by JAMES TARANTO
Friday, March 25, 2005 4:31 P.M. EST

Nothing Happening Here, Just Move Along
"The nation's largest news organizations and journalism groups" filed a brief in federal court Wednesday arguing that "a federal court should first determine whether a crime has been committed in the disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's name before prosecutors are allowed to continue seeking testimony from journalists about their confidential sources," the Washington Post reports:

The 40-page brief, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, argues that there is "ample evidence . . . to doubt that a crime has been committed" in the case, which centers on the question of whether Bush administration officials knowingly revealed the identity of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame in the summer of 2003.

Among the news organizations that signed on to the friend-of-the-court brief (link in PDF) is Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal and this Web site. This column and the Journal have both long argued that there probably wasn't a crime in the "outing" of Plame, but until recently this put us in a distinct minority among mainstream journalists.

As we noted last month, editorials and columns in the New York Times were particularly aggressive in asserting that a crime had occurred and demanding an investigation. The Times did a turnabout, declaring on Feb. 26 that there is a "real possibility that the disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity . . . may not have violated any law." The New York Times Co. did not sign the amicus brief, presumably because its reporter Judith Miller is a party to the case. Likewise for Time Inc.; Time's Matthew Cooper is also threatened with jail for refusing to disclose his sources.

We hope that Miller and Cooper prevail--that they keep their sources confidential and never spend a night behind bars. We also hope our colleagues in the news business learn to be more skeptical about politically motivated criminal accusations.

This Just In
"Terri Schiavo Shows Signs of Dehydration"--headline, Associated Press, March 25

Terri Schiavo and the 'Secret Sin' Theory
In her column yesterday, our Peggy Noonan raised a question that's been bothering us as well: What accounts for the passion of those who want Terri Schiavo to die? Those who believe an innocent woman is being unjustly killed are understandably upset about it, but, as Noonan writes, "I do not understand the emotionalism of the pull-the-tube people. What is driving their engagement?"

We've been pondering this, and we've come up with some ideas. Part of the answer is that the pull-the-tube crowd is reacting to the emotionalism of the save-Terri crowd. The best example of this is Michael Schiavo himself, who had this exchange with Larry King on Monday:

King: Do you think her parents have any ulterior motive?

Schiavo: Well, their motives right now are to trump the state court and try to get this into federal court. You have the right wing constituents helping them out, you have the coalitions helping them out and you have Mr. Randall Terry--which I must tell you, his act is so old now. He needs to just retire and move on--running up to Tallahassee, running up to Congress, knocking on doors, giving them false information, and the leaders of our country are listening to that.

It seems obvious that Mrs. Schiavo's parents are chiefly motivated by a desire to save their daughter, not by legal procedure or politics. But given the long history of bad blood between them and Mr. Schiavo, it's not surprising that he wouldn't be able to see this clearly. Similarly, those who are on Mr. Schiavo's side but not personally involved with the case bristle at the suggestion that they are countenancing murder.

Much of the passion in the case, we'd venture, is not really about Mrs. Schiavo at all but about partisanship and the "culture wars." Thus Robert Scheer of the Los Angeles Times, while allowing that Mrs. Schiavo's parents are "assuredly acting in good faith," accuses Congress and President Bush of "egregious political opportunism and shameless trafficking in human misery." (Scheer also cites polls purporting to show that a majority of Americans are on his side, which would seem to argue that politicians who disagree are making a political sacrifice in the name of principle.)

Andrew Sullivan characterizes those on the pro-life side of the Schiavo debate as "a crew of zealots and charlatans," in contrast with the "sane, moderate, thoughtful people" who agree with him. He also offers the sane, moderate, thoughtful observation that "religious zealotry . . . has to be purged." And then there's this:

What this case comes down to is the right of a spouse to determine his or her incapacitated spouse's fate in the absence of a living will. Civil marriage is indeed a unique and special legal bond. The social right believes this. But they only believe it when it suits them. If it can be used to marginalize and stigmatize gay couples, they are insistent. If it is an obstacle to their absolutist views on feeding tubes for human beings who have ceased to be able to feel, think or emote, then they discard it.

One suspects that Sullivan's views on this matter are colored by his more understandable passion on the subject of same-sex marriage.

