From the WSJ Opinion Archives
By
Any Other Name
By a vote of 64-34,
the Senate yesterday passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003, which would
ban a particularly gruesome form of abortion that, in the Washington Post's
description, "involves a physician puncturing the skull of a fetus and
removing its brain after it is partially delivered." Since, as the Post
notes, the procedure is "generally performed during a pregnancy's second
or third trimester," the line between fetus and infant, and thus between
abortion and infanticide, is fuzzy to say the least. (The Post's choice of words
is telling: In what other context does one "deliver" a "fetus"?)
The House approved its version of the bill, 281-142, earlier this month. Both houses have repeatedly passed bans on partial-birth abortion, always to be vetoed by President Clinton, but President Bush supports the ban.
We bring this up because we noticed an odd feature in the way various news outlets reported the vote:
- Washington Post: "Voting 64 to 34, the Senate joined the House in passing
the measure to prohibit what abortion foes call a "partial-birth" procedure
and to punish doctors who violate the ban with fines and as many as two years
in prison."
- Associated
Press: "The Senate on Tuesday voted to ban the practice that critics
call partial birth abortion, sending President Bush a measure that supporters
and foes alike said could alter the future of U.S. abortion rights."
- Reuters:
"The Senate on Tuesday easily approved a ban on so-called 'partial
birth' abortion and sent the bill to President Bush for his signature, moving
the debate from Congress to the courthouse."
- Los Angeles Times: "The Senate voted 64 to 34 for a bill that prohibits a controversial procedure that critics call 'partial-birth' abortion, sending the measure to President Bush for his promised signature."
It seems the proper name for this procedure is a matter of dispute. That's not surprising; semantic conflicts are common in abortion politics, with partisans on both sides of the issue trying to claim the moral high ground by saying they favor "life" or "choice" rather than outlawing or encouraging abortion.
What's curious about the partial-birth debate, though, is that although journalists feel compelled to add the disclaimer that only "critics" or "foes" use the term "partial-birth abortion," the other side of the debate doesn't seem to have a term of its own. The New York Times does provide one synonym, referring to "a procedure that doctors call intact dilation and extraction but critics call partial-birth abortion." But "intact dilation" is just a clinical way of saying "partial birth"; the Times' formulation is the equivalent of saying "a condition that doctors call melanoma but critics call skin cancer."
So the question remains: If only critics and foes call it "partial-birth abortion," what do advocates and enthusiasts call it? One suspects they would simply rather not talk about it.
An
Unraveling Mind--II
The Anti-Defamation League has sent a letter to the editor of the New York Times
protesting former Enron adviser Paul Krugman's column, which we noted
yesterday, blaming President Bush for the anti-Semitic remarks of Mahathir
Mohamad, Malaysia's prime minister:
In his obsession with criticizing U.S. policy, Paul Krugman underestimates the significance of the anti-Semitic diatribe by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad before the Organization of the Islamic Conference ("Listening to Mahathir," Oct. 21).
Mahathir's comments cannot be explained away by themes of domestic politics. They come in the context of a surge of anti-Semitism in the Islamic world, and not only on the fringes. Conspiracy theories about blaming Jews for 9/11 are believed by tens of millions. Denial of the Holocaust is rampant in the media. Images of Jews in op-ed pieces, editorials, and cartoons reflect classic anti-Semitic stereotypes--drinking the blood of Muslims, all-powerful, secretive and conspiratorial.
The last time the world saw such a hateful anti-Semitic tirade by a national leader, there was a tendency to play it down as well--as only politics, as buffoonery, as a passing thing. We know how that ended up in Germany. Let's not make that mistake again.
It turns out that Enron isn't the only dubious past recipient of Krugman's advice. Blogger Donald Luskin notes that Krugman also is a former Mahathir adviser. In a September 1998 Fortune article, Krugman advocated controls on currency trading, a position that Mahathir's government quickly adopted. In a September 1999 article for Slate, Krugman describes going to Malaysia, where he advised Mahathir not to abuse what he said had come to be known as "the 'Krugman-Mahathir strategy' of recovery via capital controls."
Krugman made some effort to distance himself from Mahathir, opening his Slate piece as follows:
I didn't want to go to Malaysia. The Malaysian government would surely expect me to deliver a stronger endorsement of its heterodox economic program than I was prepared to offer. And, of course, it would try to use me politically--to provide a veneer of respectability to a regime that has lately developed the habit of putting inconvenient people in jail. But sometimes an economist has to do what an economist has to do.
