Wall Street Journal tries its hand at comedy

[RTFirefly]

This isn’t a rant, but I couldn’t figure out where else it should go. So here we are.

The WSJ’s online presence has a “Best of the Web today” which largely posts stuff for the purposes of showing its idiocy. Unsurprisingly, given their particular worldview, their aim’s a bit off today. Some examples:

Dean also claimed that “there’s only one person who’s contending for the Democratic nominee for president who did serve in the military.” Presumably he’s referring to Dick Gephardt’s service in the Missouri Air National Guard (1965-71). Dean apparently is unaware that another Democratic candidate, John Kerry, also served in the military. He was in the Navy from 1966 through 1970 and the Naval Reserves from 1972 through 1978. He even served in Vietnam. Granted, Kerry doesn’t exactly advertise his military service, but you’d think Dean could be troubled to do a little research before he makes statements like this about his opponents.

Or he could have meant Kerry, regarding Reserve service as something less than ‘real’ military service in an era where nothing less than a world war was likely to result in the reserves being called up. (Times have changed, obviously.)

He adds that “we don’t know whether in the long run the Iraqi people are better off” without Saddam Hussein

We don’t, of course. If they have some sort of stable government, chances are it will be better than Saddam’s. But we don’t even know yet that Iraq will have a stable government after we leave.

“We knew there weren’t any weapons of mass destruction. That was a fraud. I’ve been a mayor of a city, and I understand where the weapons are, Mr. Bush. You come to urban America. We’ll show you weapons of mass destruction. Homelessness is a weapon of mass destruction. And joblessness is a weapon of mass destruction. Poor health care is a weapon of mass destruction. And lying to the American people is a weapon of mass destruction.”–Dennis Kucinich

Makes total sense to me.

In a publication called Resurgence, one Jane Goodall, “founder of Roots And Shoots, an environmental and humanitarian programme for young people,” claims that war is bad for the environment. But how can we believe a word she says when she commits a howler such as this: “People prefer not to know, not to think about such things but rather, like some gigantic flock of ostriches, bury their heads in the sand. As more and more of that sand becomes contaminated as a result of war and the preparations for war, the outlook for the ostriches–and for all life on Earth–will become increasingly desolate.”

As Straight Dopester Cecil Adams points out, ostriches do not bury their heads in the sand.

Absolutely true. But not only is it not germane, but it’s not exactly primatologist Jane Goodall’s field.

Life Imitates National Lampoon:

“Gay Palestinians Attempt to Blow Away Stereotypes, Jews”–headline, NationalLampoon.com, April 4, 2002

“Canada’s Gay Muslims Unite to Celebrate Their Faith and Their Sexuality”–headline, Canadian Press, June 18, 2003

Okeydokey.

Who Knew?
“Study: Discount Hotel Rates Cut Revenue”–headline, Associated Press, June 23

It’s odd that they find this obvious. Yes, you can make it up in volume when you cut your profit margins. And of course, the WSJ was a big booster of the Reagan-Laffer claim, a quarter-century ago, that cutting taxes would actually boost tax revenues. (What, it cut them? Who knew?!)

And finally:

CNSNews.com reports that at the same conference Gephardt claimed that President Bush heads a “radical extreme administration” that “has sold your government to the special interests of the country.”

I think it was the Washington Monthly that recently compared Bush’s and Reagan’s agendas, and found that Bush was further right, and more in the big boys’ pockets, than the conservative icon was. So Gephardt’s got a point.

[minty_green]

You’re just trying to flush out the SDMB screen name of James Taranto, aren’t you? And I can’t blame you–any Doper worthy of the name knows the difference between one of Cecil’s columns and a Staff Report.

[december]

Whether or not James Taranto is funny is a matter of personal taste. I sometimes literally laugh out loud. Some of his puns are brazenly awful. Of course, I agree with him about most issues.

My guess is that those who do not share his world view will not appreciate his humor, as **RTFirefly **does not.

[JonScribe]

All in all, about as rip-snorting hee-larious as the average Sunday panel of “Mallard Fillmore.”

[Scylla]

RTF:

It’s odd that they find this obvious. Yes, you can make it up in volume when you cut your profit margins. And of course, the WSJ was a big booster of the Reagan-Laffer claim, a quarter-century ago, that cutting taxes would actually boost tax revenues. (What, it cut them? Who knew?!)

Really? I didn’t know that. In fact I was pretty sure there was a dramatic increase in Government receipts between 1980 and 1988.

I’ll be very surprised to see that what you say is true provided of course you have a cite.

[Sam_Stone]

RT, you got whooshed by Taranto. Of course he knows that Dean was talking about Kerry - it’s a running joke in the BotWT that Kerry manages to work his Vietnam service into every sentence he utters: “Excuse me, but as a Vietnam vet, I have to go to the bathroom.”

quote:

He adds that “we don’t know whether in the long run the Iraqi people are better off” without Saddam Hussein

We don’t, of course. If they have some sort of stable government, chances are it will be better than Saddam’s. But we don’t even know yet that Iraq will have a stable government after we leave.

