Best of the Web Today - February 17, 2005
By JAMES TARANTO
Signs of Intelligent Life
Writing in New York magazine, Kurt Andersen confronts the "major intellectual-moral-political problem" the successful Iraqi elections pose for New York liberals:
"Liberal guilt" once meant feeling discomfort over one's good fortune in an unjust world. As this last U.S. election cycle began, however, a new subspecies of liberal guilt arose--over the pleasure liberals took in bad news from Iraq, which seemed sure to hurt the administration. But with Bush reelected, any shred of tacit moral rationale is gone. In other words, feel the guilt, and let it be a pang that leads to moral clarity.
Each of us has a Hobbesian choice concerning Iraq; either we hope for the vindication of Bush's risky, very possibly reckless policy, or we are in a de facto alliance with the killers of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. We can be angry with Bush for bringing us to this nasty ethical crossroads, but here we are nonetheless.
Andersen's piece is a remarkably blunt assessment of his fellow liberals' attitudes toward Iraq--and toward Vietnam:
At a certain point during the Vietnam War, a majority of Americans--those of us who were in favor of unilateral U.S. withdrawal--were in a de facto alliance with the North Vietnamese, the Vietcong, and the Soviets. Unpleasant but true. . . .
With liberals, Vietnam redux is all too conscious: It is irresistible to them (and to almost anyone over 40) to fit the war in Iraq into the template of Indochina, even if the parallels are only superficial. This Groundhog Day, as we all looked forward to watching a Beatle perform on TV (and on a Sunday evening in early February, just like in 1964), a fiftyish antiwar friend of mine in Park Slope dismissed the election in Iraq as "just like the election in Vietnam in 1967."
I didn't know what she meant, because I had not yet read the posting by Kos, the lefty star Markos Moulitsas's nom de blog, of a certain Times clip from 1967--about how "United States officials were surprised and heartened . . . at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting." Kos commented, "January was the third bloodiest month for U.S. and allied troops. Will that cease now that Iraqis have voted? Nope . . . The war will continue unabated." One senses a wish for further war. One of Kos's regulars then wrote, "I hope I'm wrong on this," and my disingenuousness alarm went off. When people are deeply invested in any set of analyses and predictions, do they ever sincerely hope they're wrong?
Andersen echoes a point we made last June, "The Democrats are in the position of hoping that America loses its 'gamble' in Iraq--a politically and morally hazardous thing to hope for." The lesson the left learned from Vietnam is that it is acceptable to root against America during wartime. Will others follow Andersen's lead and begin unlearning it?
Angry Left Rift
"Howard Dean, just four days into his job as Democratic National chairman, called Wednesday for New York's state Republican chairman to apologize or resign over remarks linking Democrats to a civil rights lawyer convicted of aiding terrorists," reports the Associated Press:
[Stephen] Minarik touched off a firestorm on Monday by saying that in electing Dean as national party chairman on Saturday "the Democrats simply have refused to learn the lessons of the past two election cycles, and now they can be accurately called the party of Barbara Boxer, Lynne Stewart and Howard Dean."
Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, defended the Dems: "The Democratic Party doesn't have anything to do with Lynne Stewart." That may well be true, though we rather doubt she votes Republican. Democratic consultant Harold Wolfson also criticized Minarik: "Don't accuse the 5.5 million Democrats in this state of treason if you hope to win our votes."
But wait. Is Howard Dean (gasp) questioning Lynne Stewart's patriotism? Is Howard Wolfson calling the organizers of tonight's "Day of Outrage! in Support of Lynne Stewart" traitors? And if so, how come this is the first time we can remember hearing such sentiments from the Democratic left?
National Review's Byron York reports that Angry Left billionaire George Soros's Open Society Institute "gave $20,000 in September 2002 to the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee," in the foundation's words, "to conduct a public education campaign around the broad civil rights implications of Lynne Stewart's indictment." But the institute's Amy Weil tells York that "OSI was asked for additional funding and we turned down that request." We wonder what changed the Soros folks' minds about Stewart.
Weasel Watch
Agence France-Presse reports: "The assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri was a deliberate blow to France, whose president Jacques Chirac was a personal friend and has sponsored UN moves to end the Syrian occupation, Paris-based commentators said Tuesday."
Oh no! How did the French manage to squander all the world sympathy they had earned by their courageous defense of Saddam Hussein against big bad bully boy Bush? We trust there's a lot of soul-searching going on at the Elysée Palace. How do you say "Why do they hate us?" in French?
