The Iraq election’s over, the media did their best to ignore it, and, judging from the rippling torsos I saw every time I switched on the TV, the press seem to reckon that that gay cowboy movie was the big geopolitical event of the last week, if not of all time. Yes, yes, I know: They’re not, technically, cowboys, they’re gay shepherds, but even Hollywood isn’t crazy enough to think it can sell gay shepherds to the world. And the point is, even if I was in the mood for a story about two rugged insecure men who find themselves strangely attracted to each other in a dark transgressive relationship that breaks all the rules, who needs Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger when you’ve got Howard Dean and Abu Musad al-Zarqawi? Yee-haw! And, if that sounds unfair, pick almost any recent statement by a big-time Dem cowboy and tell me how exactly it would differ from the pep talks Zarqawi gives his dwindling band of head-hackers — Dean arguing that America can’t win in Iraq, Barbara Boxer demanding the troops begin withdrawing on Dec. 15, John Kerry accusing American soldiers of terrorizing Iraqi women and children, Jack Murtha declaring that the U.S. Army is utterly broken. Pepper ’em with a handful of “Praise be to Allahs” and any one of those statements could have been uttered by Zarqawi.
The Democratic Party have contrived to get themselves into a situation where bad news from Iraq is good for them and good news from Iraq is bad for them. And as there’s a lot more good news than bad these days, that puts them, politically, in a tough spot — even with a fawning media that, faced with Kerry and Murtha talking what in any objective sense is drivel, decline to call for the men with white coats but instead nod solemnly and wonder whether Bush is living “in a bubble.”
A hundred and two years ago, the Wright brothers kicked off a new era of heavier-than-air flight. I wrote several pieces on the subject on the centennial.
But what would be the problem with this: someone with an axe to grind approaches me to write a piece on a topic for compensation. I say that I don’t do that kind of quid pro quo, even though I agree with the subject. But I do have a tip jar, and can point it out to them. If I write the piece that I want to write (perhaps partially based on material provided to me by them), and they like it sufficiently to make a donation of an amount of their choosing, is there anything wrong with that? The only way I’ve been influenced is by the idea of writing the piece in the first place.
Where is the line crossed? Only when there’s an explicit quid pro quo, in which one is being a stenographer in exchange for an agreed-upon amount?
I agree with Glenn–it’s hard for me to get very upset about the failure to extend the so-called Patriot Act. And as with the idiotic “assault weapons” ban, it demonstrates the value of having sunset clauses in legislation. I still think that there would be few constitutional amendments as powerful, and beneficial, as this one.
Of course, as usual, they break it down by race. But what would interest me much more is how it breaks down by major. How do engineers compare to science majors compare to English majors? How about “Womens” or “Ethnic Studies”?
Especially sad, I suspect, might be the results for schools of education, and journalism. But they don’t show them.
Of course, as usual, they break it down by race. But what would interest me much more is how it breaks down by major. How do engineers compare to science majors compare to English majors? How about “Womens” or “Ethnic Studies”?
Especially sad, I suspect, might be the results for schools of education, and journalism. But they don’t show them.