From the WSJ Opinion Archives

by JAMES TARANTO
Friday, April 29, 2005 2:50 P.M. EDT

Stop Making Sense
Earlier this week, a once-prominent American politician weighed in on the questions of judicial appointees, the filibuster and religion in politics, and he made a lot of sense. Here's what he said:

We began as a nation with a clear formulation of the basic relationship between God, our rights as individuals, the government we created to secure those rights, and the prerequisites for any power exercised by our government.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident," our founders declared. "That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. . . ."

But while our rights come from God, as our founders added, "governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed."

So, unlike our inalienable rights, our laws are human creations that derive their moral authority from our consent to their enactment--informed consent given freely within our deliberative processes of self-government.

Any who seek to wield the powers of government without the consent of the people, act unjustly.

Excellent points, sir! America was founded with "a clear formulation of the basic relationship" between God and government--a rebuke to those who today would disfranchise religious believers. Laws "derive their moral authority from our consent." Take that, activist judges! And "any who seek to wield the powers of government without the consent of the people, act unjustly." Reactionary Democrats are wrong to subvert majority rule via the filibuster.

What's odd about this is that the speaker was Al Gore, and he doesn't actually believe any of this. Even so, it's nice of him to say it.

The Post Defends Its Phony Poll
In an online question-and-answer session yesterday, a reader asked Michael Abramowitz, the Washington Post's No. 2 national editor, about the misleading poll questions we noted Tuesday:

Washington, D.C.: You chose a very badly worded poll question to highlight as a front page headline yesterday. Why in the world would you do this? Everyone makes mistakes in designing polls, but it should be your job as editor to ensure that polls are interpreted correctly. Giving so much play to an obviously misleading poll result suggests that you are more interested in creating catchy [sic]

Abramowitz: I am getting a number of questions about our poll yesterday, which indicated substantial opposition to GOP efforts to end filibusters of judicial nominees in the Senate. Let me make a general point about our polling operation, which is run by Rich Morin, one of the best in the business. He is scrupulously fair, and he goes over these questions in depth with other editors and reporters. I thought the questions in this case were fine. . . .

I would like to quote Rich directly on the question of biased questions, which has come up a bit on blogs in the last day or two. Here is what he said: "The debate over judicial selection currently raging is political and it is deeply partisan. It is a fact that Republicans are trying to change the filibuster rule to make it easier to get a vote on the contested Bush nominees--that is the context of the current standoff. To omit that information about the partisan cast of the debate would bias the result by completely removing the issue from its context. Also, I believe the question does not plant biases that would unfairly favor Democrats or disadvantage Bush or the Republicans. Yes, the question does state the obvious by reminding Democrats about the partisan nature of the debate and what the immediately [sic] effect of making a change would be. But the language also would be expected, appropriately so, to cue Bush supporters, Republicans and religious conservatives in a positive way. The fact that the question attempts to sort out Democrats and Republicans, Bush supporters and Bush opponents, in a way consistent with their interests is an advantage, not a disadvantage."

To summarize Morin's argument: The poll accurately presents this as a partisan dispute. Republicans and Democrats can be expected to know which side of the partisan dispute they are on. Therefore the poll is fair.

This is nonsense. The survey subjects are not politically active Democratic and Republican partisans but "randomly selected adults," many of whom belong to neither party, and many of whom likely know nothing more about the issue than what the poll questions tell them.

A poll question that seeks to gauge public opinion on such a matter should present the argument for each side and ask people to choose between them. But the Post poll presented only the Democratic talking points--that a majority of judges haven't been blocked and that the other side wanted to change the rules "to make it easier for the Republicans." It never used the word filibuster or stated the crucial fact that the Democrats are preventing the Senate from voting on the nominees at all.

The problem with the poll questions is not, as Morin claims, that they provided "information about the partisan cast of the debate." It is that they presented only one side of the argument, leading one to suspect that this was not an honest effort to gauge public opinion about the debate but a dishonest effort to influence the outcome.

Who Needs Anger Management?

"Republicans need anger management. I talk to young people all the time, and . . . their . . . big gripe is that there's no difference between the two parties. Not true: The Republicans are much more ticked off. . . . Oh sure, the Democrats get riled up every now and then. . . . But it's not nearly the kind of vein-popping, gut-churning rage that consumes the entire right wing."--Bill Maher, Los Angeles Times, April 29

"From my point of view, they are the Antichrist of the world."--Sen. Ken Salazar (D., Colo.), referring to Focus on the Family, April 26. Salazar later clarified and said he only meant to call the group "un-Christian."

". . . the right-wing crackpots--sorry, 'people of faith'--can spend megabucks to promote knuckle-dragging judges . . ."--columnist Alex Beam, Boston Globe, April 26

"you hear that sound? thats the sound of the world's smallest violin playing one for the Zell 'The Psycho from Hell' Miller . . . I wouldn't give two sh--s for that feckless traitor to float on if he were drowning."--"NNguyenMD," on news that conservative Democrat Zell Miller is ill, DemocraticUnderground.com, April 29 (quoted verbatim except for the omitted vulgarity)

Orwell, Call Your Office
The Washington Times notes a curious comment by a Democratic congresswoman on the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which the House passed Wednesday, and which would make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines to evade her home state's parental-notification laws:

Democrats said Congress is intruding unfairly into family issues and said Republicans have not learned from their attempts to intervene in the case of a brain-damaged Florida woman.

"The people of this country don't want the government intruding" in family disputes, said Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat.

In fact, this bill would not intrude into family disputes; it does precisely the opposite: It would punish those who intrude into family disputes by helping girls procure abortions without their parents' knowledge.

In yesterday's item about the act, we noted the incongruity of the Associated Press's equating the injury of an unborn child during an assault on the mother with abortion. The Houston Press reports on a case in which this equation actually does make sense:

Sixteen-year-old Erica Basoria was pregnant with twins by her 18-year-old boyfriend, Gerardo "Jerry" Flores. Basoria's family wanted her to abort the pregnancy, but Flores had urged her not to. Five months into the pregnancy, she miscarried. Police became suspicious when doctors reported that her body was bruised, and her explanations for the injuries didn't add up.

When the police questioned Flores, they learned that Basoria had changed her mind about carrying the twins to term:

After Erica's doctor's visit a week earlier, Jerry said, she had decided she didn't want to be pregnant anymore. She'd heard that if someone stood on a pregnant woman's stomach, you could abort the babies. For days, she'd asked Jerry to do it. He didn't want to, but ultimately he gave in.

Erica lay on the bedroom floor, and Jerry, about five foot eight and 180 pounds, stepped onto her stomach, just above the navel. Then he pressed his K-Swiss sneakers into her flesh. Their statements vary as to how often they repeated this process. Jerry said it was two or three times during the week leading up to the miscarriage; Erica said he stepped on her twice in the two weeks prior to the miscarriage.

Flores is now in jail, facing two counts of capital murder. But Basoria is "guilty of nothing, since a mother has the right to end her pregnancy."

This is a tragic case all the way around, and we're inclined to think that prosecutors should show Flores some mercy and charge him with a lesser crime than capital murder. Still, even if one thinks a woman should have the right to choose, can't everyone agree that standing on her stomach is a form of abortion that ought to be criminalized?

Death Sentence for 'Antiwar' Murderer
"A military jury sentenced a soldier to death Thursday for a grenade and rifle attack on his own comrades during the opening days of the Iraq invasion, a barrage that killed two officers and that prosecutors said was driven by religious extremism," the Associated Press reports from Fort Bragg, N.C.

The crime, which we noted at the time, followed by a few days the hoisting of a banner at a San Francisco "peace" march that read: WE SUPPORT OUR TROOPS WHEN THEY SHOOT THEIR OFFICERS.

