Best of the Web Today - March 29, 2005
By JAMES TARANTO
Comiconomenclaturists for Bolton
A group of ex-diplomats have signed a letter to Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, urging the rejection of John Bolton's nomination for ambassador to the U.N., because among other things Bolton is too pro-American.
Among the signatories, according to the Associated Press: "Princeton N. Lyman, ambassador to South Africa and Nigeria under Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton; Monteagle Stearns, ambassador to Greece and Ivory Coast in the Ford, Carter and Reagan administrations; and Spurgeon M. Keeny Jr., deputy director of the Arms Control Agency in the Carter administration."
Princeton, Monteagle and Spurgeon--these are their first names! As reader Doug Welty asks, what do Fauntleroy and Poindexter think?
Random Shooting
Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman is in rare form today. We're not sure we've ever read a column that is at once so incoherent and so inflammatory. The headline, "What's Going On?," captures the confusion. The column is basically a laundry list of Krugman gripes, prompted by the Terri Schiavo case:
o Schiavo's parents have enlisted antiabortion extremist Randall Terry as their spokesman. Although Terry "hasn't killed anyone," another antiabortion extremist murdered an abortion doctor.
o Gov. Jeb Bush considered taking Mrs. Schiavo into state custody, though he didn't actually do so.
o Some pharmacists refuse on moral grounds to fill prescriptions for contraceptives.
o Senate Republicans want to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees, so that judges would be confirmed by a simple majority vote.
o House Majority Leader Tom DeLay says his politics are based on a "biblical worldview."
Tellingly, he doesn't mention Valerie Plame. All this leads Krugman to the following conclusion:
America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here.
Reread Krugman's list of complaints. Other than the murder of the abortion doctor--which happened in 1998, when Bill Clinton was in the White House--there's nothing that even remotely has to do with assassination. If Krugman and the New York Times want to combat extremism, a good way to start would be to refrain from loose talk about political violence.
Who'll Remember Terri Schiavo?
There's been a lot of talk about the political implications of the Terri Schiavo controversy, much of it centering on the idea that because polls show a majority of Americans in favor of Mrs. Schiavo's death, having taken a stand for life will hurt Republicans. We doubt it. As Michelle Malkin, Pat Caddell and others have argued, the poll questions are biased to produce a pro-death outcome.
As important, this issue will not be uppermost in most Americans' minds in 19 months, the next time we go to the polls. National Review Online's Jim Geraghty has some fun at the expense of those who now argue that the Sunshine State is lost to the Republicans (emphasis his):
Hear that, Florida GOP? You're doomed, they say, dooooooomed! This time they're certain of it! A mawkish cable news controversy is going to tear apart your base a year-and-a-half from now, just you wait and see!
The important question is not what most Americans today think of the case, but who is likely to have a long memory about it. It seems to us there are two such groups. The first is obvious: pro-lifers. Mrs. Schiavo's death doubtless will spur them to greater political activism. Whether this will help Democrats or Republicans is hard to predict, since it depends on the extent to which each party seems to be catering to extremists.
But the second group is more interesting, and seems likely to hurt the Democrats. We refer to advocates for the disabled, who, as the Boston Globe says, "have struck an uneasy alliance with Christian conservatives." Some of the most passionate commentary on the Schiavo case has come from people with severe disabilities. One is Harriet McBryde Johnson, who wrote in Slate last week:
I watch nourishment flowing into a slim tube that runs through a neat, round, surgically created orifice in Ms. Schiavo's abdomen, and I'm almost envious. What effortless intake! Due to a congenital neuromuscular disease, I am having trouble swallowing, and it's a constant struggle to get by mouth the calories my skinny body needs. For whatever reason, I'm still trying, but I know a tube is in my future. So, possibly, is speechlessness. That's a scary thought. . . .
I hope against hope that I will never be one of those people in the shadows, that I will always, one way or another, be able to make my wishes known. I hope that I will not outlive my usefulness or my capacity (at least occasionally) to amuse the people around me. But if it happens otherwise, I hope whoever is appointed to speak for me will be subject to legal constraints. Even if my guardian thinks I'd be better off dead--even if I think so myself--I hope to live and die in a world that recognizes that killing, even of people with the most severe disabilities, is a matter of more than private concern.
And here is Mary Johnson, editor of Ragged Edge, a disability-rights magazine:
No; it's not about Terri Schiavo. And it hasn't been for quite awhile.
It's about us.
It's about each of us who thinks "I wouldn't want to live if I were a vegetable." It's about each one of us who thinks, as one blogger wrote, that Michael Schiavo has been "chained to a drooling sh--bag for 15 years."
