Best of the Web Today - November 16, 2005
By JAMES TARANTO
The Spirit of '67?
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in the Israeli capital yesterday, where she announced that Jerusalem had agreed to allow the Palestinian Authority to run a border crossing between Gaza and Egypt:
For the first time since 1967, Palestinians will gain control over entry and exit from their territory. This will be through an international crossing at Rafah, whose target opening date is Nov. 25.
Rafah, of course, is where terror advocate Rachel Corrie died in a bulldozer accident, caused by her efforts to protect weapon-smuggling tunnels.
Also noteworthy about Rice's statement is the curious reference to "the first time since 1967." That, of course, was the year Israel "occupied" Gaza and the West Bank. But the Palestinian Arabs never controlled border crossings--or, indeed, any territory--before 1967.
Before World War I, the entire region, including Israel and the disputed territories, was part of the Ottoman Empire. Between World War I and 1948, the British administered it. In 1948 the Arabs went to war rather than accept a U.N. partition of Palestine that would have created Jewish and Arab states. After that conflict and until 1967, Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan controlled the West Bank.
The agreement Rice brokered may or may not be a good idea, and far be it from us to second-guess Israel's decisions about its own security. But we'd have more confidence if the secretary had left out those two words "since 1967," which amount to a rewriting of history to Israel's detriment.
We've Met Her, and It Wasn't That Bad
"Downer to Meet Rice"--headline, Daily Telegraph (Australia), Nov. 16
Dems Once Opposed Saddam
The Republican National Committee has an excellent video--available at the homepage, linked above, or directly here--with clips of various Democrats, during both the Clinton and Bush administrations, arguing about the menace that Saddam Hussein posed. With most Democrats now claiming that they would have been on Saddam's side all along if only that evil genius George W. Bush, that idiot, hadn't led them astray, it's worth reviewing. It's especially hard to credit the notion that BUSH LIED!!!! and fooled Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger all the way back in 1998.
Michael Barone notes:
The Democrats who are peddling the Big Lie of "Bush lied" are doing so either (a) deliberately to injure the cause of the United States and of freedom in the world or, as I think, (b) with reckless disregard of whether they injure the cause of the United States and of freedom in the world. What they are doing may suit their political needs, but it hurts our country.
It's hard to see, though, how the Dems' retrospective pro-Saddam position suits their political needs, other than the need to appease the Angry Left base, a portion of the party that arguably is aiming for (a).
Can This Marriage Be Saved?
It looks as though Bill Clinton will not support his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, if she decides to run for president in 2008. The Associated Press reports from Dubai that the former president, who would be the first male first lady if his wife were elected, has split sharply from New York's junior senator on Iraq:
The United States made a "big mistake" when it invaded Iraq, former President Bill Clinton said Wednesday. . . . "Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done, " Clinton told students at the American University of Dubai.
The AP adds that "Clinton did however say that the United States had done some good things in Iraq: the removal of Saddam, the ratification of a new constitution, and the holding of parliamentary elections." Other than that, though, Hillary really screwed things up.
Does Halliburton Do Masonry?
"Senate Presses for Concrete Steps Toward Drawdown of Troops in Iraq"--headline, Washington Post, Nov. 16
We Told You She Was a Turkey
"Second Helping of Sheehan for Thanksgiving"--headline, Waco (Texas) Tribune-Herald, Nov. 15
AP: Abortion Preoccupation
Seachlight's dim bulb took to the floor of the Senate today to denounce Justice-designate Sam Alito. Here's how the Associated Press reported the speech:
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on Wednesday said he has "significant concerns" about Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, calling President Bush's latest choice one of the most conservative judges in the United States.
"A picture of Sam Alito is emerging that may explain why the extreme right-wing is popping champagne corks," Reid, D-Nev., said in a Senate speech, referring to a 20-year-old document in which Alito asserted "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."
Now who could possibly think that the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion? Well, Harry Reid for one. He is supposedly "pro-life," and in 2003 he was one of only five Democrats to dissent from a Senate resolution supporting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that brought the "right to abortion" into existence. Has Reid changed positions? Has he coldly decided he is willing to climb a mountain of dead fetuses if the Senate minority leadership lies at its summit?
Apparently not. The Reid speech, available on his Web site, does not mention abortion. Reid denounced Alito over decisions involving statutory interpretations--on civil rights, sex discrimination, disability rights and family leave. He also faulted the jurist for lots of really stupid reasons: being male, being conservative, being of Italian rather than Spanish descent. But he did not mention abortion, which seems merely to be an obsession of the AP's Jesse J. Holland.
