Best of the Web Today - January 6, 2006
By JAMES TARANTO
Nothing to Fear but Victory Itself
Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, who became a media darling in November by calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq (though he voted against his own proposal when Republicans brought it to the House floor), elaborated on his views last night, reports National Review's Byron York:
Representative John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has come to national prominence since his call for a quick withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, said Thursday night that he worries about "a slow withdrawal which makes it look like there's a victory."
Appearing at a town meeting in Arlington, Virginia, with fellow Democratic Rep. James Moran, Murtha said, "A year ago, I said we can't win this militarily, and I got all kinds of criticism." Now, Murtha told the strongly antiwar audience, "I worry about a slow withdrawal which makes it look like there's a victory when I think it should be a redeployment as quickly as possible and let the Iraqis handle the whole thing."
Does anyone still want to say it is unfair to characterize Murtha as rooting for American defeat? The "town meeting," by the way, was sponsored by the far-left outfit MoveOn.org, "which said that 'Congressman Moran has extended a special invitation to MoveOn members in his district and nearby.' " Moran is the Democrats' answer to Pat Buchanan, as we noted in 2003:
A Democratic congressman who opposes the liberation of Iraq is blaming the Jews for threatening Saddam Hussein's hold on power. "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing this," the Connection newspapers of northern Virginia quoted Rep. Jim Moran as saying last week. "The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going and I think they should."
The good news is that the "antiwar" movement is not serious. If it were, it would not have to rely on fringe figures like Murtha, Moran and Cindy Sheehan.
The Truth About Race in America--IV
BlackCommentator.com, which describes itself as a source of "commentary, analysis and investigations on issues affecting African Americans" and has a harshly left-wing outlook, has an analysis of a poll on racial attitudes in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. BC.com's analysis is remarkably similar to our analysis, back in September, of a similar poll:
Hurricane Katrina may mark a watershed in Black perceptions of the African American presence and prospects in the United States. "It could very well shape this generation of young people in the same way that the assassinations of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King shaped our generation," said Prof. Michael Dawson, of the University of Chicago whose team conducted a survey of Black and white reactions to the disaster between October 28 and November 17, 2005. "It suggested to Blacks the utter lack of the liberal possibility in the United States," said Dawson, the nation's premier Black social demographer.
Huge majorities of Blacks agreed that the federal government's response would have been faster if the victims of Katrina in New Orleans had been white (84 percent), and that the Katrina experience shows there is a lesson to be learned about continued racial inequality (90 percent).
But only 20 percent of whites believe that the federal government's failure to respond had anything to do with race, and only 38 percent think there is something to be learned about racial inequality from the Katrina disaster. . . .
A Grand Canyon looms between the way African Americans and white people view the world, despite the fact that both groups are privy to the same information and images.
Suppose that Dawson is right, and the prevailing view among black Americans is, or comes to be, that there is an "utter lack of liberal possibility in the United States." Such a view doesn't recommend any sort of political program; the only responses would seem to be resignation to second-class status or impotent rage against it.
Yet to say that there is an "utter lack of liberal possibility" for black Americans is to ignore recent history. Can anyone seriously claim that blacks are no better off today than they were before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965? Perhaps progress has been insufficient. Perhaps the black condition has regressed in some respects. But to deny progress altogether flies in the face of objective reality.
Why do blacks and whites have such divergent views on racial matters? We would argue that it is because of the course that racial policies have taken over the past 40 years. Having succeeded in abolishing de jure segregation and establishing that blacks were equal before the law, racial liberals concluded, not unreasonably, that this was insufficient to guarantee equality of opportunity. That goal could not be achieved without "affirmative action." As Justice Harry Blackmun famously wrote in University of California v. Bakke, "In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. . . . And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently."
Blackmun's proposition is problematic in principle, but even more so in practice. Policy makers have no direct way of measuring whether they are ensuring "equality of opportunity," because opportunity is potential and thus intangible. The best they can do is to measure results: the number of blacks hired, promoted, enrolled, graduated, etc. This is why "affirmative action" programs almost inevitably turn into quotas.
Equality of result is an unattainable goal, for it requires compensating not just for prejudice and for material disparities (i.e., equalizing opportunity) but also for aggregate differences in motivation, inclination and aptitude. Actually producing equality of result would be impossible without a regime of social control that most Americans would find unacceptable--and it would be impossible with such a regime too, since those exercising the control would be "more equal" than everyone else.
This leaves us with a system that aims for equality of result but cannot deliver it. Maybe it closes the gap enough that it is worth the effort anyway. But by promising blacks something it cannot deliver, affirmative action breeds frustration and resentment.