But Krugman has not exactly been full-throated in his condemnation of Mahathir's anti-Semitmsm. Here's Luskin:
In a November 8, 1998 article for, yes, the New York Times Magazine, Krugman wrote an article that dealt with, among other things, the impact of currency speculators in precipitating economic crises of the type that rocked Malaysia in 1997-1998. Once again he writes of Mahathir's anti-Semitism--but this time, he doesn't say it's "inexcusable." He agrees with it:
"When the occasional accusation of financial conspiracy is heard--when, for example, Malaysia's Prime Minster blames his country's problems on the machinations of Jewish speculators--the reaction of most observers is skepticism, even ridicule.
"But even the paranoid have people out to get them. Little by little, over the past few years, the figure of the evil speculator has reemerged."
And who's the example of the "evil speculator" given in the very next sentence? That's right, George Soros--a Jew.
Five years later Krugman blames Mahathir's anti-Semitism on George W. Bush--who when Krugman wrote the words above had just been elected to his second term as governor of Texas.
'A
Serious Lack of Balance'
" The tarnish is thickening on the New York Times's most controversial
Pulitzer Prize," the New York Sun reports:
A report commissioned by the Times said the work of 1932 Pulitzer Prize-winner Walter Duranty had a "serious lack of balance," was "distorted," and was "a disservice to American readers of the New York Times . . . and the peoples of the Russian and Soviet empires."
According to the writer of the report, a Columbia University history professor, Mark von Hagen, a committee of Times senior staff that included publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. read it and then forwarded it to the Pulitzer board, along with a recommendation from Mr. Sulzberger. The nature of that recommendation is unknown.
After winning the Pulitzer, Duranty infamously covered up the Ukranian famine of 1932-33, in which 10 million died. Both the Times and the Pulitzer administrator would not comment. "I was really kind of disappointed having to read that stuff, and know that the New York Times would publish this guy for so long," von Hagen told the Sun, describing Duranty's reporting as "very effective renditions of the Stalinist leadership's style of self-understanding of their murderous and progressive project."
Cyber
Terror
Pro-terror hackers have been waging a series of "denial of service"
attacks on various pro-American blogs, including InstaPundit,
Little
Green Footballs and Tim
Blair. An earlier attack targeted a site called Internet
Haganah, which is devoted to "confronting Islamic terrorism and its
supporters online." Katzman quotes "team member" Dan Darling,
who explains the source of the latter attack:
If the DOS attack that nailed Hosting Matters was from the same source as the one that took out Haganah a few days ago, then it is coming from a number of Malaysia-based websites and internet forums frequented by al-Qaeda supporters from the Gulf. I'm looking around the various forums for more information, but here is the claim of responsibility for the Haganah attack that crippled their website.
The headline on that claim: "Jew-boy's Site Goes Dooooooown!!!!!!!" Charming, isn't it?
Germany's
Little Friends
By a vote of 144-4, the U.N. General Assembly yesterday passed a nonbinding
resolution denouncing Israel for building a West Bank fence to keep Palestinian
terrorists out. A pair of German publications, Der
Spiegel and the Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung, seem to find it very amusing that aside from Israel
and the U.S., the only countries that opposed the resolution were the Marshall
Islands and Micronesia.
True to form, Germany joined Libya and Cuba in voting "yes." Seems to us Washington and Jerusalem are in better company than Berlin is.
AWOL
Journalism
Are American troops in Iraq beset by morale problems? That's what the Associated
Press seems to be trying to suggest with a dispatch headlined "Some Troops
Don't Return to Iraq From R&R":
More than a dozen American troops haven't return to duty after getting a vacation from Iraq, the Pentagon said Tuesday, dismissing suggestions there is any significant AWOL problem.
When you read on, it seems the Pentagon is right to dismiss those suggestions:
In the first five days of return flights starting Oct. 12, 28 people didn't show up, [Army spokesman Joe] Burlas said. After tracking them down, it was learned that 20 had permission or some reason. The other eight were unaccounted for, as were eight who also missed flights in the last five days.
So 16 soldiers remain unaccounted for. That's slightly over 0.5% of the 3,000 who went on leave. "None has been declared 'absent without leave' as officials try to sort out the cases," the AP adds. So why exactly is this a story?
'The
Party of Fear'
Why did the Democrats lose elections in 2000 and 2002? The New York Post reports
one critic says it's because they were "lost in time" and "expressed
no clear vision for the future." The Democrats, he continues, "had
become the party of fear instead of the party of hope--spending more time warning
what Republicans would take away rather than we did on what Democrats had to
offer."
Furthermore, the critic writes, the Dems "fumbled the seminal moment of our lives--the terrorist attacks of 9/11," which they "failed to approach the problem with the urgency or comprehensiveness that it demands."
Which right-wing fanatic is leveling these charges? Andrew Cuomo, son of Mario and housing secretary to Bill Clinton.
Will
He Be Charged With Reckless Driving?
