Best of the Web Today - February 1, 2005
By JAMES TARANTO
A Fake but Accurate Kidnapping
"A group calling itself the Al Mujahedin Brigade claimed Tuesday it captured a U.S. soldier in Iraq and threatened to behead him unless prisoners are released," CNN reports from Baghdad. But some have raised doubts about the authenticity of a photo posted on an Islamist Web site:
In the photograph, the assault rifle--either an M-16 or an M-4--is pointed at the man's head, said CNN military analyst James Marks.
Marks, a retired Army general, said he has several questions about the photograph's authenticity.
A flak jacket the man is wearing in the picture has an unfamiliar kind of piping or trim along its edges, Marks said. The man's open-legged pants, as opposed to gathered hems, seem odd, he said.
Marks also questioned what appeared to be camouflage paint on the man's face. "We have not used camo paint with conventional forces serving in Iraq," Marks said.
Based on the photos the Drudge Report has uncovered, we'd say this looks like the work of the archterrorist Muhammad al-Sluggo.
And the Winner Is . . .
. . . President Bush? Well, yes, of course he won that election three months ago, but a common theme in the news coverage of the Iraqi election is that it is a victory for the American president. "Analysts: Bush Could Be Big Winner of Iraq Election" reads the headline of a Reuters dispatch:
President Bush, who has seen Iraq erupt in almost daily violence in recent months, could emerge as a big victor of Iraqi elections that could shore up his position both at home and abroad, analysts said on Monday.
"In the short-term, this is very good for an administration just beginning its second term," said Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.
"With the State of the Union Address coming on Wednesday, Bush is going to feel energized by this election and that energy will communicate itself to the people watching. It may even inject extra momentum into Bush's domestic programs," Jillson said.
But while there's no joy in Reuterville, New York's Daily News, with typical tabloid exuberance, calls the Iraqi vote a "Political Landslide for Bush":
Even the most virulent W-bashers have to concede President Bush was entitled to some serious gloating [Sunday]. Indeed, it seemed to require every sliver of Bush's reserve to keep from smirking like a Cheshire cat during his four-minute address to the nation.
Even the French are getting into the act: "Le Figaro Declares Bush 'Big Winner' in Iraq Vote" reads the headline of an Agence France-Presse dispatch.
At one level it's obvious that the election is a big win for Bush, whose Iraq policy seems vindicated. But in another sense it's weird. The servicemen who liberated Iraq and secured the election did so on behalf of America, not the Republican Party. This should have been a triumph for the nation, not just the GOP.
That is was not is entirely the Democrats' fault, for it was they who followed the lead of America's Baathist remnants and opposed the Iraq liberation on a partisan basis--even after many, including Kedwards, voted for it. As we wrote in a prescient June 30 item, "The Democrats are in the position of hoping that America loses its 'gamble' in Iraq--a politically and morally hazardous thing to hope for."
The Democrats' decision to put party over country was bad for the country, but much worse for the party.
An MSM-Dem Split
Yesterday we noted that some observers have been asking why the Iraqi election got so much more coverage than the Afghan one last October. Here's reader Regis Matejcik's answer:
It's obvious to me why coverage of the Iraq vote has been so much greater than the Afghan vote. Afghanistan was reasonably stable, and mass casualties or general failure was unlikely.
The media believed its own slant. They were sure they were about to witness a train wreck! They sent all their top people to cover what they anticipated to be the most focal example yet of the "quagmire" of Iraq. They smelled blood.
The emotions and bravery of the Iraqi electorate stunned and captured even the most skeptical. Dan Rather himself appeared near tears as he struggled to comprehend the bravery and determination of the Iraqis. CNN was perhaps the most stunned of all. Their people were actually confronting leftist commentators with the reality on the ground.
They came to show a crushing failure in Bush's foreign policy, they ended up being swept up in the emotion of an incredible victory for the human spirit--and reported it as such. What a concept.
This may tie in to Howard Fineman's interesting theory about the "American Mainstream Media Party," which he argues was formed when Walter Cronkite became an advocate for giving up the Vietnam War. Could it be that the Iraqi election will be the event that cures the media of its Vietnam syndrome? Stay tuned.
Onan the Barbarian
It looks as though Howard Dean is going to be the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee. We argued last month that this might actually not be so bad for the Dems--that perhaps Dean's Angry Left act was just an act and if the party was ready to move toward sanity, he may be able to adapt. Well, if it is an act, he's keeping it up. The New York Daily News quotes Dean as saying, at a DNC gathering over the weekend, "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for."
