Best of the Web Today - October 10, 2007
By JAMES TARANTO
Today's Video on WSJ.com: Brendan Miniter on the GOP's Midwestern woes, and SEC Commissioner Paul Atkins talks with James Freeman.
Goldwater Girl
Sometime in 2005 we were at a dinner party in Washington where a group of conservative journalists and activists were discussing the frustration they were beginning to feel with George W. Bush. One topic was the failure of his plan for partial privatization of Social Security. We defended the president by saying that what he proposed probably had been politically impossible, since what he proposed was too bold to pass without bipartisan support and the Democrats were too dug in to offer any support.
We pointed out that the problems of Social Security were going to have to be dealt with at some point, and suggested that perhaps President Hillary Clinton would end up privatizing Social Security, just as Nixon had gone to China and her husband had reformed welfare. This earned us some hoots from our dinner companions.
Although Mrs. Clinton has not yet faced presidential voters, the Associated Press reports from Webster City, Iowa, that our prediction has partially come true:
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed tax cuts of up to $1,000 a year on Tuesday to encourage millions of working-age families to open personal 401(K) retirement accounts.
The New York senator said the program would be paid for through higher estate taxes. . . .
She outlined a program in which the government would provide a "matching refundable tax credit--dollar for dollar--for the first $1,000 of savings done by every married couple making up to $60,000 a year."
Families with incomes of up to $100,000 would receive a smaller tax break to spur them to contribute to a personal 401(K).
"This means tens of millions of middle-class families will get matching tax cuts of up to $500 and $1,000 to help them build a nest egg for retirement," said a fact sheet distributed by the campaign.
One could argue that 401(k)s and other tax-deferred instruments for retirement saving in themselves amount to partial privatization of Social Security. But Mrs. Clinton's proposal goes a step further by offering a direct subsidy to private retirement accounts--a defined-contribution pension plan paid for in part by the government. If this isn't partial privatization, what is?
Meanwhile, the Washington Post Web site fact-checks Mrs. Clinton's assurances to the Angry Left on Iraq:
It is only when you examine the details--like the fine print in an insurance contract--that you discover that [Mrs.] Clinton's pledge to "get out of Iraq" is far from iron-clad. There are numerous conditions attached. She enumerated some of them in the June 19 Democratic debate when pressed by Chris Matthews. Read the full transcript here. Clinton's list of "vital national security interests" in Iraq turns out to be quite lengthy:
o "We cannot let Al Qaeda have a staging ground in Iraq."
o "We have made common cause with some of the Iraqis themselves in Anbar province."
o "We also have to look at the way the Kurds are being treated."
o "We also have to pay attention to Iranian influence."
o "We will have to protect our interests. We'll have an embassy there."
o "If the Iraqi government does get its act together, we may have a continuing training mission."
Here are a couple more reasons cited by Clinton for a continuing deployment of American troops to prevent Iraq degenerating into a failed state "that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda." They come from an interview she gave to the New York Times back in March.
o Iraq "is right in the heart of the oil region."
o Leaving Iraq altogether would be "directly in opposition to our interests . . . to Israel's interests."
Somehow that doesn't sound like a firm promise "to get out of Iraq" or, even less, a guarantee to "end our involvement there."
On domestic and foreign policy, then, Mrs. Clinton turns out to be fairly conservative, at least by Democratic standards. So why shouldn't our right-wing friends rush out and vote for her? One word: judges.
The composition of the judiciary is a subject that united two groups on the right: those who take conservative views on social issues like abortion and homosexuality, and those who take more middle-of-the-road positions (as this column does), or even liberal ones, but who nonetheless believe that judges should respect the Constitution and not impose their own preferred social policies on the nation.
Neither social conservatives nor constitutional conservatives will be happy with judges appointed by a President H.R. Clinton. And yet there has recently been talk that if front-runner Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, social conservatives may bolt, either voting for a third party or staying home on Election Day. What an irony it would be if they ended up electing a Democratic president who is reasonably conservative on every issue except the ones they care about most.
Now Is the Time . . .
Remember the famous "I Like Ike" TV ad from 1952? We don't--we're not that old--but here's the script for the jingle:
Ike for President. Ike for President. Ike for President. You like Ike, I like Ike, everybody likes Ike for President. Bring out the banners, beat the drums, we'll take Ike to Washington. We don't want John or Dean or Harry. Let's do that big job right. Let's get in step with the guy that's hep. Get in step with Ike. You like Ike, I like Ike, everybody likes Ike for president. Bring out the banners, beat the drums, we'll take Ike to Washington. We've got to get where we are going, travel day and night. Let Adlai go the other way. We'll all go with Ike. You like Ike, I like Ike, everybody likes Ike for President. Bring out the banners, beat the drums, we'll take Ike to Washington. We'll take Ike to Washington!
