by JAMES TARANTO
Tuesday, May 8, 2007 3:06 P.M. EDT

Planet Parenthood
People on the leftward side of the political spectrum say they want to "keep government out of your bedroom," by which they usually mean they oppose restrictions on abortion. This is a bit of a non sequitur, since few abortionists make house calls. But you can see the logic: Restrictions on abortion may inhibit sexual behavior; hence they are a government intrusion "into the bedroom."

But it's an oddity of today's politics that abortion proponents tend to be allied with environmentalists, and environmentalists want government in every room in your house, from the bathroom (mandatory low-flow toilets) to the kitchen (energy saving appliances) to the garage (fuel-economy standards) to--well, any room with artificial lighting (the bulbs had better be the compact fluorescent variety).

So it turns out the only room in the house these characters want to keep the government out of is the bedroom, and only when the lights are off. And don't count on the bedroom remaining a safe haven, either. For there is, as it turns out, a nexus between abortion and environmentalism. Consider this story from the Australian:

Having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank.

The paper by the Optimum Population Trust will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.

The headline of the story is "Children 'Bad for Planet.' " So the idea is if you want to leave the planet a nice place for your grandchildren, you shouldn't have children.

Paul Watson, head of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, goes further, attempting to dehumanize humanity:

Humans are presently acting upon this body [the "biosphere"] in the same manner as an invasive virus with the result that we are eroding the ecological immune system.

A virus kills its host and that is exactly what we are doing with our planet's life support system. We are killing our host the planet Earth.

I was once severely criticized for describing human beings as being the "AIDS of the Earth." I make no apologies for that statement. Our viral like behaviour can be terminal both to the present biosphere and ourselves. We are both the pathogen and the vector. . . .

Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach.

The "virus" metaphor has an unfortunate history. Watson, of course, doesn't precisely urge genocide, but he does call for "a much smaller global population" in which no one has children except "those who are responsible and completely dedicated to the responsibility which is actually a very small percentage of humans."

How Watson would get there from here isn't clear, but at least one country has tried restricting its citizens' ability to reproduce, as Agence France-Presse reports:

China faces a looming baby boom as newly-rich couples find they can afford to pay fines incurred from having more than one child. . . .

China adopted its one-child policy in 1979 to curb population growth. It encourages late marriages and late childbearing and limits most urban couples to one child and most rural couples to two. . . .

Growing numbers of pregnant women are risking their own lives and those of their children by seeking back-alley deliveries to avoid fines for having more than one child, Xinhua quoted vice health minister Jiang Zuojun as saying.

We hear a lot about the "back-alley abortions" of yore, and of course America is a long way from having policies that would force women into back-alley births. But it's worth at least pausing to consider the potentially horrific implications of radical environmental ideology, which is, in the end, profoundly antihuman.

Beyond the Pale
When we were in college, we took a course called "Minorities and the Media." Seriously. The journalism department in the third-tier Western university we were attending required all of its majors to take one nonsense multicultural course, and that's the one we picked.

One of the things we learned in that course is that it is invidious to say to a black person, "I don't think of you as black." We didn't quite understand why it was invidious, since the statement seemed to us to be a well-intentioned acknowledgment of one's own prejudices (i.e., that one thinks of other black people "as black"). But it seems not everyone took a class like this. Here is the Washington Post's Sally Quinn:

At a party one night I had a fascinating conversation with a Brazilian professor, but as I recounted it to our hosts the next day I realized I didn't know the name of the man I had talked to. "Was he black or white?" they asked. My answer, which stunned me, was, "I don't remember."

Now, I am from Savannah, Ga. I had never in my life not noticed whether someone was black or white. I felt an overwhelming sense of exhilaration. It was possible, then, to see someone as just another person, regardless of color. I felt good about myself.

I was reminded of this the other day watching Barack Obama. I realized that when I look at him, I don't see a person of color. I see a really smart, appealing, thoughtful person.

Hmm, now we begin to see why the statement is supposed to be invidious. Quinn implies, though doubtless without meaning to, that there is a dichotomy between being "a person of color" and "a really smart, appealing, thoughtful person." (Hat tip: Steve Bartin.)

