by JAMES TARANTO
Friday, April 21, 2006 4:12 P.M. EDT

Journalistic Identity Crisis
Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher, a trade magazine for newspapermen, declares that "America faces a crisis almost without equal in recent decades":

Our president, in a time of war, terrorism and nuclear intrigue, will likely remain in office for another 33 months, with crushingly low approval ratings that are still inching lower. Facing a similar problem, voters had a chance to quickly toss Jimmy Carter out of office, and did so. With a similar lengthy period left on his White House lease, Richard Nixon quit, facing impeachment. Neither outcome is at hand this time.

So what exactly is the crisis here? The president will finish his term, as the Constitution provides. If the polls are to be believed, a significant portion of the public is unhappy with him at this moment (though who knows what they'll say tomorrow?). Big whoop. Our system of government is designed to insulate our elected representatives from the momentary passions of public opinion. If people aren't happy, they can let it be known at the ballot box in a little over six months, and again in a little over 2 1/2 years.

Again, what's the problem? Well, here's more Mitchell:

Many Republicans fear their president's image as a bumbler will hurt their party for years. The rest may fret about the almost certain paralysis within the administration, or a reversal of certain favorite policies. A Gallup poll this week revealed that 44% of Republicans want some or all troops brought home from Iraq. Do they really believe that their president will do that any time soon, if ever? . . .

No wonder so many are starting to look for a way to shorten or short-circuit the extended crisis period. Republicans demand a true shake-out at the White House. This week at Vanity Fair online, Carl Bernstein is calling for a Watergate-style congressional probe of possible high crimes and misdemeanors. . . .

I don't have a solution myself now, although all pleas for serious probes, journalistic or official, of the many alleged White House misdeeds should be heeded. But my point here is simply to start the discussion, and urge that the media, first, recognize that the crisis--or, if you want to say, impending crisis--exists, and begin to explore the ways to confront it.

The elements of the "crisis" Mitchell describes are twofold: (1) Iraq isn't Vietnam--i.e., a war the press helps lose for America; and (2) the Bush administration hasn't produced a Watergate--i.e., a corruption scandal in which the press helps bring down an administration. This isn't a crisis for America. For most Americans, Vietnam and Watergate were tragedies, and we'd rather not repeat them, thank you very much.

But it is a crisis for the press. For journalists of a certain age, Vietnam and Watergate were triumphs that they are eager to repeat. It doesn't look as though that's going to happen. Our advice to newsmen? Pray. "Lord, grant me the courage to change what I can, the serenity to accept what I cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference."

Amen. Now stop crusading and report the damn news.

Paranoid and Fatuous, All at Once
In January KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton, was awarded a contract by the Department of Homeland Security to build temporary detention facilities for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office for use "in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S.," according to a Halliburton press release:

The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other U.S. Government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster. In the event of a natural disaster, the contractor could be tasked with providing housing for ICE personnel performing law enforcement functions in support of relief efforts.

This is fuel for the paranoia of the Angry Left. On The Progressive's Web site, Ruth Coniff hysterically claims that "the detention centers raise the specter of WW II Japanese internment camps" (never mind that most of those imprisoned there were citizens). She adds:

The use of military personnel and military contractors in the event of a Katrina-like disaster, which the Halliburton contract provides for, brings us closer to martial law, whether it is officially declared or not.

The reader comments on the magazine's Web site are even crazier. Examples:

• "Not only does it recall Japanese detention camps, it recalls German concentration camps. The Germans didn't believe that the camps going to be used for regular civilians either. It seems people have a hard time seeing what is right in front of them."
  
  
• "Remember, this cabal wants to reduce population by some 80%. Why wouldn't Americans realize these camps just might be for us? Granted, Americans can't begin to think in these terms but I think that time has come. As the destruction of the middle class continues, our future appears uncertain at best."
  
  
• "The use of detention centers for housing sick people cannot be faraway since homeland security has been designated as the agency to handle the so-called avian flu epidemic when it hits our shores, and have already been authorized to use martial law and mass quarantine to do so. Can one possibly think that this mentality would stop at housing other 'dangerous' viral infectees as well, such as those with HIV? Can one seriously believe that a government that is willing to use election fraud, false propaganda, and torture would hesitate to unleash its own manufactured viral agents on bothersome segments of the population such as San Francisco, Hollywood, New Mexico, or other areas with large collections of dissenting voices?"

Over on the Daily Kos, meanwhile, "NewDirection" argues that 9/11 was no big deal:

Remember, please, that this was an act of a bunch of punks. Punks that got lucky. Not the larger Islamo-Fascist monolith that some have conjurred [sic]; that may exist as a useful concept but all evidence points to punks. And frankly it's a lot easier to credit the well-grounded "punk theory," because punks behave unpredictably and slip through cracks. The US would have swatted anything larger on the worst of days.

Sure, 9/11 changed the way we protect our country. But should it change our country? I think not. That's why I'm officially over it.

One suspects those on the Angry Left like to scare themselves with paranoid fantasies of incipient dictatorship precisely because they find it comforting to be diverted from actual dangers.

