Donald Luskin is going to have to work very hard to keep his title. Just saying.
Here we have Charles Krauthammer, who wrote that:
Times Online: the idea of teaching intelligent design -- creationism's "modern step-child" -- was "insane". "To teach it as science is to encourage the supercilious caricature of America as a nation in the thrall of a religious authority," [Krauthammer] wrote. "To impose it on the teaching of evolution is ridiculous."
But, Krauthammer goes on to say, even though teaching it is insane, for George W. Bush to advocate teaching it is clever and good:
Times Online: [Krauthammer] added: "If you look at this purely as a cynical political move, it will help in the heartlands and people of my ilk care a lot more about Iraq than about textbooks in Kansas."
And here, from National Review, we have Cliff May positing that all spouses of American diplomats should be suspected of being undercover CIA agents:
The Corner on National Review Online: VALERIE WILSON A.K.A. VALERIE PLAME [Cliff May]From Wizbang via Instapundit: "So, via Who's Who, the name 'Valerie Plame' has been associated publicly with Joe Wilson since the Clinton era - nice secret..." Yes, and you see what this means? It means that for years, anyone who met Valerie Plame while she was "under cover" posing as an energy analyst for a private company could have very easily found out from the most open of sources that she was married to an American diplomat.
You think that might have made them a tad suspicious that she could have some kind of link to the U.S. government? Nah! Again, what this really suggests is that the agency's tradecraft had become as sloppy as its analysis...
We also have Kathryn Lopez, who cannot be described by mere words:
Roger Ailes: Kathryn Jean Lopez:
I CERTAINLY KNOW LIFE DIDN'T BEGIN IN THE FALL OF 2001, BUT... [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Am I wrong to be justifiably uncomfortable with the Hiroshima headline in the Washington Post today? "The Original Ground Zero." Anyone who's lived in America in the past few years knows what "Ground Zero" conjures up. What we dropped in Japan is such a complicated question. What was done to us on 9/11/01 has no reasonable-people-can-disagree justification. I am pretty sure I am reading way too much into that Post headline, but it left me feeling like it should have been written some other way.
"Ground Zero" at Hiroshima has been called "Ground Zero" since 1945:
Ground zero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Ground zero... in the case of a bomb designed to explode in the air, it refers to the point on the ground directly below the bomb at the moment of detonation.... [I]t is, of course, the point of highest damage. Around that spot are drawn concentric circles showing how far out from the impact point the damage is. The term has chiefly come to be associated with nuclear explosions, but is also used for earthquakes, epidemics and other disasters.
It was military slang--used at the Trinity site where the weapon tower for the first nuclear weapon was at point 'zero'--and moved into general use very shortly after the end of World War II...