Palestinians Killing Palestinians
Here's a report, from the Jerusalem Post, that ought to throw some cold water on hopes for peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs:
In the first decision of its kind since he succeeded Yasser Arafat, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has ratified death sentences against three Palestinians found guilty of "collaboration" with Israel.
It is not clear when the three men, whose identities were not revealed, will be executed by firing squad.
However, senior PA officials told The Jerusalem Post that the three were Gaza Strip residents who had been convicted of "high treason" for tipping off Israeli security forces about the whereabouts of wanted gunmen.
Abbas, as the leader of the Palestinian protostate, is supposed to be responsible for stopping his people from attacking Israel. Instead he plans to kill fellow Palestinians who take steps to stop attacks on Israel. Is he bucking for a Nobel Peace Prize?
President Summers vs. 'Dr.' Blow
The latest twist in the Larry Summers kerfuffle has a journalist, Richard Bradley né Blow (he changed names, the Times suggests, to escape notoriety that arose from an earlier book) speculating that Harvard's president may be disabled. The New York Times reports on Bradley's latest book, "Harvard Rules":
Alongside numerous critiques of Mr. Summer's table manners--Mr. Bradley judges him a "sloppy eater"--the author speculates early on in the book that the Harvard president may have Asperger's syndrome, a condition that renders him socially autistic.
"I'm neutral on it," he said. "I'm not a doctor. I don't feel qualified to say. I do think the explanation has 'explanatory power,' as one of my Harvard professors used to say."
Michael Segal, a physician, Harvard graduate, Summers acquaintance and frequent contributor to this column, weighed in on this innuendo Monday in a letter to the editor of the Harvard Crimson:
This speculation seems ironic since, according to a 1993 study by Ehlers and Gillberg, 80 percent of individuals diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome are male, and much scorn was heaped recently on Summers for mentioning that men are overrepresented among those with lowest and highest scores on various measures of abilities. It seems strange that it is fine to speculate on male disabilities but it is considered deplorable to ask whether there could be countervailing abilities more common in males.
As a neurologist, I found the suggestion of Asperger's syndrome in Summers to be particularly shaky. By seeking out social contact, having an animated and interactive discussion style, making frequent eye contact, having wide interests, and not needing constant reassurance, President Summers exhibits many characteristics opposite to those found in Asperger's syndrome.
And isn't it rather offensive--at least by the politically correct standards that prevail at places like Harvard and the Times--to speculate that someone has a disability as a way of impugning his character?
Amateur Hour
Blogger "David M" wants to know who wrote Monday's Wall Street Journal editorial on the Eason Jordan kerfuffle (bracketed paragraph in original), which caused a blogosphere brouhaha with its references to bloggers as "amateurs":
If Stephens did not write the piece, who did?
My guess is James Taranto.
[Disclosure: While I do not know Taranto, I read his column regularly. I have been acknowledged (under my non-blog name) in his Best of the Web quite a few times. And he once edited the online version of a WSJ op-ed piece to insert a link to my blog, for which I am grateful. We tail-end bloggers need all the help we can get.]
Why do I think Taranto wrote the piece?
1. It is entitled "The Jordan Kerfuffle," and as regular readers of Taranto know, kerfuffle is his favorite word. (For evidence see last item here. Or here or here. Or the eighth item here or here.) He also particularly likes kerfuffle in headlines. (Search for "best headline ever" here and here.)
2. Taranto linked prominently to the piece in his Feb. 14 BOTW column.
3. The tone of the piece is similar to the tone of Bret Stephens' (Feb. 10) piece on the topic. And Taranto has written (also on Feb. 14) that he defers to Stephens' expertise on the topic. So if Stephens didn't write it, Taranto may have.
4. The tone of the piece is not dissimilar to Taranto's tone in disussing [sic] the topic on Feb. 15.
5. One other possible writer, John Fund, seems not to have written it. As one Edward Tabakin notes in a letter published on Hewitt's blog, Fund seems to distance himself from the most egregious parts of the editorial.
All of the above evidence is admittedly circumstancial [sic]. Is it enough to convict?
David forwarded us his blog entry, asking if we did indeed write the editorial. That is a question we cannot answer, for Journal policy is to keep the authorship of editorials confidential. An exception is made when editorial writers are nominated for prizes--which means that bloggers who wish to learn who wrote this editorial should be rooting for the author to win a Pulitzer.
Isn't this a perfect example of how bloggers are amateurs (amateur: "one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession")? If David enjoys puzzling over the authorship of newspaper editorials, more power to him--but it's hard to imagine anyone making a living that way.
