Best of the Web Today - March 17, 2006
By JAMES TARANTO
Tankless Task
What do Hamas and the Heritage Foundation have in common? This Ha'aretz report suggests an intriguing answer:
A senior [Israeli] General Staff officer told Haaretz yesterday that Fatah and Hamas had recently switched roles. According to officer, Hamas is currently refraining from attacks, and its leaders have even rejected operatives' proposals for revenge attacks following the Jericho raid. In contrast, Fatah is now vying with Islamic Jihad for the title of the leading perpetrator of attacks in recent weeks. Thus far, however, it is sticking to attacks in the territories and eschewing attacks inside Israel.
IDF sources said that the main reason for Fatah's growing involvement in attacks was its operatives' fear that the new Hamas-led government would not be able to continue paying the approximately 70,000 members of the PA security services, most of whom are Fatah personnel. Perpetrating attacks against Israel enables these operatives to be paid instead by either Islamic Jihad's headquarters in Damascus or Hezbollah in Beirut.
It seems that for the Palestinian Arabs, terrorism is what opposition operatives do when they're out of power. It's the Palestinian equivalent of joining a think tank.
Rachel Corrie Again
It was three years ago yesterday that Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old native of Washington state, died in a bulldozer accident in which she was at fault. Corrie had been standing in front of an Israeli bulldozer that was destroying tunnels used to smuggle weapons from Egypt to terrorists in the Gaza strip. We wrote a lot about Corrie at the time, but frankly have become weary of the subject.
Much as we'd like to let Rachel Corrie rest in peace, we must return to the subject, because sympathizers with Palestinian terrorists insist on glorifying her as a symbol, apparently believing that the support of a naive-seeming white girl from America somehow diminishes the enormity of the exterminationist campaign that Palestinian Arab terrorist groups are waging. Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist Robert L. Jamieson Jr.--last seen advocating a permissive approach to "barnyard amour" (the politically correct term for bestiality)--sees a Jewish conspiracy to taint the sacred Corrie legacy:
The New York Theater Workshop recently canceled a scheduled production of a play about Rachel amid rumors that gurus in the theater world and pro-Israel audiences would not like a script challenging their view of the world.
In Seattle, the Bread and Puppet Theater production of "Daughter Courage," a different play about Rachel, met with warm embrace. Still, my colleague, Regina Hackett, who wrote about it, received a rash of rebuke. On the Seattle P-I's online blog, "Dr. Evil" wrote: "Only in this wonderful, liberal city would a pathetic naïve girl who tried to protect terrorists be celebrated."
If fear of offending Israel--a country in blind lockstep with the United States on foreign policy--drives this second silencing of Rachel, then her story is needed now more than ever.
Friends of Israel and Jews tend to react fast when they feel they're getting a raw deal.
Seattle official Cindi Laws learned this the hard way. She made remarks that were considered anti-Semitic during a re-election bid for the monorail board, and people howled. Laws lost.
And remember what happened in 2004? The local Middle Eastern community tried to get pro-Palestinian language in the plank of the King County Democratic Party platform. Again, people howled. The language got nixed.
In both instances, the message was clear: Don't mess with us.
Last week the P-I's art critic, Regina Hackett, offered a more balanced treatment of the Seattle production:
The play is uncritically on Corrie's side. Israel is represented as a big foot crushing innocent Palestinians. The plot features no Hamas-sponsored violence and no suicide bombers bent on earthly havoc followed by spiritual glory.
Not only that, representatives of the Palestine Solidarity Committee are passing out literature in the lobby. There's no table representing Israel.
Isn't ConWorks presenting a monologue instead of a dialogue?
"Well, OK, a monologue then," said Pearlstein. "But all these monologues add up to dialogues during our season."
During the season, will there be plays or artworks of any kind sympathetic to the struggles of the Israeli people?
"I'll have to double-check on that," he said.
In an interview with "Democracy Now" (hat tip: NewsBusters.org), the actress Vanessa Redgrave, a longtime anti-Israel activist, explains that she is in favor of free speech--except when she isn't:
Actually, there's many more people want the freedom to communicate, as long as it's not blasphemous and destructive in a rotten way of other people, in other words, racist. I mean, those cartoons, for instance, that have shocked us all were racist. They were fascist in character, the cartoons of the Prophet with a bomb on his head. I mean, that's a very rightwing paper, Jyllands-Posten, and it's not surprising that they published those cartoons as a sort of provocation. We have got these sort of fascist kind of things happening in the world, and we don't need any more of them.
However, the play, because the New York Theater Workshop canceled, there's a producer in London, and it's going to open in London at a major West End Theater, "My Name Is Rachel Corrie," and the press night's March the 28th. So, while every attempt has been made to suppress by governments, I think we've got that reminder of what Shakespeare said, "The truth will rise, though all the earth o'erwhelm it, to men's eyes."
