Best of the Web Today - January 5, 2007
By JAMES TARANTO
The Protocols of 'the New York Money People'
In another dispatch from the Democratic coronation, Arianna Puffington describes a conversation with retired general and erstwhile Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark:
Clark was really angry about what he'd read in this column by UPI Editor at Large Arnaud de Borchgrave. In the piece, which Clark quickly forwarded to my BlackBerry from his Trio, de Borchgrave details Bibi Netanyahu leading the charge to lobby the Bush administration to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, and paints U.S. air strikes against Iran in 2007/08 as all-but-a-done deal.
"How can you talk about bombing a country when you won't even talk to them?" said Clark. "It's outrageous. We're the United States of America; we don't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the military option is off the table--but diplomacy is not what Jim Baker says it is. It's not, What will it take for you boys to support us on Iraq? It's sitting down for a couple of days and talking about our families and our hopes, and building relationships."
When we asked him what made him so sure the Bush administration was headed in this direction, he replied: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers."
Even Clark acknowledges that "the military option" for preventing Iranian nuclear proliferation should not be "off the table," but if the Bush administration does not share his faith that the fundamentalists who run Iran can be brought around by "sitting down for a couple of days and talking about our families and our hopes"--a concept of diplomacy that strikes us as even more naive than Jim Baker's--it must be because the White House is under the influence of "the New York money people"--i.e., rich Jews.
Here are some of the comments from Puffington Host readers (quoting verbatim):
o "God, that entire article is about the Jews. Hey, news flash! OTHER PEOPLE died in the Holocaust, NOT just the Jews. I'm no anti-semite or "holocaust denier" but is EVERYTHING about Israel? The only one in that room with a modicum of sense and patriotic duty was Wes Clark."
o "Wes Clark for President! He's the only man I've heard who will stand up to Israel and its neocon agents(Harman, Lieberman, Emmanuel, Schumer)who support the Iraqi war because it is reshaping the middle east in Israel's favor. Let Israel attack Iran. Let Jewish mothers, instead of American mothers, mourn the loss of their sons for a while. Go Wes! I hope its contagious."
o "How many hours before AIPAC and the Israel-Firsters label General Clark "anti-semtic" for his honest, accurate and informative remarks? He is violating a taboo of Washington pols, isnt he? Look what happened to President Jimmy Carter with his new book. When will we wake up?"
But another reader sounds a different note:
As a former Clark supporter, I was disappointed (though not surprised) to hear he's learned so little since 2004. To paint so a broad brush with coded language ("New York money people") is not only out of line--it shows a lack of sensitivity that is unforgivable in today's politics.
To anyone thinking of support[ing] Clark in '08, I say: forget it (even if he did have a chance, which, imo, he doesn't). We need unbiased, competent critical thinkers to get us out of the mess we're in. That description does not include anyone obtuse enough to recite a line that sounds like it belongs in "Gentleman's Agreement."
As we've frequently observed, there is an element of hatred on the Angry Left that goes beyond mere partisanship. Now that the Democrats are the majority party in Congress, one can only hope that the rigors of responsibility will help to temper it.
One-Eyed King
Reuters scores an interview with monoptical Mullah Mohammad Omar, the top Talib, who hasn't been seen in years:
Omar has added to the mystery over Osama bin Laden, saying he had not seen his ally and fellow fugitive since U.S.-backed forces ousted the Taliban from Afghanistan in late 2001.
"No, I have neither seen him, nor have I made any effort to do so, but I pray for his health and safety," Omar said in an e-mailed response to questions sent by Reuters.
But we're sure he's keeping an eye out for him!
Quatrain to the Plane
"Officials at Minneapolis-St. Paul International airport are proposing stiffer penalties--including suspension of an airport taxi license--to Muslim cab drivers who refuse service to passengers toting alcohol or service dogs," the Associated Press reports from Minneapolis:
Hassan Mohamud, imam at Al-Taqwa Mosque of St. Paul and director of the Islamic Law Institute at the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, one of the largest Islamic organizations in the state, said asking Muslims to transport alcohol "is a violation of their faith. Muslims do not consume, carry, sell or buy alcohol, and Islam also considers the saliva of dogs to be unclean, he said.
There's an obvious solution to this: Cabdrivers who feel this way should find another line of work. The whole kerfuffle leads reader Rosanne Klass to offer an update to Omar Kha yyam:
A book or verses underneath the bough
A jug of wine, a loaf of bread,--but wow!
No cab to take me from this wilderness--
It seems I'll taint the true believers now
Beautiful Loser
Jessica Gaulke, a Minnesota beauty queen, is doffing her tiara to head to Iraq, reports the Minneapolis Star Tribune:
Gaulke, 22, short-circuited her reign as Aquatennial Queen of the Lakes to satisfy her commitment to her Minnesota Army National Guard unit, which will head for the war in August.
"I know it's the right decision. . . . It's been an emotional ride, a long one," said Gaulke, queen since July. "But six months as queen was better than nothing."
This reminds us of a couple of quotes by American political leaders:
o "You know, education--if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."--John Kerry*
o "If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career, or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq. . . . If there's anyone who believes these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No bright young individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment."--Charles Rangel
What a terrible country we live in, in which even a beauty queen has no opportunities. And think of what a loser the runner-up must be!
* Though come to think of it, he must've been dumb enough to serve in the military himself, seeing as how he promised 705 days ago to release his military records.
Sheehan vs. Sheehan
In an item yesterday, we noted that we were hard-pressed to find any commentary on the Angry Left blogs about fascist fishwife Cindy Sheehan's latest antics, directed against congressional Democrats. But a reader calls our attention to an anti-Sheehan post by one Steve Soto of the Left Coaster blog, who acknowledges that Sheehan has outlasted her usefulness: "Please put a sock in it Cindy, at least for now," he says.
This prompts a storm of comments, with Sheehanoids and the Sheehan-annoyed vying to see who can rage more intensely. It's a real hoot (though some language is not appropriate for family reading).
One of the sites we searched in vain for Sheehan comments yesterday was TalkingPointsMemo.com, our mention of which prompted an email from proprietor Josh Marshall:
The Journal op-ed page isn't usually a place I think of for factual reporting. But someone sent me your dig about how TPM used to cheer on Cindy Sheehan and treat her as a heroine but has dropped her now that the Dems are in power. That didn't sound quite right to me. So I looked up Sheehan's name on our TPM site search. And sure enough we've never really said anything one way or another about her. I found three posts that mention her, all from one week in August 2005. Two were by TNR's Michael Crowley when he was guest-blogging at TPM. A third was by me linking to a post by Paul Begala. So basically you just made this one up or imagined it. Nice work.
Well, hats off to Marshall for not associating himself with Sheehan in the first place and for being so eager to dissociate himself from her now. We're not sure how we made the mistake; probably we mixed up Sheehan and Valerie Plame.
Life Imitates 'Forrest Gump'
In a June 2005 Puffington Host post, sportscaster Jim Lampley claimed, citing "a Bush-watcher website identified as TBRNews.org," that the Defense Department had been lowballing Iraq war casualties by failing to count wounded servicemen who die in military hospitals after leaving Iraq, and that the actual number of war dead was nearly 9,000, not the official 1,713 count at the time.
Well, it turned out not only that the claim was bunk, but that, as DailyKos.com, another Angry Left site, had documented the previous month, TBRNews.org was an offshoot of a Holocaust denial outfit. Lampley apologized the next day.
Yesterday's San Diego Union-Tribune brings us up to date on Lampley's doings:
Longtime sports broadcaster Jim Lampley is accused of roughing up his companion on New Year's Eve prior to his arrest Wednesday in Encinitas on suspicion of domestic violence, according to court records.
The victim, who said she was engaged to Lampley, filed for the temporary restraining order Tuesday, accusing Lampley of pushing her against a wall and a door New Year's Eve, according to court records.
It reminds us of that scene in "Forrest Gump" in which Jenny's hippie boyfriend is apologizing for beating her up: "Things got a little out of hand. It's just this war and that lying son of a bitch, Johnson! I would never hurt you. You know that."
Wait Till Next Year
We've often criticized Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court for imposing same-sex marriage by judicial fiat. Last year the New York Court of Appeals, the Empire State's top tribunal, did the right thing by failing to follow suit, and New York's new Democratic governor, Eliot Spitzer, wants to legalize same-sex marriage the right way. The New York Sun reports:
By Day 365, Governor Spitzer will propose legislation legalizing gay marriage in New York, a top aide to the governor said yesterday.
