Best of the Web Today - November 8, 2005
By JAMES TARANTO
Vive la France!
The French have come in for a lot of criticism over the past two weeks or so, even a little bit in this column. So we thought in the interest of fairness we'd give some space to a defender of the French. We refer to former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, whose July 29 column pays tribute to the superior French economic system (an illustrated version is here):
Americans are doing a lot of strutting these days, but a head-to-head comparison between the economies of the United States and Europe--France, in particular--shows that the big difference is in priorities, not performance. We're talking about two highly productive societies that have made a different tradeoff between work and family time. And there's a lot to be said for the French choice. . . .
Let's ask how the situation of a typical middle-class family in France compares with that of its American counterpart. The French family, without question, has lower disposable income. This translates into lower personal consumption: a smaller car, a smaller house, less eating out.
But there are compensations for this lower level of consumption. Because French schools are good across the country, the French family doesn't have to worry as much about getting its children into a good school district. Nor does the French family, with guaranteed access to excellent health care, have to worry about losing health insurance or being driven into bankruptcy by medical bills.
On the other hand, car insurance must be getting pretty expensive over there.
Les Poulets Come Home to Roost
Nidra Poller of Canada's National Post argues that the current barbarity in France is an outgrowth of that country's hateful political culture:
In June, 2004, a huge demonstration was staged in Paris to protest the arrival of U.S. President George W. Bush, who made a brief visit to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings. Posters depicted Bush as the world's worst terrorist. By my first-hand observation, roughly one-third of the marchers came from hard-left parties and organizations: communists, socialists and ecologists, labour unions and wilted flower people. Another third were militant Muslims, many of them with checkered kaffiyehs. The other third were raunchy nihilists high on drugs and beer, marching with pitbulls and Rottweilers, calling for death and destruction. They painted graffiti on lowered store shutters and bus stop shelters, promising "a Paris comme a Falluja la guerilla vaincra" (In Paris as in Falluja, guerrilla warfare will triumph). . . .
In the same way, much of France ignored the cries of "death to the Jews" that went up in the pro-Palestinian demonstrations that began in 2000, and which eventually blended in with the anti-war demonstrations of 2003. Incendiary, sometimes bloodthirsty slogans against Israel and the United States became commonplace.
For five years, resentful French Muslims have been fed a steady diet of romanticized violence--jihad-intifada in Israel, jihad-insurgency in Iraq, jihad-insurgency in Afghanistan. When they started firebombing synagogues and beating up Jews in the fall of 2000, the media dutifully reported that these thugs were products of the "frustration" felt in regard to the treatments of Muslims in the Middle East and Central Asia. France's own government was full of hectoring words for the Americans, after all. The protesters were very much on message.
Iran's Mehr "news" agency, meanwhile, reports that Iranian "journalists" are "calling on the French government to cooperate with them in establishing a fact-finding commission in order to investigate the conditions of French Muslims." The pro-mullah scribes blame the Jews for the Muslims' violence:
"We suppose that the French government has carried out the recent discriminatory and anti-human rights acts under the influence of the Zionist lobby in France to limit the social and personal freedoms of the Muslims residing in the country, which is quite unacceptable on the part of a country that claims to be democratic," part of the statement read.
Meanwhile, Reuters reports President Jacques Chirac "has kept almost completely out of sight" since the insurgency began--certainly a blessing to Americans, if not to Frenchmen seeking leadership.
Now It's Really Getting Ugly
"Rioters Thumb Noses at Chirac"--headline, Australian, Nov. 8
French Police Kill Americans!
"It's been 11 days since two African-American teenagers were killed, electrocuted during a police chase, which prompted all of this."--CNN anchorman Carol Lin, Nov. 6
Nonvoters, Sit Down and Be Uncounted!
NEW YORK--It's Election Day here, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a liberal Democrat, is expected to win a landslide re-election victory by running as a "Republican" against Democrat Fay Wray (last item). We went to the polls this morning to vote, and to our delight we were in and out in a matter of a few minutes.
This was in sharp contrast to last year, when we had to wait in a long line. We've been voting in New York City since 1992, and so far that was the only time this has happened.