The possibility that the Iraqi people will be worse off without Saddam is so remote as to be ridiculous. How much worse can you get than to have your GDP cut by a factor of five, to live under a police state, and to have millions of citizens killed by a homicidal maniac.

It’s like saying that leaving a woman to be raped might be better than helping her, because if you help her she might get hit by a car on the way home. It’s idiotic. Anyone who thinks that political instability and temporary dislocation is even remotely likely to be as bad as Saddam’s rule just doesn’t have a grasp on how truly horrible that regime was. It ranks up there with Nazi Germany and the Cambodian Killing Fields for true awfulness.

quote:

“We knew there weren’t any weapons of mass destruction. That was a fraud. I’ve been a mayor of a city, and I understand where the weapons are, Mr. Bush. You come to urban America. We’ll show you weapons of mass destruction. Homelessness is a weapon of mass destruction. And joblessness is a weapon of mass destruction. Poor health care is a weapon of mass destruction. And lying to the American people is a weapon of mass destruction.”–Dennis Kucinich

Makes total sense to me.

Only because you want to believe what he’s saying. To the rest of us, it sounds like idiotically twisting a well-defined phrase to make a political point.

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**I was pretty sure there was a dramatic increase in Government receipts between 1980 and 1988.

You might consider the Reagan Administration’s two big tax increases - the Bob Dole-led tax hike of 1982, and especially the Social Security tax boost of 1983.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by RTFirefly *
**You might consider the Reagan Administration’s two big tax increases - the Bob Dole-led tax hike of 1982, and especially the Social Security tax boost of 1983. **

Allright. But what I’m looking for is support that those tax cuts you refer to lowered receipts over the span of his presidency.

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
The possibility that the Iraqi people will be worse off without Saddam is so remote as to be ridiculous…It’s like saying that leaving a woman to be raped might be better than helping her, because if you help her she might get hit by a car on the way home. It’s idiotic.

If we’re going for analogies, how about a woman kicked out of the house by her abusive husband, who gets gang-raped and beaten to death by a wilding gang.

There’s always room for ‘worse’. Especially as long as the possibility exists of a future with no recognized authority.

Anyone who thinks that political instability and temporary dislocation is even remotely likely to be as bad as Saddam’s rule just doesn’t have a grasp on how truly horrible that regime was.

Who said anything about “political instability and temporary dislocation”? I was talking about the total breakdown of civil order, which could well happen after we pull out. That’s worse than all but the worst dictatorships.

It ranks up there with Nazi Germany and the Cambodian Killing Fields for true awfulness.

Sam, that’s worse than Godwinizing. The Cambodian killing fields were pretty much in a class by themselves in terms of total horror. Compared to that, Iraq under Saddam was a frickin’ walk in the park. Be real.

Only because you want to believe what he’s saying. To the rest of us, it sounds like idiotically twisting a well-defined phrase to make a political point.

I would suggest reading Pelecanos.

At any rate, the point is that, right or wrong, none of these instances are the obvious idiocies that the WSJ suggests they are. At best (from their side) there are arguments on both sides. At worst, they’ve got it backwards as to who’s the idiot. In either case, they’re wrong.

[MMI]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**The possibility that the Iraqi people will be worse off without Saddam is so remote as to be ridiculous. How much worse can you get than to have your GDP cut by a factor of five, to live under a police state, and to have millions of citizens killed by a homicidal maniac.
**

Is the 80% GDP reduction wrt 1965=100, 1980=100 or 1990=100? My guess is the latter of the three, as a quick google-ing showed sites report 75% real GDP decline over the 1991-2000 timeframe. If that is the case, then do the enforcers of the sanctions share any of the responsibility for the effects of those sanctions, given that the outside world was aware of the effects of those sanctions on the Iraqi people and it now appears possible that Iraq may have unilaterally destroyed its remaining WMD’s (unilaterally in the sense of no one else being present rather than voluntarily out of the goodness of their hearts).

I am curious as to your millions of citizens number - checking out the numbers from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030404-1.html I get numbers of ~300,000 killed by the regime. Even if that is a lowball by a factor of 2 would still only* give 600k. A further 400,000 deaths to children under 5 due to malnutrition as a consequence of sanctions - these deaths can only be ambiguously laid at Hussein’s feet.

From http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm Iraqi Iran-Iraq war casualties come to 375000**. I would hesitate to include soldiers killed in war, even a poorly planned, poorly executed war of aggression, to a leader’s butchers bill.

What is my point? Maybe I don’t have one. I guess that there is no need for hyperbole. His numbers are horrific enough without exaggeration - he killed 1-2% of his population suppressing revolts and to secure power. Another 1-2% were casuaties in his wars. An additional 2% died as a result of sanctions.
*I am using only in the sense that 600k << “millions”, not to trivialize the nastiness of Hussein’s regime
** The site is unclear as to whether “casualties” means “killed, wounded, or missing” or “casualties” means “killed”

[MMI]

Wow, that was completely off topic. Sorry. I have no particular opinon wrt the OP.