John Bolton, Conservative Bull in a China Shop
 

     When the Times calls you a "blunt-spoken conservative" in the first sentence of its lead story, it's a safe bet it's not meant as a compliment. That's the Times' greeting for John Bolton, Bush's choice to be ambassador to the United Nations in Tuesday's lead story by Steven Weisman, "Bush Nominates Weapons Expert As Envoy To U.N. -- Skeptic On World Group -- Choice of Bolton Draws Praise From Rice, but Diplomats Worry."

     Weisman writes: "President Bush on Monday chose John R. Bolton, a blunt-spoken conservative known for his sharp skepticism of the United Nations and international diplomacy, as the new American ambassador to the world organization. Administration officials said his appointment would strengthen efforts to hold the United Nations to effective standards. But the nomination brought expressions of concern from many diplomats speaking on the condition that they not be identified by name or country, many of whom noted that Mr. Bolton had been scathing in his criticism of the United Nations….The nomination brought strong praise from many Republicans and conservatives."

     Weisman sniffs: "Even within the Bush administration, some said they were surprised that Mr. Bolton, who only last fall angered a room full of diplomats when he spoke disdainfully of the European effort to negotiate with Iran, was picked for such a sensitive job. While the diplomats and administration insiders who raised questions did so anonymously because of the sensitivity of the nomination, in the Senate, where he will have to be confirmed, Democrats publicly criticized the appointment. Some Republicans predicted that he might have difficulty winning confirmation."

     He provides this Bolton anecdote, apparently meant to be negative: "During a particularly sensitive moment in talks with North Korea in August 2003, he described Kim Jong Il, the North's leader, as a 'tyrannical dictator' of a place where 'life is a hellish nightmare.' North Korea then labeled him 'human scum' that it would refuse to deal with."

     Of course, most people would consider being insulted by a Stalinist dictator to be a good thing to have on the resume.

To read more on Bush's choice of Bolton, click here:

Charitable Impulses Towards Labeling Terror Group Hamas
 

     Ombudsman Daniel Okrent doesn't seem impressed with complaints from readers that the Times is overly reluctant to use the term "terrorist" to apply to groups like Hamas that call for the violent overthrow of Israel and that murder Israeli citizens.

     Okrent quotes editor Ethan Bronner on Hamas, which both the EU and U.S. label a terrorist organization: "We use 'terrorist' sparingly because it is a loaded word. Describing the goals or acts of a group often serves readers better than repeating the term 'terrorist.' We make clear that Hamas seeks the destruction of Israel through violence but that it is also a significant political and social force among Palestinians, fielding candidates and running clinics and day care centers."

     The Times often takes pains to points out the allegedly charitable impulses of  Hamas, as if it such propaganda moves somehow mitigate the group's killing of civilians.

For the rest of Okrent's piece, click here:

No Labels for Left-Wing Anti-Bush Groups
 

     Tuesday's filing by campaign finance reporter Glen Justice, "Group Opens $2 Million Drive For Bush Social Security Plan," stacks the labeling deck in its opening line: "The Progress for America Voter Fund, a Republican political advocacy group, began a $2 million campaign of television commercials on Monday, rolling out a minutelong advertisement supporting President Bush's Social Security plan."

     But while Progress for America is called a "Republican" group, Justice notes "some other organizations are using less traditional means to oppose the president. Organized labor, for example, has been pressing financial services companies to quit the business-heavy lobbying coalitions that back Mr. Bush's plan." For some reason Justice refrains from calling the other groups "Democratic political advocacy groups" or "liberal."

     Not even the far-left, anti-Bush MoveOn is slapped with a political or ideological label: "Other groups have also tried novel approaches. MoveOn.org's political action committee, for example, began a contest last week inviting supporters to send in animations, games or other interactive devices that 'convey the consequences for future retirees' under Mr. Bush's plan, which the organization opposes."