The Spitzer administration moved to reassure gay-rights advocates that it wasn't backing down from a campaign promise to support a same-sex marriage bill. The governor did not address the issue specifically in his 61-minute State of the State address on Wednesday.
"The governor made a commitment to advancing it this year, and he will do so," Mr. Spitzer's communications director, Darren Dopp, told The New York Sun.
Gay marriage, however, isn't a Day One issue, he said.
We suppose Spitzer has learned a lesson from Bill Clinton, who got his presidency off to a shaky start back in 1993 by making gays in the military his top priority. Though it remains to be seen if Spitzer is doing his party a favor by saving this dicey social issue for the start of a presidential election year.
Let's Hope He Chooses Something Easier to Spell
"Bush Likely to Name Negroponte on Friday"--headline, Reuters, Jan. 4
Negroponte: 'I've Never Felt This Way About a Nomination Before'
"Bush Nominates Top Spy, Moves Negroponte"--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 5
Oh No, Not Another Sequel!
"Stallone Attacks Mexican Border Fence"--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 5
Good Thing Everyone Listens to iPods or CDs These Days
"Charity Pledges Smash All US Records"--headline, Financial Times, Jan. 1
Let's Surprise Them and Do Something Expected
"Industry Survey: Executives Expect the Unexpected"--headline, Detroit Free Press, Jan. 4
News You Can Use
o "Study: Brain Triggers Hunger During Fasts"--headline, United Press International, Jan. 4
o "Keep People out of Wash, Label Warns"--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 5
Bottom Stories of the Day
o "Graffiti Isn't Sign of Gang Activity"--headline, Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle, Jan. 5
o "Flu Vaccine Supply Is Adequate"--headline, Bedford (Mass.) Minuteman, Jan. 3
o "Lindsay Lohan Having Appendix Removed"--headline, Reuters, Jan. 4
o "Dodd Says He'll Decide on Presidential Run in a Week or Two"--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 4
'C' You in Court
A young man who says he was among the victims of the Duke University rape hoax is taking the university to court. Although Kyle Dowd was not those indicted in the case, he alleges that "he was failed by an professor because of his membership on the lacrosse team," ABC News reports. The prof, Kim Curtis, "was among the 'Group of 88' professors who published an advertisement in the Duke Chronicle calling the rape [sic] scandal a 'social disaster' ":
The Group of 88, perceived by critics as attacking the Lacrosse team, at one point thanked protesters who posted "wanted" fliers containing photos of all or nearly all of the Lacrosse players.
Blogger Bob Krumm has thoughts:
If Dowd wins his case--which I suspect he will if it is not settled by Duke out of court--this sets a precedent that universities are legally responsible for the actions of their professors who might base grades on something arbitrary like political affiliation.
I certainly don't want to see students go to court over a bad grade--what a Pandora's Box that opens. However, if that is the precedent that comes out of this case, then Duke has only itself to blame by being so utterly irresponsible in failing to provide the objective oversight that they should have applied to the alleged rape case from the start. . . .
Upon further reflection, if I was the University, my defense would rest not upon tring [sic] to prove that Duke wasn't negligent, but that Mr. Dowd suffered no real damage as a result of the failing grade that was later reversed.
We haven't had much to say about the whole Duke story, but this caught our interest because once, way back when, we actually tried to get a grade changed through a lawsuit. It was actually a First Amendment case: The faculty adviser of our student newspaper (whose name we'll withhold--why embarrass her after all these years?) had suspended us from our position as an editor of the paper after we wrote an article arguing against the censorship of a cartoon that made fun of affirmative action. The ACLU took up our cause, and we sued her, her colleagues and the university.
Staffers on the paper were required to enroll in a "practicum" class, and our understanding was that whereas writers were graded on quality and quantity of their work, editors (who were taking the class for a second or third time) customarily received an A regardless of performance. When we got our report card, though, we found we had received a B. The lawsuit alleged that the professor had reduced our grade in retaliation either for our political views or for challenging the suspension.
The outcome was inconclusive on this point. We ended up settling out of court, with the defendants acceding to almost all our demands but firmly refusing to change the grade, on the ground of academic freedom. On balance we think we got a good deal, but every now and then we think that had we gotten that A, just maybe we'd have amounted to something.
URL for this article: opinionjournal.com |
