Best of the Web Today - January 8, 2004
By JAMES TARANTO
God and Gays Again
Where to begin with Howard Dean's latest? From today's Washington Post:
Democratic front-runner Howard Dean said Wednesday that his decision as governor to sign the bill legalizing civil unions for gays in Vermont was influenced by his Christian views, as he waded deeper into the growing political, religious and cultural debate over homosexuality and the Bible's view of it.
"The overwhelming evidence is that there is very significant, substantial genetic component to it," Dean said in an interview Wednesday. "From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people."
The kindest thing that can be said about this comment is that it shows a very crude mind at work. God created it, therefore it isn't sinful makes no sense from the standpoint of Christian theology, which holds that man is innately sinful and must seek salvation through Jesus. In our pluralistic society, of course, no one has to believe that, but Dean does claim to be a Christian.
Dean's comments are as politically boneheaded as they are theologically fatuous. A great many Americans oppose same-sex legal unions or at least have misgivings about them, often for religious reasons, and what does Dean do? He rubs their noses in it. His message to them is: I'm right, you're wrong, and God is on my side: once again, Pat Robertson lite.
Earlier in the week, the Post notes, Dean invoked Christian compassion as a justification for supporting civil unions:
Dean said he does not often turn to his faith when making policy decisions but cited the civil union bill as a time he did. "My view of Christianity . . . is that the hallmark of being a Christian is to reach out to people who have been left behind," he told reporters Tuesday. "So I think there was a religious aspect to my decision to support civil unions."
It's worth noting the hypocrisy here. In truth, Dean became a champion of civil unions only after the fact; it was a judicial ruling that forced the issue upon him and the Legislature. In other words, it took the Vermont Supreme Court to put the fear of God into Howard Dean.
Wow, What Was He Saying Before the Shift?
"In Shift, Dean Starts Watching His Words"--headline, New York Times, Jan. 8
Dr. Doom?
The Angry Left finds Howard Dean delectable, but is he electable? Well, check out the seven major candidates' favorability ratings from this week's CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll:
Candidate Fav Unf Net
Fav Never heard of No opin
Bush 65% 35% +30% --- 0
Clark 37% 26% +11% 21% 16%
Lieberman 38% 37% +1% 10% 15%
Gephardt 34% 33% +1% 18% 15%
Edwards 24% 24% 0 27% 25%
Kerry 31% 32% -1% 19% 18%
Dean 28% 39% -11% 17% 16%
Dean not only has a higher unfavorability rating than anyone else; he is the only candidate with a statistically significant net unfavorability rating (i.e., more people dislike than like him). He is also better known than any other candidate except President Bush and Joe Lieberman (both of whom ran nationwide in 2000). What this means is that all the attention Dean has been getting has made an impression--and on balance it is not a favorable one.
The other outlier among the Dems is Wesley Clark, whose net favorability raging of 11% precisely mirrors Dean's unfavorability. At this point we'd have to say Clark is the most plausible Democratic alternative to Dean, though only by default. Events could prove us wrong, but we suspect Clark's comparatively good showing today mostly reflects Americans' favorable view of the military, his association with which is the thing most people know about Clark. If Clark becomes the nominee, voters will judge his character and his proposals, and, as Ross Perot found 12 years ago, nonpoliticians don't necessarily wear as political candidates.
These numbers also show why President Bush will be tough to beat. Everyone has an opinion of him, and yet his unfavorability rating is in line with the Dems' and lower than that of Dean, about whom 33% haven't made up their minds. Bush's numbers can be discounted slightly, since "job performance," not favorability, is the preferred measure of an incumbent's popularity. But only slightly, for 60% of people in the same poll say Bush is doing a good job. (The same 35% say he isn't, with 5% undecided.)
Throughout 2003, with the Democrats actively campaigning against him, Bush's job rating never dropped below 50%. This year, of course, he will be campaigning in earnest and will be able to focus his fire on Dean or Clark or whoever is the nominee. Even if the Democrats nominate someone electable, actually getting him elected is going to be an uphill battle.
Here's the Best Evidence He Isn't
"Arianna Huffington Argues Howard Dean Is Electable"--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 7
Homer Nods
An item yesterday conflated two quotes about Howard Dean--one from his wife and one from a former supervisor--and attributed them both to Dean's better half. We've corrected the error on yesterday's page.
The article from The New Yorker from which we drew the quotes also contains an error. It describes Sen. John Kerry as "the impeccably credentialled, cinematically Presidential-looking Kerry." In fact, Kerry is a haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat who by the way served in Vietnam.
Subliminal Man
Gary Hart is considering a run for his old Senate seat, now held by Democrat-turned-Republican Ben Nighthorse Campbell, the Associated Press reports. "The two-term senator and two-time presidential candidate recently discussed a possible bid with national and state party leaders. . . . Hart, 67, flirted with entering the race in September, but deferred when Rep. Mark Udall expressed interest."
Headline Writer Gets Scoop
"Katherine Harris of Fla. Plans Senate Run"--headline, Associated Press dispatch, Jan. 7
"U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris has decided whether she will run for retiring Sen. Bob Graham's seat and plans to reveal her plans next week, associates said Wednesday."--lead paragraph, same dispatch
Reuters Is Pretty Sorry Too
"Taliban Sorry for 'Mistake' That Killed 16" reads the headline on a Reuters dispatch from Kandahar:
Afghanistan's ousted Taliban has apologised for a bomb attack in the southern city of Kandahar that killed 16 people, including many children, and called it a botched attempt to target U.S. troops. . . .