For Justice's full story, click here:

Ward Churchill and "The Limits of Free Speech"
 

     Kirk Johnson returns to the Ward Churchill beat for Tuesday's story on a surprise resignation: "The president of the University of Colorado, Elizabeth Hoffman, resigned Monday after struggling with a football recruiting scandal and a firestorm over a professor who likened some Sept. 11 victims to Nazis….His name has become a cue-card for heavy debate on talk radio and television about political balance in academia, the limits of free speech -- and perhaps most viscerally on campus -- who really runs Colorado's higher education system."

     But the bulk of Johnson's story is devoted not to the left-wing domination of academia but to the liberal idea that attacking Churchill for comparing WTC victims to Nazis somehow is an attack on free speech: "But on the campus at Boulder, 30 miles northwest of Denver, some faculty members said the announcement had deepened their fears for the university's traditions of open debate, adding that a speech last week by Dr. Hoffman, in which she warned of a 'new McCarthyism' stalking the country, had perhaps heightened pressure for her to resign. Margaret LeCompte, a professor in the school of education who has spoken in support of Professor Churchill, said she believed that a 'concerted attack on the university by the right wing' was a factor in Dr. Hoffman's resignation. The president's comments about McCarthyism, Professor LeCompte added, 'may have been the straw that broke the camel's back for the right wing's desire to have her head.' Many faculty members said in recent interviews that the university was deeply divided over how to respond to the issues raised by the Churchill case. Many denounced the professor's Sept. 11 essay while defending his right to free expression. Others say the controversy has been deepened by personality, especially Professor Churchill's refusal to apologize or back down."

     Back on February 11 Johnson made similar fretful noises: " Others worry that subjects like Sept. 11 have become 'sacred,' and cordoned off from unpopular analysis….Many students interviewed on campus in recent days said they feared that the lines being drawn around Professor Churchill were also creating boundaries about what could be freely and safely talked about in the United States."

The Times' vaunted concern for free inquiry and open debate was mostly absent from its stories on Harvard President Larry Summers' much milder remarks on women in science.

For the rest of Johnson on Ward Churchill and other woes at UC, click here:

No Pro-Abortion "Liberals"?
 

     There's some typical labeling disparity in Tuesday's story from congressional reporter Sheryl Gay  Stolberg, "Bankruptcy Bill Is Arena for Abortion Fight."

     Stolberg sets the story up: "A bankruptcy bill pending before the Senate is about to provide a forum for the first abortion battle of the new Congress, and how it plays out could set the stage for much larger fights over abortion restrictions and judicial nominees, including perhaps a nominee to the Supreme Court."

     She cites "conservative" opposition: "Though the National Right to Life Committee has been silent on the amendment, conservative advocacy groups have taken up the cause, calling the measure an unfair attack on the clinic protesters' constitutional right to freedom of speech. In an e-mail message to supporters, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called the amendment 'blatant bigotry against free speech and pro-life activism.' Mr. Thune said that message appeared to be getting out."

     Yet there are no liberals on the other side, only advocates for abortion rights: "Abortion rights advocates are energized as well. Lobbyists for Naral Pro-Choice America, which aroused the ire of other abortion rights advocates by remaining neutral on the fetal pain bill, spent Wednesday on Capitol Hill pressing lawmakers to back the Schumer amendment."

     Later she quotes NARAL's president but even then eschews an ideological label, while noting that "conservatives" helped pass the partial-birth abortion ban: "[Nancy] Keenan said the lobbying fit in with a broader strategy to turn the debate away from the grisly details of abortion -- which in 2003 helped conservatives pass the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the first federal law banning a specific abortion procedure -- and toward preventing unwanted pregnancies. To that end, Naral is also pressing lawmakers who oppose abortion to sign on to its Prevention First Act, a measure that would provide women access to birth control and increase financing for sex education. The bill is sponsored by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, who opposes abortion; Naral recently sent an open letter to abortion opponents asking them to support the bill."

To read the rest of Stolberg, click here: