I really like "City Journal."
Best of the Web Today - January 15, 2004
By JAMES TARANTO
Bye-ku for Carol Moseley Braun
The Land of Lincoln
Reclaims the first lady of
Nigerian scams
(Earlier bye-kus: Yasuhiro Nakasone and Bob Graham.)
MoveOn Goes Pro-War
AdAge.com reports on the winner of MoveOn.org's "Bush in 30 Seconds" ad contest, the award ceremony for which, as we noted yesterday, was filled with puerile rantings from B-list celebrities. (Some readers thought "B-list" was too kind an appellation, but we like to treat even our ideological opponents with a spirit of generosity.)
Yet the winning ad, for which AdAge provides a link, is surprisingly unobjectionable. It's also professionally done, produced by an executive at the Leo Burnett ad firm (on his own time, AdAge says). The message of the ad, however, is a bit muddled. It depicts a bunch of children working in factory jobs.
What is the message supposed to be here? That under Bush's leadership the economy has created so many new manufacturing jobs that companies are forced to rely on child labor to fill them? True, the economy is going great guns, but not that great. Besides, the contest is supposed to "articulate everything that's wrong with the Bush administration in a 30-second spot," as AdAge says. "Too many manufacturing jobs" isn't exactly an anti-Bush message.
Finally, when you get 21 seconds into the ad, the following message appears on the screen: "Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1 trillion deficit." Oh, so that's it! The deficit is everything that's wrong with the Bush administration! Of course, President Reagan proved that deficits don't matter, so this means that in MoveOn.org's view, nothing that matters is wrong with the Bush administration. We generally support the administration, but even we wouldn't go as far as this.
Also, do you notice something that's missing from the ad's enumeration of everything that's wrong with the Bush administration? That's right, the war. It's good to see that MoveOn has come to its senses and decided to support, or at least quit opposing, the liberation of Iraq.
CLARK LIED!!!!
The Drudge Report has uncovered the transcript of Wesley Clark's testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on Sept. 26, 2002, 15 days before Congress voted to authorize the liberation of Iraq. Some highlights:
[Saddam Hussein] is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable. He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities. . . .
Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years. According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons. The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years. . . . At some point, it may become possible for Saddam to acquire the fissionable materials or uranium ore that he needs. And therefore, Iraq is not a problem that can be indefinitely postponed.
In addition, Saddam Hussein's current retention of chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law.
Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President's clear determination to act if the United Nations can't provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts.
Although Clark did say force should be a "last resort" and U.N. support was desirable, he also urged Congress to "adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not." This is completely at odds with what he's been saying since he became a candidate for the presidency.
After Clark jumped into the race, Hugh Shelton, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said "integrity and character issues" were behind the decision to relieve Clark of his position as supreme commander of NATO. Shelton has yet to elaborate, but Clark's public actions have certainly provided good reason to question his integrity and character.
Cartoon Physics
If you want to understand the Democratic presidential race, it may be that your best bet is to switch off CNN and Fox News Channel and turn instead to the Cartoon Network. The world of cartoons have their own laws of physics, which are different in some respects from the ones governing us three-dimensional characters. Example: When a cartoon character runs off a cliff, he does not immediately plummet to the ground below. Rather, he will hang suspended until he realizes he's gone off a cliff, whereupon the law of gravity kicks in.
If the latest polls are to be believed, something similar may be happening to Howard Dean. In Iowa, where the caucuses are four days away, Dean had been holding a narrow lead over Dick Gephardt in most polls. But Des Moines's WHO-TV reports that the latest Zogby survey puts John Kerry, of all people, in the lead--albeit statistically insignificantly. The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam, has 22%, with Dean and Gephardt in a second-place tie at 21%. John Edwards, previously left for dead, pulls 17%.
In New Hampshire, Dean has dropped below 30% for the first time in months, according to the American Research Group tracking poll, and suddenly his lead seems surmountable. Dean scores 29% in ARG's latest numbers, with goofy general Wesley Clark coming on strong at 24%. Kerry has 15%, and the other candidates are all in single digits.
