Best of the Web Today - December 11, 2007
By JAMES TARANTO
Today's Video on WSJ.com: Paul Gigot and the panel from "The Journal Editorial Report" discuss Abu Dhabi's investment in Citigroup.
Accountability Journalism Strikes Again!
From Ames, Iowa, the Associated Press brings us the latest in hard-hitting campaign coverage:
Campaigning for his wife, former President Clinton says that when they were starting out he was so struck by her intellect and ability he once suggested she should just dump him and jump into her own political career.
That didn't happen, of course, and on Monday he gave an Iowa crowd his version of why it didn't.
"I thought it would be wrong for me to rob her of the chance to be what I thought she should be," said [Mr.] Clinton. "She laughed and said, 'First I love you and, second, I'm not going to run for anything, I'm too hardheaded.' " . . .
"She has spent a lifetime as a change agent when she had the option to do other things," he said.
"I thought she was the most gifted person of our generation," said Clinton, who said he told her, "You know, you really should dump me and go back home to Chicago or go to New York and take one of those offers you've got and run for office."
As we noted in June, the Associated Press has adopted a new journalistic ethos called "accountability journalism," whose goal, according to an internal newsletter, is "to report whether government officials are doing the job for which they were elected and keeping the promises they make."
If the AP's coverage of Mrs. Clinton's campaign isn't an example of bravely speaking truth to power, we don't know what is.
Fair Tax Flimflam
Yesterday we noted Mike Huckabee's weird claim that the so-called fair tax--a national consumption tax that would theoretically replace levies on income--would allow the government to collect taxes from pimps, prostitutes and drug dealers. But as we pointed out , it would also mean that johns and drug addicts would get to buy sex and drugs with pretax income.
Radio talker Neal Boortz, a fair-tax flogger, answers a Wall Street Journal editorial on the subject with some more strange claims:
We really do hate to break it to the editorial board at the Wall Street Journal, but the simple fact of the matter is that the FairTax is not calculated like other sales taxes. The FairTax is included in the price, not added on top of the price. Perhaps the board would be less inclined to misstate the terms of the FairTax if they actually read the book or H.R. 25, but we're patient people, so we'll explain this one more time:
(a) Current state sales taxes: You look at the item on the shelf. The item is priced at $100.00. You take that item to the cashier. The cashier adds the state sales tax to the $100. If that sales tax is 7 percent, you pay $107, take your receipt and walk out.
(b) FairTax: You look at the item on the shelf. The item is priced at $100. You take the item to the cashier. The cashier asks you for $100. You pay your $100, take your receipt and walk out. You look at the receipt. The receipt tells you that 23 percent of the $100 you paid for that item is the FairTax and will be forwarded to the federal government. You call upon your years of education and quickly calculate that $23 is 23 percent of $100.
So according to Boortz, under the current system, when you buy a $100 item, you pay $107, including sales tax. Under the fair tax, you'd pay $100--and you wouldn't pay any taxes on your income either. It's not just a free lunch, it's a free dinner and a couple of free rounds of top-shelf booze!
Well, sorry to burst Boortz's bubble. In reality, retailers are not going to reduce their prices to absorb the new tax. That means under the fair tax, you wouldn't get a $100 item for $100. You'd get a $77 item, on which you'd pay $23, or 29.9%, in federal tax.
And you would actually pay more than $100. The fair tax doesn't do away with state sales taxes, so that in Boortz's hypothetical example, you'd pay either $5.39 or $7 additionally (depending on whether the basis is the after-tax price or the actual value of the item) on the $77 item with the $100 price tag. That means the total tax on the $77 item would be either 36.9% ($28.39) or 39% ($30).
As for escaping the income and payroll taxes, don't count on it. This would happen only if two-thirds of each house of Congress and the legislatures of 38 states agreed to repeal the 16th Amendment. It could happen, but we're not about to bet 30% of all our consumption on it.
H.L. Mencken supposedly observed that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. If the fair tax folks' estimates prove correct, however, the people may all end up going broke.
We Don't Cotton to Your Kind in Reuterville
Reuters reports from Boston on a claim of religious discrimination against the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution:
Nathaniel Abraham, an Indian national who describes himself as a "Bible-believing Christian," said in the suit filed on Monday in U.S. District Court in Boston that he was fired in 2004 because he would not accept evolution as scientific fact. . . .
The zebrafish specialist said his civil rights were violated when he was dismissed shortly after telling his superior he did not accept evolution because he believed the Bible presented a true account of human creation. . . .
Abraham, who was dismissed eight months after he was hired, said he was willing to do research using evolutionary concepts but that he had been required to accept Darwin's theory of evolution as scientific fact or lose his job.
The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination dismissed the case this year, saying Abraham's request not to work on evolutionary aspects of research would be difficult for Woods Hole because its work is based on evolutionary theories.
From the news accounts of this case, it's impossible to determine who's right. If Abraham, because of his religious beliefs, is unable or unwilling to apply the appropriate scientific theories in the research he was hired to do, that is a good reason to fire him. But if the Woods Hole people are demanding that he renounce his personal religious beliefs--a sort of secular loyalty oath--that would seem clearly to be a violation of his civil rights.
What's appalling here is that Reuters files this story under "Oddly Enough," the category usually reserved for cute human-interest stories (and gruesome tales of death and bloodshed, but that's another story). Even though Reuters reports the story straight, the editors' choice of categories lets you know they don't think Abraham's claim of discrimination is worth taking seriously.