Blogger Edward Morrissey takes Dean at his word:
Dean and his followers demonstrate the illness that has infected the American Left since the 1960s. They don't just oppose--they hate. They hate Republicans, they hate suburbia, they hate just about everything America has done.
But perhaps this gives Dean too much credit. His comment reminded us of a song called "I Hate Republicans," which we became aware of last year when someone sent us a link to this hilarious video. The tune, which is actually kind of catchy, is from an obscure band called the Happytones, whose Web site makes pretty clear that they speak of "hate" only for the shock value:
Of course we don't really hate Republicans, well, not all of them all of the time. Individually some Republicans are nice people and loads of fun. As a political group, however, they are full of mischief.
The video intersperses photos of Republicans with ones of Ku Klux Klansmen and Hitler, underscoring that it is lurid but unserious. Kind of like . . . well, a column by the Boston Globe's antidemocracy moonbat James Carroll, which prompts blogger Steve Merryman to observe:
Bush-Hatred is like porn for Liberals.
Like porn of the flesh, it's the thrill of political extremes that titlllates the Left. In this political peep show, our president is not merely misguided; he's "deranged." He's not simply striving for an unattainable goal; he's a "boy in a bubble" acting with "callow hubris."
Just as porn appeals to the desire to flaunt societal convention, those on the left must feel great excitement in spewing their sweaty conspiracies, the wackier the better. Nothing is too sinister for this president to attempt. There is no taboo of political discourse the Left is not willing to trample in their need to satisfy their desire. This is the tawdry atmosphere in which it is acceptable, even encouraged, to write such things as "Full blown civil war, if it comes to that, will serve Bush's purpose, too. All the better if Syria and Iran leap into the fray . . ." and "The only meaning 'freedom' can have in Iraq right now is freedom from the US occupation . . ."
Addiction to porn can render one incapable of engaging in real relationships. One wonders if the left can put such sordid obsessions aside and enter into a real conversation with the American people ever again.
If the DNC does indeed make Dean its chairman, it will be a triumph of political onanism--which, combined with the Roe effect, should keep the party shrinking for some time to come.
'The Rarest Thing in the World'
Pardon us for taking another whack at John Kerry*, but it just seems a shame to let all this good material go to waste when so many people in the world are starving for humor. Here he is on "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert discussing abortion:
Russert: Why and how do you believe the Democrats can broaden the base with pro-life Democrats when the party seems to require down-the-line voting in terms of abortion rights?
Kerry: We have pro-life Democrats today. Harry Reid is a leader. He is pro-life. We have others who are pro-life. I think what I was saying, Tim, is that, you know, you can't be doctrinarian [sic in transcript] negative against somebody simply because they have that position. There's more to it. Now, does that change the position of the Democratic Party in defending the right to choose? No, absolutely not. Not in the least.
But you can't be--I mean, let me put it this way. Too many people in America believe that if you are pro-choice that means pro-abortion. It doesn't. I don't want abortion. Abortion should be the rarest thing in the world. I am actually personally opposed to abortion. But I don't believe that I have a right to take what is an article of faith to me and legislate it to other people. That's not how it works in America.
So you have to have room to be able to talk about these things in a rational way. We also need--I mean, I thought Hillary gave a good speech the other way in which she talked about the need--and many of us have talked about this for a long period of time. The discussion is not about being pro-abortion. The discussion is about how you truly value life. Valuing life is also valuing choice. Valuing life is the exception for the life of a mother or rape or incest. I mean, there are all kinds of values here.
Now first of all, on that last point, the exception to what? If the Democratic Party is, as Kerry has said, against pretty much any regulation of abortion, what do we need an exception for?
The most outlandish statement here, though, is "Abortion should be the rarest thing in the world." Really? Would he like nuclear war to be more common than abortion? How about genocide? And if so, why doesn't he demand that Supreme Court nominees endorse such things as constitutional rights, since elsewhere in the interview he says he would never accept a nominee to the court who wouldn't affirm Roe v. Wade?
When Bill Clinton said he wanted abortion to be "safe, legal and rare," it was possible to believe he was sincere, even though everyone knew "legal" would always trump "rare." Kerry's sop to the other side is so over the top--going beyond even pro-life absolutism--that it is impossible to take seriously.
* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way delivered weapons to the Khmer Rouge.
Sexist Journalism Watch
"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton collapsed Monday during a speech on Social Security, moments after complaining about a stomach virus," the Associated Press reports from Buffalo, N.Y. Clinton will be fine, and indeed she delivered another speech later in the day.