Among whites, it largely breeds indifference. As we've noted before, anyone under 40 has lived his entire life in the post-civil-rights era. Young whites understandably wonder why they should be discriminated against to benefit their black peers to compensate for wrongs done before any of them were born. But raising such questions is taboo, and no one wants to be called a racist, much less get kicked out of school or fired for saying something "racially insensitive." Besides, affirmative action's discrimination against whites is marginal. Thus the rational response for a white American to affirmative action is to shrug his shoulders, go about his life, and avoid thinking about race.
All of this is especially true in higher education, which has embraced affirmative action more thoroughly than any other segment of American society. Thus the divergence in views between blacks and whites is quite possibly greater among the well-off and highly educated.
What is the answer to all this? Following the plain language of the 14th Amendment--that is, outlawing all racial discrimination, whether "affirmative" or "negative"--seems like the obvious solution, but at least in the short run it would exacerbate the differences in attitudes between blacks and whites. It may simply be that it'll take another decade or two for more nuanced ideas about race, suitable for the post-civil-rights era, to catch on.
Searchlight's Dim Bulb
"U.S. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called for the resignation of Homeland Security Department Secretary Michael Chertoff on Wednesday, one day after the government dropped Las Vegas from a list of cities considered potential high-risk targets eligible for special anti-terrorism grants," reports the Las Vegas Review-Journal:
"Anyone who can't see that Las Vegas is a high-risk area doesn't deserve to serve in a position like that," Reid said.
"We had more visitors on New Year's Eve than they had in Times Square and we're not a high-risk area? For heaven's sakes."
We wanted to send Reid an e-mail expressing our support for his position, so we went to the "E-Mail Form" on his Web site. The form includes a pull-down menu to select the "general topic of your message." There are 29 topics, but homeland security is not among them.
I'd Walk a Mile for a Camel
"A former Syrian vice president who has broken with President Bashar Assad called Friday for the leader's overthrow, saying he was unfit to rule," the Associated Press reports from Paris:
Abdul-Halim Khaddam told The Associated Press in an interview he expected Assad's regime to fall imminently as a result of popular pressure. But he said he was not calling for a military coup.
"What I want is a regime change," Khaddam said. "He does not deserve to be president."
The Middle East Media Research Institute has excerpts from a session of Syria's "parliament" in which members denounced Khaddam:
MP Abd Al-Razzaq Al-Yousuf: I call upon the political leadership to bring this Khaddam ("servant") to trial. He is mentally deranged. There is no doubt about it. He has many delusions. If he thinks that he will return to Syria one day as the "leader of a democracy," he is mistaken. He is a traitor in our view, and his punishment, in the people's eye, is known to all. He should be beaten with a shoe on his head until it breaks. My only fear is that the shoe would say: "When a shoe hits Khaddam on the head, it cries out: what did I do to deserve this beating?" . . .
Unknown MP: This scabies-afflicted camel should be cast out. Oh, homeland--the hand that feeds has been bitten. And by whom? By this scabies-afflicted camel called Khaddam.
This just goes to show that even a corrupt and despotic regime like the one in Damascus has something to teach the rest of us. These guys are much better at political insults than Americans are. "Scabies-afflicted camel"? Ya gotta love it. What does the Angry Left call President Bush? Chimp. Hitler. Chimpy W. Hitler. Adolf Flyboy Chimpstein. Ho hum! We're hard-pressed to think of a single stylish insult* in American politics.
* Apart, of course, from "the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam."
Stupid Mullah Tricks
IRNA, the official "news" agency of the mad mullahs who run Iran, "reports" that "number of world prominent figures and scholars have, in separate letters to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, supported his recent comments on the Holocaust." And who are these "world prominent figures and scholars"? Here's the list:
o Robert Faurisson, "a former professor at Lyon University in France." The Anti-Defamation League notes that Faurisson "removed from his academic post as a result of his anti-Semitic activities, and has been convicted on three occasions of violating French hate-crime laws."
o "A New York-based university professor, Abdullah Mohammad Sindi." Memri notes that Sindi's "articles have been published by notorious Holocaust-denial websites, including Radio Islam and the Institute for Historical Review."
o "The author of 'The Hoax of the Twentieth Century,' Professor Arthur Butz," who backed Ahmadinejad "in a letter written from the US state of Chicago" (Raquel Welch, where are you?). The ADL notes that Butz is a professor of electrical engineering who "has steadily promoted Holocaust denial on the Internet, in articles and in public speeches for almost thirty years."
So Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial has drawn support from other Holocaust deniers. Wow. More Iranian idiocy in this report from Adnkronos International:
The head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, who is also the man behind Iran's foreign policy, has warned Europeans "not to force the Islamic Republic to cut short the dialogue process and to opt for another scenario". Speaking on Tuesday night on state television he said: "We are for a strategy based on dialogue, but if the counterparty Europe plays dirty, then we will pass onto another plan that we have worked out and then there will be problems for the Europeans."
