Best of the Web Today
BY JAMES TARANTO
Wednesday, May 26, 2004 1:58 p.m. EDT
The Press Corps' Porn Addiction
We're really starting to worry about some of our fellow journalists. It seems they were so titillated by those kinky pictures from Abu Ghraib prison that they just can't stop thinking about it. As we noted Monday, references to the Abu Ghraib shenanigans keep popping up in stories about entirely different subjects. Here are the latest examples:
A "worldwide annual study of consumer sentiment" finds that foreigners are less likely to "trust" American brands or to consider them "honest," reports CNN/Money. "According to the study--conducted before news of the prison abuse scandal broke late last month--the total percentage of consumers worldwide who use U.S. brands has fallen to 27 percent from 30 percent a year ago across 15 brands surveyed, including McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Disney and Nike."
Then there's this, from a New York Times review of a Madonna show:
" 'Burning Up,' a seemingly innocuous club classic from her first album, was even nastier. As Madonna, still wearing her fatigues, sang the refrain--'I'm burning up, burning up for your love'--static on the screens above was replaced by scrambled camcorder images. War and sex and videotape: it was impossible not to think of Abu Ghraib, though she never made the connection explicit."
"It was impossible not to think of Abu Ghraib." This is progress. After all, the first step in recovery is admitting you have a problem. May we suggest that Ghraib-obsessed scribes check out "Breaking Pornography Addiction: A Plan for Personal Success."
It isn't easy, but you can overcome this: "Don't beat yourself up when you stumble. Remember that what you are trying to accomplish is a major undertaking. You can do it. And as you progress, God will bless your life with incredible joy. You will become more self disciplined, and you will be happier than you have ever been. God bless us all with success."
See No Evil
The New York Times has issued a lengthy "From the Editors" note, in which it essentially says its coverage of the Iraq war has been too pro-American. Specifically, it reported on various claims by intelligence officials and Iraqi dissidents about the Baathist regime's weapons of mass destruction, claims that have not panned out.
The Times at least maintains a posture of open-mindedness. "We consider the story of Iraq's weapons . . . to be unfinished business," the note concludes. Earlier, after citing on one particular lead that appears to have been false, the paper acknowledges: "It is still possible that chemical or biological weapons will be unearthed in Iraq, but in this case it looks as if we, along with the administration, were taken in."
The Associated Press's Terence Hunt, in a dispatch yesterday, seems to endorse the Saddam-is-innocent theory:
Nearly 800 Americans have died since the United States went to war on the premise that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a dire threat to America and the rest of the world. There has been no sign of any such weapons.
But it is Hunt who is reporting falsehoods, at least according to another AP dispatch, filed the same day as his: "Comprehensive testing has confirmed the presence of the chemical weapon sarin in the remains of a roadside bomb discovered this month in Baghdad."
It seems that many journalists are so invested in the story line that "BUSH LIED!!!! about WMDs" that they wouldn't acknowledge otherwise if they themselves were gassed.
Good News Watch
Amid all the defeatism of late, the coalition looks to be winning its battle for Shiite Iraq. "U.S. troops captured a key lieutenant of radical Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr during overnight clashes in Najaf that killed 24 people and wounded nearly 50," the Associated Press reports from Baghdad. "Riyadh al-Nouri, al-Sadr's brother-in-law, offered no resistance when American troops raided his home during a series of clashes in this Shiite holy city, according to Azhar al-Kinani, a staffer in al-Sadr's office in Najaf."
Summer of Hate
"Federal officials have information suggesting that al Qaeda has people in the United States preparing to mount a large-scale terrorist attack this summer," the Washington Post reports, citing "sources familiar with the information." Officials say the terrorists may target big events, such as the dedication of Washington's World War II memorial this weekend, next month's Group of Eight summit in Georgia, and the Democratic and Republican conventions in Boston and New York, respectively:
That information dovetails with other intelligence "chatter" suggesting that al Qaeda operatives are pleased with the change in government resulting from the March 11 terrorist bombings in Spain and may want to affect elections in the United States and other countries.
"They saw that an attack of that nature can have economic and political consequences and have some impact on the electoral process," said one federal official with access to counterterrorism intelligence.
The story doesn't say which candidate or party al Qaeda hopes to benefit, and so far as we know the terror group has not issued a formal endorsement. Such information would be most useful for voters in November.
Homer Nods
President Bush's Monday night speech was on Iraq, not in Iraq as we erroneously said yesterday (since corrected).
Contre le Stéréotype
A New York Times report suggests maybe the French aren't cheese-eating surrender monkeys after all:
A Paris court today sentenced a Frenchman with ties to a suspect in the Madrid train bombings to four years in prison for helping Islamic terrorists in Europe.
The man, David Courtallier, was convicted of conspiring with criminals engaged in a terrorist enterprise and was not implicated in the Madrid bombings, which killed 191 people on March 11. But Mr. Courtallier, a cheese vendor from France's Savoy region who converted to Islam in 1997, had been in contact with Jamal Zougam, one of the first suspects arrested in the Madrid attacks.
That they arrested him in spite of his vocation is all the more impressive.
Vive la Diversité
"Frog Diversity Museum Exhibit Opens"--headline, Associated Press, May 25
'They Took the Easy Way Out'
Here's a letter to the editor from one Sherry Franzen of Eugene, Ore., in the local paper, the Register-Guard (sixth letter):
In response to Tabitha Perkins (letters, May 11) encouraging us to tie a yellow ribbon to support the troops no matter how one feels about the war, and to everyone else of like mind: I do not support the troops who are willing to kill for their government, for the money it pays, for the education they may receive later--if they make it home alive with their brains intact--or any patriotism they claim to represent. A yellow ribbon should denote cowardice in the case of welcoming these people home.
They took the easy way out in the current climate of "You're either with us or you're against us." The willingness to kill, maim and torture for the government is not something to be proud of.
To go against the grain is the honorable thing. I would like to honor all the women and men who refuse to fight any battle that is not their own, whether it's for oil, power, money, government or greed. I honor those brave and decent enough to take good care of themselves and others. I honor those wonderful, intelligent beings who can think for themselves and not sign on to anything that would compromise their own respectability, those ethical enough to take responsibility for directing their own actions.
I say tie a blood-red ribbon on your arm, on your trees or any other limbs you can think of to show support for those willing to save blood for worthy endeavors.
Of course, we keep hearing from left-wing politicians that they "support the troops," even though in the very next breath they disparage the troops' mission and declare their sacrifice to be in vain. We guess Sherry Franzen at least deserves credit for honesty.
Disturbing Kerry Revelation
A press release from John Kerry's campaign contains this quotation from retired admiral William Crowe:
"The most blatant example of playing fast and loose with issues has been the discrediting of John Kerry's Vietnam experience. As a career military officer and Vietnam veteran, I strongly resent this political ploy. John Kerry went to Vietnam voluntarily when many others were deliberately avoiding service. He performed bravely and commendably. It is absurd and wrong to lightly dismiss his sacrifice and patriotism."
Whoa, hang on a second. John Kerry served in Vietnam? This is the first we've heard of it! Now, don't get us wrong; a great many men served honorably in Vietnam. But if Kerry served in Vietnam, why hasn't he said so?
We noted in February that in 1971 a representative of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, who by the way served in Vietnam, had this to say during testimony before a Senate committee:
I did take part in free-fire zones, I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire, I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these acts, I find out later on, are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg Principles, is in fact guilty.
We're certainly not suggesting Kerry is a war criminal, but why is he being so secretive about having served in Vietnam?
He Can Run, but Can He Hide?
Blogger Mickey Kaus has a hilarious analysis of John Kerry's plan--still under consideration--to delay accepting the Democratic presidential nomination until a month after the convention:
Kerry has been virtually invisible on the national radar screen lately--and he's been slowly climbing in the polls.
