by JAMES TARANTO
Thursday, April 21, 2005 11:43 A.M. EDT

Dems to U.N.: Drop Dead
Senate Democrats have won a delay, probably lasting a few weeks, to dig up more dirt on United Nations ambassador nominee John Bolton. But of course their real objection to Bolton is ideological, not temperamental: They take issue with his view of the U.N. So let's step back for a moment and ponder the nature of that disagreement, which the Los Angeles Times summed up nicely in an article on the hearings last week:

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., played a three-minute videotape of Bolton speaking angrily in 1994 about the United Nations. . . . "There is no such thing as the United Nations," Bolton said on the tape. "There is an international community that can occasionally be led by the only real power left in the world--and that is the United States, when it suits our interests and when we can get others to go along."

Boxer said the speech appeared to reflect Bolton's disdain for the world body.

"I see the anger, the hostility," Boxer said, adding, "What we saw here, I think, was the real John Bolton."

Bolton's view--with which this column agrees--seems to be that the U.N. is useful and worthy of respect only insofar as it responds to American leadership and serves American interests. The Democrats' view, by contrast, seems to be that the U.S. has an obligation to follow the U.N., whether it acts in America's interests or not. That's why, for example, John Kerry*, who voted in 2002 to authorize U.S. military force in Iraq, changed his mind the next year when the U.N. Security Council balked at passing a resolution expressly permitting such action.

Only that's not quite right. The classic example of the U.S. leading the U.N. was the first Gulf War. In November 1990 the Security Council passed Resolution 678, which authorized member states "to use all necessary means," including military force, to liberate Kuwait, then under occupation by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The resolution also "request[ed] all States to provide appropriate support" to that end.

In January 1991 Congress obliged. The House voted 250-183, with 179 Democrats voting "no," to authorize U.S. military force. The Senate vote was 52-47, with 45 Democrats voting "no." Only 86 House Democrats and 10 Senate Democrats voted in favor.

Among the negative votes were all five current Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who were then in Congress: Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Paul Sarbanes and then-Rep. Barbara Boxer. All told, 25 of the 28 current Senate Democrats who were in Congress in 1991 voted against the Gulf War. (The three who voted for it, in case you're wondering, were Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Tom Carper of Delaware and Harry Reid of Nevada.)

So the U.N. gave the thumbs-up for military force and asked for help, and most Democrats balked. Only a handful of lawmakers, including Sen. Jim Jeffords, ex-Sen. Bob Graham, Reps. John Dingell and Jim Leach and a few other House members (along with Al Gore), took what might be considered the consistent pro-U.N. position, supporting the liberation of Kuwait but not Iraq. Most Dems who now pose as champions of the U.N. showed their disdain for the world body by voting to refuse its request for help in 1991.

It seems fair to conclude, then, that most liberal Democrats, like Bolton, are pro-U.N. only when it suits their purposes--and that their purposes are the opposite of Bolton's. That is, for the Democratic left, the U.N. is useful and worthy of respect only insofar as it acts as an obstacle to American leadership and an opponent of American interests.

* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam without U.N. authorization.

Don't Call Me Baby
AlterNet.org has a hilarious excerpt of an interview that the delightfully named Jennifer Nix conducted with George Lakoff, the left-wing linguistics guru who has fooled Democrats into think he invented euphemism and dysphemism (ellipsis in original):

Nix: Can you give an example of the media not understanding what's going on?

Lakoff: A producer from a National Public Radio show "On the Media" called me up recently to tell me that [a style manual] . . . many journalists around the country call on when writing their stories is dictating that journalists stop using the word fetus and replace it with the term unborn child. This producer asked me if I thought this was political, and when I said, "Of course it's political," she debated me. We've heard this phrase unborn child so much that it's physically changing our brains. Also, the word fetus has been demonized, even though it is a technical, scientific term. The right is so successfully framing this issue that a term representing a political agenda is becoming the "neutral" or "objective" word that journalists are supposed to use in their stories.

Of course, Lakoff gets it exactly backwards. As we've chronicled extensively, news organizations bend over backward to use the term fetus, often with ridiculous results. Isn't the more "political" term the one that differs from common usage? Has a pregnant woman ever said, "The fetus is kicking"? For that matter, has a woman choosing an abortion ever said, "I don't want the fetus"? Any reporter who uses the term fetus where an ordinary person would say child or baby might as well stick a pro-choice bumper sticker right underneath his byline.

(Hat tip: blogress Emily Peterson.)

America's Great Legal Minds
Sarah Weddington successfully argued Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court in 1973, but it appears her forensic skills are slipping. The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin reports on a speech Weddington gave at La Verne Law School in Ontario, Calif.:

"Roe v. Wade is like a space shield protecting women from legislative restrictions," she said, referring to the precedent-setting court decision that secured a woman's right to abortions. "If that space shield melted down, then the states could pretty much do whatever they want to."

Weddington came to speak to ULV students because as Roe v. Wade ages, more people take the right to an abortion for granted, she said.

"No one under about 55 remembers before Roe v. Wade," she said. "Even people who are pro-choice are younger, and for all their lives it's been that way."

Opponents of the decision, meanwhile, remain committed to reversing it.

First of all, "a space shield"? What kind of simile is that? Has Weddington been delivering her abortion pitch at "Star Trek" conventions? Second, if you're 55 today, you were 23 when the court decided Roe. Weddington must have had quite a wild youth if the first 95 trimesters of her life are a blank.

'It Is Unusual'
Meanwhile, check out this passage from an Associated Press dispatch on some comments (boneheaded ones, we'll admit) House Majority Leader Tom DeLay made about Justice Anthony Kennedy:

Although Kennedy was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Reagan, a conservative icon, he has aroused conservatives' ire by sometimes agreeing with the court's more liberal members. Nevertheless, it is unusual for a congressional leader to single out a Supreme Court justice for criticism.

Unusual? Not five months ago Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called Justice Clarence Thomas an "embarrassment" and, playing on ancient racial stereotypes, suggested Thomas was semiliterate. Did the AP even notice?

Green Mountain Sage
Sen. Jim Jeffords's retirement announcement didn't come as a surprise to everyone. James Dwinell, a Vermonter who publishes a local newsletter called the Dwinell Political Report, ran an item on April 3 titled "Jeffords Will Drop Out of 2006 Race":

That is an opinion, not a fact. Something is wrong with Jim Jeffords health. That is an opinion, not a fact. Listen in to his appearance on Vermont Public Radio's Switchboard program with Bob Kinzel last Tuesday, March 22, 2005. . . .

Last week at the governor's press conference, the press was abuzz with the nasty national fund raising appeal from Vermont GOP Chair Jim Barnett. The letter went after "turncoat" Jim Jeffords. Senator Diane Snelling labeled it "trash."

What the press should have been discussing was Jeffords's health, not Barnett's lack of "taste." Reportedly, they speak of it in hushed tones, in protective words, admonishing "don't bring it up."

Maybe he went off his medication, but we do not think so. Your editor has known Jeffords for five decades. He has campaigned with him. He has campaigned for him. He has had him over to his home.

We noted that interview March 24. The White River Junction-based Valley News subsequently quoted Jeffords spokesman Erik Smulson, who lashed out at Dwinell:

Smulson dismissed Dwinell's prediction and said efforts to question Jeffords' health are motivated by Republicans still bitter over Jeffords' decision to leave the party.

" 'Turncoat Jeffords' clearly did not work for them. Now they've sunk even lower," Smulson said. "Sen. Jeffords is in excellent health, and he's looking forward to waging a spirited campaign."

Dwinell stood his ground, declaring on April 11 that with Smulson's defense, "spin became lies." Nine days later, as we noted yesterday, Jeffords did in fact announce that the was retiring for reasons of health, including mental health. A tip of the hat to Dwinell for getting it right.

Maybe They'll Still Freeze-Dry Kerry
"Senate Nixes Navy Plan to Mothball Kennedy"--headline, Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk), April 21

Back to the Future
"New Pope's Ex-Students Express Skepticism," reads the headline of an Associated Press dispatch from Tuebingen, Germany:

In the cafeteria at Tuebingen University's theology department, students swapping lecture notes on a rainy Wednesday weren't preoccupied by their looming exams.

Instead, they were concerned about where their school's most famous former professor would take the Roman Catholic Church as Pope Benedict XVI. And they didn't exude optimism.

"It's going to be interesting to see what he does," said Thomas Burchard, a 20-year-old Protestant studying for the ministry. "He's very conservative and, like the Catholic Church, he goes against what the Bible says." . . .

Students and faculty at Tuebingen remain skeptical of [Joseph] Ratzinger, who left in 1969 partly out of disenchantment with the Marxist enthusiasm then sweeping the campus.

Thomas Burchard is 20 years old, so he was born in 1984 or 1985. Apparently the opinions of this "ex-student" were formed by his having studied under Ratzinger 15 years before his own birth. Talk about preconceived notions!

