WSJ – Clarence Thomas, Mr. Constitution

Clarence Thomas
Mr. Constitution

By DAVID B. RIVKIN and LEE A. CASEY
March 22, 2008; Page A25

Clarence Thomas leaps from his chair. He retrieves a wire coat hanger from his closet for a demonstration -- the same demonstration he gives his law clerks. He bends it and says: "How do you compensate? So, you say well, deal with it. Bend this over here. Oh, wait a minute, bend it a little bit there. And you're saying that it throws everything out of whack. What do you do?"

He holds up a twisted wire, useless now for its original purpose and the point is made. "If you notice sometimes I will write just to point out that I think that we've gone down a track that's going to cause some distortion, then it's quite precisely because of that. I don't do things that I think are illegitimate in other areas, just to bend it back to compensate for what's already happened."

Terry Shoffner

Interpreting the Constitution is the Supreme Court's most important and most difficult task. An even harder question is how to approach a Constitution that, in fact, is no longer in pristine form -- with the Framers' design having been warped over the years by waves of judicial mischief. There is an obvious temptation to redress the imbalance, which Associate Justice Thomas decisively rejects. Thus his coat hanger metaphor.

So is the most controversial Supreme Court justice an "originalist" when it comes to Constitutional interpretation? He says he doesn't like labels, though he does admit to being a "meat and potatoes" kind of guy.

Upon entering his spacious office overlooking the Capitol Dome in Washington, D.C., the first thing to catch your eye is his Nebraska Cornhuskers screen saver. Mr. Thomas never attended the University of Nebraska, or even lived in the state. He's just a fan. His office is also decorated with pictures of the historical figures he admires, Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Booker T. Washington, Thomas More and Winston Churchill, and he speaks of them with knowledge and passion. Watching over all is a bust of his grandfather atop Mr. Thomas's bookcase -- its countenance as stern as a Roman consul. There is little doubt this man was the driving force in Mr. Thomas's life -- a fact he confirms, and which is reflected in the title of his recently published memoir, "My Grandfather's Son."

Mr. Thomas faced one of the most destructive and personally vicious Supreme Court confirmation hearings in American history -- described at the time by Mr. Thomas himself as a "high-tech lynching." Mr. Thomas's opponents smeared his character and integrity. To this day, disappointed and embittered, they feel entitled to insult his qualifications, intelligence and record.

In 2004, when Mr. Thomas's name was floated as a possible replacement for ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist, then Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called him an "embarrassment" to the Court, and attacked his opinions as "poorly written."

In point of fact, Mr. Thomas's opinions are well-written, displaying a distinctive style -- a sure sign that the Justice and not his clerks does most of the writing.

As for his judicial philosophy, "I don't put myself in a category. Maybe I am labeled as an originalist or something, but it's not my constitution to play around with. Let's just start with that. We're citizens. It's our country, it's our constitution. I don't feel I have any particular right to put my gloss on your constitution. My job is simply to interpret it."

In that process, the first place to look is the document itself. "And when I can't find something in that document or in the tradition or history around that document, then I am getting on dangerous ground. Because that's when you drift so much more towards your own policy preferences."

It is the insertion of those policy preferences into the interpretive process that Mr. Thomas finds particularly illegitimate. "People can say you are an originalist, I just think that we should interpret the Constitution as it's drafted, not as we would have drafted it."

Mr. Thomas acknowledges that discerning a two-hundred-year-old document's meaning is not always easy. Mistakes are possible, if not inevitable, as advocates of a malleable "living constitution," subject to endless judicial revision, never tire of pointing out. "Of course it's flawed" agrees Mr. Thomas, "but all interpretive models are flawed."

Simply following your own preferences is both flawed and illegitimate, he says. "But if that is difficult, does that difficulty legitimate just simply watching your own preference?" By doing that "I haven't cleared up the problem, I've simply trumped it with my personal preferences."

Mr. Thomas has also been criticized for his supposed lack of respect for precedent. Even his fellow conservative, Justice Antonin Scalia, was reported by a Thomas biographer to have claimed that Mr. Thomas just doesn't believe in "stare decisis." Latin for "let the decision stand," stare decisis is an important aspect of the Anglo-American system of precedent -- deciding new cases based on what the courts have done before and leaving long established rules in place.

Mr. Thomas, however, is less absolute here than his critics suggest. He understands the Supreme Court can't simply erase decades, or even centuries, of precedent -- "you can't do it."

At the same time, he views precedent with respect, not veneration. "You have people who will just constantly point out stare decisis, stare decisis, stare decisis . . . then it is one big ratchet. It is something that you wrestle with." History would seem to vindicate Mr. Thomas and his insistence on "getting it right" -- even if that does mean questioning precedent.

The perfect example is Brown v. Board of Education (1954), where the Supreme Court overruled the racist "separate but equal" rule of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which permitted legally enforced segregation and had been settled precedent for nearly 60 years.

It is the Plessy dissent of Justice John Marshall Harlan to which Mr. Thomas points for an example of a Justice putting his personal predilections aside to keep faith with the Constitution. Harlan was a Kentucky aristocrat and former slaveowner, although he was also a Unionist who fought for the North during the Civil War. A man of his time, he believed in white superiority, if not supremacy, and wrote in Plessy that the "white race" would continue to be dominant in the United States "in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power . . . for all time, if it remains true to its great heritage and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty."

"But," Harlan continued, "in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among its citizens."

That, for Mr. Thomas, is the "great 'But,'" where Harlan's intellectual honesty trumped his personal prejudice, causing Mr. Thomas to describe Harlan as his favorite justice and even a role model. For both of them, justice is truly blind to everything but the law.

More than anything else, this explains Mr. Thomas's own understanding of his job -- a determination to put "a firewall between my [PERSONAL\]view and the way that I interpret the Constitution," and to vindicate his oath "that I will administer justice without respect to person, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all of the duties incumbent upon me as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States."

This insistence by the Justice on judging based upon the law, and not on who the parties are, presents a stark contrast with today's liberal orthodoxy. The liberal approach -- which confuses law-driven judging with compassion-driven politics, enthused with a heavy distrust of the American political system's fairness -- was recently articulated by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who emphasized the need for judges with "heart" and "empathy" for the less fortunate, judges willing to favor the disempowered.

Born in rural Georgia in 1948, Mr. Thomas and his brother were mostly raised in Savannah by their maternal grandparents. His grandfather, Myers Anderson, believed in work, and that rights come with responsibilities. According to his book, Mr. Anderson told the seven-year-old Clarence that "the damn vacation is over" the morning he moved in.