"We wanted to target the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) office in the city, but because of a small mistake, this plan failed," he told Reuters.
Reuters then "reports" that the whole thing was America's fault: "There are 12,000 U.S.-led troops in Afghanistan hunting Islamic militants from the Taliban and al Qaeda. They have failed to prevent a wave of attacks and fighting that has claimed over 400 lives since early August, mainly in the south and east."
Masters of Disguise
"Fear that 'terrorists' might set off a dirty bomb" on New Year's Eve prompted the U.S. Department of Energy to send "scores of nuclear scientists with detection equipment to five major cities," Agence France-Presse reports. The scare quotes around terrorists are supplied by the surrender monkey news agency.
"The scientists were disguised as normal citizens," AFP adds. Notes reader Jim Douglass: "Having worked in university research, and now living near the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in southeastern Washington state, I can tell you that most of the scientists I worked for and with dressed very obviously with shirt pocket protectors, thick eyeglasses, well-worn briar pipes, graphing calculators (in early days slide rules hanging from belts) and occasionally stained shop coats. I wonder what kind of disguises our government had these scientists wear so they were not obvious to the potential terrorist?"
This Just In
"WTC Memorials Far From Finished"--headline, NYNewsday.com, Jan. 7
America Held Hostage, Day 1
After a 38-day absence, Maureen Dowd is back, with a column on President Bush's weight, the continuing terrorism problem and lesbians. Oh well, it was nice while it lasted.
Zero-Tolerance Watch
They're at it again at Richland Middle School of Richland Hills, Texas. Last month we noted that a 13-year-old boy had been charged with assault for "giving [a] girl a hickey in a . . . hallway." Now the school has suspended 13-year-old Carl Grimmer for saying "Hey!"
Fort Worth Star-Telegram columnist Dave Lieber reports that Carl used the instant-messaging system on the schools obsolete DOS-based computer network to send the message "Hey!" to some 80 users. "At first, Principal Tommy Rollins didn't think much of it," Lieber reports. But Beverly Sweeney, "a computer teacher and campus computer liaison with the district," was outraged. She tracked Carl down, confronted him and demanded: "Do you know that this is serious?" Eventually the principal suspended the boy for three days.
Lieber says that as he was reporting the story, he received an "unsolicited explanation" by e-mail from Sweeney. "Because Sweeney wrote her e-mail using her taxpayer-funded district e-mail account, it is a public document, and therefore, I quote it in full so we can all share insight into the mind of one of the educators who busted Carl for writing 'Hey!' ":
Mr. Lieber, I want to communicate to you my concerns about some of the "reporting" done by [the] Star-Telegram and my concern about an article I have heard you might be writing. Too often, people who do not know the real world of public education feel that they are the "experts" who have all the solutions and that their opinions are as valuable as those who live in this world daily.
If you comment upon events that are reported to you by a parent and do not fully investigate those reports before you publish your article, then you are one of those people. I have not heard that you have attempted to contact those people who really know the situation.
I am speaking about one incident in the Birdville School District in which a student was expelled for tampering with the district's computers. Having been a computer teacher in the real world of public education for many years, let me say that suspension of students who are guilty of such tampering sends a message to all students that is beneficial and necessary.
Students should not be of the opinion that it is acceptable to abuse the privileges that are afforded them by the taxpayers. If they are allowed to experiment and do things on the computers that the teachers have not specifically given them permission to do, we would never get any computer education accomplished.
Hacking into a system should be highest on the list of tampering violations. I believe the other students are now aware that the district takes this seriously and will not tolerate such misuse of our equipment.
I invite you, parents, our state representatives, and anyone else that thinks they know how a teacher or a district should react to ANY situation to come live with us for a while--be a substitute teacher for a few weeks and learn the real world of public education.
Of course, as Lieber notes, Carl was not "hacking into a system"; he merely used a legitimate feature of the operating system. The real question though, is whether all the grown-ups at Richland Middle School are as comically self-serious as Beverly Sweeney. If so, it's no wonder they have a discipline problem. Even 13-year-olds could not possibly respect anyone so ridiculous.
Won't That Make the Cow Madder?
"Japan Team to Visit U.S. to Probe Mad Cow"--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just Say Nyet
"Russian Aid Workers Stoned in Kosovo"--headline, United Press International, Jan. 7
Who Knew?
"Study: Worldwide Demand for Herbal Remedies Threatens Plants"--headline, Reuters, Jan. 8
What Would Rose Do Without Experts?
"It's a Matter of Heart, Not Lips, for Rose: Without true remorse, experts say, his admission is just an empty gesture"--headline and subheadline, Chicago Tribune, Jan. 7
And How Did CNN React?
"Fox Calls U.S. Immigration Plan 'Very Interesting' "--headline, FoxNews.com, Jan. 7
Hooked
"Cable TV made a West Bend man addicted to TV, caused his wife to be overweight and his kids to be lazy, he says." This according to an article in yesterday's Reporter of Fond du Lac, Wis. He's threatening to sue the cable company: "Timothy Dumouchel of West Bend wants $5,000 or three computers, and a lifetime supply of free Internet service from Charter Communications"--presumably so he can get addicted to the Web and file his next lawsuit. |
