From the WSJ Opinion Archives

by JAMES TARANTO
Monday, August 20, 2007 2:41 P.M. EDT

Truth Laid Baird
This is a very heartening story from the Olympian, the daily newspaper in Washington's state capital:

U.S. Rep. Brian Baird said Thursday that his recent trip to Iraq convinced him the military needs more time in the region, and that a hasty pullout would cause chaos that helps Iran and harms U.S. security.

"I believe that the decision to invade Iraq and the post-invasion management of that country were among the largest foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation. I voted against them, and I still think they were the right votes," Baird said in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C.

"But we're on the ground now. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and a strategic interest in making this work." . . .

Baird said he would not say this if he didn't believe two things:

• "One, I think we're making real progress."

• "Secondly, I think the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility . . . and in the long run chaotic for the region as a whole and for our own security."

The distinction Baird makes is a crucial one, and one that war opponents usually elide. Whether Congress made a mistake in authorizing Iraq's liberation is a separate question from what to do now. Yet war opponents act as if favoring a precipitous withdrawal logically and necessarily follows from regretting the decision to liberate.

Why? Part of it, we suppose, is a sort of binary simplemindedness: It was bad to go in, ergo it would be good to get out. Real life is more complicated. It may be that it was a mistake to go in but a precipitous withdrawal would compound the error.

But maybe those who argue for withdrawal seek precisely to compound the error. Failure in Iraq would vindicate the position of those who originally argued that the war would be a mistake. Likewise for those who supported the war but later changed their minds--they may be cynical opportunists, but they may also have the zeal of a convert. If America loses the war, they win the argument.

And defeat in Iraq would vindicate not only opposition to Iraq but an entire worldview--what we've called the worldview of baby-boom liberalism. America's defeat in Vietnam was a triumph for baby-boom liberalism--a triumph that some seem never to have given up trying to relive.

In this respect, it's telling that Brian Baird, though liberal, is relatively young. He was born in 1956 and finished college in 1977, which means that the Vietnam tumult had wound down by the time he reached majority. To be sure, baby-boom liberalism has influence beyond its immediate age cohort (cf Barack Obama, born 1961). But maybe Baird is a tribune of a younger, more sensible type of liberal, one that cares more about doing right than being proved right.

Affirmative Deception
Ilya Somin, who seems to have mixed us up with someone named "Jim," has a response to our Friday item on racial preferences and public opinion:

Taranto claims that the "affirmative action" wording is misleading because "changing 'racial preferences' to 'affirmative action' is a change of meaning, not just wording. 'Affirmative action' is not only a euphemism for discrimination in favor of minorities; it is also a blanket term that encompasses other, less controversial policies." . . .

Taranto's argument is not without some merit. But there are two major problems with it. First, as I pointed out in my initial post on this issue, using the term "preferences" is also misleading because it will lead many voters to think of traditional invidious discrimination against minorities rather than of remedial affirmative action preferences.

Somin slightly misunderstands our argument. We were referring to a Houston ballot measure that was written to ban racial preferences, then rewritten by the City Council (Homer nods: not a judge, as we said Friday) to ban "affirmative action." That measure failed, whereas antipreference measures have been approved in three states.

Our argument is not that the rewritten language was deceptive but that it changed the meaning of the proposed law by expanding it to encompass nondiscriminatory forms of "affirmative action."

Somin is also wrong to say the language of "racial preferences" is "misleading because it will lead many voters to think of traditional invidious discrimination against minorities rather than of remedial affirmative action preferences." In fact, these initiatives apply, and are intended to apply, to both forms of discrimination--and this is another way in which the reworded Houston measure changed the meaning: It would have outlawed only "affirmative action for women and minorities."

One may object that the initiatives' outlawing of "traditional invidious discrimination" is redundant, since there are already laws on the books against that sort of discrimination. But in fact, there are laws on the books against discrimination; neither the 14th Amendment nor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sanctions discrimination in favor of minorities. Indeed, our biggest misgiving about these antipreference initiatives is that they may turn out to be as ineffective as the already-existing blanket bans on discrimination.

The difference between Houston and the states may also be a function of demographics rather than ballot language. These population percentages are from the 2000 census:

Writes Stephen Ehrbar: "It seems to me reasonable to expect that nonwhites, and blacks in particular, are more likely than whites to support racial preferences that benefit nonwhites, and blacks in particular." This seems to us a more compelling explanation than that voters swing wildly depending on whether you use the term "affirmative action" or "racial preferences."

