Best of the Web Today - March 15, 2006
By JAMES TARANTO
Profiles in Courage
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank has a hilarious description of Democratic senators, "filing in for their weekly caucus lunch yesterday" and reacting to colleague Russ Feingold's proposal to censure President Bush for fighting terrorism:
"I haven't read it," demurred Barack Obama (Ill.).
"I just don't have enough information," protested Ben Nelson (Neb.). "I really can't right now," John Kerry (Mass.) said as he hurried past a knot of reporters--an excuse that fell apart when Kerry was forced into an awkward wait as Capitol Police stopped an aide at the magnetometer.
Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) brushed past the press pack, shaking her head and waving her hand over her shoulder. When an errant food cart blocked her entrance to the meeting room, she tried to hide from reporters behind the 4-foot-11 Barbara Mikulski (Md.).
"Ask her after lunch," offered Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reines. But Clinton, with most of her colleagues, fled the lunch out a back door as if escaping a fire. . . .
So nonplused were Democrats that even Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), known for his near-daily news conferences, made history by declaring, "I'm not going to comment." Would he have a comment later? "I dunno," the suddenly shy senator said.
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, even sent an e-mail to his supporters today titled " 'Russ Feingold Is a Traitor.' " Fox News reports Feingold isn't happy with his colleagues:
"I'm amazed at Democrats . . . cowering with this president's numbers so low," said Feingold, D-Wis. "The administration . . . just has to raise the specter of the War on Terror, and Democrats run and hide."
The Feingold Credo: Cower only before those with high poll numbers.
What'll They Blame Bush For Next?
The New York Times editorial page has become increasingly shrill and detached from logic over the past few years, and we blame President Bush! Well, OK, we don't really blame Bush, but the Times would if it recognized the problem. A catch-all editorial today blames Bush for two totally unrelated events:
This page opposes the death penalty, so we're not going to be upset if federal prosecutors fail to execute Zacarias Moussaoui on conspiracy charges related to Sept. 11, and have to settle for sending him to jail for life. But it's unnerving that the setback for the prosecution was due to the incredible misbehavior of one of the government lawyers, a member of the Transportation Security Administration. The lawyer, Carla Martin, violated a court order and drew down the wrath of the presiding judge by attempting to coach via e-mail some witnesses expected to testify--in a manner that a first-year law student should have known was a very, very bad idea. It may be irrelevant that Ms. Martin's main job is as an aviation security expert, but it doesn't make us feel any better.
Minor flare-ups of bad news are also much more disturbing when they remind us of the administration's history of rewarding party loyalists and campaign workers with jobs that are far above their level of competence. Claude Allen, who recently resigned as the president's domestic policy adviser, was arrested in a bizarre case involving a scheme to collect refunds from stores for merchandise he had never purchased, from a home theater system to an item worth only $2.50. The allegations about Mr. Allen might have been classified as a sad tale of a White House official who fell victim to pressure or overwork, had it not been for the fact that the Bush administration had also nominated him for a seat on the United States Court of Appeals despite a résumé that's exceedingly thin on legal experience.
So let's see, it's Bush's fault that a government lawyer--presumably a civil servant, though the Times doesn't say--screws up. And Allen's alleged crime somehow shows that Bush erred in appointing him to the bench, even though there have been no allegations that Allen committed any crimes before his nomination.
Speaking of Allen, the Los Angeles Times carries a rather jaw-dropping column on his case from Erin Aubry Kaplan:
I don't support conservatism in its current iteration, and I support black conservatives even less, but we cannot ignore the racial implications of this latest Republican fall from grace. Here is a decidedly white-collar black man getting clipped for a blue-collar crime associated with economic necessity, one that practically guarantees prison time for most black men in this country. (Even if he's ultimately convicted, it's doubtful that Allen will end up behind bars.) . . .
Fast-track people such as Allen are praised by conservatives for being shining examples of their race, and, at the same time, they are used in one way or another for public relations purposes and damage control during racially charged moments. . . .
It's hard to imagine that such compromises and cognitive dissonance don't exact a psychological toll at some point, and Allen's alleged dabbling in crime might have been that point for him. Was he testing the limits of a power he wasn't sure he had, but needed? Was he fatally overconfident -- fatal indeed for a black man -- that his position shielded him from the consequences of crime, or at least the consequences of petty theft? After a career of always conducting himself appropriately, as his mentor Clarence Thomas reportedly advised, did he finally crack under the pressure?
Kaplan dislikes conservatives, but she dislikes black conservatives even more; and she is eager to attribute Allen's alleged crimes to his race. Hard to believe such racist views find a hearing in a major newspaper in the 21st century.
The Roe Effect in Action
From an article on South Dakota's draconian new abortion law in the English-language edition of Der Spiegel:
Thelma Underberg, director of the regional pro-choice movement, has been fighting to uphold abortion rights for more than 40 years. For Underberg, professional and economic equal opportunity and a woman's right to choose are inextricably linked. When the Supreme Court passed Roe vs. Wade in 1973, enabling women to obtain abortions legally anywhere in America, Underberg celebrated. "We thought we had won," she says.
But now, sitting in her windowless office, she says she doesn't understand the world anymore. The 74-year-old has three children, four grandchildren and two great-grandchildren, and she is active in her church. Yet while she outwardly resembles her opponents in the pro-life camp, she refuses to speak with them. "You might as well be talking to a wall," she says.
