Best of the Web Today - January 11, 2007
By JAMES TARANTO
Today's Videos on WSJ.com: James Taranto on Saddam's execution and John Fund on John Edwards's 2008 prospects.
The Iranian Front
The New York Sun's take on the news often seems idiosyncratic, and today's issue is no exception. "BUSH WARNS IRANIANS," screams the front-page banner headline (more subdued on the Web). "President Bush says we are effectively at war with Iran," reports Eli Lake, the Sun's man in Washington:
Mr. Bush, in a much-anticipated televised speech to the nation last night, accused the Islamic Republic of "providing material support for attacks on American troops." Eschewing advice from his father's secretary of state, James Baker, to open a dialogue with Iran and Syria, the president said American forces in Iraq would "disrupt" attacks from Syria- and Iran-backed terrorists, "interrupt" the supply lines reaching back to those countries, and "seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq." That last sentence is the closest Mr. Bush has come to announcing attacks on Iranian territory, where American intelligence and military leaders have said the most destructive improvised explosives used against American convoys are made.
A report from the BBC suggests the Sunsters are on to something:
US forces have stormed an Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized six members of staff.
The troops raided the building at about 0300 (0001GMT), taking away computers and papers, according to Kurdish media and senior local officials.
The US military would only confirm the detention of six people around Irbil.
Tehran said the attack violated all international conventions. It has summoned ambassadors from Switzerland, representing US interests, and Iraq.
Well, of course, if we'd done it Iran's way, we would have taken over the building and held everyone there hostage until March 30, 2008.
The Associated Press reports that the U.S. disputes some elements of this account; specifically, "a senior U.S. military official said the building was not a consulate and did not have any diplomatic status." But everyone seems to agree the captured men are Iranians. Both the Beeb and the AP say the raid happened around 3 a.m. local time today, or 7 p.m. EDT yesterday--two hours before the president's speech.
The Jerusalem Post reports on a possible diplomatic advance against the Tehran regime: Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with his Chinese counterpart, Wen Jiabao, and said Jiabao told him something "surprisingly positive and unexpected."
"Sources in Jerusalem" say the Chinese are more willing than before to support sanctions aimed at retarding Tehran's nuclear program--in part because of the efforts of the Saudis:
While China is heavily dependent on Iran for oil, importing roughly 300,000 barrels of Iranian crude a day, that dependence is not as great today as it was a year ago.
In January 2006, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, who diplomatic officials in Jerusalem have said is as concerned about a nuclear Iran as Israel, went to China and reportedly told the Chinese leadership that Saudi Arabia would make up for any oil shortfall that might arise were the Iranians to cut back oil to China as punishment for sanctions.
It's easy, albeit boring, to wring one's hands about how terrible things are in Iraq, but what if America had abjured military force back in 2003? One possible outcome is that the Saudis, instead of acting constructively to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions, would be relying on Saddam's Baathist bomb as a counterweight.
Markos Moulitsas, Material Girl
"The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict," President Bush said last night. "It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time." Markos "Kos" Moulitsas begs to differ:
I can't take anyone bellowing crap like "decisive ideological struggle of our time" seriously when they refuse to call for the sort of national sacrifice that a real "decisive ideological struggle of our time" would demand.
If Bush and his pals truly believe the fate of Western civilization hangs in the balance, they should show they mean it. Mobilize the country. Call for a draft. . . .
And yeah, of course they won't go anywhere near a draft. They don't believe in their war that much, enough to kill them electorally for a generation. But if the struggle is so dire and dark, why not do something as tame as repeal their precious tax cuts for the wealthy?
It's a common trope on the left: the measure of your devotion to a cause is the extent to which you are willing to expand governmental power in the name of fulfilling it. The question of whether a draft or tax increases would, as a practical matter, benefit the cause is treated as irrelevant; what's important is the symbolism of the grand gesture. It is analogous to evaluating a man's devotion to his wife or girlfriend solely by how much money he spends on her.
Steady as She Goes
"Nothing has changed to warrant more troops now."--Bloomberg columnist Margaret Carlson, Jan. 11
"Recent history might be repeating itself. Once again, Bush is sending too few soldiers."--Carlson, same column
Ex-Friends
"Fourteen members of an advisory board at the Carter Center resigned today, concluding they could 'no longer in good conscience continue to serve' following publication of former President Jimmy Carter's controversial book, 'Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,' " The Wall Street Journal reports (link for WSJ.com subscribers):
"It seems that you have turned to a world of advocacy, including even malicious advocacy," the board members wrote in a letter, a copy of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. "We can no longer endorse your strident and uncompromising position. This is not the Carter Center or Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support. Therefore it is with sadness and regret that we hereby tender our resignation from the Board of Councilors of the Carter Center effective immediately."
