From the WSJ Opinion Archives
|
Gray
Lady Freaks Out
Earlier this week the Web site of the New York Times featured a provocative
article by Steven D. Levitt, author of "Freakonomics." Levitt posted
the question: "If you were a terrorist, how would you attack?" He
then proceeded to described what he thought would be the most effective way
of terrorizing Americans, and concluded by asking his readers for suggestions:
I'm sure many readers have far better ideas. I would love to hear them. Consider that posting them could be a form of public service: I presume that a lot more folks who oppose and fight terror read this blog than actual terrorists. So by getting these ideas out in the open, it gives terror fighters a chance to consider and plan for these scenarios before they occur.
Soon reader "JP" noted that the government had already tried something similar:
Didn't DARPA [the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency] or [John] Poindexter's TIA [Total Information Awareness] already have a "stock market" that allowed analysts to bet on what/when/where the next terrorist attack would be? They had this in hopes that they would indentify [sic] likely scenarios and help prevent them (playing off [James] Surowiecki's Wisdom of Crowds theory). I recall that some people were outraged at such an idea and it was pulled.
As blogger David Gerstman points out, among the "people" who were "outraged" were the editors of the New York Times, who denounced the idea in a July 30, 2003, editorial titled "Poindexter's Follies":
The time has obviously come to send John Poindexter packing and to shut down the wacky espionage operation he runs at the Pentagon. The latest idea hatched by Mr. Poindexter's shop--an online futures trading market where speculators could bet on the probabilities of terrorist attacks, assassinations and coups--was canceled yesterday by embarrassed Pentagon officials. The next logical step is to fire Mr. Poindexter.
In testimony before Congress yesterday, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, disowned the futures project. The insensitivity of the idea boggles the mind. Quite apart from the tone-deafness of equating terrorist attacks with, say, corn futures, the plan would allow speculators--even terrorists--to profit from anonymous bets on future attacks. The project's theoretical underpinnings are equally absurd. Markets do not always operate perfectly in the larger world of stocks and bonds. The idea that they can reliably forecast the behavior of isolated terrorists is ridiculous.
This column does not have a strong opinion as to whether the Poindexter/Levitt approach to terrorism is a sensible one or an absurd, ridiculous, mind-bogglingly insensitive one, as the Times characterized it four years ago. Maybe there is some truth to both descriptions.
But let's ponder what the Times's change in attitude means. Has the Times become more sensible since 2003? The question answers itself. Thus it must be that the Times has become more absurd, ridiculous and mind-bogglingly insensitive.
Why? Well, consider that, as the Times reported last week, Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp. is in the process of buying Dow Jones & Co., owner of The Wall Street Journal (including this Web site), aims to "establish The Journal as the rival to The Times in setting the daily news agenda of the country."
Maybe the Times has concluded this is a battle it can't win and is emphasizing sensationalism instead, so as to avoid losing further ground to the New York Post.
Global
Warming Is a Hoax*
We'll never forget New Year's Eve 1999. We had been at a party somewhere or
other, and were walking along a street, either heading for the subway or hailing
a cab, when it hit us: It was 2000--that is, "Y2K"--and nothing had
happened. No planes falling from the sky, no centenarians carted off to first-grade
classrooms, no hordes trapped on malfunctioning escalators. All the alarmist
hype we'd heard through the late 1990s turned out to be baloney--just as we
had long suspected.
This has colored our view of other alarmist predictions. Opponents of Iraq's liberation warned that Saddam Hussein would use weapons of mass destruction on U.S. troops and that America's presence in Iraq would spur more terrorism, yet although Iraq has proved to be a slog, these claims were balderdash. Similarly, the Y2K experience is one reason we find it hard to take "global warming" seriously.
Of course, we could be wrong. Sometimes alarming news is in accord with alarming predictions. Peggy Noonan more or less predicted 9/11 (and Bill Clinton's evasion of responsibility for it) in a Jan. 19, 2001, column, and we don't remember being particularly perturbed as we edited it.
Now it turns out that there was a Y2K bug--and it contributed to global warming hype. Michael Asher of DailyTech.com has the story:
My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org. While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.
These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data. . . .
NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.
This almost sounds too good to be true: The one Y2K bug that happened to slip through was the one that contributed to another alarmist narrative. But when you think about it, it makes sense. NASA's faulty findings didn't look faulty to global warmists, who saw exactly what they were expecting to see.