Says Mr. Thomas: "Being willing to accept responsibility, that sort of dark side of freedom, first -- before you accept all the benefits. Being ready to be responsible for yourself -- you want to be independent. That was my grandfather." Anderson also taught his grandson to arrive at his conclusions honestly and not "to be bullied away from opinions that I think are legitimate. You know, not being unreasonable, but not being bullied away."

For a man who has been subjected to a great deal of vitriol, Mr. Thomas manifests remarkable serenity. He rejoices in life outside the Court, regaling us with stories about his travels throughout the U.S., his many encounters with ordinary Americans, and his love of sports -- especially the Cornhuskers, the Dallas Cowboys and Nascar.

Mr. Thomas isn't much bothered by his critics. "I can't answer the cynics and the negative people. I can't answer them because they can always be cynical about something."

Mr. Thomas speaks movingly about the Court as an institution, and about his colleagues, both past and present. He sees them all, despite their differences, as honorable, each possessing a distinctive voice, and trying to do right as they see it. Our job, he concludes, is "to do it right. It's no more than that. We can talk about methodology. It's merely a methodology. It's not a religion. It is in the approach to doing the job right. And at bottom what it comes to, is to choose to interpret this document as carefully and as accurately and as legitimately as I can, versus inflicting my personal opinion or imposing my personal opinion on the rest of the country."

And why doesn't he ask questions at oral argument, a question oft-posed by critics insinuating that he is intellectually lazy or worse? Mr. Thomas chuckles wryly and observes that oral advocacy was much more important in the Court's early days. Today, cases are thoroughly briefed by the time they reach the Supreme Court, and there is just too little time to have a meaningful conversation with the lawyers. "This is my 17th term and I haven't found it necessary to ask a bunch of questions. I would be doing it to satisfy other people, not to do my job. Most of the answers are in the briefs. This isn't Perry Mason."

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey served in the Justice Department under President George H.W. Bush.

BOTWT 3-18

Obama and His 'White Grandmother'

By JAMES TARANTO
March 18, 2008

Barack Obama took the stage this morning to give what was billed as a "major speech on race." It was, of course, an attempt to rescue his campaign from the revelation that his so-called spiritual mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, espouses a virulently anti-American and antiwhite worldview called "black liberation theology."

Here is the part of the speech that bothered us most:

I can no more disown [Wright] than I can my white grandmother--a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

Our first thought was that it was pretty low of Obama to exploit his (still living) grandmother in this way. Is it really necessary for the whole world to know about her private expressions of prejudice? Doesn't simple decency dictate that a public figure treat embarrassing facts about loved ones with discretion?

Obama was trying to accomplish something very specific by dragging his "white grandmother" into this political mess. He was trying to diminish Wright's hateful theology by implying that it too is a private matter. Said Obama:

For the men and women of Rev. Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years.

That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Rev. Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning.

Note how Obama elides the difference between a comment at the "kitchen table" and a sermon delivered to a congregation of thousands and recorded on DVD.

Obama rightly faulted his spiritual mentor for using "incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation." But he tried to treat Wright's most outrageous comments as if they were aberrations rather than the most extreme expressions of an extreme ideology:

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Rev. Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain.

Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely--just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice.

Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country--a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America, a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

What Obama is evading is that this "profoundly distorted view" is not just some passing emotion. It is what Wright himself, in the "talking points" page of his congregation's Web site, describes as "systematized black liberation theology." As we noted yesterday, Wright credits James Cone of New York's Union Theological Seminary with having undertaken this systematization. Here again is Cone's description of black liberation theology:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

So here we have, on the one hand, an old white woman who would be completely ordinary and anonymous but for her grandson's astonishing political success, and who harbors some regrettable prejudices; and, on the other, a leader in the black community who uses his pulpit to propagate an ideology of hate.

Obama said this morning, "I have asserted a firm conviction--a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people--that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union."

But if he cannot speak out unequivocally against the public, organized bigotry of his spiritual mentor, how can he possibly live up to this promise?

Poor Little Rich Californians

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics has lent his prestige to anti-Iraq hysterics, joining forces with Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes to publish a recent tract called "The Three Trillion Dollar War." Our erstwhile colleague Tunku Varadarajan sums it up nicely: "The faux-precision of the book's title . . . is propagandistic. One might aver that the aim of the authors was not so much to write a book as to coin a catchphrase."

But this is hilarious. Bilmes and Stiglitz wrote an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times and apparently were asked to come up with a local angle. So they claim that "the cost will fall especially hard on Californians":

Californians are going to face a disproportionate share of the bill for three reasons. First, California's population is among the youngest in the U.S., with 26% under 18 (compared with 24% nationwide). Because of irresponsible fiscal policy (cutting taxes for the rich while a war is in progress and borrowing the money to pay for the conflict), the burden of paying for this costly adventure has been shifted to these younger Americans.

Irresponsibly cutting taxes on the rich, check:

The second reason California will pay a disproportionate share for the war is because its residents are so rich. California already contributes a disproportionate share of federal taxes--more than 14% of the total last year from a state that makes up only 12% of the nation's population.

Poor Californians! They're rich and undertaxed, and they're rich and overtaxed. If they weren't rich, they wouldn't have anything going for them at all!

Man Without a Party

From New York's Daily News, something we're really not sure we needed to know:

The thunderous applause was still ringing in his ears when the state's new governor, David Paterson, told the Daily News that he and his wife had extramarital affairs.

In a stunning revelation, both Paterson, 53, and his wife, Michelle, 46, acknowledged in a joint interview they each had intimate relationships with others during a rocky period in their marriage several years ago.

But at least the News doesn't tell us everything. For instance, it leaves out Paterson's party affiliation, as does the New York Times story on the same subject. By contrast, check out this Times story on another politician's nonprivate sexual misconduct:

City Councilman Dennis P. Gallagher resigned from office and pleaded guilty on Monday to two misdemeanors, admitting that he sexually abused a woman in his district office in Middle Village, Queens, last summer while he was intoxicated.

Mr. Gallagher, 43, a Queens Republican, told the court in a non-emotional tone that he touched the 52-year-old victim against her will, a position in contrast to his earlier claims that they had consensual sex after meeting in a bar.

The Times mentions Gallagher's party affiliation in the second paragraph, which means he's almost certainly a Republican.