The advisory board is comprised of more than 200 members, including representatives from leading businesses and other groups in the Atlanta area.
Some of the Carter Center board members who quit in protest have known Mr. Carter for decades. William B. Schwartz Jr., whose name is on the list of those resigning today, was U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas during the Carter administration. S. Stephen Selig III, chairman and president of Atlanta real-estate developer Selig Enterprises Inc., was a top White House aide to Mr. Carter who led outreach to the business community. Mr. Selig was chairman of the host committee for the 1988 Democratic National Convention in Atlanta.
The resignation letter is scathing. After enumerating various factual errors both in Carter's book and in his subsequent comments on it, the erstwhile advisers note that he has made some new "friends":
Your use of the word "Apartheid," regardless of your disclaimers, has already energized white supremacist groups who thrive on asserting Jewish control of government and foreign policy, an insinuation you made in your OPED to the LA Times on December 8, 2006: "For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts." According to Web site monitoring by the Anti-Defamation League, U.S. white supremacists have enthusiastically embraced your suggestion that the Israel lobby stifles debate in this country, saying it confirms Jewish control of government and foreign policy as well as and the inherently "evil" nature of Jews. If you doubt the support you are giving and receiving, please refer to [this link.]
From there you can get to the postings of four different White Supremacist organizations that both support and make use of the contents of your book and what you have said in public.
The Boston Globe, meanwhile, says that Carter "has agreed to speak . . . at Brandeis University"--this after he complained that "university campuses with high Jewish enrollment" were refusing to invite him to speak, and after he rejected an invitation from Brandeis because he refused to debate a critic, Alan Dershowitz. We're still holding out hope for a Dershowitz-Anderson debate.
Dodd on Arrival
"Democratic Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd on Thursday announced his bid for the presidency on the 'Imus in the Morning' radio show," Fox News reports:
"I decided I wanted to get on the arena floor and make my case to be president," said the 62-year-old lawmaker, who pointed to his experience and background as his strengths.
Dodd is assured of joining such luminous figures as Howard Baker, Fritz Hollings, John Glenn, Paul Simon, Tom Harkin, Dick Lugar, Orrin Hatch and Bob Graham--U.S. senators whose presidential candidacies are forgotten by all but the most obsessive political trivia buffs.
Getting Disparate
"The University of Michigan announced Wednesday that it will comply with a new voter-approved ban on affirmative action and immediately stop considering race and gender in admissions," the Associated Press reports from Detroit. The university--whose undergraduate preferences the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as constitutional in 2003, while upholding another such scheme at the law school--will continue to litigate against the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, though. Also:
The university said that it would use other criteria that are not explicitly race- or gender-based to achieve diversity. Those include geographic diversity, the level of education completed by students' parents, and whether students attended a disadvantaged school.
In the 1971 case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co., the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. . . . Good intent or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as 'built-in headwinds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability."
Griggs involved employment law, not university admissions; and the Supreme Court has held that student-body "diversity" is a "compelling interest" that justifies some degree of outright discrimination. So Michigan would seem to be on solid legal ground--at least with respect to federal law--in using criteria that have disparate impact in order to operate as a "built-in tailwind" for minority groups. But it's interesting to watch them follow the same sort of tactics that were alleged to have been employed to perpetuate old-fashioned discrimination against minorities.
Where's the Skepticism?
"There were 744,000 homeless people in the United States in 2005, according to the first national estimate in a decade," the Associated Press reports from Washington:
A little more than half were living in shelters, and nearly a quarter were chronically homeless, according to the report Wednesday by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, an advocacy group.
A majority of the homeless were single adults, but about 41 percent were in families, the report said.
The group compiled data collected by the Department of Housing and Urban Development from service providers throughout the country. It is the first national study on the number of homeless people since 1996. That study came up with a wide range for America's homeless population: between 444,000 and 842,000.
Counting people without permanent addresses, especially those living on the street, is an inexact process. But the new study is expected to provide a baseline to help measure progress on the issue.