A New York Times article yesterday on the controversy over the canceled New York production refers to "the sharply divided opinions of Ms. Corrie--idealistic or recklessly naïve, depending on one's political point of view." But take a look at this photo, taken a month before Corrie's accidental death. Judge for yourself, but to our eye this is the face neither of idealism nor of naiveté but of hatred.
The Bend of History
"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict."--editorial, New York Times, Feb. 27, 2003
"One prominent neoconservative, Francis Fukuyama, asserts in a new book that the administration embraced democracy as a cornerstone of its policy only after the failure to find unconventional weapons in Iraq. The issue was seized upon to justify the war in retrospect, and then expanded for other countries, he says."--New York Times, March 17, 2006
Speaking Ruth to Power
"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg assailed the court's congressional critics in a recent speech overseas, saying their efforts 'fuel' an 'irrational fringe' that threatened her life and that of a colleague, former justice Sandra Day O'Connor," reports the Washington Post:
Addressing an audience at the Constitutional Court of South Africa on Feb. 7, the 73-year-old justice, known as one of the court's more liberal members, criticized various Republican-proposed House and Senate measures that either decry or would bar the citation of foreign law in the Supreme Court's constitutional rulings. Conservatives often see the citing of foreign laws in court rulings as an affront to American sovereignty, adding to a list of grievances they have against judges that include rulings supporting abortion rights or gay rights.
Though the proposals do not seem headed for passage, Ginsburg said, "it is disquieting that they have attracted sizeable support. And one not-so-small concern--they fuel the irrational fringe."
She then quoted from what she said was a "personal example" of this: a Feb. 28, 2005, posting in an Internet chat room that called on unnamed "commandoes" to ensure that she and O'Connor "will not live another week."
Ginsburg's counterattack on GOP critics, posted on the court's Web site in early March but little noticed until now, comes at a time when tensions are already high between the federal judiciary and the Republican-led Congress.
Isn't there something improper about a member of the Supreme Court engaging in a "counterattack on GOP critics"? And as for the death threats, National Review Online's Ed Whelan makes the right point:
It is a detestable fact of modern life that public officials face death threats. The cowards and villains who make such threats should be investigated and prosecuted. But it also should not go unremarked that Ginsburg somehow saw fit to charge that entirely responsible congressional resolutions had "fuel[ed]" the threat that she received. Put aside the fact that Ginsburg offers not an iota of evidence to establish the linkage that she asserts. Even if one were to assume that the idiot who posted the comment on the chat site had been motivated to do so by the congressional resolutions, what fair basis is there to impute responsibility for that idiot's actions to the supporters of the resolutions? . . .
Our system properly deals with threats to public officials by investigating and prosecuting the perpetrators and by providing needed security to the officials who have been threatened. This system is, unfortunately, far from perfect. But it would not be improved by public officials' attempting to use the fact of threats against them to chill vigorous criticism of their actions. With her ACLU pedigree, Ginsburg surely ought to understand that.
It is, sadly, all too common for those on the political left to blur the categories of speech and action. Consider this Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette editorial on a similar speech by Justice O'Connor:
During her speech, O'Connor singled out former House Republican Majority Leader Tom Delay, R-Texas, who attacked state and federal judges after they did not prevent Terri Schiavo, who was brain dead for many years, from being taken off life support.
DeLay criticized "an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the president." And he warned, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."
Such threats, O'Connor said, "pose a direct threat to our constitutional freedom." She urged lawyers in her audience to speak up.
O'Connor also criticized Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a strong Bush supporter who suggested two recent fatal attacks on judges in Georgia and Illinois may have been related to their judicial rulings.
The editorial (though maybe not O'Connor's speech, which we haven't seen) draws an equivalence between DeLay's metaphorical "attack"--i.e., criticism, and acts of murder. If those in positions of authority have trouble making such distinctions, our civil liberties really may be in danger.
Defeat Bush in '08!
Sen. Russ Feingold's effort to "censure" President Bush for getting all worked up over a little thing like the murder of 3,000 people on American soil has certainly proved amusing. Today's New York Sun has the latest:
Senator Feingold yesterday dismissed suggestions that his effort to censure President Bush for authorizing warrantless wiretaps in America could backfire by unifying the Republican Party, which has splintered recently over a variety of issues.
"I think the press decided immediately that this was a bad thing for Democrats and a good thing for conservatives," Mr. Feingold, a Democrat of Wisconsin, said at a press conference in the Capitol. "The facts don't bear it out. You don't have the polls to prove it."
For someone who claims to be taking a stand on high principles, Feingold certainly seems preoccupied with polls. Then there's this:
The senator said he does not view impeachment as a prudent course. "The Constitution does not require us to go down that road. I hope that in a sense I'm a voice of moderation on this point," he said. "It may not be good for the country in a time of war to try to remove the president from office even though he's surely done something wrong, but what we can't do is just ignore the wrongful conduct."
And it's true that there is a left-wing fringe compared to which Feingold looks, if not moderate, at least only relatively mildly deranged. Keith Burgess-Jackson notes the self-destructiveness of this impulse:
Leftists are playing with fire by calling for the impeachment of President Bush. They think it helps them by energizing the base, and perhaps they're right. But they can't win an election with just the base. They need moderates.