Is it possible that Democratic voters are deciding not to follow Dean off the cliff? He's certainly given rational Democrats plenty of reason to be wary:
His views on national security are callow at best. As we noted yesterday, USA Today reported that in 1995 Dean wrote a letter to President Clinton urging "unilateral" action in Bosnia. Yet he has opposed the liberation of Iraq on the grounds that it was "unilateral" (even though it wasn't). Last March Dean told The Nation's David Corn: "Unilateral action is not appropriate unless there is an imminent threat to the United States. . . . The imminent threat would consist of Iraq's having a nuclear program or developing one or being found, credibly, giving weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical or biological weapons, to terrorists." Is Dean going to claim that the Bosnian Serbs had weapons of mass destruction?
He's an unpleasant piece of work. As we noted Tuesday, he is unable to restrain himself from lashing out even at 67-year-old retirees. (This page has MP3 files of Dean berating Dale Ungerer, including one hilarious one with the sound altered.) And his campaign's nastiness isn't limited to old men and Republicans. The New York Times quotes a Dean spokeswoman as saying of Dick Gephardt: "He is so scared that in five days his political career will be over. His attacks have become personal and just mean." If saying Gephardt is scared his career will be over in five days isn't personal and mean, what is?
His medical judgment is questionable. Although his specialty is internal medicine, he somehow thinks he's qualified to practice psychiatry. He told Rolling Stone: "This president is not interested in being a good president. He's interested in some complicated psychological situation that he has with his father." WorldNetDaily reports that he elaborated in a radio interview: "Do I think the president needs psychotherapy? I recommend it; I think it's a great thing for everybody who is struggling with issues."
He's just plain creepy. "He is compulsive about recycling," People magazine reports. "Once he picked up every newspaper off an airplane at the end of a flight and hauled them to a recycling center. He also does recycling inspections of his staffer's [sic] bins." He's going to Georgia this weekend to see Jimmy Carter, no doubt looking for tips on White House tennis court management.
Don't get us wrong; we're far from ready to write Dean off. For one thing, his supporters seem to be a particularly passionate group, and his various gaffes and idiocies seem only to help solidify their support. The blog A Mind That Suits notes a WashingtonPost.com video that features an exchange between two young ladies, Cecilia Hayford and Kyla Coy, who are volunteering for the Dean campaign that makes this point explicit:
Hayford: He just kind of appeals to you as a more, like, a more honest alternative.
Coy: It's this kind of fire in his eyes.
Hayford: He's not fake.
Coy: Mechanical.
Hayford: Yeah, he's not mechanical. He's so human. He makes mistakes. He says dumb things. I say dumb things.
It could be, too, that Wesley Clark's propensity for saying dumb things is what accounts for his recent surge in New Hampshire.
Another element at play is the press. "The journalistic establishment has become an anti-Dean mover," our Peggy Noonan argues today, and here's a bit of evidence: ABC News yesterday aired a ludicrous hit piece that tries to paint Dean as condoning domestic violence. ABC's evidence is so thin that even Dean's conservative critics are disgusted with the network. As the Los Angeles Times found when it tried a late hit on Arnold Schwarzenegger (and one that seemed to have at least some substance to it), this is the sort of thing that can lead to a backlash against the press and in favor of the targeted candidate.
TV or Not TV: That Is the Question
"In my family, when we were little, television was somewhat of a bonding experience. When we were young my father was very busy, he came home late every night and he didn't see us much. But when he came home, we'd watch The Three Stooges together, Abbott and Costello. We thought that was just terrific stuff. We'd just sit there and watch it together."--Howard Dean, interview with People magazine, Jan. 8
"In general, I'm not a fan of TV. I grew up without a TV."--Howard Dean, same interview
This Just In
"Kucinich Pushes Liberal Agenda"--headline, Miami Herald, Jan. 12
Brazil Nuts--II
An American Airlines pilot ended up in hot water when he flew into Sao Paulo, Brazil, the BBC reports. Last month a Brazilian judge ordered American visitors to be photographed and fingerprinted, a petty act of retaliation against America, which is doing the same thing to Brazilian guests, but as an antiterror measure.