There's also something sweet in how the bloggers have taken such offense at the editorial. Rather than bask in their victory, they are focused on letting the world know how much they crave the approval of the big boys at the Journal.
Zero-Tolerance Watch
"A Pinelands Regional Junior High student was suspended indefinitely after school officials discovered a model rocket engine in his locker," the Asbury Park (N.J.) Press reports from Little Egg Harbor:
The student, described only as a seventh- or eighth-grader, was suspended pending the outcome of a police investigation to determine intent, Superintendent Detlef Kern said Tuesday. The device was discovered Thursday afternoon after another student spoke to administrators, he said.
Wanting to quash rumors there was a bomb in the school, Kern said the device was technically legal, though it still constituted a potential fire hazard.
"There (was) no imminent danger to anything," he said, adding that the school was not evacuated.
Obligatory Columbine reference: "[Christine] Melnick [mother of a seventh-grader] added that what happened at the junior high was scary, considering violent incidents such as the shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., in 1999."
A follow-up on yesterday's item about the Pennsylvania boy in an ape suit: The Morning Call of Allentown, Pa., reports that a judge has reduced 18-year-old Matthew Pattison's bail to $50,000 from $300,000 and the school district has decided not to expel him, though he will be suspended for two weeks.
Zero tolerance apparently isn't for adults. The Ann Arbor (Mich.) News reports that Marcus Burlingame, an assistant principal at West Middle School in Ypsilanti, Mich., admitted stealing and using students' prescription drugs, ostensibly to treat his own attention deficit disorder. "Burlingame has resigned from his administrative role and seeks a teaching job," the News reports. The school board has begun proceedings to fire him--but although he isn't currently working, he is still drawing a paycheck.
This Just In
"School's Cafeteria Food Makes Children Ill"-headline, WPXI-TV Web site (Pittsburgh), Feb. 16
Homelessness Rediscovery Watch
"If George W. Bush becomes president, the armies of the homeless, hundreds of thousands strong, will once again be used to illustrate the opposition's arguments about welfare, the economy, and taxation."--Mark Helprin, Oct. 31, 2000
"Homeless Needs Rise as U.S. Aid Declines"--headline, Washington Post, Feb. 16
'Sod Off, Swampy,' Says Cockney Barrow Boy Spiv
"When 35 Greenpeace protesters stormed the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) yesterday they had planned the operation in great detail," reports the Times of London:
What they were not prepared for was the post-prandial aggression of oil traders who kicked and punched them back on to the pavement.
"We bit off more than we could chew. They were just Cockney barrow boy spivs. Total thugs," one protester said, rubbing his bruised skull. "I've never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view."
Another said: "I took on a Texan Swat team at Esso last year and they were angels compared with this lot." Behind him, on the balcony of the pub opposite the IPE, a bleary-eyed trader, pint in hand, yelled: "Sod off, Swampy."
"Greenpeace had hoped to paralyse oil trading at the exchange," the Times notes. It's pretty clear who the thugs are here, and it's not the Cockney barrow boy spivs.
That'll Cool It Down
"Anderson Invites Residents to Lick Global Warming"--headline, Salt Lake Tribune, Feb. 16
Kerfuffle Watch
The Web site erasing.org has a nice bit of bloggerel that begins:
No need to make a big kerfuffle.
But yes, I ate my iPod shuffle.
The Grim Reapers
"U.S. Sees Dead People on Farm Subsidy Roles"--headline, Chicago Tribune, Feb. 16
But Aren't They in the Same Boat?
"Husband Banned From Rowing With Wife"--headline, ITN, Feb. 16
What Would Experts Do Without Panda Poo?
"Panda Poo Excites Experts"--headline, Xinhua Online, Feb. 17
Quagmire on Ice
Sports Illustrated columnist blasts Gary Bettman, commissioner of the National Hockey League, over the labor dispute that led to yesterday's cancellation of the NHL season:
Now think of yourself as Bettman. You promised your owners absolute cost certainty, an idiot-proof collective bargaining agreement that would make it a real challenge to lose money. After the last CBA, which you initially liked so much you extended it twice, you are obliged to deliver. If you surrender now or if somehow the union, through the National Labor Relations Board, nails you for not bargaining in good faith, you have failed. Even if you win a salary cap and a linkage between revenues and salaries but in doing so drastically have shrunk revenues, you have not done the owners any favors. (Bettman, a member of the generation indelibly marked by the Vietnam War, is familiar with the notion of bombing the country in order to save it.)
If ever there were proof that Kurt Andersen is right, this is it. Hockey, for crying out loud, is another Vietnam! Which explains how a certain haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat ended up on ice. |
