Best of the Web Today - August 19, 2005
By JAMES TARANTO
Now You Sheehan, Now You Don't
Our confidence in the evanescence of Sheehanoia looks to have been well founded. Cindy Crawford--sorry, Sheehan--left Crawford, Texas, yesterday to deal with a family emergency:
Sheehan . . . said her 74-year-old mother suffered a stroke. Sheehan said she and her sister were going to Los Angeles "to assess the situation" but that her supporters will continue her protest outside Bush's Texas home.
"If I can, I'll be back. If I can't, I won't be back. But I will be back as soon as possible," Sheehan told reporters outside "Camp Casey," the protest site named for her son.
We're guessing Sheehan won't come back, and even if she does, who cares? Cindy's here! Cindy's gone! Cindy's back! Fenton Communications, the left-wing PR firm that has been flogging the Sheehan story, put out a press release this morning titled "Cindy Sheehan Requests Privacy." Although this request reflects not a small amount of chutzpah, it's likely that the press will comply. Reporters can't possibly be both bored enough and creative enough to keep this story going.
Mrs. Sheehan has been through a lot in the past year and a half: the loss of her son, the collapse of her marriage, a two-week stint as the Most Hated Woman in America, and now her mother's serious illness. Any of these on its own would be highly stressful, but all four together have got to be brutal. That the second and third items on the list resulted from her own actions makes it clear that Mrs. Sheehan does not cope well with emotional difficulty. We hope she gets whatever help she needs to achieve some semblance of balance.
Defeatist Triumphalism
What lasting effect will Sheehanoia have on American politics? Not much, it seems safe to say. A Rasmussen Reports poll suggests that she didn't change many minds:
Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother who maintained an anti-War protest outside of President Bush's ranch, is viewed favorably by 35% of Americans and unfavorably by 38%. . . .
In general, people see in Sheehan what they want to see. Opinion about her is largely based upon views of the War, rather than views about the woman herself. Democrats, by a 56% to 18% margin, have a favorable opinion. Republicans, by a 64% to 16% margin, have an unfavorable view. Those not affiliated with either major party are evenly divided.
The whole kerfuffle was, however, informative in some ways. For one, it reveals that very few people on the antiwar left have any compunction at all about making common cause with someone who espouses virulent anti-American and anti-Semitic views. For another, it showed something we've long suspected: that some on the left--and not just the America-hating fringe--want America to lose this war. Here's an editorial for today's Seattle Times:
America's purpose in Iraq is over. The soldiers should be brought home. It can be done, as has been proven in Vietnam, Somalia and other places.
Vietnam, a humiliating defeat that left America bitterly divided for a generation, and Somalia, which emboldened Osama bin Laden, are, according to the Seattle Times, the models for the conduct of a war.
In his Sunday New York Times column Frank Rich took a triumphalist tone in declaring defeat:
Like the Japanese soldier marooned on an island for years after V-J Day, President Bush may be the last person in the country to learn that for Americans, if not Iraqis, the war in Iraq is over. "We will stay the course," he insistently tells us from his Texas ranch. What do you mean we, white man? . . .
A Bush loyalist, Senator George Allen of Virginia, instructed the president to meet with Cindy Sheehan, the mother camping out in Crawford, as "a matter of courtesy and decency." Or, to translate his Washingtonese, as a matter of politics. Only someone as adrift from reality as Mr. Bush would need to be told that a vacationing president can't win a standoff with a grief-stricken parent commandeering TV cameras and the blogosphere 24/7.
Sheehanoia lasted four more days, whereas President Bush will hold his office for more than three more years. Since the president has given no indication that he is inclined to cut and run, we'd have to say it is Rich who is adrift from reality.
Sheehanoid Spam
The Web site of Rep. John Conyers, a far-left Detroit Democrat, has a page on which Cindy Sheehan sympathizers can fill out a form to send a letter to the editor in support of her.
Which reminds us of a joke. What do you call Angry Left form letters?
Mad libs!