None of this, though, explains the sick humor we've heard from some quarters. (Warning: The links in this and the following paragraphs contain material even more offensive than what we're quoting.) The satiric site WhiteHouse.org carries a headline that states: "Saving Terri Schiavo: Presenting Incontrovertible Proof That Every Life Has Worth, President Bush Announces '66 Uses for Persistent Vegetards.' "

Blogger Malachy Joyce rounds up some DemocraticUnderground.com postings (the original page seems to have disappeared from DU, but this one confirms its authenticity). "[Mrs. Schiavo] and a Chia Pet both have about the same likelihood of swallowing a spoonful of tapioca," writes "GiovanniC," who, in case you didn't get the point, follows up with this:

I said "Terri Schiavo has the same likelihood of swallowing as a Chia Pet." Other things with the same likelihood of swallowing as Terri Schiavo:

- A slab of granite
- A watermelon
- A hubcap from a 1989 Ford Escort
- Play-Doh
- etc.

"Modem Butterfly" adds: "If we can't make fun of the living dead, who can we make fun of?"

What explains the specter of politically correct liberals making ugly and unfunny jokes about an utterly helpless human being? It won't do to say that Terri Schiavo is fair game because she is no longer "really alive"; if you made a similar joke at the expense of someone who'd been murdered in a hate crime, they'd jump all over you (and rightly so).

The best explanation we've heard comes from Jacob Levy, in an old post on The Volokh Conspiracy. Levy attributes to an unnamed official of the Cato Institute the " 'secret sin' theory of politics--that people form their political views on the basis of a generalization of their own deepest darkests":

So: if you think it's only the law that keeps you from plunging into a life of full-time sexual depravity and debauchery, you become a moralistic conservative. If you think it's only the law that keeps you from becoming Ebeneezer [sic] Scrooge and screwing the poor just for the sheer sadistic joy of it, you become a lefty. And if you look inward and detect a craving for power, you generalize that to everyone else and become a libertarian.

One can think of plenty of other examples: the gay-basher who is secretly homosexual, the affirmative-action advocate who harbors suspicions that blacks are inferior, the champion of the workingman who treats his own employees atrociously.

Liberals love to trumpet their own compassion and to berate conservatives for lacking same. Could it be that, for some of them, the compassionate pose is a cover for a deep heartlessness?

Starve a Cow, Feed a Fever
"A Cabot [Vt.] farmer convicted of starving his cows to death has begun serving a reparative sentence imposed by Washington County prosecutors as part of a plea bargain," reports the Barre-Montpelier Times Argus:

Christian DeNeergaard pleaded guilty to five misdemeanor counts of animal cruelty in January. He received a suspended one-year sentence as well as 30 days of work crew assignment as part of a deal with prosecutors. DeNeergaard, 47, may not own or possess livestock during his year of probation and must also undergo alcohol-abuse counseling.

In October, then-Washington County State's Attorney Tom Kelly said he would seek at least some jail time for animal neglect, which claimed the lives of at least 11 cows.

"We think some jail time is appropriate," said Kelly in an October interview. "The cows suffered tremendously."

Even though DeNeergaard won't be behind bars, every American can sleep easy knowing that we live in a society that does not tolerate a man starving a cow to death.

No Kidding
The New York Times reports from Portland that Oregon's biggest city, as well as many other large American metropolises, is facing a shortage of children:

It is a problem unlike the urban woes of cities like Detroit and Baltimore, where families have fled decaying neighborhoods, business areas and schools. Portland is one of the nation's top draws for the kind of educated, self-starting urbanites that midsize cities are competing to attract. But as these cities are remodeled to match the tastes of people living well in neighborhoods that were nearly abandoned a generation ago, they are struggling to hold on to enough children to keep schools running and parks alive with young voices.

San Francisco, where the median house price is now about $700,000, had the lowest percentage of people under 18 of any large city in the nation, 14.5 percent, compared with 25.7 percent nationwide, the 2000 census reported. Seattle, where there are more dogs than children, was a close second. Boston, Honolulu, Portland, Miami, Denver, Minneapolis, Austin and Atlanta, all considered, healthy, vibrant urban areas, were not far behind. The problem is not just that American women are having fewer children, reflected in the lowest birth rate ever recorded in the country.

Officials say that the very things that attract people who revitalize a city--dense vertical housing, fashionable restaurants and shops and mass transit that makes a car unnecessary--are driving out children by making the neighborhoods too expensive for young families.

Surely this is all related to the Roe effect and the polarization of America's electorate. The flight of families with children--who tend to be politically conservative--renders cities even more liberal, and the liberals who remain behind don't reproduce, helping push the next generation to the right.

Take Off, Says the Great White North
"The Canadian government has denied refugee status to former U.S. Army paratrooper Jeremy Hinzman," who deserted his unit in 2004 to avoid service in Iraq, reports the Associated Press. (We noted the case last February.) The ruling from Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board, in PDF form, is here.

"Hinzman's attorney, Jeffry House, said his client would appeal the ruling and still believed that he would be granted refugee status in Canada," the AP reports:

"He is disappointed," House told CBC TV. "We don't believe that people should be imprisoned for doing what they believe is illegal."

