Best of the Web Today: Just Tell the World, 'Go Hang' - WSJ.com

Best of the Web Today: Just Tell the World, 'Go Hang' - WSJ.com

"Wading into Iranian politics, President Barack Obama said on Tuesday there appeared to be few policy differences between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and rival Mirhossein Mousavi," Reuters reports. The New York Times has the transcript of the president's interview with CNBC's John Harwood:


Harwood: You took your time reacting to the protests in Iran after the election. What are you watching for in the handling of those protests and in the investigation of the results to--and how will that influence the dialogue that you seek to have with Iran?

Obama: Well, I think first of all, it's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons. And so we've got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election.

Obama goes on to disclaim U.S. "meddling," to express his "hope" that the regime will behave in a civilized fashion, and to reiterate his commitment to "tough diplomacy"--though the timorousness of his own public comments, here and elsewhere, belies the adjective.

But we think it is very telling that the very first point he made is that there isn't a rial's worth of difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. Let's stipulate that he's right: The election was a contest between Evildee and Evildum. We said as much Friday in arguing that an Ahmadinejad victory might be preferable because the reasonable-seeming Mousavi would be more likely to lull the West into complacency. Obama doesn't need to be lulled; he's already so heavily sedated that on Friday he was praising the "robust debate" between the candidates he now finds indistinguishable.

Our Friday analysis was predicated on the supposition that one of two outcomes would obtain: Either Mousavi would prevail in an orderly-conducted travesty of a sham election, or Ahmadinejad would. Once the regime decided to make a mockery of its travesty of a sham, it foreclosed both these possibilities. Thus Obama's analysis made no sense on Tuesday, even though it was substantially identical to ours on Friday.

Speaking very broadly, there are two possible outcomes in Iran now. The regime may succeed in crushing the opposition, enhancing its own power at the expense of whatever pretense of legitimacy it might have had a week ago. Or it may fail to do so and be weakened or overthrown. The free world has every interest in encouraging the latter outcome, and someone ought to bring the leader of the free world up to speed on the events of the past few days.

'Those Palestinian Animals'
The Jerusalem Post reports that some Iranian dissidents claim the Tehran regime has imported Palestinian terrorists to help crush the opposition:

"The most important thing that I believe people outside of Iran should be aware of," the young man went on, "is the participation of Palestinian forces in these riots."

Another protester, who spoke as he carried a kitchen knife in one hand and a stone in the other, also cited the presence of Hamas in Teheran.

On Monday, he said, "my brother had his ribs beaten in by those Palestinian animals. Taking our people's money is not enough, they are thirsty for our blood too."

It was ironic, this man said, that the victorious Ahmadinejad "tells us to pray for the young Palestinians, suffering at the hands of Israel." His hope, he added, was that Israel would "come to its senses" and ruthlessly deal with the Palestinians.

The Post includes an apposite disclaimer: "Amid the violence, confusion and government restrictions on communication, the accuracy of conflicting accounts is hard to ascertain." But certainly these claims are no less credible than Roger Cohen's "reports" about happy Iranian Jews.

Less Bad Than John Edwards
If we're going to damn Sen. John Ensign, let's at least have the decency to do it with faint praise. The Associated Press reports that Ensign, of Nevada, has resigned as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, the fourth-ranking GOP Senate leadership position, after publicly acknowledging an extramarital affair.

Politico reports that "political insiders" say "Ensign decided to acknowledge the affair publicly after the husband of the woman he had been seeing asked him for a substantial sum of money." Unnamed "sources" also "said Ensign strayed while he was separated from his wife. The two have since reconciled."

Since Ensign is a conservative Republican, he is predictably being accused of hypocrisy. From the AP:

Ensign, 51, belongs to the men's Christian ministry Promise Keepers, and has championed causes pushed by the Republican's conservative religious base. . . .

"This really doesn't help a Republican Party that has tried to run as a party of family values," said Chuck Muth, a self-described conservative-libertarian activist. "It absolutely makes the party look hugely hypocritical."

Blogger Josh Marshall is amused by a passage from a 1999 Washington Post article that a reader unearthed:

Christian politicians and evangelical leaders commonly follow an unspoken rule not to meet behind closed doors with women staff members or travel alone with them. The Rev. Billy Graham, for example, has famously refused to be alone in a room with any woman except his wife since he married her in the 1940s.