Reliable Sources

The New York Times's Adam Liptak, in a story about state supreme courts, quotes an unidentified justice from an unidentified state:

Justices in other states did not embrace the study.

"Not to be too petty about it," one wrote in a detailed critique when asked by a reporter, "but a report by the chief supervising attorney of the Supreme Court of California and the reporter of decisions of California that concludes--voilà!--that California is the most 'followed' jurisdiction in the nation is presumptively suspect." The justice was granted anonymity to allow him to be petty.

We'll admit, that was witty. Hats off to Liptak.

Zero-Tolerance Watch

Fifteen-year-old Amanda Rouse of Seaside, Calif., had a scary moment on the school bus the other day. After a turn, the bus driver fell out of her seat and hit her head. Quick-thinking Rouse "jumped up and applied the brakes, bringing the bus to a halt after striking two parked cars. No one was injured."

So how did the school respond? As the Associated Press reports:

Rouse said she was punished because she wasn't supposed to be on the bus.

Rouse said she fell ill on the way to school, but instead of calling in sick, she asked the bus driver for a lift back to the bus yard before the accident happened. She must attend Saturday school as punishment for failing to call in sick that day.

In our day, when we got sick, we didn't "call in"; we just stayed home and brought a note from Mom when we returned. Schools now have phones, and we suppose that's progress.

Homer Nods

Yesterday's item on Eliot Spitzer (since corrected) referred to a photo caption from Agence France-Presse, not the Associated Press as we had it.

Someone Set Up Us the Bomb

"Cheney Wants Arab Envoys Curb Iran's Role"--headline, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia), March 18

News of the Tautological

"Pediatric Allergies Take Toll on Kids Too"--headline, Reuters, March 17

Breaking News From 1789-1919

"White Male Vote Especially Critical"--headline, Washington Post, March 17

News You Can Use

• "Bar Cams Reveal Where the Action Is"--headline, Pioneer Press (St. Paul, Minn.), March 17
 
• "The Perfect Gown Is One That Fits Your Body: Tall, Short, Skinny, Etc."--headline, Salt Lake Tribune, March 17
 

Bottom Stories of the Day

• "Beer Likely to Flow at Harley Festival"--headline, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 17
 
• "Woman Says Attorney Over-Billed; Attorney Says Claims Unfounded"--headline, Associated Press, March 16
 
• "Right Underrepresented in Press's Diversity"--headline, Washington Times, March 18
 
• "Chafee Raps Clinton as Bush Enabler"--headline, Associated Press, March 17
 
• "Belgium Forms Govt After 9-Month Crisis"--headline, Associated Press, March 18
 

Hell No, We Won't Go (Outside)!

In Grand Rapids, Mich., it's the 1960s all over again, reports the Grand Rapids Press:

Nearly 300 anti-war activists marched, drummed and chanted their way through the streets of downtown Saturday, calling for the end of the 5-year-old war in Iraq and dodging police cruisers trying to keep them on the sidewalk.

Three hundred, wow! That's a lot of protesters! Or is it? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of Grand Rapids was 193,083 as of last year, so that only 0.155% of the population turned out. Where were the other 192,783? There is an explanation:

As 19-year-old Kirsten Zeiter watched the crowd gather, the Grand Valley State University student worried not enough people were coming out to protest.

"People are anticipating the end of George Bush's presidency," Zeiter said, theorizing they were staying home rather than protest.

As we noted yesterday, we also are staying home. We suppose we're out of step with public opinion, but we very much hope that George Bush is still president the next time we venture outdoors.

BOTWT 3-19

Pulpit Bullies

By JAMES TARANTO
March 19, 2008

When Barack Obama yesterday condemned the most invidious remarks of his "spiritual mentor," Jeremiah Wright, National Review's Byron York was there. The auditorium at Philadelphia's National Constitution Center, York reports, "was filled mostly with guests invited by the Obama campaign." Unsurprisingly, they "thought he delivered a great speech." Disturbingly, several whom York interviewed didn't understand all the fuss about Wright:

"It was amazing," Gregory Davis, a financial adviser and Obama supporter from Philadelphia, told me. "I think he addressed the issue, and if that does not address the issue, I don't know what else can be said about it. That was just awesome oratory."

I asked Davis what his personal reaction was when he saw video clips of sermons in which Rev. Wright said, "God damn America," called the United States the "U.S. of KKK A," and said that 9/11 was "America's chickens . . . coming home to roost." "As a member of a traditional Baptist, black church, I wasn't surprised," Davis told me. "I wasn't offended by anything the pastor said. A lot of things he said were absolutely correct. . . . The way he said it may not have been the most appropriate way to say it, but as far as a typical black inner-city church, that's how it's said."

Vernon Price, a ward leader in Philadelphia's 22nd Precinct, told me Obama's speech was "very courageous." When I asked his reaction to Rev. Wright, Price said, "A lot of things that he said were true, whether people want to accept it, or believe it, or not. People believe in their hearts that a lot of what he said was true."

Newsweek's Lisa Miller reports on WashingtonPost.com that black religious leaders take a similar tack:

Last Friday, in an effort to gauge just how "out there" Wright's sermons are in the context of the African-American church tradition, Newsweek phoned at least two dozen of the country's most prominent and thoughtful African-American scholars and pastors, representing a wide range of denominations and points of view. Not one person would say that Wright had crossed any kind of significant line.

"An effort on the part of Christians--both clergy and laypersons--to critique the United States in light of what they understand as biblically based moral and ethical guidelines isn't new," explains Anthony Pinn, a professor of religious studies at Rice University. "There is a dominant style in black churches and Rev. Wright's preaching is a prime example of this. . . . Some of what Rev. Wright says is controversial, but that doesn't make him unique."

The Rev. James Forbes, the recently retired longtime pastor of Riverside Church on Manhattan's Upper West Side explained that, broadly speaking, there has been a historical division in the world of black churches. One group thinks you should work hard, keep quiet and get ahead; the other thinks that you need to agitate and provoke to make progress. Forbes puts himself in the first camp but supports Wright's efforts. "Some of us wish we had the nerve that Jeremiah had," he said. "We praise God that he's saying it, so the rest of us don't have to." Does Wright ever cross a line? "I think if a person is a prophet and he's not seen as ever crossing a line, then he has not told the truth as it ought to be told."

