Best of the Web Today - June 9, 2006
By JAMES TARANTO
Liberals Are Racist, Study Suggests
The Washington Post's Richard Morin reports on a study he conducted, along with Shanto Iyengar of Stanford University, that attempted to gauge whether people's attitudes toward Hurricane Katrina victims were colored by racial prejudice.
Participants in the study were asked to read an article about a Katrina victim called "Terry Miller," who could be either male or female; black, white or Latino (in the last case, he was renamed "Terry Medina"); and, if black, either light- or dark-skinned. Then they were asked to say how much government aid victims of the hurricane should receive, within a range of $200 to $1,200 a month and three to 18 months:
If race mattered, there would be a difference in the level of assistance favored by respondents who read an article about the white Terry Miller and the assistance favored by those who read about a black Terry Miller.
There was. People were willing to give assistance to a white victim, on average, for about 12 months. But for an African American victim, the average duration was a month shorter while the amount of aid was nearly the same, meaning that blacks would collect about $1,000 less than white victims.
Roger Clegg, on National Review Online, argues that they take a glass-is-half-empty approach:
There could have been as much as a 15-month difference, and there was only a 1-month difference; there could have been as much as a $1000-a-month difference, and there was only, at most, a $100-a-month difference. Doesn't sound like proof of a racist society to me.
We are skeptical of the entire enterprise of trying to measure something as intangible as racial attitudes. Clegg's criticism (with which we neither agree nor disagree) illustrates one reason why: Even if you assume that these numbers are meaningful, how much of a difference would constitute "proof of a racist society"? We can't think of an answer to the question that isn't entirely arbitrary.
Even if we assume that the disparities Morin and Iyengar find actually do mean what they think they do, there is an enormous systemic bias in their study, which they acknowledge, seemingly without grasping its significance, in their full write-up:
Approximately 2,300 people completed the experiment. As in our past studies, the sample was skewed heavily in the direction of Democrats and liberals--only 12 percent of the participants identified as Republican. Eighty-six percent were critical of President Bush's handling of Katrina. The sample was also highly educated--84% had completed at least a bachelor's degree. These features of the sample are especially important in light of the results we describe below.
Later they note that 86% of the survey participants were white. They don't say how the participants were chosen, but it's clear that they are not a representative sample of the U.S. population: They are whiter, much better educated, and much more liberal than the population as a whole.
In other words, if this study shows that the participants are racially biased, that doesn't prove that Americans are racially biased. At most it proves that well-educated liberal white Americans are. Morin and Iyengar seem to think that their study's skew in favor of WELWAs strengthens their argument:
People cannot help stereotyping on the basis of ethnicity despite their best efforts to act unbiased and egalitarian. As we noted at the outset, this particular sample of participants consisted of highly educated individuals who located themselves toward the liberal end of the political spectrum. Many of them live in and around the nation's capital, one of the more racially diverse and cosmopolitan areas of America. We suspect that this group would score at or very near the top of most measures of support for civil rights and racial equality. Yet their responses to Katrina were influenced by the mere inclusion of racial cues in news media coverage. The fact that this group awarded lower levels of hurricane assistance after reading about looting or after encountering an African-American family displaced by the hurricane is testimony to the persistent and primordial power of racial imagery in American life.
That is to say, their claim to have uncovered empirical evidence of racial bias throughout "American life" is based on the assumption that WELWAs are less biased than the population as a whole, or at least that they are not appreciably more biased. But it is quite plausible that WELWAs are more biased, especially having gone through a higher education system that places great emphasis on racial differences.
A real social scientist would test such assumptions rather than merely assert that they prove his conclusion. The study's most definitive finding, then, is that its authors are prejudiced against Americans who are not liberal and those who lack college degrees.
Zarqawi Defeats Truman
"Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Al Qaeda's man in Iraq, remains at large."--Bob Herbert, New York Times, June 8
It's Alive!
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is still dead, but he wasn't yet when U.S. servicemen reached his hideout after the air strike that got him, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell tells Reuters:
"He was conscious initially according to the U.S. forces that physically saw him. He obviously had some kind of visual recognition of who they were because he attempted to roll off the stretcher, as I am told, and get away, realizing it was U.S. military," Caldwell said.
He died soon after of his wounds. It's especially gratifying to think that Zarqawi spent his final minutes fully aware of who got him.
Meanwhile, the other Z-man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2, has a new video out, the Associated Press reports:
An Al-Jazeera announcer said that the tape was made before the announcement of al-Zarqawi's death Thursday because al-Zawahiri praised the al Qaeda in Iraq leader's efforts to confront U.S.-led forces in Iraq.
"God bless the prophet of Islam in Iraq, the persistent hero of Islam, the Holy Warrior Abu Musab al-Zarqawi," al-Zawahiri said.
For years we've been hearing that Iraq is a "distraction" from the war on terror. Looks as though Zawahiri is distracted too!