"Dean Hits Milestone With Stop in 99th Iowa County"--headline, FoxNews.com,
Oct. 21
Zero-Tolerance
Watch
Thirteen-year-old Christina Lough, a straight-A student at Garland
McMeans Junior High in Katy, Texas, was ordered to attend a "special
disciplinary class" for seven days and stripped of her posts as president
of the student council and the honor society. Her crime: bringing a pencil sharpener
to school.
Christina's mother, Sumi Lough, had brought the sharpener, a two-inch blade that folds into a small handle, from her native South Korea. "District officials said they had no choice but to follow their zero-tolerance policy to the letter," reports the Houston Chronicle, quoting school district lawyer Christopher Gilbert: "If we vary from the rules, that's when the rules fall apart."
Not
Too Brite--CXVIII
"British police said they arrested two men Wednesday on suspicion of murdering
a young sky diver who died in July after plummeting 13,000 feet because cords
on his parachute had been deliberately cut," Reuters reports from London.
Oddly Enough!
Sun
Rises, but Could Set
"Gas Prices Dip in D.C. Area, but Could Rise"--headline, WJLA-TV Web
site (Washington), Oct. 21
What
Would Gallbladders Do Without Experts?
"Gallbladder Surgery Best Left to Experts"--headline, HealthDay News,
Oct. 21
What
Would We Do Without Everyday People?
"Everyday People Say They Prefer Ethics in Government"--headline,
(East Brunswick, N.J.) Home News Tribune, Oct. 21
What
Would We Do Without Diana's Brother?
"Diana's Brother Says Her Death Was Not Planned"--headline, Reuters,
Oct. 22
Hey,
Thanks a Bunch
"Powell to Lend Weight to Sudan Peace Talks With Carrots for Khartoum"--headline,
Agence France-Presse, Oct. 22
Where's
the Rest of Me?
"During September 2003," the Middle East Media Research Institute
reports, "mass hysteria spread through Khartoum, the capital of Sudan,
which was ultimately quelled by police intervention and statements made by the
health minister. The panic was caused by rumors of foreigners roaming the city
and shaking men's hands, making their penises disappear." Memri summarizes
newspaper accounts of the scare:
Two of the "victims" agreed to tell their story to the London-based Arabic daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi. One of them, fabric merchant S.K.A., said that a man from a West African tribe came into his shop to buy fabric, but an argument quickly developed between the two. Then the West African shook the store owner's hand powerfully until the owner felt his penis melt into his body. The store owner became hysterical, and was taken to the hospital.
While the majority of accounts involved handshaking, another victim, who refused to give his name, said that while he was at the market, a man approached him, gave him a comb, and asked him to comb his hair. When he did so, within seconds, he said, he felt a strange sensation and discovered that he had lost his penis. It was also claimed that once "'Satan's Friend' drains a man's virility," he demands that his victim pay him over four million Sudanese pounds (about $3,000) to get it back.
After going over the evidence with a fine-toothed comb, Sudanese police determined that "what is at issue is not sorcery or magic. The many young men who complained were under the influence of suggestion."
Jafar Abbas, "a Sudanese columnist living abroad," seems to have been taken in:
In his Al-Watan article, Abbas wrote: "Even though what I write today will harm 'tourism' in Sudan, I consider it my duty to warn anyone who wants to come to Sudan to refrain from shaking hands with a dark-skinned man. Since most Sudanese are dark-skinned, he had better avoid shaking hands with anyone he doesn't know . . ."
Focusing on the report of the Sudanese man who lost his penis after contact with a comb, Abbas wrote: "No doubt, this comb was a laser-controlled surgical robot that penetrates the skull [and passes] to the lower body and emasculates a man!!
"I wanted to tell that man who fell victim to the electronic comb: 'You jackass, how can you put a comb from a man you don't know to your head, while even relatives avoid using the same comb?!' "
Abbas adds that the man with the robot comb "is an imperialist Zionist agent that was sent to prevent our people from procreating and multiplying."
(Elizabeth Crowley helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Brian Enright, Orin Ryssman, Nicholas Barnes, Marion Dreyfus, Barak Moore, Robert Vargo, Henry Hanks, Scott Offen, Natalie Cohen, Janice Lyons, Johannes Happonen, Monty Krieger, Carl Sherer, Paul Yerkey, Jerome Marcus, Lary Aydlett, Martin Mix, Steve Mann, William Schultz, Jennifer Ray, Glenn Patterson, Steve Hays, Rosanne Klass and Michael Katsobashvili. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Review & Outook: The Europe-Iran nuke deal buys a little time--but that's far from enough.
- Claudia Rosett: Even babies aren't spared from Pyongyang's regime of torture and murder.
- Mark Yost: At the Lewis and Clark bicentennial, the influence of anti-American academia.
- Political Diary: Paul Gigot on Howard Dean; Dean worries about his "Willie"; Edwards's trial-lawyer loot; Lyndon LaRouche babbles on. Plus New Yorkers open their wallets for Bush-Cheney!