And the Rev. John H. Thomas, general minister and president of Wright's denomination, the United Church of Christ, issued a statement yesterday excusing Wright on the ground that it was wrong to remove Saddam Hussein from power:

Many of us would prefer to avoid the stark and startling language Pastor Wright used in these clips. But what was his real crime? He is condemned for using a mild "obscenity" in reference to the United States. This week we mark the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, a war conceived in deception and prosecuted in foolish arrogance. Nearly four thousand cherished Americans have been killed, countless more wounded, and tens of thousands of Iraqis slaughtered. Where is the real obscenity here? True patriotism requires a degree of self-criticism, even self-judgment that may not always be easy or genteel. Pastor Wright's judgment may be starker and more sweeping than many of us are prepared to accept. But is the soul of our nation served any better by the polite prayers and gentle admonitions that have gone without a real hearing for these five years while the dying and destruction continues?

Whatever one's opinion of the Iraq war, this is a complete non sequitur. Wright is not responsible for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, and in any case there is no reason to think he has exercised any influence on it by virtue of striking an obnoxious tone. He is responsible for the spiritual sustenance of his congregation. Does he serve that responsibility well when he uses his pulpit to stir up parishioners' hatred and anger?

As for "the soul of our nation," we have heard a lot of late about America's need for racial reconciliation. Thanks to the Obama-Wright episode, we also have learned that racial antagonism and anti-Americanism are much more common than we would have guessed among predominantly black congregations in America.

Is this not an obstacle to reconciliation? In 21st-century America, does any greater obstacle remain?

That's Entertainment?

Writing in the New York Sun, the Manhattan Institute's John McWhorter raises an interesting analogy:

I have written that it is part of the essence of the modern black American identity to be a victor in private but a victim in public. There is a sense that while initiative is important, blacks still have to display more of it than whites, and that this isn't fair.

Someone who feels this way can have done well and even be comfortable around white people. However, that sense that black America still labors under a general injustice can express itself in taking a certain pleasure in listening to someone like Jeremiah Wright.

They hear a stirring articulation of rebellion, listenable according to a sense that fealty to one's race entails at least a gestural nod to sticking a finger in whitey's eye now and then. The tone, the music of the statements is more vivid than the content. Sermons like this are Sunday morning's version of gangsta rap. . . .

If this is just political hardball, I get it. But I sense more to it. America prides itself on being ready for a black president lately. Well, in hearing Reverend Wright's agitprop as performance rather than hate speech, Barack Obama is black indeed--in a way other than the uninteresting one of melanin.

"Performance rather than hate speech"--in other words, Wright is just a showman, whose words we shouldn't take seriously. But did anyone say the same thing about the anti-American comments of Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell in the aftermath of 9/11? If those remarks had been racially inflammatory as well, would they not have drawn even more outrage than they did?

For that matter, consider what happened when someone who really is a mere showman said something racially offensive. This is an ABC News report from April 11, 2007:

In an interview with ABC News Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., called for the firing of talk radio host Don Imus. Obama said he would never again appear on Imus' show, which is broadcast on CBS Radio and MSNBC television. . . .

Last week, Imus referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team, most of whom are African-American, as "nappy-headed hos." He has since apologized for his remarks, and CBS and MSNBC suspended his show for two weeks.

"He didn't just cross the line," Obama said. "He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women--who I hope will be athletes--that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment. It's one that I'm not interested in supporting."

We agree with the position Obama took vis-à-vis Imus back then. But how does one square this with his decision to send his daughters to a church whose pastor preaches an ugly and bigoted theology?

Further, is there no common standard here? For decades, major institutions--schools, the law, the media--have driven home the message that when it comes to racial bigotry, words matter: that one should strive to overcome one's own prejudices, and at the very least keep them to oneself.

Yet here we have someone in a position of responsibility in the black community--no less than the spiritual mentor to a would-be president--who not only has failed to live up to this aspiration but has made a career of promoting racial resentment. In response we hear a litany of excuses about understandable anger, a tradition of rebellion and so forth. The kindest thing that can be said about this is that it is a form of soft bigotry.

Now It Matters

A great appeal of Barack Obama's candidacy was, as this column put it in January, that "Obama is black, and it doesn't matter." Bill and Hillary Clinton understood this, which is why they tried to liken him to Jesse Jackson early in the primary season. That effort backfired badly. But now Jeremiah Wright has achieved what the Clintons could not: defining Obama in terms of his race.

"After largely shying away from discussions of race during his 15-month campaign, Sen. Obama turned the spotlight on his identity as a biracial African-American candidate and embraced the idea that he is the vehicle for a dialogue about race," The Wall Street Journal reports. "Race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now," Obama said. But as Mickey Kaus notes, "Actually, a lot of voters supported Obama because they'd kind of like to ignore race, you know?"

To be precise, this was a large part of Obama's appeal to white voters. Does he retain that appeal after his speech? We are skeptical:

A similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. . . .

So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African-American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. . . .

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle-class squeeze--a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many.

And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns--this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

As Kaus notes, Obama's "explanations of white anger seem distant and condescending." The same is often true when white liberals proclaim their "understanding" of black anger--except that black anger is invested with a certain nobility for its having originated in genuine oppression. And Obama's agenda is not exactly bold:

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination--and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past--are real and must be addressed.

Not just with words, but with deeds--by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations.

It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

What he seems to be offering "working- and middle-class white Americans" is to label them "resentful" rather than "misguided or even racist," in exchange for which they are expected to support an expansion of left-liberal social programs. Will this bargain appeal to voters any more than it has in the previous 10 elections?

Accountability Journalism

"Barack Obama confronted the nation's racial divide head-on Tuesday, tackling both black grievance and white resentment in a bold effort to quiet a campaign uproar over race and his former pastor's incendiary statements," the Associated Press reports.

Wow, he's single-handedly confronting the nation's racial divide head-on! With bold efforts no less! And yes, this is a news story; the AP doesn't do editorials.

Then again, maybe the AP is just making up for this astonishingly anti-Obama piece the other day by Ron Fournier, avatar of "accountability journalism":

There's a line smart politicians don't cross--somewhere between "I'm qualified to be president" and "I'm born to be president." Wherever it lies, Barack Obama better watch his step.

He's bordering on arrogance.

The dictionary defines the word as an "offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride." Obama may not be offensive or overbearing, but he can be a bit too cocky for his own good. . . .

But both Obama and his wife, Michelle, ooze a sense of entitlement.

One-eighth of a cheer to Fournier for not being a Democratic partisan. But really, guys, what's wrong with just reporting the facts and leaving the opinions to us pundits?