Bad News Bearers
"As happened with the capture of Saddam Hussein and the 'shock and awe' bombing of Baghdad, some American news organizations yesterday covered the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with marked enthusiasm, verging on inappropriate glee," tut-tuts a Baltimore Sun "analysis" by two reporters. (Hat tip: Karol Sheinin.) But the rule wasn't universal:
There was also at least one example of exemplary coverage, in the work of ABC News, which broke into regular programming at 2:38 a.m. yesterday to announce the death of al-Zarqawi--29 minutes before the next station to do so, MSNBC.
ABC got the scoop on other news operations, thanks to a tip received by Martha Raddatz, its chief White House correspondent, at 2:15 a.m. Even though she was on vacation, Raddatz reported the story over the phone for the network.
Reporting rather than hype seemed to be the mantra at ABC, with the network offering the most proportional, understated and informed coverage.
But ABC didn't merely eschew "inappropriate glee"; it also published a piece on its Web site under the title "Al-Zarqawi Killing: More Harm Than Good?" And ABC was far from the only news organization that tried to portray this U.S. triumph as bad news--or at least to try to temper the good news by reminding us of bad nonnews.
"Zarqawi Found, but bin Laden Still Eludes US," reads a Reuters headline. What will Reuters "report" when we get bin Laden? "Hitler whereabouts still unknown"?
Here's an Associated Press headline: "Analysis: Threat Will Outlive Zarqawi." What would we do without analyses?
Blogger Matt Murphy has more examples:
o "The killing of terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a stunning victory for U.S. forces, but Iraq remains a nation beset by deeply rooted problems that threaten to push it deeper into chaos. There are few expectations that Zarqawi's death will change that."--Knight Ridder
o "While his death could erode the ability of his group, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia[*], to carry out suicide and car bomb attacks--and possibly set off a violent struggle to succeed him--the insurgency and the sectarian war he helped ignite will go on without him."--New York Times
o "Two men worlds apart illustrate the divide in global opinions about the death of al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The brother of a Briton beheaded by the terrorist band hoped he 'rots in hell,' while al-Zarqawi's brother said he was on his way to paradise after being killed Wednesday by a U.S. airstrike in Iraq."--Associated Press
o "But al-Zarqawi's death was a rare moment of triumph for the U.S. military, dogged by allegations of misconduct, by its failure to contain the relentless pace of insurgent attacks over the past three years and by unsuccessful attempts to capture the Jordanian-born extremist blamed for the vast majority of suicide attacks in Iraq."--Chicago Tribune
United Press International reports on an unusual poll:
The capture of Osama bin Laden likely would do little to help President Bush's approval ratings, a new poll indicates.
Same goes for the death Wednesday of Iraqi al-Qaida leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, insofar as a Bush boost in popularity, pollster John Zogby says. Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike Wednesday.
Of the 1,538 respondents to the Zogby interactive survey, most said it was important to catch bin Laden but felt it would not help the president's overall sagging job status of 42 percent.
So now they're taking polls asking people what effect they think events will have on other polls? What next, polls asking people to predict how others will predict events will effect the polls?
An Associated Press obituary of Zarqawi begins as follows:
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi rose from the life of a street thug in Jordan to become the symbol of "holy war" in Iraq, masterminding the bloodiest suicide bombings of the insurgency, beheading hostages and helping push Iraq into a spiral of sectarian violence with vicious attacks against Shiites.
Does the AP really think that going from street thug to mass murderer is a "rise"?
Another AP dispatch reports on al Qaeda's "marketing efforts":
With the demise of charismatic terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida will be looking for a new sales approach in its worldwide fundraising campaigns.
Al-Zarqawi had become a key part of al-Qaida's marketing: He was a terror operator who stole headlines with jarring, gruesome attacks carried out by a network of foreign and Iraqi fighters. For more than three years, he evaded an international manhunt.
Counterterrorism officials have said al-Zarqawi served as a worldwide jihadist rallying point and a fundraising icon.
Notes blogger Stephen St. Onge, "Naturally, they never get around to mentioning how they and the rest of the MSM has collaborated with the 'marketing' effort for terrorist mass murder. That wouldn't be 'objective.' " (Meanwhile, London's Daily Telegraph is doing a little marketing of its own: "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qa'eda leader in Iraq who was killed in a US airstrike this week, liked to start the day by reading the online version of The Daily Telegraph.")
Which brings us back to the Baltimore Sun, which features another piece today, under the headline "A Mostly Symbolic Blow to al Qaeda":
The killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a symbolic blow against the al-Qaida network, but it is unlikely to represent a turning point in either the Iraq war or the global fight against terror, terrorism specialists and former administration officials said Thursday.
Maybe the guys at Media Mutters will come up with some counterexamples, but we don't remember any examples of news stories trying to talk down the enemy's successes--that is, describing a terrorist bombing, or for that matter even the attacks of 9/11, as a "symbolic blow" that is unlikely to represent a turning point in the effort to defeat America.