Not Too Brite--CLXXXIX
"A Pakistani man accused of desecrating the Koran was shot dead Wednesday after being chased by an angry crowd," Reuters reports from Islamabad:

Ashiq Nabi, in his thirties, was accused of being disrespectful to Islam's holy book and had been in hiding since Monday, a senior police official said.

"Today, a mob spotted him and shot him dead," said Mazahar ul Haq, police chief of Nowshera town, about 100 km (62 miles) west of the capital, Islamabad.

Oddly Enough!

(For an explanation of the "Not Too Brite" series, click here. Hat tip: Little Green Footballs.)

What Would We Do Without Foremen?
"Jury That Awarded $43 Million Found Fault With Car Company, Foreman Says"--headline, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, April 20

They Almost Struck When He Called Them 'Little Eichmanns'
"Jockeys, Churchill Reach Accord to Avoid Walkouts"--headline, Associated Press, April 20

The 42-Regular Showed Too Much Cuff
"Officials Prepared for Long Hazmat Suit"--headline, Washington Times, April 21

Sorry, Rover, We're Putting You to Sleep
"Rover Inquiry Calls for New Watchdog"--headline, Daily Telegraph (London), April 18

Metaphor Alert
From the cover story in the April issue of HealthLeaders magazine:

In the pressure cooker known as our national healthcare system, all the major players seem ready for battle. On the right, advancing slowly behind a phalanx of riot shields, are the cost-cutting forces of managed care. On the left, hurling brickbats at almost everyone, are the physicians. In the rear, licking their wounds after their latest brawl with the physicians, and plotting their next ambush on the health plans, are the hospitals. Looking on from the sidelines are the healthcare policy-makers, employers and random pundits--their theories often two steps behind the facts on the ground.

The struggles that ensue are all about power. One day you're fully in charge while the docile peasants eat cake; the next day the troops have switched sides and you're about to deposit your head in a basket.

Speaking of metaphors, the New York Press's Matt Taibbi--fleetingly notorious for a highly unfunny piece a few weeks back about the impending death of the pope--is back doing the one thing he does well--making fun of the New York Times' Thomas Friedman for his dreadful use of metaphors. From Taibbi's review of Friedman's new book, "The World Is Flat":

Thomas Friedman does not get these things right even by accident. It's not that he occasionally screws up and fails to make his metaphors and images agree. It's that he always screws it up. He has an anti-ear, and it's absolutely infallible; he is a Joyce or a Flaubert in reverse, incapable of rendering even the smallest details without genius. The difference between Friedman and an ordinary bad writer is that an ordinary bad writer will, say, call some businessman a shark and have him say some tired, uninspired piece of dialogue: Friedman will have him spout it. And that's guaranteed, every single time. He never misses. . . .

Predictably, Friedman spends the rest of his huge book piling one insane image on top of the other, so that by the end--and I'm not joking here--we are meant to understand that the flat world is a giant ice-cream sundae that is more beef than sizzle, in which everyone can fit his hose into his fire hydrant, and in which most but not all of us are covered with a mostly good special sauce.

What's Your Sign?
Yesterday's item on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's new "food pyramid" brought this response from reader Matt Raymond, the USDA's director of speechwriting:

I am checking with our Pyramid experts to find out if and why brown rice is a "dark green" vegetable. I had always thought we were classifying it among the grains. I'll let you know what I hear.

As an aside, I was amused that you wondered whether it was a "dodecahedron." The USDA speechwriting shop, as we tracked the myriad projects we were working on, referred in our written materials to the "food guidance system update" as, variously, the "food octahedron" and the "food Möbius strip," our own contribution to the high degree of secrecy that attended the impending rollout. Given Americans' penchant for overeating, this led me to muse that perhaps the best shape for food guidance might instead be a "food octagon"--preferably big and red.

Although in light of the new finding that it's healthy to be overweight, maybe an inverted white triangle with red edges would be in order.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to John Sanders, Randall Watsek, Mike Cherepov, David Cooper, Daniel Foty, A. Barton Hinkle, Brian O'Rourke, Joel Roettger, George Hawley, Rick Reiss, Barak Moore, Ethel Fenig, Robert Brooks, Paul Dyck, Timothy Belz, Chuck Opramolla, Matthew McInteer, Sheila Luke, Michael Morley and Michael Segal. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Review & Outlook: Democrats can't win the foreign-policy debate, so they resort to a smear campaign against Bolton.
• Peggy Noonan: The new pope speaks to the inner adult in all of us.
• Robert Robb: Phoenix is thriving--but you wouldn't know it from listening to our civic leaders.