Rep. Steve Largent (R-Okla.), a Christian conservative, insists a male staff member is present whenever he meets with a woman, his spokesman said. John Ensign, who is running for senate in Nevada will not be alone in a car with a woman.

To be sure, tee hee. But in light of what we now know, doesn't this seem a reasonable precaution?

The hypocrisy charge seems to us an intellectually lazy one. Sam Stein of the Puffington Host notes that Ensign called President Clinton's conduct with Monica Lewinsky "embarrassing" and called for Clinton to resign. But he seems appropriately ashamed by his own conduct--the AP quotes him as saying "it is the worst thing I have ever done in my life"--and he has resigned, at least from his leadership post. Where exactly is the hypocrisy?

Stein also writes: "In June 2006, Ensign voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have limited marriage in the United States to unions of one man and one woman." (Actually he voted to invoke cloture; the Senate never voted on the amendment itself.) If Ensign had sought to marry another man, this might have been evidence of hypocrisy. But Stein baselessly implies that proponents of same-sex marriage are more tolerant of adultery than opponents are.

Sexual moralists do not typically claim that they are immune from temptation. To the contrary, as illustrated by the odd behavior noted in that Washington Post article, they sometimes have a hyperawareness of their vulnerability to it. Those who succumb to temptation are weak, but they are not necessarily hypocritical.

John Edwards cheated on his wife while promoting a campaign narrative in which he portrayed himself (with Mrs. Edwards's cynical collaboration) as the devoted husband of his cancer-stricken wife. Now that's hypocrisy. From the available evidence, John Ensign is nowhere near as bad a hypocrite as John Edwards. How's that for faint praise?

Editorial Bored
Last week Judge Ricardo Urbina meted out an unusual punishment to Andrew Bodnar, an erstwhile pharmaceutical executive who pleaded guilty to one count of "false certificates or writings"--essentially, lying to the federal government. Urbina ordered Bodnar "to write a book about his case as a warning to other executives," as the New York Times describes it in an editorial.

It wasn't the first time Urbina had sentenced a defendant to write. In 1998, he ordered James Lake, a former lobbyist who had pleaded guilty to making illegal campaign contributions, "to set down in writing his description of the criminal code that covered his crime."

The Times disapproves:

We do see the possibility of justice in this sentence--if Dr. Bodnar hates to write. But it feels like an invitation to insincerity. In fact, it feels a little like asking an adolescent boy to explain, in front of his friends, why telling a lie is bad, bad, bad.

You can see why the Times would object to that. It would prove that a pimply-faced kid is capable of writing New York Times editorials!

Die Another Day
The latest casualties of state lawmakers' inability to manage the state budget are already dead, the Chicago Tribune reports:

The state of lllinois is suspending payments for funerals for the indigent.

That money--$1,103 that goes to the funeral home, $552 for the cemetery -- can make the difference between a modest service and a burial in a potter's field, said John Baran of Baran Funeral Home. . . .

Illinois is one of a handful of states that offers funding for funerals for the indigent, said Roman Szabelski of the archdiocesan office of Catholic Cemeteries, which handles about 400 state-assisted funerals a year.

Catholic Cemeteries won't turn anyone away, he said.

Shouldn't that read, "won't turn any body away"?

Wannabe Pundits
Let's play "guess the topic":

Think about the times you've been brazenly lied to, right to your face, by people who used their "integrity" to fool you. Bill Clinton said, "I never had sexual relations with that woman." Even for a relatively common transgression, a country felt betrayed, never mind how it felt being misled into a disastrous war by straight-faced untruths from his successor.

Hint: The author, Howard Bryant, works for ESPN, a sports network. In case that doesn't narrow it down enough, he's writing about reports that slugger Sammy Sosa swallowed steroids.