Good Thing They Weren't Exactly Rocket Scientists
Terrorists tried but failed to attack a U.S. Navy ship in Aqaba, Jordan, this morning. "A group linked to al-Qaida claimed responsibility in an Internet statement," the Associated Press reports. "The statement purportedly from the Abdullah Azzam Brigades could not immediately be verified."
The terrorists fired three rockets from an Aqaba warehouse; one missed the U.S. ship and another landed across the border in Eilat, Israel.
What's Wrong With This Analogy?
"The Gaza situation . . . most brings to mind the French disengagement in Algeria," writes H.D.S. Greenway in today's Boston Globe.
Yeah, it's just like it--except that the Algerians didn't aim to destroy France and make Paris their capital.
Jaggered Edge
The Rolling Stones has a new song coming out called "Sweet Neo-Con," and apparently it's a banal Angry Left rant:
It's liberty for all, democracy's our style
Unless you are against us, then it's prison without trial
The Stones have produced some great tunes over the years, but tedious left-wing politics have also been a staple, as in such songs as "Undercover of the Night," "Rock and a Hard Place" and "Highwire." In any case, we're more inclined to forgive this stuff from the Stones, whose music has provided many hours of enjoyment, than from a group like the Dixie Chicks, about whom we know nothing other than that they have silly politics.
Besides, the Stones do not speak with one voice. Guitarist Keith Richards disclaims responsibility for the song, written by singer Mick Jagger: "If I'm going to write a song, politicians are the last subject I think of," he tells USA Today. " 'Neo-Con' is like an old headline. Nobody will know what it means in 10 years." Sort of like "Center 42."
But Jagger says: "I have my opinions, which I've stated in the tune. Maureen Dowd is no more qualified to have opinions than I am." No one can possibly disagree with that.
Homer Nods
We erred partly when we said in an item yesterday that the military "does not press the matter" of college campuses' bans on ROTC and military recruiters. In fact, while the military does not seem eager to re-establish ROTC programs where they aren't wanted, it has been enforcing its legal right, under the Solomon Amendment, to have recruiters on campuses of schools that accept federal funds. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case about this during its next term; several antimilitary colleges are asserting that the Solomon Amendment violates their constitutional rights.
Voice of the People?
When the U.S. Supreme Court held in Kelo v. New London that the government could use the power of eminent domain to seize property for private use, the New York Times editorial board cheered:
The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest. It also is a setback to the "property rights" movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations.
What the Times didn't mention in that editorial, this week's Village Voice outlines:
When The New York Times and Forest City Ratner Companies open their grand new office building on Eighth Avenue, it won't have a Taco Bell, McDonald's, Wendy's, or Nathan's, because they are specifically forbidden under terms of a land deal with the state. But a Starbucks or Cosi would be just fine.
The lease, which is on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, also bars renting space in the 52-story building for "a school or classroom or juvenile or adult day care or drop-in center." It forbids "medical uses, including without limitation, hospital, medical, or dental offices, agencies, or clinics." It gives the New York Times Company "the sole and absolute discretion" to reject United Nations or foreign-government offices, including any "considered controversial" or that are potentially the focus of demonstrations. It bans any "employment agency (other than executive-search firms) or job training center" and auction houses, "provided, however, the foregoing shall not apply to high-end auction houses specializing in art and historical artifacts." Discount stores are forbidden. And the deal bars "a welfare or social-services office, homeless shelter or homeless assistance center, court or court-related facility."
In fact, any government office is excluded from the building if it would attract people who arrive "without appointment."
Lease restrictions that exclude the public may not be unusual in luxury office buildings, but there is an irony in this case. The Pataki administration, acting on behalf of the New York Times Company, condemned the property for a so-called "public purpose." This is the standard the Fifth Amendment sets for the state to invoke the immense power of eminent domain.
Actually, the Fifth Amendment says public use, not "purpose"; the latter is a term the court invented to expand the eminent-domain power.
We're Not Worthy
The New York Times has a telling report on documents relating to Judge John Roberts:
[The documents] reflect his unwavering penchant for caution--and precision--in language and thought. He corrected misuses of the words "which" and "that" in draft White House documents. And in reviewing a proposed economic message in 1986 in which Mr. Reagan was to say, "I just turned 75 today, but remember that's only 30 Celsius," Mr. Roberts noted that 75 Fahrenheit is actually 23.9 Celsius.