Two Papers in One!
o "The stunning announcement by Japanese and American research teams that they have obtained highly promising stem cells without having to destroy an embryo could help free scientists from shackles that have long hobbled their efforts. . . . Any claim that Mr. Bush's moral stance drove scientists to this discovery must be greeted with particular skepticism. The primary discoverer of the new techniques is a Japanese scientist who was not subject to the president's restrictions."--editorial, New York Times, Dec. 1
o " 'When I saw the embryo, I suddenly realized there was such a small difference between it and my daughters,' said Dr. Yamanaka, 45, a father of two and now a professor at the Institute for Integrated Cell-Material Sciences at Kyoto University. 'I thought, we can't keep destroying embryos for our research. There must be another way.' "--news story, New York Times, Dec. 11
(Hat tip: First Things.)
Zero-Tolerance Watch
The Associated Press reports from Grosse Pointe Parke, Mich, on a nun who apparently aspires to be the next George Carlin:
Sister Kathy Avery won't put up with swearing on the playground at her school. . . . The principal of St. Clare of Montefalco Catholic School had students stay after a Mass last month and informed the fifth- through eighth-graders that she has a zero-tolerance policy for cursing.
Just in case anyone wasn't sure what she was talking about, Avery read off a list of the very words and phrases that she was banning. . . .
Cuss words aren't the only things that set Avery off. She's also banned the words "stupid" and "boring."
The cock crowed three times as the boring machine excavated the tunnel. Uh-oh, we're in trouble!
Wannabe Pundits
Try to guess the subject of the article from which we extracted the following passage (hint: not oil, or Middle Eastern politics, or even George W. Bush):
There is broad agreement that the use and overuse of oil in the United States is more dangerous than kissing a light socket. It damages the environment. It costs a fortune. It has become, as General John Abizaid said, the reason we are in the Middle East with no end in sight. Even George W. Bush, a man whose family has always shown a taste for black gold, called for the country to end it's "oil addiction." And yet oil is still the lubricant of choice. The U.S. makes up five percent of the world's population, but uses 25 percent of the oil. This is because there are very powerful interests with remarkable political pull that maintain an oily status quo.
Here's another hint: The author is Dave Zirin, of Sports Illustrated. If you haven't guessed by now that it's the Bowl Championship Series, you haven't been paying attention.
IU, 'IU' Bury Hatchet
Our item Thursday on the legal dispute between Indiana University and Evan Maloney, director of "Indoctrinate U," prompted this email from Larry MacIntyre, a spokesman for the university:
As a regular reader who often finds great amusement in your column, I was a bit disappointed in the Dec. 6 item titled " 'Indoctrinate U': What Really Happened." It omitted a key point that would likely have tipped readers that this really wasn't much of a story and that Indiana University was not trying force filmmaker Evan Maloney out of business.
You quoted Maloney as saying Indiana University was demanding "a sum of money that would essentially bankrupt On The Fence Films." To be precise, the sum of money Indiana University requested as part of a negotiated settlement of his trademark violations was $1,500 to cover our legal fees. That's it.
As a spokesman for Indiana University, I can assure you that no member of the Board of Trustees nor of the central administration was even aware of this demand until it appeared in OpinionJournal.com. There was absolutely no intent on our part to pressure or punish Mr. Maloney because his film is critical of America's higher education institutions.
This was a simple trademark dispute that has been satisfactorily settled from our standpoint. We appreciate that Mr. Maloney moved quickly to take down the trademarked interlocking IU logo from his Web site once we called it to his attention.
In recognition of his good faith, we have sent him a letter withdrawing our demand for $1,500 for legal fees. It would be nice if OpinionJournal.com readers could be updated on this development so they don't continue to associate Indiana University with the antics of the university administrators portrayed in Mr. Maloney's film.
Our pleasure.
Death March of the Penguins
o "Perfect Road Trip a Rarity for Penguins"--headline, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Dec. 11
o "Penguins Now Threatened by Global Warming"--headline, Daily Telegraph (London), Dec. 11
For This He Gets a Nobel Peace Prize?
"Gore Says He Did Not Raise Gun to Shoot"--headline, Peoria (Ill.) Journal Star, Dec. 11
Bad News for Late Risers
"Ukraine Will Be Without PM?"--headline, For-UA.com, Dec. 10
His Wife Begs to Differ
"Man Evolved Recently, Say Researchers"--headline, Sarasota (Fla.) Herald-Tribune, Dec. 11
She Didn't Really Evolve Either
"Darwin Wife Charged With Deception"--headline, Press Association (Britain), Dec. 11
News of the Tautological
"Credit Card Use Leads to Rise in Consumer Borrowing"--headline, Associated Press, Dec. 8
Bottom Stories of the Day
o "Stephen's Meat Building Demolished for Parking"--headline, San Jose Mercury News, Dec. 10
o "Ex-'Idol' Finalist Won't Sing in Concert"--headline, Associated Press, Dec. 9}
o "Boeing's Delayed 787 Schedule Unchanged"--headline, Chicago Business, Dec. 11
o "Plane Lands Safely Near Fairbanks Ranch"--headline, North County Times (Escondido, Calif.), Dec. 10
Throw the Book at Him--II
On Friday we noted the case of Bernie Ward, "a popular liberal San Francisco radio talk show host and former Catholic priest" under indictment for child pornography. Ward's defense is that he was doing research for a book, but William Drake of Vacaville, writing to the San Francisco Chronicle, believes it was even more innocent than that (second letter):
Perhaps if Bernie Ward had been less critical of the Bush/Cheney administration, he might not have been charged with a 3-year-old technical violation concerning child pornography. Not only was Bernie critical of the Bushes, he was very articulate and factual in his criticisms, which probably made him even more dangerous to Bush and his minions.
This smacks of a Bush/Cheney "subtle warning," not just to Bernie, but to any popular figure who might want to criticize the Bush administration, such as former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
Not to mention William Drake. Look out, Bill, they're coming for you!
URL for this article: opinionjournal.com |