When pilot Dale Hirsch arrived in Brazil, the BBC reports, he " 'raised his middle finger as he was handing papers to officials, in "an internationally recognised obscene gesture,' a Brazilian police spokesman told reporters." The Brazilians hauled him into court and imposed a fine of $12,000.
Those Brazilians are nothing but a bunch of Nazis! Well, OK, actually they're not Nazis; that rhetoric is vastly overblown. But hey, they started it.
Quagmire in Baghdad!
The New York Observer reports that civil war has broken out in Iraq--at the New York Times Baghdad bureau, which "had been rife with internal disagreements over security, and personal clashes between its bureau chief--Susan Sachs--and its star reporters Dexter Filkins and John Burns":
One Times source described the situation at the Baghdad bureau as its own "war" with "major turf and ego battles, swaggering and big-footing by some and plenty of pouting, thrown elbows and bureaucratic jujitsu in return."
"This is a huge problem we have to get hold of. This is a big story," another source said, referring to Iraq. "This is huge. I've never seen it like this where we [have] operational problems of this magnitude while we try and get on top of the story itself."
Already erstwhile foreign editor Roger Cohen has been "forced from his post," and Sachs has been relieved of her duties as bureau chief. "Times sources," the Observer reports, "questioned whether internal backbiting and ego-driven arguments have hampered The Times' reporting on the most important story in the world--a story The Times should have owned." The Times, it seems, had no plan for dealing with postwar Iraq.
Stories We Somehow Missed
"The pictures splashed across the world's front pages last week were indistinguishable from those sent back by Nasa's Viking Landers more than a quarter of a century ago. Not even the plan to put a man on Mars was new: Nasa pulled that one off back in 1997."--Daily Telegraph (London), Jan. 11
What Would Jesus Sue?
Some people turn to drink when they have personal problems, but 55-year-old Marcel Mager, erstwhile head usher and a member of the board of the Gospel Tabernacle Church in Cloquet, Minn., decided to tithe one on instead, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports:
Mager, 55, anonymously donated about $126,000 to the church in 1999 at a time, he said, when he was clinically depressed over the breakup of his 18-year marriage. Five months after making the gift and after being treated with antidepressants and counseling, he asked for the money back. The church said no.
In 2002 Mager sued the church; the case may go to trial within the next year. "Meantime, Mager hopes that his speaking out will inspire church members and residents to put pressure on the church to return the money. 'Isn't that the Christian thing to do?' " Someone should ask Howard Dean.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And We Thought They Just Did Centerfolds
"Court Backs Playboy Over Pop-Ups"--headline, Reuters, Jan. 14
Be Vewy Quiet
"Using a Hi-Tech Gadget Car . . . to Catch Rabbits"--headline, Reuters, Jan. 14
Our Ever-Expanding Constitutional Rights
A court has held that a convicted sex offender "has no federal constitutional right to buy magazines containing sexually explicit materials and fantasy role-playing games," the Oregonian reports:
But the panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals left unresolved the question of whether Afshin Bahrampour has a right to receive Muscle Elegance and White Dwarf magazines under the Oregon Constitution, which provides greater free-speech protections than its federal counterpart.
An Oregon court has already held that Bahrampour has a constitutional right to receive Green Lantern comic books.
Cross Word Puzzle
"An elementary school principal who used a racial slur while lecturing students about name-calling has agreed to be reassigned," the Associated Press reports from Philadelphia. Mary Sheldon of the Overbrook Educational Center, "who is white, used a derogatory word for blacks during a November 5 meeting with students":
The incident became public when three parents complained at a School Reform Commission meeting last month.
"She contended all along that she used it after children were using it, to say, simply, that this is not an appropriate word, this is a horrible word," district spokeswoman Cecilia Cummings said Tuesday.
We guess the discussion was supposed to go something like this:
Sheldon: Children, you mustn't use racial slurs.
Student: What's a racial slur?
Sheldon: I can't tell you.
Overbrook "serves visually impaired children in kindergarten through eighth grade," the AP reports. Sounds like a case of the blind leading the blind. |