'Avoid, Thou She-Devil!'
John Edwards, perhaps worried that he's been coming across as too presidential, "fired the latest round in his ongoing verbal feud with Ann Coulter," reports ABC News:

"We know these people. We know their game plan. They're going to attack us personally," Edwards said. "They attacked Elizabeth personally, because she stood up to that she-devil Ann Coulter. . . . I should not have name-called. But the truth is--forget the names--people like Ann Coulter, they engage in hateful language."

"She-devil"? Jules Crittenden has some fun with this:

For some reason, this "she-devil" business reminds me of Jimmy Carter admitting he lusted after women in his heart. I think it's the flirting with irrelevant sinfulness, the abashed piety. A flash of rather square humanity slathered in piousness . . . holier than thou piousness in this case. I'd rather see Edwards cut loose. I'd maybe even develop some respect for him, if he started calling Coulter names like "Jezebel" . . . "Whore of Babylon" . . . you know, pouring it on, with a little of the old eyes rolling back into the head and some pulpit pounding.

But you know, stifled deep under that kind of righteous, wrathful condemnation sometimes lies something more sinister, men being weak, creatures of passion, at war with the lust in their hearts . . .

It's just a short hop, skip and jump, on the road to Hell all mortals tread, from "She-devil!" to "Strumpet!" to "Saucy minx!"

On the other hand, this sort of language also calls to mind an uglier episode in American history. Consider this passage from Cotton Mather's 1693 account of the Salem witch trials, reprinted in "The Witchcraft Delusion in New England: Its Rise, Progress and Termination" (1866):

Robert Downer testifi'd, That this Prisoner being some Years ago prosecuted at Court for a Witch, he then said unto her, He believed she was a Witch. Whereat she being dissatisfied, said, That same She-Devil would shortly fetch him away! Which words were heard by others, as well as himself. The Night following, as he lay in his Bed, there came in at the Window, the likeness of a Cat, which flew upon him, took fast hold of his Throat, lay on him a considerable while and almost killed him. At length he remembered what Susanna Martin had threatned the Day before; and with much striving he cried out, Avoid, thou She-Devil! In the Name of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, Avoid! Whereupon it left him, leap'd on the Floor, and flew out at the Window.

If there is a feminist with a sense of history, she may be displeased with John Edwards.

Guns Don't Kill People, Demographics Kill People
Here's an amazing article from the Los Angeles Times:

Homicides are down sharply in Los Angeles County this year, possibly by as much as 14% countywide. But the stubborn problem of deadly violence grinds on in poor neighborhoods of the county at a rate far above the U.S. average. And although fewer family members are suffering this year, they are not suffering less.

An online project of The Times called the Homicide Report has tracked Los Angeles County homicides, as they have happened, since the beginning of the year. The project has yielded a vivid statistical outline of the county's current homicide problem--at least 520 killings by early August. It also has chronicled some of the damage that rippled through families and communities rent by deaths that happened before their time.

Homicide is not fair, hitting hardest among Latinos and especially among blacks. Latinos are killed at more than three times the rate of whites, while blacks succumb to homicide at three times the rate of Latinos, the Times analysis shows.

Adult males are the eye of the storm.

So let's see. Homicide is a "stubborn problem" that "grinds on" causing "damage" to "ripple through families" and "rend communities." Homicide is a "storm" that "is not fair, hitting hardest . . . among blacks" (and, unlike a real storm, among those in its eye).

Just like Hurricane Katrina, except that homicide apparently isn't anyone's fault! Seriously, the whole article makes no mention of people who commit homicide. If you read it not knowing what homicide was, you really would think it was some sort of weather condition or disease. Then the Times starts talking about "denial":

People living close to frequent violent death find refuge in denial. On the same streets where sidewalks are stained by the melted wax from homicide shrines and young men loiter in wheelchairs, people talk about being "caught slippin' " (letting one's guard down) or about friends having "passed" (not having been killed). Bereaved parents describe years of obsessively protective behavior--children locked indoors, hourly cellphone calls to check in. Then, in the next breath, they avow that they never thought their child could be murdered.

But no matter how they work to avoid it, the demographics of homicide ruthlessly pursues its targets.

Something tells us whoever came up with the idea that "the demographics of homicide ruthlessly pursues its targets" isn't someone "living close to frequent violent death."

Good Evening
"Parents are sending children to school in stab-proof uniforms to guard against knife crime, it has emerged," reports London's Daily Mail:

Police chiefs said the precautions were an "extraordinary step."

"The reality of course is that crimes involving knives are proportionately very very low" Alf Hitchcock, of the Association of Chief Police Officers told BBC News Online.