What got our attention, though, was this line in the AP story: "In September, Clinton's 58-year-old husband underwent quadruple bypass surgery." Why is this newsworthy? If a male senator suffered a bout of the stomach flu, would the AP think it necessary to delve into his wife's medical history?
Zero-Tolerance Watch
In the face of nationwide ridicule, the Lincoln, R.I., school district has reversed itself and will hold a spelling bee after all. The district had canceled its bee on the ground that it "leaves children behind," as we noted Friday.
Ivory Cower
We were going to avoid the whole Ward Churchill kerfuffle, especially since an editorial about it appeared on The Wall Street Journal's Taste page last Friday, but the latest developments are just too good to ignore. First of all, Churchill, who wrote an essay in 2001 denouncing the victims of 9/11 as "little Eichmanns" and applauding Mohamed Atta & Co. for their "gallant sacrifices," put out a statement yesterday in which he claimed he didn't really mean it: "I am not a 'defender' of the September 11 attacks."
Then Hamilton College in upstate New York, which had invited Churchill to speak, announced it was cancelling the event. Here's the statement from the college's president, Joan Hinde Stewart:
We have done our best to protect what we hold most dear, the right to speak, think and study freely.
But there is a higher responsibility that this institution carries, and that is the safety and security of our students, faculty, staff and the community in which we live.
Credible threats of violence have been directed at the College and members of the panel. These threats have been turned over to the police.
Based on the information available, I have made the decision to cancel this event in the interest of protecting those at risk.
Left-wing academics are quite possibly the most craven cowards the world has ever known. Churchill puts out this outrageous essay, then, faced with public scrutiny, backs down and claims he didn't really mean it.
Stewart is even worse. She did the right thing in cancelling Churchill's appearance, but the reason she should have done so is that a college is under no obligation to provide a forum for intellectually bankrupt depravity. What she's really afraid of isn't violence but the criticism she'd endure from phony "free speech" advocates if she did the right thing for the right reason.
What Would We Do Without Police?
"Police: Cellmate Is Suspect in Lawton Inmate Stabbing"--headilne, KOCO-TV Web site (Oklahoma City), Jan. 31
Unfrozen Caveman Scientists
"Rapid Glacier Thaws Alarm Researchers"--headline, Washington Times, Jan. 31
Won't All That Walking Make Smokers Short of Breath?
"Governor Proposes Cigarette Tax Hike"--headline, KCCI-TV Web site (Des Moines, Iowa), Jan. 31
'Rock Against Yeast'
Well well well. It seems reader Jonathan Gordon was just yanking our chain when he said Patti Smith was not a songstress. In fact, she is, according to Billboard magazine, a "near legendary New York poetess and songstress." Or at least she was near legendary in 1975, when we were 9.
Apparently this is her Web site, and this may also be. Reader Bob Krumm, pursuing the second one, offers these observations:
Near as I can figure from her very minimalist site, she's of German origin (she strings all her words together like, "ihavesomeinformationforyou" and "wegottofly") and she's a fan of e.e. cummings since she uses only lowercase.
Wikipedia.org has a bio, and this page explains "why Patti Smith mattered": Apparently she was "one of the few (if not first) women to succeed in rock music without becoming a sex symbol." Not to be confused with the better-known Patty Smyth, who fronted an '80s band called Scandal and who, if we remember right, was quite attractive. Wikipedia reports that Smyth is now married to John McEnroe, a former TV talk-show host.
A couple of readers said that Smith was the inspiration for Candy Slice, a character Gilda Radner played on "Saturday Night Live" back in that show's heyday. We actually remember the "Candy Slice Recording Session" sketch and are surprised to learn that the character was based on a real person; it seemed too outlandish. The second "Slice" appearance was in a sketch called "Rock Against Yeast '79," which we suppose is the basis for the real-life Patti Smith's political activism.
Finally, reader Amir Katz weighs in with this observation:
I'm chuckling at the letter from your reader Jonathan Gordon. Clearly he hasn't been reading BOTW long enough to realize that your knowledge of popular culture is well-developed, and that your feigned ignorance of certain celebrities (and their works) is a rhetorical tool you use to belittle them.
My personal favorite was when you listed some of the works in the oeuvre of Sean Penn (and took the opportunity to show off your understanding of the Rechtschreibereform): "You may remember him from such films as 'The Beaver Trilogy' and 'Schneeweissrosenrot.' Call Sean Penn's latest production 'Three Days in Baghdad.' "
We went back and checked, and indeed we did write that. But it was two years ago, and our memory isn't as good as when we were young. Does anyone remember who this Sean Penn guy was? |