(Incidentally, another thing we learned in that class is that it is invidious to refer to nonwhite people as "nonwhite." You're supposed to call them "people of color," because "nonwhite" suggests that they are lacking in whiteness. We still think this is silly. "People of color" lumps together people of disparate races and ethnicities based only on their not being white. Oh, and although we were taught to say "people of color," we didn't even have to be taught that one must never say "colored people.")

Another Washington Post piece suggests that Quinn is not alone in having this reaction to Obama. The Post quotes a 32-year-old woman named Katie Lang, who attended an Obama rally:

"Obama speaks to everyone. He doesn't just speak to one race, one group," she says. "He is what is good about this nation."

At a campaign event in Tampa last month, she hung on Obama's every word as he spoke to an adoring crowd packed into the courtyard of the historic Cuban Club of Ybor City. As she listened, race wasn't in the forefront of her mind, she says later. It usually isn't, she says.

"Kind of like, if I could compare him to Tiger Woods. When I look at Tiger Woods, I see the best golfer in the world," she says. "So when I see Barack Obama, I see a strong political candidate. I do not see 'Oh, that's a black man running for president, or African American or multiracial black.' It's not what comes to mind first. What comes to mind first is: great platform, charismatic, good leader, attractive."

But of course the Post says it's all about race even if it isn't:

If the United States is to elect its first black president, it is white voters like Lang who largely will make that choice. Though much has been made about whether Obama is "black enough" for black voters, perhaps a more relevant question is this: Has the nation's white majority evolved to a point where it can elect a black man as president?

Later, the piece describes Obama as leading "some to feel he is a more acceptable kind of black politician than those who emphasize and speak angrily about race." This is followed by this brilliant observation:

If he were more like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, several people said, Obama would resonate far less among whites than he does now.

Well, yes. And a white candidate who spoke angrily about race wouldn't get much support among blacks either, would he?

Given America's racial history, it is understandable that there is a double standard--that some consider Jackson and Sharpton to be within the realm of political respectability whereas virtually no one thinks David Duke is. This double standard, though, retards black political advancement because it produces few candidates like Obama, who have transracial appeal.

White people have no reason to feel guilty for voting against, or even repugning, politicians like Jackson and Sharpton. And the idea that such men should be held to a lower standard than a David Duke because of the color of their skin strikes us as invidious.

She's Always a Woman to Me
"Socialist Segolene Royal failed to win over a majority of women voters in France's presidential election and may have paid a price for focusing too much on her gender at the expense of promoting her policies," Reuters reports from Paris.

Ah, it's reassuring to see that journalistic tropes know no national boundaries. Of course when the candidate of the left loses, it's in spite of his policies rather than because them, and when the one on the right wins, it's because of the force of his personality.

Meanwhile, the New York Times throws a silly swipe against America into a pre-election report from Paris:

Yes, young people are rebelling: second-generation immigrants took to the streets in 2005 to protest joblessness and discrimination, and college students did something similar last year to protest a law that would have made it easier to fire them from their first jobs.

But as bad as the urban unrest was, it never reached the level of violence seen in periods of unrest in American cities.

Maybe true, but America doesn't see 100 cars torched a night during periods of rest.

Psychic Fails to Predict Own Defeat

• "France's Royal Warns of Violence if Sarkozy Wins"--headline, Reuters, May 4
  
  
• "French Police Arrest Nearly 600 People in Post-Election Violence"--headline, Associated Press, May 7

Problem and Solution

• "Paris Sarkozy Protests Continue"--headline, ITV Web site (Britain), May 8
  
  
• "Jail May Work Out for Paris"--headline, Enquirer (Cincinnati), May 8

Good News for Republicans, Given Their Track Record
"Last fall, Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts came to Connecticut to help Ned Lamont, a fellow Democrat, in his bid to unseat veteran Senator Joseph I. Lieberman. Lamont is now returning the favor. He and Kerry are teaming up to target Republican senators they say are blocking efforts to end the Iraq war."--Associated Press, May 8

Homer Nods
Jimmy Swaggart came in at No. 1 on USA Today's list of 25 "biggest public meltdowns" of the past 25 years, not Jim Bakker, as we said in an item yesterday (since corrected). Yes, apparently they are two different guys.