Now read this excerpt from a piece in today's Boston Globe:
Don Schwartz, who describes himself as "a super-Deaniac progressive type," decided to back Hillary Clinton--whose centrist views, he concedes, do not necessarily match his own--for a simple reason. He wanted, finally, to be with a winner. . . .
"I was actually surprised how many people said they were for Hillary," Schwartz said. "Now, they're getting to know her, and they're starting to like her. She is a nice person!"
That reaction to the kind feelings the New York senator is able to generate has been a common one in New Hampshire, where a range of Democrats said last week that they are amazed to find themselves falling for the presidential hopeful.
"I actually like her more than I thought I would," Martha LaFlanne, 49, the vice president of student affairs at New Hampshire Community Technical College in Berlin. "I think she's proven to be her own woman."
Positive campaigning isn't dead! It's just that these days they call it "journalism."
A Bulworth Moment
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank reports on a lunch for reporters where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was surprisingly candid:
"Look," she said, the chicken breast on her plate untouched. "I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things--Buddhas? I don't know what they were--couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk."
Unsmilingly, she continued: "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment."
On the other hand, when asked to name her greatest mistake, she dodged the question: "Pelosi smiled. 'Why don't you tell me?' she proposed. She smiled again, then laughed. ' 'Cause I think we're doing just great.' She laughed again." Didn't President Bush get pilloried a while back for refusing to answer the same question?
Flemish Courage
Tales of terror from the New York Times (penultimate letter):
To the Editor:
The United States, once a close ally, is now a country to be feared. The interrogation methods President Bush acknowledges to exist are undoubtedly torture, no matter how often he repeats that they are not.
As a European, I am now afraid to visit the United States and will not do so unless I have to for my work for fear of doing something wrong at the airport and being detained for a prolonged if not indefinite period of time. I also do not to dare express critical views in e-mail messages to American colleagues and friends, for fear they will get in trouble with authorities. This is how my contacts with the United States, a once friendly nation, have evolved.
Kees Schepers
Antwerp, Belgium, Oct. 6, 2007
Kees Schepers is afraid. He is very afraid. Then again, he's not afraid to denounce America on the pages of America's third most widely read newspaper. That may make him the bravest man in Belgium.
A Man, a Plan, a Canal Giving Its Name as Panama
Reuters correspondent Yasser Faisal in Baghdad brings us another great moment in journalism:
Car bombs, assassinations, kidnappings, mortar attacks and suicide bombers aside, it's convoys of private security guards hurtling through Baghdad streets that strike fear into many Iraqis.
Another way of saying this is that if it weren't for the car bombs, assassinations, kidnappings, mortar attacks and suicide bombers, the convoys of private security guards would be the scariest thing in Baghdad. Another way is that they are the sixth-scariest thing in Baghdad. And one wonders if it has occurred to Faisal that if not for the car bombs, assassinations, kidnappings, mortar attacks and suicide bombers, the convoys of private security guards wouldn't be necessary.
Oh, and as long as we're piling on, Faisal says these convoys strike fear into "many" Iraqis. How many? At least three, based on Faisal's reporting: "a man, giving his name as Muhanad," "a man, who gave his name as Hasan," and "a man, who gave his name as Kasi."
What, was Noor Mohammad Sherzai unavailable for comment?
Bait and Schip
The New York Times, denouncing President Bush for vetoing a massive expansion of the so-called State Children's Health Insurance Program, argues that this "children's" program should also cover adults:
In his radio address on Saturday, Mr. Bush complained that six states--Minnesota, Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan, Rhode Island and New Mexico--"will spend more S-chip money on adults than they do on children" in this fiscal year. That might sound outrageous at first hearing, but there are often good child-centered reasons for covering certain categories of adults.
Surely it is sensible to enroll pregnant women, to make sure the prospective mother and her fetus get good prenatal care even before the child is born and becomes eligible. And in some cases it may even be reasonable to offer coverage to low-income parents, if only as bait to get their children enrolled.
Enrolling pregnant women in children's health care is clearly an effort by antichoice fanatics to undermine the right to abortion, which is in every amendment to the Constitution. Doesn't the Times know that a fetus is just a clump of cells?
The idea of using coverage for parents as "bait to get their children enrolled" is almost as bizarre. If parents are so selfish that they need this sort of "bait," are they fit to care for their children?
It's So Cold, No Wonder It's So Hot!
From the Associated Press:
Oil futures rose sharply Tuesday after the government predicted that a colder winter ahead will help lift worldwide demand for crude during the fourth quarter.
This is a finance story, but what got our attention was the environmental angle. The winter is going to be cold, which means people are going to use more oil, and as we all know, burning oil causes global warming. So cold weather causes global warming.
Hollywood Gets Thoughtful
From a Los Angeles Times feature on movies whose endings were rewritten before release (spoiler alert!):
"The Kingdom" (2007)
As originally scripted, Jamie Foxx's FBI team is about to board its plane bound for the U.S. when one of their Saudi counterparts approaches them with a concealed bomb strapped to himself--and blows everyone up. To avoid making a grim film grimmer, the filmmakers opted instead to end with a more thoughtful comparison of the bloodlust of the American FBI agents and the Saudi terrorists.
Sounds like a really thoughtful picture about those bloodlusty FBI agents.
Be Careful What You Wish For
Cassandra Ormiston and Margaret Chambers are both married woman. What makes their case unusual is that neither one has a husband. They are married to each other, pursuant to an offbeat ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which a few years ago ordered the commonwealth to recognize dual-husband and dual-wife marriages.
But after tying the knot in 2004, Ormiston and Chambers decided they didn't want to be married after all. They tried to divorce, but they live in Rhode Island, where the idea of a woman being married to another woman does not compute. They can't split in Massachusetts either, because the Bay State has a residency requirement for divorce. So unless the Rhode Island Supreme Court is able to sort out how a gal ended up hitched to another gal, they're stuck with each other.
But wait. Isn't marriage--even the old-fashioned kind, between a man and a woman, bride and groom, husband and wife--supposed to be for life? The world is changing so fast, and we're not necessarily sure for the better.
They Didn't Go by Seniority?
"Security Guards Fired Randomly--Iraq Official"--headline, Reuters, Oct. 10
We Blame Global Warming
"Hurricanes Annihilate Maple Leafs [sic]"--headline, CBC.ca, Oct. 10
Someone Alert the Scarecrow
"Brain Found in Bag Near Richmond, Va."--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 9
'None of Your Business What's Under This Robe!'
"Judge: No Reason to Tell Jurors About Cross-Dressing"--headline, Newsday (Long Island, N.Y.), Oct. 9
We Thought the Tree Was in Brooklyn
"Forest Service Chief Visits Harlem"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 10
Move 'ZIG' for Great Justice
"Ore. Considering Lifting Ban Pets in Yurts"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 10
News You Can Use if You're Gnus
"Global Warming: Bad News for Gnus"--headline, Time.com, Oct. 9
Bottom Stories of the Day
o "Palouse Earthworm Won't Receive Endangered Species Act Protection"--headline, Lewiston (Idaho) Tribune, Oct. 9
o "Rock, Scissors, Paper Championship Nears"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 9
o "Bagpiper to Present Free Concert"--headline, Orlando Sentinel, Oct. 10
o "AP Exclusive: 'Dear Abby' Announces Support of Same-Sex Marriage"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 9
o "Time's Not Up--Yet--for Taco Truck Near Los Altos High"--headline, San Jose Mercury News, Oct. 9
o "Abbas Wants Return to Pre-1967 Borders"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 10
Slow Learners
His undergraduate days are long behind him, yet he is on the verge of becoming a senior, and the New York Times reports on his plight:
Many of us have known this scholar: The hair is well-streaked with gray, the chin has begun to sag, but still our tortured friend slaves away at a masterwork intended to change the course of civilization that everyone else just hopes will finally get a career under way.
We even have a name for this sometimes pitied species--the A.B.D.--All But Dissertation. But in academia these days, that person is less a subject of ridicule than of soul-searching about what can done to shorten the time, sometimes much of a lifetime, it takes for so many graduate students to, well, graduate. The Council of Graduate Schools, representing 480 universities in the United States and Canada, is halfway through a seven-year project to explore ways of speeding up the ordeal.
It's takes them seven years to "explore ways of speeding up the ordeal"? The Voyager 1 reached Saturn in less than half that time. Obviously the Council of Graduate Schools has too many Ph.D.s on its payroll.
URL for this article: opinionjournal.com |