On the Sunni Side of the Street

John McCain has been taking some flak for a supposed "misstep" on Iraq, as the New York Times reports from Jerusalem:

Senator John McCain's trip overseas was supposed to highlight his foreign policy acumen, and his supporters hoped that it would showcase him in a series of statesmanlike meetings with world leaders throughout the Middle East and Europe while the Democratic candidates continued to squabble back home.

But all did not go according to plan on Tuesday in Amman, Jordan, when Mr. McCain, fresh from a visit to Iraq, misidentified some of the main players in the Iraq war.

Mr. McCain said several times in his visit to Jordan--in a news conference and in a radio interview--that he was concerned that Iran was training Al Qaeda in Iraq. The United States believes that Iran, a Shiite country, has been training and financing Shiite extremists in Iraq, but not Al Qaeda, which is a Sunni insurgent group.

But McCain is not the first to suggest that Iran is backing Sunni as well as Shiite terrorists in Iraq. As we noted in January 2007, American intelligence had unearthed documents in Iraq suggesting cooperation between Iran's Quds ("Jerusalem") force and people affiliated with al Qaeda in Iraq, among other Sunni groups, confirming the suspicion of Iraqi liberal Mithal al-Alusi that Iran was playing both sides in Iraq. And according to a July 2007 New York Sun article:

One of two known Al Qaeda leadership councils meets regularly in eastern Iran, where the American intelligence community believes dozens of senior Al Qaeda leaders have reconstituted a good part of the terror conglomerate's senior leadership structure.

That is a consensus judgment from a final working draft of a new National Intelligence Estimate, titled "The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland," on the organization that attacked the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Like any intelligence, this may be a mistake, disinformation or otherwise false or not the whole truth. But the notion that because Iran is a "Shiite country" it would never cooperate with Sunni extremists is simpleminded nonsense. Iraq is majority-Shiite too, and the two countries fought a brutal war for eight years in the 1980s. Political alliances do not always follow the lines of sectarian or other natural affinities.

They Should Wear Bags Over Their Heads

"Congress Faces Depressing Economy"--headline, Politico, March 18

Propecia Really Works!

"Hair Restored as ICC Elite Umpire"--headline, BBC Web site, March 18

Breaking News From 1755

"Ben Franklin Aids Two Bethlehem Firms"--headline, Morning Call (Allentown, Pa.), March 18

News You Can Use

• "Time to Put That Gorilla on a Diet"--headline, Associated Press, March 17
 
• "Easter Warning: Crucifixion Is Bad for You"--headline, Daily Telegraph (London), March 19
 

Bottom Story of the Day

"Saudi Breeders Search for New 'Miss Camel' "--headline, Daily Telegraph (London), March 18

Our Friends the Saudis

"The Arab and Muslim nations of the world have been working diligently to get the United Nations to craft an agreement whereby it would be a 'crime' to disrespect or insult a religion"--that is to say, Islam--reports blogger Stuart Creque. The Media Line reports that free speech has found friends in an unlikely place:

The Saudi Arabian Parliament Monday rejected a recommendation to adopt an international agreement that forbids insulting of religions, prophets and clerics, the Saudi daily Al-Watan reported.

Seventy-seven members of parliament rejected the recommendation, claiming that if they adopted the agreement, they would have had to recognize the legitimacy of idolatrous religions, such as Buddhism.

These guys aren't exactly Voltaire, but sometimes you take your allies where you find them.

BOTWT 3-20

Obama and the American Flag

By JAMES TARANTO
March 20, 2008

Last October the Associated Press reported that Barack Obama had made a decision not to sport an American flag pin on his lapel:

Asked about it Wednesday in an interview with KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the Illinois senator said he stopped wearing the pin shortly after the attacks and instead hoped to show his patriotism by explaining his ideas to citizens.

"The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.

"I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest," he said in the interview. "Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism."

But did anyone notice that when Obama gave his "major speech on race" Tuesday--the one necessitated by the revelation that his "spiritual mentor" had, among other things, called on God to "damn America"--he did so amid a row of American flags? We checked the video and counted eight of them, of which four are visible in the photo nearby.

We didn't write about this back in October, because the whole kerfuffle was, at its root, silly. There are many ways of expressing patriotism, and if wearing a flag pin is not Obama's idiom, who cares? It was arrogant of him to imply that his own patriotism was more "true" than that of pin-wearers, but one could put this down to defensiveness at being asked a "gotcha" question.

But in light of his October comment, what are we to make of his extravagant use of the Stars and Stripes on Tuesday? If a flag pin on a lapel is "a substitute for true patriotism," is that not also true of eight flags on a stage as a backdrop to a political speech? Obama proclaimed himself too good for cheap symbolism, but resorted to it the first time he faced a real crisis. Is he really any different from the run-of-the-mill politician?

'A Typical White Person'

"Stick a fork in him, baby," writes blogress Taylor Marsh of Barack Obama. "If he makes it to the general election, he's done." Marsh, a liberal-left backer of Hillary Clinton, is referring to this comment Obama made on a Philadelphia radio station, explaining why he likened his grandmother to his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright:

"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person who, uh, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, there's a reaction that's been bred into our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way and that's just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it."

Marsh asks, "Can you imagine if Hillary Clinton said someone was a 'typical black person'?" Never mind if a Republican said such a thing.

The Obama-Wright imbroglio is laying bare the racial double standard in America. The New York Times's Nicholas Kristof hints at this but doesn't quite get the point:

To whites, for example, it has been shocking to hear Mr. Wright suggest that the AIDS virus was released as a deliberate government plot to kill black people.

That may be an absurd view in white circles, but a 1990 survey found that 30 percent of African-Americans believed this was at least plausible.

"That's a real standard belief," noted Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a political scientist at Princeton (and former member of Trinity church, when she lived in Chicago). "One of the things fascinating to me watching these responses to Jeremiah Wright is that white Americans find his beliefs so fringe or so extreme. When if you've spent time in black communities, they are not shared by everyone, but they are pretty common beliefs." . . .

Many African-Americans even believe that the crack cocaine epidemic was a deliberate conspiracy by the United States government to destroy black neighborhoods.

Much of the time, blacks have a pretty good sense of what whites think, but whites are oblivious to common black perspectives.

What's happening, I think, is that the Obama campaign has led many white Americans to listen in for the first time to some of the black conversation--and they are thunderstruck.

All of this demonstrates that a national dialogue on race is painful, awkward and essential. And that dialogue needs to focus not on clips from old sermons by Mr. Wright but on far more urgent challenges--for example, that about half of black males do not graduate from high school with their class.

