Best of the Web Today - August 11, 2005
By JAMES TARANTO
Academentia Watch
The American Political Science Association is holding its annual convention Labor Day weekend in Washington, and it features a panel discussion on the subject "Is It Time to Call It Fascism"? The Web page announcing the event leaves unclear the antecedent of that second it, but reader Jay Cost forwarded an e-mail that explains it:
The panel, which is cosponsored by the Conference Group on Theory, Policy, & Society, the Latino Caucus, New Political Science, and the Women's Caucus, emerged from a question that Kathy Ferguson started asking last winter-spring (at ISA and WPSA) to focus on both substantive aspects and strategic/tactical ones: is there theoretical-definitional grounding to make a claim for the present US administration as fascist, and is it useful, critically, to use that language at this point in time? One of the original intentions was also to create a teaching tool out of this discussion--a handout that presents these questions and offers relevant information to students to think about it for themselves.
Kathy Ferguson directs the "women's studies" program at the University of Hawaii, where she boldly goes where no man has gone before (i.e., she teaches a course titled "Political Theory in Star Trek").
When we heard about this panel, we suspected the APSA of partisanship--after all, would the group have entertained the notion that President Clinton was a fascist or a communist? Well, maybe it would have. The "chair" of the panel, Dvora Yanow of Cal State Hayward, turns out to have written a book chapter in 2002 (with co-author Hugh Willmott) that seems to argue just that:
In the arena of national politics, for example--Clinton in the US, Blair in the UK, and others--a postmodern play of images offers competing representations of, and promises to, the middle ground as established divisions between "left" and "right" have been de-differentiated, with attendant confusion and uncertainty for those wedded to their respective (individualistic and collectivistic) beliefs and values.
This loss of established bearings and associated ethical disorientation can produce a moral vacuum in which a fascism of the centre can take hold. Fascisms of the right and left are well documented. Their seductive and destructive power has been demonstrated repeatedly during this century. Currently, both stand discredited, lending greater appeal to the seemingly moderate ideas of the centre--the Third Way. The door is then opened to an authoritarianism, if not a fascism, of the centre, in which ideas of moderation and progress, based upon commonly accepted, uncontested (and uncontentious) values, become the new, and seemingly the only, basis for government.
This is not exactly deathless, or even clear, prose, but it's not bad work for a piece of furniture. In any case, fascism seems to have become the academic equivalent of another well-known F-word: a generalized expletive that only infrequently bears any relationship to its original meaning, though it retains the power to shock those who are unaccustomed to its overuse.
For our part, we are not shocked. Then again, we pretty much stopped taking the academic left seriously while we were still in college.
Why They Hate Us
The Scotsman has an explanation for the murder in Iraq of journalist Steven Vincent. See if you can finish this sentence:
An American journalist who was shot dead in Basra last week was executed by Shiite extremists who . . .
. . . had been worn down by grinding poverty?
. . . were angry over Israel's treatment of Palestinian Arabs?
. . . resented the presence in their country of foreign troops?
. . . sought to avenge the abuses at Abu Ghraib?
If you said any of the above, you're wrong. Here's the full sentence:
An American journalist who was shot dead in Basra last week was executed by Shiite extremists who knew he was intending to marry his Muslim interpreter, it has emerged.
That's right, Steven Vincent was killed to prevent him from intermarrying. Those Westerners who side with the "Iraqi resistance" against America and its allies are defending the equivalent of the murder of Emmett Till.
The Pro-Lie Movement
The John Roberts nomination has split abortion advocates, the New York Times reports, with NARAL Pro-Choice America leading what might be called the pro-lie movement. As Manuel Miranda noted yesterday, NARAL has been airing an ad that falsely accuses Roberts of having supported "violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber." As the Times notes, even those who agree with NARAL on abortion disapprove of its dishonesty:
Within the larger liberal coalition of which Naral is a part, there was considerable uneasiness about the advertisement, although leaders of other groups generally refused to speak on the record. One who did, Frances Kissling, the longtime president of Catholics for a Free Choice, said she was "deeply upset and offended" by the advertisement, which she called "far too intemperate and far too personal."
Ms. Kissling, who initiated the conversation with a reporter, said the ad "does step over the line into the kind of personal character attack we shouldn't be engaging in."
She added: "As a pro-choice person, I don't like being placed on the defensive by my leaders. Naral should pull it and move on."