Waffle-Eating Ingrates
Here's an annoying Reuters dispatch from Brussels:

Belgian doctors sent an Iraqi girl home on Thursday after treating her for leg wounds caused by a bomb during the U.S. invasion -- and sent the 51,570 euro ($66,650) bill to the U.S. embassy.

"We haven't heard from them yet," said Bert De Belder, coordinator of the humanitarian agency Medical Aid for Third World which brought the girl to Belgium.

"I'm curious to know their reaction," he told Reuters. "We're giving them 10 days to respond. . . . I don't think they will pay it."

How about this: We'll pay the Belgians' medical bills when they compensate us for saving them from Hitler.

Generalissimo Francisco Franco Is Still Dead
"Hitler Long Gone But Legacy Still Haunts Germany"--headline, Reuters, April 29

Who Knew Eve Was Norwegian?
"Norwegian Court Convicts First Woman for Rape"--headline, Reuters, April 28

They Also Called Him a Murderer
"The Iowa Court of Appeals today threw out the first-degree murder conviction of a Des Moines man who claimed he didn't get a fair trial because prosecutors called him a coward several times and a liar."--Des Moines Register, April 28

Did They Catch the Authorities Who Did It?
"On this date: . . . In 1996, former CIA Director William Colby was presumed drowned by authorities in Maryland after an apparent boating accident; his body was later recovered."--"Today in History," Associated Press, April 29

Assisted Suicide
"Police who went to the aid of a distraught man jumping off a bridge in Seattle ended up shooting him early this morning."--KOMO-TV, April 29

What Would We Do Without Jail Officials?
"Jail Official: Woman Who Hanged Self Seemed Disturbed"--headline, Tucson Citizen, April 29

What Would We Do Without Police?
"Police Warn of Robbers"--headline, Chicago Tribune, April 28

Not Robbers?
"N.Y. Police Blame IPods for Subway Crime"--headline, Associated Press, April 27

Not iPods?
"Police Seek 'Thieves' Stealing Donation Money"--headline, Daily Independent (Ridgecrest, Calif.), April 28

What Does a Headless Tourist Put on His Passport Photo?
"Hope for Headless Tourism Agency"--headline, Press-Enterprise (Riverside, Calif.), April 27

They'd Better Move
"Birds May Be Behind Exploding German Toads"--headline, Associated Press, April 28

We'll Drink to That
"It's the news drinkers have waited years to hear--alcohol consumption is good for your brain," reports London's Evening Standard:

A pint of beer or a glass of wine triggers the growth of new brain cells and boosts memory, scientists say. . . . The growth of new neurons could improve memory and learning, said Prof Stefan Brene, who carried out the research at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. . . .

The findings did not surprise members of the Campaign for Real Ale. "It is well known that alcohol in moderation is good for your body so it's no surprise it's also good for your mind," said a spokeswoman. "Maybe that is why lots of pub quiz teams are so bright."

But there is a caution: "The increased production of new nerve cells while drinking can lead to alcohol addiction," says Brene. Besides, if you know too much, the Mafia might kill you.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Richard Belzer, Peter Sprigg, Ethel Fenig, Ed Lasky, Mary Serr, Michael Graham, Dan O'Shea, Barak Moore, Jim Orheim, Michael Kingsley, David Shapero, Jim Sharp, Vern Beachy, Paul Burns, Kevin Patrick, Pete Drum, William Dabney, James Eggert, Mary Ellen Lewis, Chuck Opramolla, Jim Pitcavage, Nathan Whitlock, Ben Boychuk, Nick Olson, John Sanders and Mordecai Bobrowsky. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

And on the Taste page:

  • Review & Outlook: What, me learn a foreign language?
  • Tony & Tacky: The Chicago Trib's mistaken mug shots; Frozen Dead Guy's daughter wants cold hard cash.
  • Tunku Varadarajan: Bolton is an anti-diplomat--just the right man for the U.N.
  • Michael Steinberger: Sick of hearing about Harvard? So is everyone else--except Harvard-educated journalists.
  • Jill Stewart: Why is L.A.'s liberal mayor attacking the ACLU?

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