Her three children produced only four grandchildren, or 1.33 grandchildren per child, well below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. We wouldn't be surprised to learn that the head of the local antiabortion organization has considerably more fertile offspring.
Law Students Against Representation
It turns out the military isn't the only organization whose law school recruitment efforts activists have targeted. The Boston Globe reports:
When word spread at Harvard Law School last month that one of the most successful recruiters of its graduates, Ropes & Gray, was helping Catholic Charities explore ways to prevent same-sex couples from adopting children, gay and lesbian students wanted to stop the law firm it its tracks.
There were "people who were upset and people who were very upset," said Brad Rosen, a first-year student and board member of Lambda, the school's group for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students.
A Lambda representative wound up meeting with Ropes's managing partner and others at the firm and expressing the students' unhappiness.
Two weeks ago, Ropes said it would no longer do legal work to assist the bishops in their efforts to stop gay adoptions, and last week Catholic Charities said it would end its adoption program because it could not reconcile church doctrine, which holds that gay adoptions are "gravely immoral," with state antidiscrimination laws.
It's unclear what impact, if any, Harvard's students had in Ropes's decision, although they are among the country's most sought-after law graduates.
It's one thing for Harvard to object when an organization discriminates in hiring, but the complaint about Ropes & Gray goes against one of the most basic premises of the law: that lawyers are not responsible for the actions of their clients, and that everyone is entitled to seek legal representation. Even if the Catholic Church is invidiously discriminating against gays, the law firm is no more responsible for this than a serial killer's lawyer is for the former's crimes.
Faith-Based Initiative
Reader Dale Switzer, a 1996 presidential elector from Oklahoma, writes us to note another problem in the so-called National Popular Vote plan, the New York Times' endorsement of which we noted yesterday:
The Electoral College is not made up of "votes"; it is made up of people, and those people are nominated by their parties. There was no law the state of Oklahoma could have passed that would have convinced me to vote for Bill Clinton. And there was no way that the chairman of the state Democrats, a member of his party's electoral slate, would have voted for Bob Dole.
There is also no constitutional way to force an elector to vote anything but his conscience. Every few elections a "faithless" elector shows up who casts some screwball vote for Lloyd Bentsen or John Edwards. There is nothing that the state or federal government can do about it.
Lets put this idea into practical terms. On Nov. 7, 2000, Oklahoma votes 60% for George W. Bush. About Nov. 14 eight people get a certificate of election in the mail, informing them that their candidacy for the Electoral College has been successful (I still have mine from 1996).
But, of course, the national vote has not yet been tallied and no one is absolutely sure who won this election. So these electors, even though they have worked for years for the GOP and actively campaigned for George W. Bush, are supposed to decide to vote for Al Gore because an unconstitutional law tells them to? Dream on.
Of course, the state could take the nomination of electors out of the hands of the party and put it into the hands of an "independent" commission. This commission will now find people who are active in politics and yet have no strong preference in a presidential election? Are these people predictable and stable?
Does anyone at the New York Times know the name Aaron Burr?
In case not, Burr was the loser of the disputed election of 1800. One elector failed to hold back his vote, creating a tie, which the House finally resolved on the 36th ballot.
When Did Bush Quit?
"Schubert Leaves USC to Lead U.S."--headline, Daily Bulletin (Ontario, Calif.), March 15
Live Long and Prosper
"Vulcan Raises Earnings Forecast"--headline, MarketWatch.com, March 14
Screw, Ball Still at Large
"Police Seize Crack, Pot in House Search"--headline, Columbia (Mo.) Daily Tribune, March 14
What Happens When You Pay Headline Writers by the Column Inch
"Vineland Delays Plan to Buy Newfield Water From Newfield Purchase of Newfield Water Delays Plan to Purchase Newfield Water"--headline, Press of Atlantic City (N.J.), March 15
Thanks for the Tip!--LIV
"Health Tip: In Men, It's Called Andropause"--headline, HealthDayNews, March 15
Bottom Stories of the Day
"Storm Typical for Mid-March"--headline, Wausau (Wis.) Daily Herald, March 14
"Western Leaders Deny Plot to Influence Destiny of Belarus"--headline, Financial Times, March 14
"Will Ferrell Not Dead in Paragliding Accident"--headline, PostChronicle.com, March 14
Is American Competitiveness Something to Fear?
One Sanam Hakim, a columnist for the Daily Collegian at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, thinks so:
Competition is essentially the root of progress in this country. Capitalism works, and it works really well. If you keep people competing, the best workers will emerge and the best products will be circulated in the best way. Competition brings about progress.
However, competition also implies that some will succeed and some will not. Unfortunately for this country, that decision of who will not succeed was made from the start when a nation full of Native Americans were murdered, and essentially built over, and when thousands of Africans were shipped in as products to do the building.
A shaky foundation such as ours can never hold up a nation, no matter how powerful and strong it may appear, and that is proving to be true as the years go on. Competing businesses quickly turned into corporate monopolies and the gap between wealth and poverty is rapidly getting wider and wider. A diminished middle class is the formula for a revolution, and we are headed in that direction really soon in this country. . . .
I'm scared to see what kind of shows my children will watch, I'm scared to enter the job market after graduation, but I'm absolutely terrified of the direction this country is going.
Oh yeah, Sanam? We bet we're more scared than you are! |