Walter Dellinger, a former acting solicitor general in the Clinton administration and longtime Naral supporter, sent a letter on Wednesday to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and its ranking Democrat, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, respectively. Mr. Dellinger said he had disagreed with Mr. Roberts's argument in the Bray case but considered it unfair to give "the impression that Roberts is somehow associated with clinic bombers." He added that "it would be regrettable if the only refutation of these assertions about Roberts came from groups opposed to abortion rights."
But "Naral's president, Nancy Keenan, defended the advertisement":
"It has done exactly what we expected it to do," she added, namely to provide a "wake-up call" about the stakes for reproductive freedom at issue in the current Supreme Court vacancy.
"Conventional wisdom says the Roberts nomination is a done deal, so it behooves us to make sure the American public knows who John Roberts really is," she said.
The BlameBush! blog has "damning new evidence" about Roberts's children--"evidence that may put the kibosh on his Supreme Court nomination once and for all":
The Roberts kids are no strangers to controversy. Jack Roberts, a confirmed bachelor who enjoys dancing and thinks girls are "yucky," has the I.Q. of a four year-old boy and a rap sheet a mile long. In 2003, Jack was reprimanded by a superior court judge for vandalizing the walls of a private residence with Crayola crayons. Last summer, he stole several indigenous amphibians from a natural wetland, a crime against nature for which he has yet to be held accountable. His childlike demeanor and bizarre behavior have frustrated reporters for weeks. When pressed for details on his father's opinions concerning Roe V. Wade, it's not unusual for Jack to burst into giggles and spin around in circles until he falls down.
If Jack Roberts seems to revel in media attention, then his sister, Jane, shuns it. Living a life shrouded in mystery, Jane was rumored to be dating Tom Cruise--but it's widely suspected that the girl with the pageboy haircut "plays for the other team," if you know what I mean. While John Edwards has yet to officially acknowledge her as a lesbian, Jane is rarely seen without another woman at her side. Her dowdy style of dress and lack of frequent abortions have raised more than a few eyebrows. And like brother Jack, her mental instability is a thing of record. Prone to sudden emotional outburts [sic] and crying fits over trivialities, Jane is often seen talking to small plastic replicas of human babies, and her addiction to paste has been the talk of the tabloids for years.
If the behavior of one's children is any indication of how a man writes new laws, then I fear for an America with John Roberts on the bench.
Reader Lyle Beefelt offers evidence that bolsters the credibility of another Roberts foe, Eugene Delgaudio, whose opposition we noted yesterday:
Your list of Eugene's accomplishments failed to mention that he was elected to the Loudoun County, Va., Board of Supervisors in 1999 and reelected in 2003. Loudoun County is one of the fastest growing suburbs of Washington and home to AOL. While prone to this kind of "off message" gestures (he once showed up at a Fairfax County, Va., public hearing dressed as Batman to protest a tax increase), he is a genuine conservative and a man of some accomplishment. So when you rightly beat him up for being unhelpful with getting Judge Roberts confirmed (even if he is gay), it's not "Degaudio is essentially a clown." It's "the Hon. Eugene Delgaudio is essentially a clown."
But Roberts has his champions too. "How John Roberts Could Change Your Life" reads the headline on a column by MSNBC's Tom Curry. We like John Roberts, but even we are not entirely comfortable with this sort of cultlike advertising for him.
Black and Blue
The Berkeley, Calif.-based Bay Area Center for Voting Research has a new study whose results are interesting despite being obvious. From a press release (link in Microsoft Word form):
The nation's remaining liberals are overwhelming [sic] African Americans.
The BACVR study that ranks the political ideology of every major city in the country shows that cities with large black populations dominate the list of liberal communities.
Here are the top 10 liberal cities from the center's list of 237 (link in Word again):
1. Detroit
2. Gary, Ind.
3. Berkeley, Calif.
4. Washington
5. Oakland, Calif.
6. Inglewood, Calif.
7. Newark, N.J.
8. Cambridge, Mass.
9. San Francisco
10. Flint, Mich.
Only three of these cities--Berkeley, Cambridge and San Francisco--have black populations near or below the national average. Another indication of the importance of race: Birmingham, Ala., at No. 19, rates as more liberal than famously liberal New York City, at No. 21. As of 2000, Birmingham was 74% black.