If we learned anything from the impeachment of Bill Clinton, it is that most Americans don't want their presidents impeached. It's wasteful. It diverts time, attention, resources, and energy from pressing problems. Americans are sick and tired of political infighting, grandstanding, and maneuvering. They want their government to be serious, responsible, and dedicated to making this country a better (and safer) place in which to live. What they most emphatically do not want is for impeachment to become routine.
If leftists press forward with impeachment, they will be severely punished for it in the fall and beyond. One impeachment is enough. Move on.
We would add, though, that the Clinton impeachment had one important salutary political consequence: It heralded the end of the independent counsel statute.
Feingold is thought to be preparing for a 2008 presidential campaign by distinguishing himself as the Angry Left's man. On "Hardball" the other night, host Chris Matthews discussed 2008 strategy with Terry McAuliffe, Howard Dean's predecessor as chairman of the Democratic National Committee:
Matthews: Well, let me ask you, if the Republicans choose to fight on this turf, the cultural stuff--they're opposed to gay marriage or civil unions or anything like it. They're against abortion, except if the life of the mother is involved. They're for lower taxes, but immigration is another hot one.
How does a Democratic candidate for president respond to those issues when they're raised by the Republicans? You can't say you're for illegal immigration. You can't say you're for gay marriage, can you? Can you say, I guess you can say you're pro-choice, but isn't this a hard front to fight on for a Democrat?
McAuliffe: Absolutely not. First of all, in 2008, the framework we're going to be dealing with is a failed presidency, George Bush's presidency, from misleading us or whatever you want to call it to the war in Iraq, not sending in enough troops, more terrorists in Iraq than we had before making us less safe.
You have got to remember, Chris, that the '02 and '04 elections were all fought in the framework 9/11, in a post 9/11 world. And we can talk about all these cultural issues. First and foremost, they want to make sure your commander in chief is going to keep them safe.
And today now the Democrats for the first time since 9/11 lead on the issue of who will keep you safe. Why? Because George Bush has made so many mistakes, and our soldiers are paying the price today all over the world. You've seen in America, our high esteem has now gone down because of George Bush. Our soldiers are paying the price.
So first, national security we win that. Then, as Rev. Sharpton says, we get to all of these other issues.
McAuliffe thinks the Democrats will win by running against Bush. But how can that be when they didn't win in 2004, when they were running against Bush?
Can Liberalism Be Cured?
Colby Magazine, an official publication of the Waterville, Maine, college of the same name, features an essay by an erstwhile faculty member, Douglas Archibald:
I retired in August 2004, with two presentations at literature meetings in Liverpool providing a satisfying punctuation, then returned to volunteer for the MoveOn.org effort to change the administration in Washington. The effort worked in Maine but not well enough across the country, and I descended into depression and alienation, the intensity of which startled me.
What happened to my country? Actions and attitudes that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago now characterize the government to which I pay taxes and pledge allegiance. . . . Election Wednesday was a deeply discouraging moment.
If you can read this without shedding a tear, either you have a heart of stone or you're a fascist right-wing neocon who likes to torture puppies, especially differently abled gay and lesbian puppies of color. Come to think of it, what's the difference?
But there's good news. Prof. Archibald found a cure:
What's an old guy to do? I joke with my children that I follow two slogans: "Keep the Faith" and "Living Well is the Best Revenge." That means golf, movies, nice meals, good book, the occasional peace vigil, regular volunteering at the homeless shelter.
So the next time you see someone sporting a YES, I REALLY DO HATE GEORGE W. BUSH button, suggest a that he play a quick nine holes or take in a flick. There's a good chance he'll thank you for it.
The Wrong Kind of Smart Bomb
"Democrat Seeks to Dump Lieberman Over Iraq"--headline, MSNBC.com, March 16
How Can He Be So Sure?
"Boswell Says Offensive in Iraq Could Be Good or Bad"--headline, RadioIowa.com, March 16
My, What a Big Toaster You Have
"First Lady Toasts Afghan Author"--headline, Associated Press, March 16
The Fire Had a Better Lawyer
"Man Charged With Threats Before Fire Is Acquitted"--headline, Associated Press, March 16
Moo-ving Violation
"Flying Cow Leaves Two Police Cars in Flames"--headline, WOAI-AM/TV Web site (San Antonio), March 17
Bottom Story of the Day
"Gay Pol to Skip St. Patrick's Day Parade"--headline, Associated Press, March 16
Things Were Relatively Calm for the Next 999,999,999,999 Trillionths
USA Today brings us this news:
The universe expanded rapidly--growing from the size of a marble to billions of light years across--within the first trillionth of a second after its cataclysmic birth, astrophysicists reported Thursday.
For some reason, this reminds us of the turtle who got mugged by a gang of snails. A cop asked him to describe the suspects, and the turtle said, "I didn't get a good look at them, officer. It all happened so fast." |