* But Y2K turns out to have a kernel of truth.
Thinking
Ahead?
Reader Randy McDonnell has this interesting observation in response to our item
yesterday noting some Democrats' and journalists' recent acknowledgments of
success in Iraq:
There have been a number of epiphanies lately in the media regarding the Iraq war. The question I've had on my mind is when will the backlash start? But, even though it's early, I'm beginning to think there won't be one.
The strategy to date has been to "bring the troops home" and end the war by next spring. In theory the war would be but a distant, blurry memory by the time a Democrat takes office in January 2009. However, perhaps certain elements in the media and elsewhere are now starting to realize that this war is not going to end next spring and that it will affect the next administration. Maybe we're starting to see a concerted shift to think and write more optimistically about the war, giving Hillary Clinton a little more room to act hawkish on it. This is a strong position for her, and since it appears she's locking up the nomination, it will allow her to start working on the general election.
Then, if all works out, the war ends with our side victorious during Mrs. Clinton's first term. Obviously, this helps her greatly. But perhaps it also allows the Democrats put to rest the image of their being weak on foreign policy--an image that has dogged them since Vietnam. If nothing else, it purges the party of many of its loudest critics of the war.
Mind you, we need to win this war regardless of who's president. But perhaps that's an explanation of what we're seeing.
If it weren't for the Supreme Court, we would find such an outcome almost entirely agreeable.
Chappaqua's
Wind Sock
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been in a tiff these past couple of weeks
over Obama's various foreign-policy miscues. There's no doubt that Mrs. Clinton
is getting the better of the dispute, if only by default, since Obama is showing
himself to be as callow and shallow as Mrs. Clinton had hoped and as anyone
who thinks he has a chance of being elected could fear.
But now it turns out that Mrs. Clinton, who criticized Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons, did so herself about a year ago. The Associated Press reports:
[Mrs.] Clinton, who has tried to cast her rival as too inexperienced for the job of commander in chief, said of Obama's stance on Pakistan: "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."
But that's exactly what she did in an interview with Bloomberg Television in April 2006. The New York senator, a member of the Armed Services committee, was asked about reports that the Bush administration was considering military intervention--possibly even a nuclear strike--to prevent Iran from escalating its nuclear program.
"I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," Clinton said. "This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think that's a terrible mistake."
She's entitled to change her mind, of course, but spokesman Phil Singer's explanation is far from convincing:
"She was asked to respond to specific reports that the Bush-Cheney administration was actively considering nuclear strikes on Iran even as it refused to engage diplomatically," he said. "She wasn't talking about a broad hypothetical nor was she speaking as a presidential candidate. Given the saber-rattling that was coming from the Bush White House at the time, it was totally appropriate and necessary to respond to that report and call it the wrong policy."
That "nor was she speaking as a presidential candidate" is priceless. Nor, for that matter, was the administration--which she was criticizing for taking essentially the position she takes now--speaking as a freshman senator. But this really amounts to an admission that Mrs. Clinton's position, at least on this topic, is driven by politics rather than principle. Is it possible that this is true of other views of hers as well?
Great Orators of the Democratic Party
- "One man with courage makes a majority."--attributed to Andrew
Jackson
- "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."--Franklin
D. Roosevelt
- "The buck stops here."--Harry
S. Truman
- "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for
your country."--John
F. Kennedy
- "This scares me politically. There is no anger that comes close to the anger of an American that cannot get television."--Sen. Claire McCaskill
Metaphor
Alert
"The Republicans' problems are creating a civil war on the right
about how to dig themselves out of their hole. This is producing some
spectacular intellectual fireworks--fireworks that prove there is still
a lot of intellectual life in the right. But such internal strife tends
to put off the voters. And this civil war has the added problem that,
from the point of view of broadening the Republican coalition,
the wrong side has won too many important battles, not least on immigration."--The
Economist, Aug. 9
You're
Doing a Great Job, Brownie
"Flooded English Villagers May Huddle in Trailers Till Christmas"--headline,
Bloomberg, Aug. 10
Of
Being Trampled by Jumbo Shrimp
"Borneo's Pygmy Elephants in Danger"--headline, CNN.com, Aug. 9
How
Odd, Most Rabid Raccoons Wear Mittens
"Woman Kills Rabid Raccoon With Bare Hands"--headline, FoxNews.com,
Aug. 10
It's
a Myrmecophaga tridactyla. What Do We Win?