If we knew how, we'd check his calculation, but assuming it's right, this guy can convert regular temperatures to metric ones as if it were child's play. Surely no one will disagree that such an awesomely brilliant man is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.
See You in the Funny Papers
"I worry about Karl Rove," declares "the woman who worries about everything," a character in yesterday's Sylvia comic strip. "How's he dealing with the Valerie Plame kerfuffle?" Pretty well, we'd guess, and we're glad we're not the only one to call it by its proper name.
About That Funny Acronym
Several readers asked what the acronym TWOROTDOLHFCOOTCOTM, which we used in an item yesterday, means. Actually, we spelled it out just before the block quote in the same item. It's an acronym for "those who oppose restrictions on the destruction of live human fetuses, conditional only on the consent of the mother."
The same item prompted reader Larry Siegel to pass along this anecdote:
I don't know if this fits with anything, but I though you might enjoy it.
In 1973 I was a graduate student in public health at Berkeley. On a fairly regular basis there was an attempt to poll student attitudes on various issues of the day. When I was going to class I noticed a rather large poster board sitting on an easel next to the elevator.
The poster board had a photo of a masked and gowned doctor holding a fetus over a large garbage can with the obvious implication that he was about to drop the fetus in the can. Just below the photo was a question with several sheets of paper soliciting responses from whomever cared to jot something down. The question was "How does this photo make you feel? Being Berkeley, the first response was "I feel the guy emptying the can should make as much money as the one who fills it." The comments went downhill from there.
Nah, it doesn't fit with anything.
What Would We Do Without Cocoa Research?
"Cocoa Research Promising, But Chocolate Isn't Health Food"--headline, Associated Press, Aug. 18
What Would We Order Without Experts?
"Experts in eating behavior say restaurant chains face several hurdles in pushing their more nutritious menu items. The biggest one is that people don't like to sacrifice at all on taste for the sake of eating something nutritious. Another is the higher prices that these items often carry, especially freshly prepared dishes such as salads and fruit. And finally, there is the lack of immediate gratification: When a customer orders something with a better nutritional profile, the benefit of that choice may or may not be noticed sometime in the future."--Washington Post, Aug. 18
Looks More Like Will Ferrell to Us
"Reno Lets the Good Times Roll"--headline, MSNBC.com, Aug. 17
Don't Know Much About History
Yesterday's item about the common misconception that the Ruby Ridge killings occurred in the Clinton administration got us to thinking about other cases in which a president is wrongly blamed or credited for something that actually happened on another president's watch. We thought of two good examples:
o The 55 mph speed limit. This sounds like something Jimmy Carter would do: "Carter knew when he was president that the world was going to run out of fossil fuel. He lowered the speed limit, told everyone to turn down their thermostats and wear more sweaters," writes Maria Riley of Belfast, Maine, in a letter to the Bangor Daily News. But in fact the national speed limit took effect in 1974, when Richard Nixon was president.
o Draft registration. Conscription ended in 1973, but Selective Service registration for 18-year-old men reappeared a few years later. "I marched enthusiastically with my family to protest Reagan-era draft registration requirements," writes Rosa Brooks, now a pro-military liberal, in the Los Angeles Times. But in fact draft registration came back in 1980, when Carter was president.
Any other examples? Remember that what we're looking for is clear factual errors, not disputes about who deserves credit or blame (e.g., "Reagan didn't really win the Cold War," or, "Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice before he signed it").
MoveOn's Little Helper
Sharon Begley, The Wall Street Journal's science columnist, reports on a new therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder (link for WSJ.com subscribers):
Emerging evidence that remembering a trauma strengthens that memory is inspiring controversial studies in which people take a drug that may block memory reconsolidation, leaving the memory intact but weakened, and extinguishing the emotion associated with it.
We can think of a lot of people who may benefit from this treatment, starting with a certain former Enron adviser. |