Uh, Alf, if they're so low, why did you put one in "Psycho"?

The Fountain of Youth
How crazy is the New York Times editorial page? Even crazier than you think. This is how Saturday's lead editorial begins:

Americans have some of the best water in the world--a bragging point that seems to have gotten lost lately, even by those who take their daily exercise by waving the flag. Perhaps it is because the bottled water industry markets their product with waterfalls and soothing colors to make it seem like the clearest, cleanest, healthiest drink on earth. Unfortunately, that marketing can make tap water seem less clear, less clean and less healthy. When New York City did a survey on tap water recently, one youth was asked whether he drank from the public water fountains. "Yes," he said, "but I'm going to die."

Luckily, he's wrong.

So the Times's position is that if you drink from public water fountains, you will never die!

Still Dead
Is there life after communism? Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez says yes, Reuters reports:

Chavez said on Sunday Fidel Castro is "writing, and producing," denying rumors circulating on the Internet that the Cuban leader had died.

Of course, what Castro really wants to do is direct.

Life Imitates the Onion

  • "Minimum Wage Hike Celebrated With Name-Brand Ketchup"--headline, Onion, Aug. 10

  • "N.C. Waitress Applauds Minimum Wage Hike"--headline, Associated Press, Aug. 18

Whooo, Take It Off!
"Hillary's Clothes Shouldn't Be Part of Politics"--headline, Ithaca (N.Y.) Journal, Aug. 18

Talk About Reality Programming
"Afghan TV Shows Kidnapped German Woman"--headline, Associated Press, Aug. 19

Ours Is Just to Do
"Conservatives Call for End to Death Duties"--headline, Financial Times, Aug. 17

Where's the Rest of Him?
"Rwanda's Former King Eyes Return"--headline, BBC Web site, Aug. 17

And We Thought He Was Thin-Skinned
"Dean Has Shell Removing More Workers From U.S. Gulf"--headline, Reuters, Aug. 18

But All They Attracted Was Flies
"Schools Offer Free Water, Garbage to Attract Teachers"--headline, WRAL-TV Web site (Raleigh, N.C.), Aug. 17

News of the Tautological
"If the next governor makes roads the No. 1 priority, I promise you higher education is not going to be the No. 1 priority."--Gov. Kathleen Blanco, quoted by the Advocate (Baton Rouge, La.), Aug. 18

News You Can Use

  • "Life on Saturn's Moon Unlikely"--headline, Times of India, Aug. 15

  • "Need Another Reason to Have Sex? It's Good for Your Heart, Study Shows"--headline, FoxNews.com, Aug. 20

Bottom Stories of the Day

  • "Biden Airs Ad in Iowa"--headline, Associated Press, Aug. 19

  • "Castro: Cuba Not Cashing U.S. Guantanamo Rent Checks"--headline, Reuters, Aug. 17

  • "Ex-Soccer Star Maradona Tells Chavez He Hates U.S."--headline, Reuters, Aug. 19

  • "Democrats Preach Virtue of Labor Unions"--headline, Associated Press, Aug. 19

  • "Holmes Doesn't Practice With Chiefs"--headline, Kansas City Star, Aug. 19

  • "Five Are Arrested at Packers' Game"--headline, Green Bay (Wis.) Press-Gazette, Aug. 20

Gimme an A!
"The Ogden School District needs a big eraser," the Associated Press reports from Utah's seventh-largest city:

After naming a new campus James A. Madison Elementary School in May, a history teacher pointed out this month that the fourth president of the United States didn't have a middle initial.

"I'm blindsided," school board member John Gullo said. "I hate being embarrassed." . . .

The board voted May 23 to approve the school name as "James A. Madison." The majority of board members chose Madison because the school borders Madison Avenue. Several board members also said they feel James Madison was a great president.

Fortunately, there's an easy solution: They can switch from Madison to Garfield.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Alan Jones, Heather Robinson, Jan Nicholas, Robert Koslover, Jim Trager, Paul Wood, Michael Justice, Steve Biddle, Joe Jackson, John Williamson, Bruce Goldstein, Michael Segal, David Daiker, Tom George, Andy Hefty, Douglas Miller, Lee Harris, Rod Pennington, Brian Azman, Ray Giourard, Jane Vawter, Jose Cardenas, Glade Roper, Gene Rietfors, John Lombardi and Greg Askins. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

Click to email this article EMAIL THIS Click to format this article for printing FORMAT FOR PRINTING
ARCHIVE