What it really demonstrates is that whereas whites are expected to be respectful, sensitive and fair-minded when talking with or about blacks, there is little expectation that blacks will reciprocate--to the point that a black presidential candidate doesn't feel inhibited from making a statement about "a typical white person."

It is true that there was a time when white Americans had to be taught to treat black Americans with respect, and that is where our rules of racial etiquette came from. But "racial reconciliation," the need for which we've been hearing so much about, demands a new etiquette--one in which everyone, regardless of race, is expected to treat others with equal respect.

If Obama is as skilled a talker and conciliator as his supporters make him out to be, he could lead the way here. If he wants to become president, he would be well advised to do so. After all, he'll need white votes, and references to "a typical white person" are not likely to win them over.

The Onion Imitates the Onion

• "President Bush announced today that he will sign a bill providing an additional $2.8 billion for private organizations that emphasize the importance of hoping for change. 'This bill acknowledges the immeasurable role of hope in envisioning a better world for everyone,' Bush said during a press conference. 'Starting today, I ask all Americans to hope together as one nation that the difficult problems that grip our nation will go away someday.' "--Onion, Nov. 23, 2005
 
• "According to witnesses, a loud black man approached a crowd of some 4,000 strangers in downtown Chicago Tuesday and made repeated demands for change. 'The time for change is now,' said the black guy, yelling at everyone within earshot for 20 straight minutes, practically begging America for change. 'The need for change is stronger and more urgent than ever before. And only you—the people standing here today, and indeed all the people of this great nation—only you can deliver this change.' "--Onion, March 19, 2008
 

Accountability Journalism

Our item yesterday on the Associated Press's pro- and anti-Obama editorializing brought this response from Paul Colford, the AP's director of media relations:

AP Online Political Editor Ron Fournier writes a column, found on Yahoo News and many other sites.

You may have overlooked this tagline, attached to the column you singled out today and all of his others:

"EDITOR'S NOTE: Ron Fournier has covered politics for The Associated Press for nearly 20 years. On Deadline is an occasional column."

Fournier wrote the anti-Obama editorial. One AP scribe who doesn't write a column, as far as we know, is Ben Feller, author of a dispatch yesterday on a speech by President Bush:

President Bush defiantly defended the Iraq war Wednesday as U.S. troops began a sixth year of combat in the long and costly conflict that has dominated his presidency. Bush conceded the war has been harder and more expensive than anticipated but insisted it has all been necessary to keep Americans safe. . . .

Bush, in a speech at the Pentagon, offered some of his boldest assessments of progress and said the war's legacy is absolute: "The world is better, and the United States of America is safer."

A war-weary country isn't nearly so convinced.

Anyone have the war-weary country's phone number? We'd like to do our own interview with it.

Tell Us About Your Divorce!

This "reader inquiry" is running on the Web site of Minneapolis's Star-Tribune (we figure it's good form to redact the reporter's phone number and email address):

Are you a woman in the military whose marriage has ended?

We'd like to talk to you for a possible story.

Please call reporter Pam Louwagie at 612-XXX-XXXX or e-mail XXX@startribune.com

Please leave your name and a telephone number where you can be reached.

Just reporting the news, we're sure; there's no agenda here.

The Other 5 Million Forgot

• "10 Million Baby Boomers Face Alzheimer's, Report Predicts"--headline, HealthDay, March 18
 
• "More Than 5 Million Americans Have Alzheimer's: Report"--headline, Reuters, March 18
 

And the International House of Pancakes Doesn't Serve Just Breakfast

"Dershowitz: 'Int'l Court Doesn't Give Just Rulings' "--headline, Jerusalem Post, March 19

Good News for Male Students

"Mankiller Cancels BSU Lecture Due to Illness"--headline, Idaho Statesman, March 19

That Way, Their Collar Buttons Won't Show

"As U.S. Border Fence Rises, a Tribe Tightens Ties"--headline, Reuters, March 20

News You Can Use

"Body Piercing: Don't Get Stuck With a Toxic Stud"--headline, U.S. News & World Report, March 17

Bottom Stories of the Day

• "County Residents Are Staying Put"--headline, San Diego Union-Tribune, March 20
 
• "Grocery Prices Hold Steady in Alabama"--headline, Birmingham Business Journal, March 19
 
• "Poll: Bush's Popularity Hits New Low"--headline, CNN.com, March 19
 
• "Canada Gears Up for Olympic Soccer Qualifier Against U.S."--headline, CBC.ca, March 20
 

Spring Is Here, Blame Global Warming

Winter is over, spring has arrived, and the Associated Press is alarmed:

Pollen is bursting. Critters are stirring. Buds are swelling. Biologists are worrying.

"The alarm clock that all the plants and animals are listening to is running too fast," Stanford University biologist Terry Root said.

Blame global warming.

The fingerprints of man-made climate change are evident in seasonal timing changes for thousands of species on Earth, according to dozens of studies and last year's authoritative report by the Nobel Prize-winning international climate scientists. More than 30 scientists told The Associated Press how global warming is affecting plants and animals at springtime across the country, in nearly every state.

What's happening is so noticeable that scientists can track it from space. Satellites measuring when land turns green found that spring "green-up" is arriving eight hours earlier every year on average since 1982 north of the Mason-Dixon line.

Seems to us that worrying about this is awfully shortsighted. After all, if the "green-up" is coming eight hours earlier each year, everything will be back to normal in 3078.

BOTWT 3 21

BEST OF THE WEB TODAY
 
With Extreme Prejudice
 
By JAMES TARANTO
 
March 21, 2008
 
Remember John Kerry? He was the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, lauded by his supporters for his intellect and his nuance, as compared with the simpleminded George W. Bush. Having lost the election, he decided to sit out the 2008 contest. He recently endorsed Barack Obama, and earlier this week he sat down with the editorial board of the Standard-Times (New Bedford, Mass.) to make the case for his candidate.
 
It's a real jaw-dropper. ABC News's Jake Tapper sums it up:Kerry said that a President Obama would help the US, in relations with Muslim countries, "in some cases go around their dictator leaders to the people and inspire the people in ways that we can't otherwise.""He has the ability to help us bridge the divide of religious extremism," Kerry said. "To maybe even give power to moderate Islam to be able to stand up against this radical misinterpretation of a legitimate religion."Kerry was asked what gives Obama that credibility."Because he's African-American. Because he's a black man. Who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country."An African-American president would be "a symbol of empowerment" for those who have been disenfranchised around the world, Kerry said, "an important lesson for America to show Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, other places in the world where disenfranchised people don't get anything."
 