What went wrong in 2004? The culprit was something called "high voter turnout," a familiar Democratic dirty trick. Knowing they can't win by honest means, Democrats try to cajole people to the polls who otherwise wouldn't be inclined to vote. Al Gore almost succeeded in stealing the 2000 election in this way (along with a series of lawsuits), and the Democrats redoubled their efforts in 2004.
We hasten to add that Republicans aren't completely innocent in this respect. President Bush would not have won re-election had the GOP not engaged in defensive turnout-building efforts to counter Democratic aggression. The result of the election was the same, but this pointless escalation created untold inconvenience and indignity for voters like us, who would have cast ballots of our own volition--not to mention the cost to the economy of making otherwise productive citizens while away their time standing in line.
The civic health of America demands that both parties put a stop to the insidious practice of trying to drum up voter turnout. If they don't, pretty soon the polls will be so crowded that nobody will bother to vote.
Not Bird, Nor Plane, Nor Even Frog
"Polls Show NYC Mayor Crushing Underdog"--headline, Associated Press, Nov. 7
We Hate Alito, Now Tell Us Why!
Some law students are opposing the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, because . . . well, they don't know and would like your help figuring it out:
Conservatives are out in force all over the media trying to convince people that Samuel Alito is "mainstream." We know that's a lie. Judge Alito is a darling of the radical right and has been for years. Moderate leaders need to explain in simple and cogent terms why Samual [sic] Alito is wrong for America. So we're hosting a contest to collectively put together the Top 10 Reasons Samuel Alito Is Wrong For America.
America's law students have read the case law and understand legal doctrine. We can explain why Judge Alito is an extreme conservative whose appointment to the Supreme Court would mark a radical and undesirable shift in the law. E-mail us or post a one-sentence comment below with your reason why Samuel Alito, based on his judicial opinions and the judicial philosophy of the conservative ideological movement, is wrong for America. We'll compile the top 10 reasons and release them to the media and share them with the Senate Judiciary Committee.
On "Meet the Press" Sunday, Sen. Ted Kennedy tried to help out:
I'm rather distressed and troubled and I'm sure the American people are on how we arrived at this particular nominee. We went through Harriet Miers' situation which the right wing had a litmus test that Harriet Miers didn't meet, and then they sort of knocked her down.
Irritated by litmus tests? We have just the balm: Samuel Alito, whose name is an anagram for "a litmus aloe."
He's a Little Bit Country and a Little Bit Rock 'n' Roll
"Alito's Record Defies Labels"--headline, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 7
Bad News for West Virginians
"No Freedom for Hicks as Supreme Court Considers Legal Issues"--headline, Australian Broadcast Corp. Web site, Nov. 8
What Would We Do Without Key Turkish Think Tanks?
"Key Turkish Think Tank: Iran a Risk"--headline, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 7
What Would We Do Without Polls?
"Poll Says Even Quiet Divorces Affect Children's Paths"--headline, New York Times, Nov. 5
Who Says You Can't Pick Your Relatives?
"Cruise Hires Publicist to Replace Sister"--headline, Associated Press, Nov. 8
News You Can Use
"Women May Enjoy Humor More, if It's Funny"--headline, Associated Press, Nov. 7
Not Too Brite--CXCIX
"A hand grenade being used instead of a ball in a game of catch exploded early on Saturday killing three youths in this Bosnian town," Reuters reports from Banja Luka.
Oddly Enough!
(For an explanation of the "Not Too Brite" series, click here.)
I Found an Island in Your Arm
"Doors Cause Most Childhood Amputations: Study"--headline, Reuters, Nov. 7
'I Told You to Break a Leg!'
It's rude to laugh at the misfortunes of others, but we're going to do it just this once, because we think we'd find this funny if it happened to us. The Associated Press reports from Los Angeles:
Actress Sutton Foster was rehearsing a number called "I'm An Accident Waiting to Happen" earlier this week when she fell and broke her arm.
"I wasn't even dancing," the Tony-winner said Thursday. "I was just stepping backward, and my feet went forward, and I fell backward and caught myself with my hands." . . .
Foster said the show will go on, although she'll have to modify her performance until her arm heals. Such planned stunts as a dive roll through a hoop, cartwheels and complicated lifts are being eliminated.
Other than that, Miss Foster, how are you enjoying the fall? |