The group that conducted this study has both an ideological and a material stake in making this problem seem as dire as possible. That in itself doesn't necessarily discredit it, but why don't journalists treat studies by self-interested liberal groups with the same skepticism the would apply to, say, those by corporations?
James Carroll's Seamless Undergarment--II
Yesterday we noted that James Carroll of the Boston Globe, in a November 2005 column, had faulted politicians "who declare themselves 'personally opposed' to abortion, but ready to enable it." We wondered what Carroll's own view on abortion was, since he didn't say in the column. It turns out that in an April 2005 interview with PBS's Bill Moyers, Carroll tried to elucidate--though he ended up obfuscating:
Moyers: So do you see much hope for finding middle ground when the [Catholic] Church says abortion is a grave sin and homosexuality is a moral evil? Is there any room for compromise there?
Carroll: Well, I think no, there won't be compromise on those questions. I don't see it coming. But that doesn't mean that the questions that those of us who have a different position-- I'm a Catholic and I'm opposed to abortion myself. But the complications of that make it impossible for me to identify myself as pro-choice or pro-life. Those extremes I'm talking about. But the point is that we're all obliged to speak our consciences in this important conversation. Every person. Within the church, every Catholic. Within America, every citizen. We all have an obligation to be part of this. Because the truth is, nobody can tell us the answer to these difficult, difficult questions.
Now, we have some sympathy for Carroll's muddleheadedness on this subject. As we've written, we're ambivalent about abortion too; and some of our readers have taken us to task for failing to take a stand.
In our defense, we will offer only this: It is one thing not to take a stand when one isn't sure what one believes. It's another thing to declare a belief--"I'm opposed to abortion"--and then refuse to grapple with its implications.
Life Imitates the Onion
"In addition to a charge of possessing cocaine, a city resident faces a misdemeanor assault charge after another man reported being hit on the head with a large onion."--Asheville (N.C.) Citizen-Times, Jan. 11
Didja Hear the One About the Blind Rabbi?
"Man Loses Nose in Circumcision Ceremony"--headline, News.com.au, Jan. 9
As Glenn Reynolds Would Say, 'Indeed'
"Photos Leaked to Press Show Ramon and 'Heh' Hugging"--headline, Jerusalem Post, Jan. 9
Better Than a Lemon
"Carmakers Shift Their Sights to Turkey"--headline, Yahoo Finance, Jan. 11
Somewhere in the Neighborhood of 100%
"Risk of Death High for New Ex-Cons"--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 10
Why Not Just Change the Diapers?
"Corzine to Sign Law Requiring Air-Quality Checks at Day Care Centers"--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 11
News You Can Use
"Being Bird-Brained Is Not So Bad--as Long as It Is a Big Bird Brain"--headline, Scientific American, Jan. 10
Bottom Stories of the Day
o "Supermodel Opposes YouTube Ban in Brazil"--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 10
o "British Prof Arrested; Jaywalking in Ga."--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 10
o "Single-Sex Schools Won't Open This Fall"--headline, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Jan. 10
o "Three Pigs Trigger Fire in Rural Serbia"--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 10
o " 'Dukes of Hazzard' Fest Set for June"--headline, CBSNews.com, Jan. 10
o "Charles Family Taking to the Game of Hockey"--headline, Wausau (Wis.) Daily Herald, Jan. 11
o "Canadians Prefer Democrat Four-to-One in 2008 Presidential Race: Poll"--headline, Canadian Press, Jan. 10
A Different Kind of 'Bottom Story'
"A high school art teacher who sparked controversy after his off-hours work as a 'butt-printing artist' became known has been fired," the Associated Press reports from Richmond, Va.:
The Chesterfield County School Board, in a unanimous voice vote, terminated Stephen Murmer at a meeting Tuesday night, school spokeswoman Debra Marlow said. . . .
Murmer, a teacher at Monacan High School, was suspended in December after objections were raised about his private abstract artwork, much of which includes smearing his posterior and genitals with paint and pressing them against canvas. . . .
The unique approach to art became a topic when a clip showing Murmer, wearing a fake nose and glasses, a towel on his head and black thong, turned up on YouTube.com.
That video inevitably made its way to the high school.
The AP reports that Murmer's paintings sell for "up to $900," so hopefully his rent won't end up in arrears.
URL for this article: opinionjournal.com |