But the Kerry camp faced what might seem to be an insurmountable challenge: the July Democratic convention in Boston, when the nation's press surely plans to focus on the Democratic nominee, beaming his every word into the nation's living rooms, allowing voters to get to know him and take the measure of his character and personality. Kerry's highly-paid strategists instantly recognized that this would be a disaster for their client. So they have crafted a cunning plan designed to get the TV networks to avoid covering the convention entirely, while the reporters who might otherwise be exposing Kerry to the world are convinced to stay at home. (Give up 'tons of free publicity'? Nothing's more threatening to Kerry than tons of free publicity.)
The Unbearable Whiteness of Being
Yesterday we received the following e-mail from Joel Fischer at Oregon State University, apparently prompted by this April item on an OSU kerfuffle (quoted verbatim):
I am sending you an invitation to this event because you responded to David williams article "Message from a white male to the African American Community." regardless of what position you took or if you were talking about him being fired, you seemed interested in the issue, so here it is.
We are taking the issues raised by David Williams article and looking at them in what we think is a more effective way. Although I got the idea for this event after reading Williams' article, we will NOT be discussing David Williams, or his views, or the termination of his job whatsoever, we will merely be looking at subtle forms of racism and unearned privilege. I hope you all can join us and keep an open mind. Spare me the emails and just come to the event, uinless you don't live in Oregon then I suppose you can email me with questions comments, This is meant to be a learning and growing experience for us all, including me.
Here's the description of the event from the "Diversity at OSU" page on the university Web site:
5/27 Interrogate the Whiteness, Dammit! 6:00pm, Milam 213
One of racism's key tricks is keeping people of color in the center of the conversation while keeping white people in the center of power. Interrogating whiteness means putting (normative) whiteness at the center of the discussion. It means uncovering the history of the term and the way it has been used. It means foregrounding the way 'whiteness' as a category has historically been dependent on an understanding that white is the opposite of non-white; it is not and has never been an innocent term. it is a term shaped and used by (white) power. It's a suspect term, and we mean to interrogate it, dammit!
Joel, we're afraid we're going to have to send our regrets.
But Butter Makes Them Look Awfully Attractive
"Baffling Disease Makes Lobsters Look Ugly"--headline, Associated Press, May 25
Gay Multiplication
From a Fox News report on gay parents:
The 2000 U.S. Census found that there were nearly 600,000 same-sex couples living in this country. One-third of lesbian households (96,000) have children, and one-fifth of gay male households (60,000) have kids, according to the Census. . . .
According to Witeck Combs Communications and MarketResearch.com, gay and lesbian parents spent $22 billion on their kids in 2002; that number was expected to go up to $28 billion by the end of this year, according to Witeck Combs.
If 156,000 households (96,000 lesbian and 60,000 gay male ones) are spending $22 billion on their kids, that comes out to a whopping $141,000 a household. Not that we had a deprived upbringing, but this makes us a little envious. Imagine the luxurious childhood we would have enjoyed if only our parents had been gay.
Meanwhile, Reuters reports: "Using artificial insemination to get pregnant, lesbians are four times more likely to have children than gay men." Four times? That actually sounds low to us.
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Charles Boersig, Erica Seiguer, Jim Orheim, Michael Segal, Anil Adyanthaya, Thornton Sanders, Janice Lyons, Ryan Hurey, Blake Haider, Paul Yerkey, Chris Stetsko, Richard Haisley, S.E. Brenner, Raghu Desikan, Ron Wright, Greg Gilbert, William Schultz, Lee Stokes, Joseph Kaufman, Jeff Meling, Michael Britton, Bob Batts, Roy Besand, Shelton Mackey, Tom von Gremp, William Buetler, Thomas Holsinger, George Booth, Kathy Judson, Sean Tracy and Michael Wolverton. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
opinionjournal.com |