* Or, as Democrats who read the New York Times call it, al Qaeda Which Has Nothing to Do With Mesopotamia in Mesopotamia Which Has Nothing to Do With Iraq.
Israel's Quiet Victory
Zarqawi's killing prompts Alan Dershowitz, in the Puffington Host, to decry a double standard:
When Israel targeted the two previous heads of Hamas, the British foreign secretary said: "targeted killings of this kind are unlawful and unjustified." The same views expressed at the United Nations and by several European heads of state. It was also expressed by various Human Rights organizations.
Now Great Britain is applauding the targeted killing of a terrorist who endangered its soldiers and citizens. What is the difference, except that Israel can do no right in the eyes of many in the international community[?] . . .
When the United States and British forces have engaged in targeted killings of terrorists, there have often been collateral deaths of non terrorists, as there apparently were in this instance as well. The military announced preliminary findings that a woman and a child were among the dead. Collateral deaths are inevitable when terrorists hide among civilians and use them as shields. Both Israel and the United States make great efforts to reduce the number of collateral deaths and injuries but they do not always succeed.
We made a similar point way back in July 2002, when the Bush administration denounced as "heavy-handed" an Israeli strike that killed a Hamas leader but also resulted in collateral deaths. We asked: "If Americans knew Osama bin Laden was hiding in a particular house in Afghanistan or Pakistan, would we let him go rather than risk killing civilians?"
Times have changed. The Chicago Tribune reports that "an Israeli missile strike in the Gaza Strip late Thursday killed a prominent militant who was the security chief of the Hamas-led Palestinian government." The job description makes clear that "security chief" is a somewhat misleading title:
The strike killed Jamal Abu Samhadana, 43, leader of the Popular Resistance Committees, a group responsible for many recent rocket attacks on southern Israel and suspected in the 2003 bombing of an American diplomatic convoy in the Gaza Strip in which three security officers were killed.
If anyone has expressed outrage over Abu Samhadana's killing, we haven't heard about it. Seems to us that, without much fanfare, Israel has won this argument.
Weapons of Ass Destruction
"Afghan Donkey Attack Thwarted"--headline, Globe and Mail (Toronto), June 8
Inherit the Wind
"Monkey Trial May Show Possible Way to AIDS Vaccine"--headline, Reuters, June 8
Future Ones Will Be in Springs or Autumns
"Last Harvard Commencement for Summers"--headline, Associated Press, June 8
Bottom Story of the Day
"Osama bin Laden Keeping Low Profile"--headline, Associated Press, June 9
The Coulter Kerfuffle
Fifty-two weeks ago, we wrote an item on "Karen Finley liberals." The reference was to a "performance artist" who had her 15 minutes of fame in the late '80s when the National Endowment for the Arts sought (ultimately with success) to deny taxpayer funding to her vulgar, over-the-top, far-left rants. We wrote:
"In recent years--especially since George W. Bush became president--Karen Finley-style shock rhetoric has become a dominant mode of expression on the political left, among politicians like [Charles] Rangel and [Howard] Dean as well as cultural figures like Michael Moore and Ward Churchill and even once-serious groups like Amnesty International.
We noted that such rhetoric is self-limiting: "Shock can be a useful rhetorical device, but only if used sparingly--for the listener's capacity for shock quickly diminishes."
Now there is proof that Finleyan rhetoric is far more common on the left than on the right. It takes the form of all the attention Ann Coulter is getting for her harsh ad hominem comments about the "Jersey girls," a quartet of 9/11 widows turned Democratic activists, who became media darlings during the 2004 campaign. (For a measured criticism of the Jersey girls, see this piece by our Dorothy Rabinowitz.)
Coulter's over-the-top comments have prompted some pretty over-the-top reactions, and we'd just like to note two of them. The first is a press release by a pair of Democratic members of the New Jersey Assembly:
In response to these incendiary, hate-filled attacks on women who suffered a terrible personal tragedy four-and-a-half years ago and have selflessly advocated to improve national security in the intervening years, the assemblywomen issued the following statement, denouncing Coulter's attacks and asking New Jersey retailers to ban the sale of her book throughout the state.
During the Karen Finley kerfuffle, there was never an effort to ban her performances, only to deprive her of taxpayer subsidies--and yet those on the left denounced even those efforts as "censorship." Here we see an actual--albeit ineffectual--call for censorship, and it is coming from the left.
John Kerry**, meanwhile, offers this observation:
Grotesque as it is, this is [Coulter's] attempt to be provocative--infamy's its own kind of fame--to get her mug on TV and sell books. Coulter is counting on this "controversy" to get her ink and sell her angry harangue of a book.
It's hard to disagree with that, but boy does it take one to know one. This, after all, is the same John Kerry who in 1971, in order to get his mug on TV, said of his fellow Vietnam veterans that
they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
Infamy is its own kind of fame, all right--and in the Democratic Party, it can even be the ticket to a presidential nomination.
** At least he served in Vietnam, unlike Ann Coulter! |