"Zoo Holds 'Name the Anteater' Contest"--headline, Associated Press,
Aug. 10
'Ben,
Dude, I Miss That Gurgling Sound'
"Big Ben's Bongs Silenced for Repairs"--headline, Associated Press,
Aug. 9
Breaking
News From 1789
"Americans Face Earliest Race for President in History"--headline,
Independent (London), Aug. 10
News You Can Use
- "Cocaine in Short Supply"--headline, WTVN-AM
Web site (Columbus, Ohio), Aug. 9
- "Work Can Kill You"--headline, CNet News, Aug. 10
Bottom Stories of the Day
- "Parking-Lot Fender Bender for Britney"--headline, Associated
Press, Aug. 9
- "S.C. Man Just Misses Second Lottery Win"--headline, Associated
Press, Aug. 10
- "Manure in Streets Causes Stink"--headline, KETV
Web site (Omaha, Neb.), Aug. 10
- "Edwards: Bush Tax Proposals Favor Rich"--headline, FoxNews.com, Aug. 9
Left
Angry Men
Columnist Ellen Goodman speaks up for the distaff half of the Angry Left:
Now, after what's been a long, low rumble over demography and diversity, a grass-roots rebellion is finally surfacing in the netroots. At Yearly Kos itself, home of what Jennifer Pozner described on Huffington Post as the "blustering A-list boys of the 'netroots,' " there was the panel titled gamely: "Blogging While Female." The question for the panel was this: "The blogosphere was supposed to be a place where gender didn't matter and voice was all. So what happened?"
What did happen? Is it the angry voice--a netroot norm but a female abnorm? Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos and namesake of the convention, said unabashedly in an ABC News interview last year, "I learned to talk the way I do in the US Army. And we don't mince words. In politics, I don't see it any different. I see it as a battlefield." The American Prospect's Garance Franke-Ruta, who was on the panel notes, wryly, "If you're an angry man you're righteous. If you're an angry woman, you're crazy or a [doggess]."
Never let it be said that this columnist is sexist: We think that mad males like Moulitsas are crazy doggesses too. Meanwhile, in USA Today, one Kim Gandy takes a stand against stereotypes:
One of this year's best-selling books, The Dangerous Book for Boys by Conn and Hal Iggulden, attempts to re-engage boys (and their dads) in the art of tying knots and building tree houses. While it may be a noble endeavor to inspire an interest in nature and hands-on adventure in today's kids, why should this message be geared specifically toward boys? Proponents of single-sex education must love this book, with its message that boys and girls are "quite different."
Of the many arguments being made for single-sex learning environments, the most basic rely on gender stereotypes that really ought to be history by now. The notion that the sexes can't be taught together because boys are unruly and girls are timid insults both sexes. Education models based on stereotypes drive the sexes apart and socialize our kids to perpetuate these divisions throughout their lives.
Now, what is the name of that outfit Gandy heads? The National Organization for People? No, that's not it, it's something more specific. Hmm, the National Organization for Adults?
Oh wait, we remember. It's the National Organization for Women. Gosh, we feel excluded. And stereotyped! We guess if you want equality between the sexes, Kim Gandy isn't your girl.
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Cynthia Ulrich, Scott Wright, Ed Lasky, Michael Justice, Garth Godsman, James Lopez, Radu Aghinii, Doug Levene, John Williams, Michael Savitsz, Steve Prestegard, John Williamson, Craig Hildreth, Mark Van Der Molen, Robert Lesley, Sid Knowles, Robert Huck, Dave Smith, Paul Martin, Duncan Witte, Doug Black, Rod Pennington, Dan Magi and Thomas Dillon. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Review & Outlook: Economic literacy test: High school seniors beat Congress.
- Kim Strassel: Democratic dustup: The far left isn't the path to a governing majority.
- Peggy Noonan: Gen. Petraeus is a man of "straightforward decisiveness" who values "action with results."
- The Journal Editorial Report: Tune in this weekend for discussions of Vice President Cheney and the credit crunch.
And on the Taste page:
- Bret Stephens: A Druze boy's Olympic dream.
- Daniel Akst: Writer's little helper: The other "performance enhancer" scandal.
- W. Bradford Wilcox: Evangelicals worry about the behavior of their brethren.