Without specifying the nature of the other plan and the other scenario, Larijani has compared the talks on Iran's nuclear programme to a chess game.
"In this game, we are for a result that will be satisfactory to both Iran and Europe," said Larijani adding that "if we lose, the same will also happen to the other party (Europe) and they will have to prepare themselves to live in a hell."
Do you think Larijani would be willing to play chess for us for money? He obviously has no idea how the game works.
Support Cindy Sheehan!
Blogger Charles Johnson is taking a vote for his annual Idiotarian of the Year award. The finalists are Venezuelan demagogue Hugo Chavez, fascist fishwife Cindy Sheehan and leftish fishwrap the New York Times. At this writing the Times is in the lead with around 39%, Chavez is second with 34%, and Sheehan is bringing up the rear with just 27%.
It's gotta be Cindy! Chavez and the Times may be idiotarians, but their motives are impure: Chavez wants to hold on to power, while the Times aims to make a profit. Sheehan is an idiotarian for idiotarianism's own sake; she says the things she says simply because she loves to hate. So click on the link atop this item and vote for Cindy Sheehan now.
Life Imitates the Onion
"As part of his ongoing campaign to revitalize New York City's public image through a citywide clean-up effort, mayor Rudolph Giuliani announced Monday the installation of special 'infants only' dumpsters throughout the greater New York metropolitan area. --Onion, Dec. 3, 1997
"The Northern Italian town of Padua recently inaugurated a 'cradle for life' (culla per la vita) hoping to curb incidents of babies dumped in trash bins, open fields and public bathrooms."--Wired News, Jan. 3, 2006
Peaceful Brawls Are So Much Nicer
"C. Florida Bar Brawl Turns Violent"--headline, Florida Today, Jan. 6
And It's Not Even in the Empire State
"County Appoints King Following Pope Resignation"--headline, Clarion (Pa.) News, Jan. 4
The Dogs of War
"Pets Losing Battle of the Bulge?"--headline, Reuters, Jan. 6
Thanks for the Tip!--XXXIII
"Health Tip: Avoid Driveway Accidents"--headline, HealthDayNews, Jan. 6
Bottom Story of the Day
"Pet Snake Survives Fire"--headline, Journal Times (Racine, Wis.), Jan. 5
Pat Answers
This was predictable. "Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested Thursday that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine punishment for 'dividing God's land,' " the Associated Press reports from Norfolk, Va.:
"God considers this land to be his," Robertson said on his TV program "The 700 Club." "You read the Bible and he says 'This is my land,' and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No, this is mine.' " . . .
In Robertson's broadcast from his Christian Broadcasting Network in Virginia Beach, the evangelist said he had personally prayed about a year ago with Sharon, whom he called "a very tender-hearted man and a good friend." He said he was sad to see Sharon in this condition.
He also said, however, that in the Bible, the prophet Joel "makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who 'divide my land.' "
Sharon "was dividing God's land and I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU ( European Union), the United Nations, or the United States of America," Robertson said.
MediaMatters has a transcript and video. Eugene Volokh writes:
I guess God must have really liked say Stalin, at least long past the purges. Oh, and Arafat, too; God must have been a big fan. . . . God didn't send Stalin a stroke during the purges or the Ukraine famine, so Stalin must not have really earned God's enmity. God didn't get rid of Arafat for a very long time. Sharon must have been a much worse fellow than those worthies, in God's eyes.
We're not sure about this. Stalin was 74 when he died, and Arafat has been in stable condition since dying at a Paris hospital at 75. Sharon is 77, which would suggest that God likes him slightly more than he likes Arafat or Stalin.
Volokh makes the point that he's referring to the temporal proximity of the bad act to the death or disease of the bad actor, but even so, there are explanations. Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994, so presumably God was inclined to cut him a little slack. As for Stalin, he died in 1953. Right after World War II, God must've had a big backlog.
A better example might be Fidel Castro, who is almost 80 and has been oppressing Cubans for 45 years. Also, God must like pro-abortion jurists: Harry Blackmun, author of Roe v. Wade, died at 90, 26 years after Roe. William Brennan lived 24 years after Roe and died at 91, and Thurgood Marshall was 84 when he perished, two days after Roe's 20th birthday. John Paul Stevens will be 86 in April, and by all accounts is quite spry.
OK, we can see why Robertson is quiet about these guys. But there are lots of prominent people who live well into their 90s and beyond: George Burns, Peter Drucker, Katharine Hepburn, Bob Hope, Strom Thurmond. You never hear about Robertson saying God rewarded them for their good works. Is this because the media only report the negative, or is it because the televangelism biz, too, follows the cynical motto "If it bleeds, it leads"? |