Why Would a Fetus Have a Skeleton, Anyway?
Here's a truly bizarre story from the Associated Press:
Skeletal remains discovered by hunters last week in Audubon County in western Iowa are those of an infant or fetus, Audubon County sheriff's officials said.
The sheriff says "further tests" are necessary to determine if it's an infant or a fetus. Is he serious? Everyone knows an infant is a human being, while a fetus is just a clump of cells. How could anyone have trouble telling the difference?
(Hat tip: State 29.)
Too Much 'Pluralism'
"France's employment minister on Tuesday fingered polygamy as one reason for the rioting in the country," the Financial Times reports:
Gérard Larcher said multiple marriages among immigrants was one reason for the racial discrimination which ethnic minorities faced in the job market. Overly large polygamous families sometimes led to anti-social behaviour among youths who lacked a father figure, making employers wary of hiring ethnic minorities, he explained.
Another problem with polygamy is that, by reducing the supply of available women, it makes it virtually impossible for low-status men to marry, and a large population of frustrated, undomesticated young men is a clear danger to society.
There's a lesson here for the debate over same-sex marriage, too. Marriage, while far from a perfect institution, is crucially important to social stability. That's why most sensible people, while adopting a live-and-let-live attitude toward homosexuality, draw the line at messing with the definition of marriage.
No Wonder They're So Proud of Their Culture
"Car Torching a Tradition in France"--headline, Associated Press, Nov. 16
Ahmed? No, Wait . . . Uh, Mohammed? Wait, Wait, I Know This One!
"Iran President Makes Third Attempt to Name Oilmin"--headline, Reuters, Nov. 15
Someone Call Patrick Fitzgerald!
"State Department Building Evacuated for Major Water Leak"--headline, WJLA-TV Web site (Washington), Nov. 15
What Would We Do Without Studies?
"Exercise to Get Fit, Live Longer: Study"--headline, Reuters, Nov. 14
What Would We Do Without Wombs?
"Womb Needed for Proper Brain Development"--headline, United Press International, Nov. 14
What Would We Do Without Celebrity Children Bizarre Names Polls?
"Moon Unit Zappa Tops Celebrity Children Bizarre Names Poll"--headline, Agence France-Presse, Nov. 13
Why Not Let Sweeping Dogs Lie?
"San Francisco Passes Sweeping Dog Laws"--headline, Associated Press, Nov. 15
Thanks for the Tip!--XII
"Health Tip: Potpourri May Smell Nice"--headline, HealthDayNews, Nov. 15
That's Some Bust, Buster!
This doesn't quite fit into the "Thanks for the Tip!" category, but it gave us a chuckle nonetheless. The HealthDayNews headline reads "Healh Tip: Males With Enlarged Breasts," and the subheadline says, "It's usually nothing to worry about."
But look over to the left side of the page, under "related stories." The second headline there reads "For Women, Laughter Is a Just Reward." Gynecomastia may not be a serious health threat, but it can't be fun to be the object of all that tittering.
We Always Suspected They Were a Bunch of Stooges
"By Larry Fine"--byline, Reuters, Nov. 16
Bottom Story of the Day
"Wild Duck Stuck in Six-Pack Can Holder"--headline, Associated Press, Nov. 15
So This Kazakhistani Guy With a Cow on His Head Walks Into a Bar . . .
"Kazakhstan's Foreign Ministry threatened legal action Monday against a British comedian who wins laughs by portraying the central Asian state as a country populated by drunks who enjoy cow-punching as a sport," Reuters reports from Astana, wherever the heck that is:
Sacha Baron Cohen, who portrays a spoof Kazakh television presenter Borat in his "Da Ali G Show," has won fame ridiculing Kazakhstan, the world's ninth largest country yet still little known to many in the West, on British and U.S. channels.
Cohen appears to have drawn official Kazakh ire after he hosted the annual MTV Europe Music Awards show in Lisbon earlier this month as Borat, who arrived in an Air Kazakh propeller plane controlled by a one-eyed pilot clutching a vodka bottle.
"We do not rule out that Mr. Cohen is serving someone's political order designed to present Kazakhstan and its people in a derogatory way," Kazakh Foreign Ministry spokesman Yerzhan Ashykbayev told a news briefing.
Well, if this doesn't make people start taking Kazakhstan seriously, nothing will! |