The Right Not to Be Offended
Hans Bader, a blogger for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, calls attention to a troubling case out of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In Harper v. Poway Unified School District (PDF), a three-judge panel, but a 2-1 vote, turned back Tyler Harper's claim that high school officials had violated his rights by ordering him "not to wear a T-shirt to school that read, 'BE ASHAMED, OUR SCHOOL EMBRACED WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED' handwritten on the front, and 'HOMOSEXUALITY IS SHAMEFUL' handwritten on the back." Harper was protesting a "Day of Silence" called by the school's Gay-Straight Alliance.

This is one of those situations in which everyone involved is wrong. The school should have concentrated on reading, math and the like and not gotten involved in issues of sexual orientation. If Harper insisted on protesting, he should have done so in a less obnoxious way. When he failed to do so, school officials should have shown some tolerance and let it go.

The U.S. Supreme Court should not have ruled, in Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969), that minors have a First Amendment right to engage in political speech at school. But since that is the law, the Ninth Circuit should not have carved out an exception for, as Judge Stephen Reinhardt put it, "speech that attacks high school students who are members of minority groups that have historically been oppressed, subjected to verbal and physical abuse, and made to feel inferior." As Judge Alex Kozinski notes in dissent (PDF):

If interference with the learning process is the keystone to the new right, how come it's limited to those characteristics that are associated with minority status? . . . Under the rule the majority announces today, schools would be able to ban t-shirts with pictures of Mohammed wearing a bomb turban but not those with pictures of a Crucifix dipped in urine--yet Muslim and Christian children, respectively, may have their learning equally disrupted.

The majority opines that college students are "adequately equipped emotionally and intellectually to deal with the type of verbal assaults that may be prohibited during their earlier years," and thus says "we do not condone the use in public colleges" of similar restrictions. But who is to say that immature minority college students--or, for that matter, adults who find speech in a public forum offensive--will not be able to persuade a court that they are entitled to similar protection?

An Armani Would Be Cheaper
"Kimble: Why Should Taxpayers Foot $210K in Ibarra Suit?"--headline, Tucson Citizen, April 20

It May Not Be Classy, but It Doesn't Stain
"Class-Action Status Sought in Teflon Suit"--headline, Associated Press, April 20

You Don't Say
"Attorney Proclaims Client's Innocence"--headline, Orange County (Calif.) Register, April 20

If They're Lucky, They'll Face Old Age First
"Young Could Face Death"--headline, Portsmouth (Ohio) Daily Times, April 21

But They Had Already Bought the Farm
"2 Farm Owners Die in Pa. Helicopter Crash"--headline, Associated Press, April 21

Good News for Spanky
"Scientists May Have Discovered Cure for Alfalfa Pest"--headline, Associated Press, April 21

Bottom Stories of the Day

• "Top Portuguese Wine Producer Switches to Caps"--headline, Reuters, April 19
  
  
• "Ohio Restaurant Wins Best Restroom Award"--headline, Associated Press, April 20
  
  
• "Kerry[*] 'Thinking Hard' About 2008 Run for President"--headline, Reuters, April 20

* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way promised 446 days ago to release his military records.

Bring It On!
"Eric Julien, a former French military air traffic controller and senior airport manager, has completed a study of the comet 73P Schwassmann-Wachmann and declared that a fragment is highly likely to impact the Earth on or around May 25, 2006," according to a press release from the Exopolitics Institute ("Political Analysis & Activism in Extraterrestrial Affairs"):

Comet Schwassman-Wachmann follows a five-year orbit that crosses the solar system's ecliptic plane. It has followed its five year orbit intact for centuries; but, in 1995, mysteriously fragmented. According to Julien, this is the same year that a crop circle appeared showing the inner solar system with the Earth missing from its orbit. He argues the "Missing Earth" crop circle was a message from higher intelligences warning humanity of the consequences of its destructive nuclear policies. . . .

Julien argues that the kinetic energy of even a 'car sized' fragment will impact the Earth with devastating effect. He concludes the May 25 event is tied in to the Bush administration's policy of preemptive use of nuclear weapons against Iran, and the effect of nuclear weapons on the realms of higher intelligences.

So it's Bush's fault! But at least Greg Mitchell can breathe easy. If the comet hits and destroys Earth, the president's term will be cut short, 32 months early. Crisis averted!

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Jameson Campaigne, Roger Carpenter, Daniel Goldstein, Steve Bartin, Matthew du Mee, Gustavo Stickery, Andrew Robinson, Paul Marcus, Michael Harlow, Dennis Powell, Phil Hord, Peter Iorio, Mark Schulze, E.B.S. Hirsch, Brent Silver, Andrew Penchuk, Milo Grummons and Paul Music. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Review & Outlook: The Iranian threat can't be outsourced any longer.
• Daniel Henninger: When blogs rule, we'll all talk like ----.
• Tunku Varadarajan: Identity and violence, or why we can't get along.
• The Journal Editorial Report: Tune in this weekend for a discussion of China and oil.

And on the Taste page:

• Review & Outlook: After 25 years, conservative papers have stirred campus debate.
• Tony & Tacky: Do we need new laws to ban driving while distracted?
• Barbara Phillips: Live and learn, with help from TV.
• Kevin Shapiro: Darwin isn't the enemy. Conservatives do no service to their cause by treating him as one.
• Arthur Brooks: A co-founder of Amway shares a faith in more than his products.