But it's also about those of us who are those vegetables, those drooling sh--bags. Those of us who want to live but know we're a burden to our families. Those of us who fear "do not resuscitate" orders. Those of us who use ventilators, and who use feeding tubes. And those of us who can communicate with clarity only through artificial means. . . .
There isn't a single disability rights activist I've heard from who is happy that things ended up at such a sorry pass, and who isn't afraid that this will make liberals hate them even more than they now do.
Mary Johnson, by the way, is no Republican; she says she agrees with Michael Schiavo that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is a "snake." And both Johnsons note that among the champions of saving Terri Schiavo was the ultraliberal Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa.
Still, their perspective is worth considering. An able-bodied person may look at Terri Schiavo and think: I wouldn't want to live like that. Someone with a severe disability is probably more apt to hear the talk of Mrs. Schiavo's "poor quality of life" and think: I don't want to be killed like that.
To be sure, a distinction can be drawn between those, like Mrs. Schiavo, whose higher brain functions are irreversibly gone and those whose cognitive abilities are undamaged (or less damaged) despite other severe disabilities. But if you were in the latter group, would Terri Schiavo's death bolster your faith in physicians, politicians and judges to look out for your interests?
Fashion Victim
In a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe, Tim Krochuk of Boston argues that those who want to save Terri Schiavo are committing an offense against her vanity:
Perhaps the saddest element to the Terri Schiavo case is that this poor woman originally suffered her brain damage as a result of an eating disorder. Clearly she was obsessed (to the point of illness) with her appearance. Now the world sees her daily in what she would easily have considered the most dreadful of appearances.
Shame on her parents for lacking the courage to face the world without their daughter and for putting their needs ahead of their daughter's.
Actually, according to the guardian ad litem report, the record contains "no formal proof" that Mrs. Schiavo suffered from bulimia. But speculation to that effect does seem credible--and it renders all the more creepy Michael Schiavo lawyer George Felos's comment about how "beautiful" Mrs. Schiavo looked after more than a week without nourishment.
What Would Parents Do Without Attorneys?
"Schiavo Losing Weight, Her Parents' Attorney Says"--headline, Internet Broadcasting Systems, March 28
Bible Overturned on Appeal
The U.S. Supreme Court may cite precedent from Jamaica and Zimbabwe, but jurors cannot rely on the Bible for wisdom, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled. The latter high court threw out the death sentence of Robert Harlan, who murdered a cocktail waitress in 1995, because "jurors consulted the Bible in reaching a verdict," the New York Times reports.
Apparently relying on the Bible was the defense counsel's idea: "Lawyers for Mr. Harlan also specifically urged the jurors to consider biblical wisdom, according to the Supreme Court's decision, with a request that they find mercy in their hearts as 'God ultimately took mercy on Abraham.' " Instead, they went with the eye-for-an-eye precedent.
What Would We Do Without Studies?
"College Faculties a Most Liberal Lot, Study Says"--headline, Washington Post, March 29
Maybe They Should Recall Matches Too
"Candles Recalled Because of Flame Risk"--headline, Associated Press, March 28
At Least They Minimize the Flame Risk
"Steady Rains Lead to Flooding Concerns"--headline, WMUR-TV Web site (Manchester, N.H.), March 28
Everyone's a Critic
"Man Critical After Being Tied to Vehicle, Dragged"--headline, Associated Press, March 28
Maybe Those Who Have Sex Are Too Sleepy for Polls
"Americans Too Sleepy for Sex, Poll Finds"--headline, Reuters, March 29
The Not-So-Itchy and Scratchy Show
At first glance, this report from EarthTimes.org seems like great news for allergic ailurophiles:
Do you feel the urge to reach for your handkerchief every time a cat crosses your path? Well, help is on its way to all you allergic individuals.
Scientists at the University of California have designed a molecule to block cat allergies. The report is published in the April issue of research journal Nature Medicine.
But it turns out that, so far at least, the molecule is available only to individuals from the genus Mus. We Homos will have to wait:
The experiment involved injecting genetically engineered mice with a newly developed part-feline, part-human protein. The mice were altered to be allergic to cats. Andrew Saxon of UCLA, lead scientist in the experiment said that they had named the molecule GFD, or Gamma Feline Domesticus, for its human and feline parts. After a month of injections, the mice were found to be cured of their allergy.
If you have mice, and their biggest problem with your cat is hay fever, you might want to consider trading in your cat for a more energetic one. |