Metaphor Alert
"Senior officials debated using a bulldozer to clear the way for fundamental reforms but decided instead to build within the shell of the existing system, offering what amounts to an architect's blueprint for modernizing a creaky old building."--from a Washington Post story on the Obama administration's financial-regulation proposals, June 17

That Guy From Nevada Sounds Pretty Fresh
"GOP's Search for Fresh Messengers Overlooks Senators"--headline, CongressDaily, June 17

'Wait Till You Hear My Next Joke!'
"Letterman Apologizes for Risque Joke About Sarah Palin's Daugher; Says He'll Do Better"--headline, Associated Press, June 15

May She Rest in Peace
"Fla. School Likely Named for Mourning Over Reno"--headline, Associated Press, June 17

This Must Be That 'World Cup' They're Always Talking About
"Soccer Star Grateful for Support"--headline, Kalamazoo (Mich.) Gazette, June 16

Why Shower When You Can Spray?
"FDA Says Zicam Nasal Spray Can Cause Loss of Smell"--headline, Associated Press, June 17

Well, Humans Do Learn in Schools
"Scientists Claim Fish 'Learn Like Humans' "--headline, InTheNews.co.uk, June 17

When Is a Shark Not a Shark?
When It's a Mule!
"Cocaine Seized in Dead Sharks"--headline, Sun (London), June 17

Oh! Oh! Delores!
"Mulva Tots Up Need for Hydrocarbons"--headline, UpstreamOnline.com, June 17

Although 'Misspelled' Is Right Up There
" 'Definitely' Is Most Commonly Misspelt Word"--headline, Daily Telegraph (London), June 15

Look Out Below!
"Eddie Bauer: Another Icon Falls"--headline, San Francisco Chronicle Web site, June 17

It's Always in the Last Place You Look
"Lockport Employees Find Break Room on Fire"--headline, Buffalo News, June 17

Everything Seemingly Is Spinning Out of Control

* "Hedges of Greenwich Succumb as Weed Invades Hedge Fund Capital"--headline, Bloomberg, June 16
* "Mulberry Mayor Attacked by Live-In Cross-Dresser"--headline, WTSP-TV Web site (Tampa, Fla.), June 17
* "Girl Has 56 Stars Tattooed on Face After 'Falling Asleep' "--headline, Daily Telegraph (London), June 16
* "Peace Could Be Bad for the Mideast Shoe Industry"--headline, Jerusalem Post, June 17
* "Lesbian Albatrosses and Bisexual Bonobos Have Last Laugh on Darwin"--headline, Times (London), June 17
* "Doughnut Glaze Leaking From Tanker Truck"--headline, Seattle Times, June 16
* "Barack Obama: The Human Flyswatter"--headline, Associated Press, June 16

News You Can Use

* "Female Water Striders Expose Their Genitalia Only After Males 'Sing' "--headline, Public Library of Science press release, June 11
* "Blarney Stone Named World's Most Unhygienic Attraction"--headline, Daily Telegraph, June 17

Bottom Stories of the Day

* "Houston's Police Chief Not Heading for San Francisco"--headline, Houston Chronicle, June 17
* "Shrine Circus Won't Have Elephants When It Comes to Garden City Friday"--headline, Idaho Statesman, June 16
* "McCartney and Yoko Push 'Meat-Free Mondays' "--headline, Agence France-Presse, June 15
* "Critics Fear Canadian Fallout From 'Buy American' "--headline, NationalJournal.com, June 16
* "Strong Words on Climate Change"--headline, Boston Globe, June 17

Be Careful What You Wish For
Yesterday's item on "hate speech" prompted several readers to write in with the observation that columnist Bonnie Erbe's comments on antiabortion extremist Randall Terry seem to fall under her own definition of hate speech, which she believes should be criminalized.

Terry called the late George Tiller, who performed late-term abortions, a "mass murderer," and Erbe in turn described Terry as "an accessory to murder" and accused him of "partaking in domestic terrorism." She also called for "reprisals" against Terry.

Now, don't get us wrong. We think that Erbe's statements, like Terry's, are fully protected by the First Amendment. If the government sought to prosecute her for them, we would be the first to speak out in her defense (assuming we could do so without running afoul of the law).

But if Erbe really believes such speech should be punished, she is quite capable of punishing herself. In lieu of a fine, she can make a "gift" to the U.S. government (we'd suggest $10,000) by following the instructions at this link. And in lieu of a prison term, she could place herself under house arrest for, say, a year.

It sounds like a high price to pay, but isn't it worth it to avoid being hypocritical?