion goes, the odds of 9/11 being mentioned not only approach one, it actually might do so at a faster rate than a comparison involving Nazis. In fact, when a politician is talking, the longer the politician talks, the odds of 9/11 being discussed approach one even faster than that. However, the main difference between the latter and Godwin's law is that whenever a politician mentions 9/11, s/he appears to have automatically won whatever argument was taking place.

[...]

I believe it is time for a New Godwin's law. When in an argument, using any variation of the following will cause the user to lose the argument and end that line of discussion:

• 9/11 changed everything
• 9/11 You don't want another 9/11 to happen, do you?
• This could be prevent another 9/11
• A comparison involving terrorists or 9/11

Whatever we end up calling it this new law, or if it ever catches on, something drastic needs to be done about the way we use 9/11 in our culture and our politics.

I've invoked Godwin's Law myself on more than one occasion, and it's obviously a quite useful restriction when people are throwing around "Fascist-this" and "Nazi-that" indiscriminately, but it also (inadvertantly) serves to squealch discussion about the kind of proto-fascist behavior that's been the hallmark of the Bush/Cheney administration, and to negate any advance warnings that might be appropriate.

(It's interesting to note that if the Internet have evolved 25 years earlier, we would have needed a similar restriction on "Commies", "fellow travelers", "pinko" and so on. That we don't have such a version is an indication of how far to the right the center of political discourse has moved.)