We stuck a "sic" above in the quote saying "liberals are overwhelming African Americans," but maybe that's what the authors meant to say. The press release continues:
Despite being the core of America's liberal base, a major split exists between who the nation's liberals are and who leads them politically. White politicians still control the levers of power within the Democratic Party, and black faces are rare around the decision making tables of America's liberal advocacy groups.
While there are some noteworthy pockets of liberals who are not African American, these places end up being the exceptions. College towns like Berkeley and Cambridge have modest black populations, but remain bastions of upper middle-class, white, intellectual liberalism. These liberal communities, however, are more reminiscent of penguins clustering together around a shrinking iceberg, than of a vibrant growing political movement.
USA Today looks at new census estimates that suggest just how dire things are for the penguins:
More than 17 million--almost half of all blacks--live in the 11 states that were in the Confederacy, up a million from 2000.
Of those 11 states, Bill Clinton carried four in each of his elections, and Al Gore and John Kerry carried zero apiece--despite the concentration of their most loyal voters.
The Peanut Farmer
Columnst George Will settles a score with Jimmy Carter and reminds us of just how petty Carter is. At issue is Carter's recent claim that Will "had stolen my briefing book" and given it to Ronald Reagan's campaign, which used it to prepare for the sole Carter-Reagan debate. Will acknowledges that he inappropriately (from the standpoint of journalistic ethics) participated in the debate preparation and that the Reagan campaign had the briefing book, but he says he was not its source.
Carter also claimed recently that Will wrote to him "asking for forgiveness." This too is not true, Will says. "The only letter I ever wrote to Carter was in response to one he wrote to me on Oct. 29, 1993," Will writes, and he quotes from his own letter setting Carter straight on the false briefing-book allegation.
What's most striking about the story, though, is Carter's 1993 letter to Will, which Will quotes:
His letter began: "For a number of years I have felt some resentment toward you because of the reports that you either knew about or actually used my personal briefing book in preparing Reagan for our campaign debates [sic]." He added:
"Because of this feeling, and despite my lifetime interest in baseball, I even refrained from reading your 'Men at Work.' Recently, in order to learn how to be a better Braves fan next year, I spent $1 in a used bookstore for the book, and really enjoyed it.
"Even if the news stories about the debate incident are true, I feel that we are even now.
"Best wishes,
"Jimmy Carter"
So Carter (a) nurses this trivial grudge for 13 years (and still is after 25 years), (b) refuses to read Will's book because of it, (c) feels vindicated when he finds it on the remainder table, and (d) writes a letter to Will boasting about (c)! Next to this guy, Bill Clinton is Winston Churchill.
The Well-Dressed Terrorist
"FBI Eyes Convict Ties in Collar-Bomb Case"--headline, Associated Press, Aug. 10
Battle of the Bulge
"Our dessert could become a battlefield with many innocent casualties."--press release, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D., Texas), Aug. 1
Don't Politicians' Kids Have Any Privacy?
"Bush Kids at Higher Risk for Binge Drinking"--headline, News.com.au, Aug. 11
What Would We Get Used To Without Experts?
"Gas Cost Too Much? Get Used to It, Experts Say"--headline, Houston Chronicle, Aug. 11
What Would We Do Without Help?
"Kicking the Habit: Help Helps"--headline, CBSNews.com, Aug. 10
Animal House
Dr. Doolittle famously observed that if we could walk with the animals, talk with the animals, grunt and squeak and squawk with the animals, then they could squeak and squawk and speak and talk to us. But as we noted yesterday, some members of the species Homo sapiens have gone beyond walking, talking and even squawking. They have been--well, this is a family newspaper's Web site, so suffice it to say that even Cole Porter never claimed birds do it with bees, much less that educated fleas do it with horses.
Anyway, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer now finds itself at odds with its star columnist, Robert L. Jamieson Jr., who opposes a proposed new law against "barnyard amour." Says the P-I's editorial:
It should be a no-brainer that animal cruelty laws ought to cover sex acts. But after a Seattle man's death at an Enumclaw bestiality ranch last month, it became clear that our animal cruelty laws are gutless.
In other words, welcome to Nobrainsville. The legal and regulated hunting of animals in no way grants us a carte blanche on all aspects of animal life. And arguing that animals seem to enjoy the act is a ridiculous and moot point.
If state Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, wants to bring about a law protecting animals from rape, we say: Go for it, Pam. For once, we're with you.
You might think we'd have an opinion on this, but after much consideration we've concluded we have no dog in this fight. |