'And We'll Keep On Fighting Till the End'
"Bush and Queen Celebrate Common Values"--headline, New York Times, May 7

What Would Palestinians Do Without Norway?
"Norway Warns of Risk of Palestinian Civil War"--headline, Financial Times, May 7

Don't Ask, Don't Tell
"Loved Ones, Community of Gays Pay Tribute to Young Soldier Killed in Iraq"--headline, Journal Gazette & Times-Courier (Mattoon, Ill.), May 8

'Hey, That's Gary!'
"Bishop Recognizes Catholic Church Deacons"--headline, Press & Sun-Bulletin (Binghamton, N.Y.), May 8

To Be on the Safe Side, We Still Won't Eat It
"Low Risk to Humans Seen in Animal Feed"--headline, Associated Press, May 7

He Wanted a Keg but Settled for a Case
"Alcoholic Wins Case Against Brewery"--headline, United Press International, May 7

News You Can Use

• "Epidemic Expert Says 'You're on Your Own' "--headline, Boston Herald, May 8
  
  
• "Prescriptions Won't Work Unless You Take Them"--headline, Daily Record (Morris County, N.J.), May 8
  
  
• "As Business Travel Increases, So Do Costs and Headaches"--headline, CNN.com, May 8

Bottom Stories of the Day

• "State AFL-CIO Urges National AFL-CIO to Support Hillary Clinton's [sic] for President"--headline, EmpireStateNews.net, May 4
  
  
• "School Lunch Lures Rodents"--headline, Enterprise (Brockton, Mass.), May 6
  
  
• "Little Arab Pressure Over Darfur"--headline, Associated Press, May 7
  
  
• "Harry Reid Passes on White-Tie Affair With British Queen"--headline, KLAS-TV (Las Vegas), May 8
  
  
• "Mayweathers Not Most Dysfunctional Boxing Family"--headline, MaxBoxing.com, May 4
  
  
• "Key Gun-Sale Forms Unchanged"--headline, Richmond Times-Dispatch, May 8

What's Mine Is Mine
Now this is rich. From the Village Voice:

Barely a year after their reporters won a Pulitzer prize for exposing data mining of ordinary citizens by a government spy agency, New York Times officials had some exciting news for stockholders last week: The Times company plans to do its own data mining of ordinary citizens, in the name of online profits.

The news didn't make everyone all googly-eyed. In fact, some people at the paper's annual stockholders meeting in the New Amsterdam Theatre exchanged confused looks when Janet Robinson, the company's president and CEO, uttered the phrase "data mining." . . .

Robinson was talking about money this time. Data mining, she told the crowd, would be used "to determine hidden patterns of uses to our website."

A few weeks ago we attended an Intelligence Squared debate (PDF) on civil liberties vs. national security. Debater Andrew McCarthy noted that "visitors to the ACLU's New York office are confronted when they come in with big signs on the wall that say, 'Your bags are subject to search.' "

The ACLU's Nadine Strossen, on the other side of the debate, replied that this practice was imposed by the landlord over the ACLU's objections. We wonder if the Times has a similar excuse.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Ethel Fenig, Benjamin Quinby, Nathan Wirtschafter, Brendan Schulman, Dan Robbins, John Neal, Glenn Fogle, Ed Lasky, Steve Hilton, Ron Ackert, Kirk Kelsen, Naftali Friedman, Mark Schulze, Jeff Bradshaw, John Williamson, Kim Gaffney, Brian Terwilliger, Alan Utter, Marion Dreyfus, John Morton, Scott Wright, Bruce Goldman, C.E. Dobkin, Marcia Whitaker, Keith Cummings and Daryl Pregibon. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Michael Barone: The realignment of America.
• Bret Stephens: The real disgrace at the World Bank.
• Amy Marcus: What Jerusalem looked like before the founding of modern Israel.