People shouldn't be imprisoned for doing what they believe is illegal? That's a novel legal theory, to say the least.

What'll They Think Of Next?
"Army Seeks Recruiting Device in Patriotism"--headline, Hartford Courant, March 24

The Mighty Mississip
Not surprisingly, our cheap shot at Mississippi yesterday, in the course of a cheap (but well deserved) shot at Vermont, brought some e-mails from miffed Mississippians. We'll let reader James Chastain speak for them:

My home for 82 years has been Mississippi. How can you make a statement like that? I know your office is in New York City so I may assume you live in New York state. At least down here we have never let a woman from Arkansas come in buy a nice house and be elected to the U.S. Senate. Talk about a laughingstock.

A fair point, though in defense of our home state, we'd point out that we also have Chuck Schumer, who possesses one of the most brilliant political minds in the universe. Just look at this anecdote from the Washington Times (second item):

"Last week, I was reminded of a very important political lesson: Elections matter," Mr. Schumer said this week. "We lost the vote to prevent drilling for oil in the [Arctic] National Wildlife Refuge 51-49.

"In the last Congress, when the Senate had 49 Democrats, not the 44 we have today, we were able to defeat this proposal and protect this precious natural treasure," he said. "The only way to fix that is to elect more Democrats to the United States Senate."

Eat your heart out, Thad Cochran! Reader Tommy Ford adds another observation:

Mississippi gained a reputation of being backward, or out of the mainstream, primarily due to having a high percentage of its population being poor and uneducated, along with the legacy of racism. Situations that, while certainly not gone, have definitely improved in the past 30 years.

What's Vermont's excuse?

Doubtless our Green Mountain state readers will have some answers to that one.

Why'd They Wait Till Spring to Report It?
"Ex-Con Running From Police Dies in Fall"--headline, WINS-AM Web site (New York), March 24

What Would We Do Without Teens?
"Shooter Seemed to Target Victims, Teen Says"--headline, Boston Globe, March 25

Scare Quotes That Make Sense, for Once
"BP: Texas Plant 'Safe,' Death Toll at 15"--headline, Reuters, March 24

The Death Toll Must Be 15 or Fewer
"Trams Called Safe Despite Accidents, Deaths"--headline, Prague Post, March 24

That's One Fast Honda
"Nuclear Accord Eludes Iran and Europeans"--headline, New York Times, March 24

We'd Rather Have More Leg Room
"Ford Probe Could Widen"--headline, WREG-TV Web site (Memphis, Tenn.), March 19

Even Homer Gets the Nod
"Homer Tapped as Transportation Chief in Va."--headline, Washington Post, March 24

National Profiling
A 75-year-old Berkeley, Calif., woman was the victim of a knife attack last week, the San Francisco Chronicle reports:

Without saying anything, a woman believed to be 17 to 20 years old hacked the victim's neck with a knife and then, accompanied by another young woman, got into a light blue BMW M3 convertible and sped away, Officer Joe Okies said.

"The victim did not know her attackers," Okies said. "No words were exchanged between the victim and her attackers prior to the stabbing.''

Police described the slasher as African American, 5 feet 5 inches to 5 feet 10 inches tall, with black hair and thin build and wearing a gray sweatshirt and sweatpants. Her accomplice was reportedly the same age, 5 feet to 5 feet 5 inches tall with brown hair.

If the victim was a stranger to her attackers, and no one said anything, how do the cops know the slasher was American?

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Vincent Cox, Michael Farrar, David Cooper, Erik Andresen, Gary Watts, Daniel Olohan, Bennett Stern, Paul Dyck, Eric Rassbach, Ethel Fenig, Mike Gallagher, Lorne McClenaghan, Mordecai Bobrowsky, Michael Kreger, Christian Hamaker, Steve Barragar, Elizabeth Stanley, Bryan Tyson, Chuck Opramolla, Brian Ballard, Jeff Meling, Martin Mix, Daniel Foty, Tim Bowden, Bob Roenigk, Jim Rutherford and Scott Plante. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Review & Outlook: Now we need a constructive debate about the "right to die."
• Daniel Henninger: The Schiavo case made bad law and good politics.
• The Journal Editorial Report: Tune in this weekend for a discussion of the Schiavo case.

And on the Taste page:

• Review & Outlook: What if you'd rather not exercise your "right to die"?
• Tony & Tacky: Good news for D-minus students in Kansas.
• Bret Stephens: "American Idol" is refreshingly judgmental.
• Lucette Lagnado: Why bother keeping her alive? they wondered--about my mother.
• Naomi Reily: Did a California school ban the Declaration of Independence? Not quite.