One obvious question: What do the events of this week, involving Obama's own church, tell us about his ability to "stand up against" a "radical misinterpretation of a legitimate religion"? Nothing very encouraging in this columnist's view, but many observers view Obama much more charitably in this regard than we do.
 
What is really striking about Kerry's case for Obama, though, is that it rests on what may be the crudest stereotyping we have ever observed. Commentary's Abe Greenwald has a chuckle over Kerry's racial stereotyping of Obama:Where is this "place of oppression and repression" in which Obama has suffered "through the years"? Hawaii? Harvard? The Senate? We should find out immediately and do something about this horrific crisis.
 
But Kerry isn't just stereotyping blacks. He is stereotyping Muslims too. And he is drawing an equivalence between American blacks, a racial minority in one country, and Middle Eastern Muslims, a religious majority in a whole region.
 
Never mind that, as Greenwald points out, "Arab Muslims [are] none too happy with their black countrymen in northern Africa." Never mind that in some African countries, notably Sudan and Mauritania, Arab Muslims still enslave blacks.
 
To Kerry, it seems, all "oppressed peoples" look alike. The man has all the intellectual subtlety of a third-rate ethnic studies professor.
 
Obama's Mideast Gaffe
From the Chicago Tribune:[Barack] Obama teased [John] McCain, a supporter of the war, for a mix-up in the Middle East Tuesday in which the Arizona senator said several times that Iran was providing support to al Qaeda in Iraq, one of the Sunni insurgent groups there. . . ."Just yesterday, we heard Sen. McCain confuse Sunni and Shia, Iran and al Qaeda," Obama said. "Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America's enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades."
 
Since Obama is going around teasing McCain, we thought we should not let an Obama "gaffe," from his "major speech on race," go unremarked. In describing the comments of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that he found unacceptable, Obama said this:They expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country--a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America, a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
 
To characterize the conflicts in the Middle East as "emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam" is only a partial truth. In fact, Arab states have sought Israel's destruction since its creation; and many of Israel's enemies over the years--Nasser's Egypt, Assad's Syria, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Yasser Arafat's PLO--have adhered to secular ideologies.
 
It is true that the growth of radical Islam over the past 30 years has given anti-Israel belligerents a more religious consistency. For example, Hamas, which now controls the Gaza strip, from which it frequently fires rockets at civilians in southern Israel, is an Islamist group.
 
The other day blogger Tom Blumer reported that Obama's "spiritual mentor," Jeremiah Wright, had reprinted in his church bulletin an op-ed piece by Hamas's Mousa Abu Marzook under the headline "A Fresh View of the Palestinian Struggle."
 
Uh-oh, more trouble for Obama? Don't worry. Hamas is a Sunni fundamentalist group. It receives support from Iran. But Iran is Shiite. Therefore Hamas does not exist. Take that, John McCain.
 
Whither Mrs. Clinton?
Oh, by the way, who is going to be the Democratic nominee? Hillary Clinton's victories in the Ohio and Texas primary, followed by Barack Obama's trouble with his spiritual mentor, give reason to think that she could still pull it out. This week she's been doing better in polls in states with forthcoming contests, including Pennsylvania, where she had been expected to win, and North Carolina, where she hadn't.
 
But Obama still has the lead, and according to Slate's Delegate Calculator, Mrs. Clinton would need to win at least 64% of remaining pledged delegates (those selected by voters in primaries and caucuses) in order to take the pledged delegate lead. That means the contest is almost certain to be decided by superdelegates, party and elected officials who automatically have seats at the convention and are free to vote however they please.
 
You might think the superdelegates would be leaning toward Mrs. Clinton right now, concerned as to whether Obama is electable, now that the Wright fiasco has transformed him into the candidate of "race," an unpopular subject for most voters.
 
But Obama's speech this week puts those superdelegates in an awkward position. Can they really reject Obama for staking out a position on race that is, at least by left-liberal lights, about as thoughtful and conciliatory as one could ever hope for? The danger for the Democratic Party is that if the superdelegates turn against Obama over this, it will appear as if they are doing so because he is black.
 
Another plus for Obama--for now, anyway--is that there doesn't seem to be a solution in the offing for the Michigan and Florida problem. The party stripped those two states of their convention delegates because they held their primaries earlier than party rules allowed. Mrs. Clinton campaigned in both states anyway, and won the primaries, while Obama (and other, now-forgotten candidates) stayed away. The New York Sun reports that Mrs. Clinton seems to have blown it:In a little-noticed comment that may have conflated wish with reality, the former first lady's top adviser on delegate issues, Harold Ickes, told reporters on Tuesday, "She has urged for weeks now that there should be reruns of those primaries."In fact, Mrs. Clinton and her campaign publicly endorsed revotes in both states on March 12, only six days before Mr. Ickes and the rest of the Clinton crew began taunting Mr. Obama for dragging his feet in working out a compromise.For more than six weeks, beginning four days before the January 29 primary in Florida, Mrs. Clinton's camp took the inflexible position that the delegates from the Florida and Michigan primaries should be selected and seated based solely on the results of those votes, despite the fact there was virtually no campaigning in either state and Mr. Obama and most other Democrats had pulled their names from the Michigan ballot. That position never found traction with Democratic leaders, even those friendly to Mrs. Clinton, in part because it gave too much weight to her "victories" in those states and in part because her own backers, such as Mr. Ickes, voted for the sanctions against states that jumped the calendar. "This is just so nakedly self-serving," a Democratic political consultant who said he voted for Mrs. Clinton, Garry South, said. "I just think it's too clever by half."
 
It now appears to be too late to schedule new votes. It should be noted that Obama's approach to these two states is no less cynical than Mrs. Clinton's, as Britain's Press Association reports:Splitting Michigan's delegates between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would be a fair way of resolving the dispute over whether to seat the delegates at the Democratic Party's national convention, the Obama campaign said.
 
Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said, rightly: "Michigan is populated by people, not numbers, and those people need to have their voices heard in this process."
 
What we may end up with, then, is Obama getting the nomination thanks to his staking out a position on race that his party cannot walk away from, but that voters certainly can--and being further handicapped in November by his party's having snubbed the voters of two crucial states.
 
Passport Control
"State Department employees snooped through the passport files of three presidential candidates--Sens. Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain--and the department's inspector general is investigating," the Associated Press reports:State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the violations of McCain and Clinton's passport files were not discovered until Friday, after officials were made aware of the unauthorized access of Obama's records and a separate search was conducted.The incidents raise questions as to whether the information was accessed for political purposes and why two contractors involved in the Obama search were dismissed before investigators had a chance to interview them. It recalled an incident in 1992, when a Republican political appointee at the State Department was demoted over a search of presidential candidate Bill Clinton's passport records. At the time, Clinton was challenging President George H.W. Bush.
 
This puzzled us in 1992, and it puzzles us now. Assuming that this snooping into passport files is politically motivated, what exactly is it that the snoopers are supposed to be looking for? And why is it considered an outrageous invasion of privacy to look at a candidate's passport files on the one hand, while on the other those seeking the presidency are expected to lay bare their tax returns?
 
'Condi Wears the Pants Around Here'
"State Department to Brief Obama Staff on Breeches"--headline, Associated Press, March 21
 
Starve the Beast?
"A dire food shortage across North Korea has become so acute it has started to affect the country's elite in the capital, Pyongyang," Sky News reports:Aid agency Good Friends says food rations for some parts of the city have been cut by up to 60%, while others have seen their supplies cut off completely.Only citizens who show absolute loyalty to leader Kim Jong Il and his regime are allowed to live in Pyongyang and are considered better off than their fellow countrymen.But the food situation, which has mostly been felt in rural areas where rations have been suspended since November, has now spread to the city, according to the South Korean aid agency."Even ranking officials have run out of their (rationed) food supply, while a ban on (private) trade is strictly maintained," said an unidentified city official quoted by Good Friends."It is nothing but a death sentence."
 
Blogger Joshua Stanton argues that this grim news may actually be good news:This may be the single most significant event in North Korean history since the invention of blogs, because if it's true, the regime is finished. . . .The regime has contained and survived mass-casualty famine and dissent in the countryside before. A severe downturn in Pyongyang, however, is a game-changer. If the regime can't even feed its elite, it's going to have to take some chairs away from the banquet table. That means commissars and apparatchiks will shiv each other for the remaining chairs as though their lives depend on it. A rumored phase-out of the "military first" policy introduces a whole new pool of potential coup plotters. This could be the beginning of the end. If the report is true--and if China doesn't execute an Olympic-sized airlift to reverse those conditions fast--there's a 70% chance of regime collapse within the next year.
 
It's a bit awkward to root for starvation on humanitarian grounds, so let's add this Stanton point: If North Korea asks for food aid, "we should agree, as long as the World Food Program can distribute the food through its own distribution system to every single county, village, Army barracks, and concentration camp. No exceptions."
 
Metaphor Alert

"We hit the ground running. We're at the bottom of the food chain but . . . we have really made a dent up here."--Sen. Jim Webb (D., Va.) on his time in the Senate so far, quoted in the Washington Post, March 21
 
Zero-Tolerance Watch
"A woman dropping off her nephew at an elementary school yesterday morning triggered a security lockdown at three local schools after she went inside to use the bathroom," the New Hampshire Union Leader reports from Pelham:When school officials didn't recognize the 40-year-old woman, they called police at 8:05 a.m. and went into lockdown before classes began, police said.The woman exited the building to avoid police because she was driving with a suspended license."She ended up going out one of the side exits and headed to the high school," Pelham police Lt. Gary Fisher said.After searching the Pelham Elementary School building and realizing that the woman had probably left already, police took measures to lock down the nearby middle school and high school campuses before the woman was found at the high school. . . .Fisher commended school officials for quickly calling police."They acted very accordingly and contacted us appropriately," Fisher said.
 
Now of course it's easy to make fun of an incident like this, and it's probably true that for every 10,000 (or some other large random number) incidents like this, there is one in which an actual act of violence could have been averted if someone had been quicker to sound an alarm.
 
Still, does every one of these stories have to end with a quote like that one from Fisher? Would it kill a cop or school official to acknowledge the obvious? Yeah, this was a silly overreaction, but better safe than sorry.
 
His Shirt's Nothing Special Either
"Ex-Gophers Assistant Has His Suit Dismissed"--headline, Star Tribune (Minneapolis), March 20
 
If Only She Had the Combination
"Missing Elderly Woman Found Safe"--headline, News8Austin.com, March 21
 
No Wonder Their Rugs Are So Big
"Tibet Looms Large as Taiwan Prepares to Vote"--headline, CNN.com, March 21
 
You Can Say That Again!
"Ex-Homecoming Queen Accused of Beating Sister With Leg in Trailer Sent to Rehab"--headline, WTAE-TV Web site (Pittsburgh), March 19
 
News You Can Use
"Study: Men Want Raw Meat, Women Want Yogurt"--headline, WDSU-TV Web site (New Orleans), March 20
 
Bottom Stories of the Day• "ZZ Top Gets Busy on First Album Since 2003"--headline, Reuters, March 20
 
• "Hagel Hints Iraq War Is One of the Biggest 'Blunders' "--headline, Chicago Sun-Times, March 20
 
Seeking Asylum
The Associated Press reports on a kerfuffle in West Virginia over an institution known as the Trans-Allegheny Lunatic Asylum. As you might guess, the name is what is at issue. Here is the case against the name:"It's like turning back the clock to a time we don't want to go back to," said Ann McDaniel, executive director of the Statewide Independent Living Council, one of several mental health advocacy groups to object. "I think they could still do what they want to do without being offensive."Scott Miller, director of Mountain State Direct Action Center, said one former patient burst into tears after seeing the name on a sign."It's not just that I'm a liberal and I think it's not a good idea; it's seeing people physically hurt," he said. "That's about all I needed to know."
 
The only thing is, the Trans-Allegheny Lunatic Asylum is a hospital with no patients. According to the AP, it "once housed more than 2,000 patients but has stood largely silent since 1994." It is a National Historic Landmark, where its owners, the Jordan family, conduct tours. The AP quotes a member of the family, Rebecca Jordan, making the pro-"Lunatic Asylum" case:"This part of history is vital, and you cannot bury what you don't like," she said. "Should we take down the Holocaust museum? Should we completely deny all that happened because it's not favorable? Because it might hurt a few feelings?"
 
So on the one hand, we have advocates getting upset about a name that is insensitive to patients who don't exist. On the other, we have the owner of the place likening something or other to the Holocaust. Does it strike anyone else that both sides are a little nuts?