We know we said last week that the present war against Iraq had forced us to reorganize our priorities and lay off the Sun
. But like a moth to the candle or Christopher Hitchens to the jug, I'm irresistibly attracted to Seth and Ira's waste pile of a newspaper.
With a picture that could frighten Brad Olson's kids - and even their father - complementing his byline, Ira Stoll used Steinhardt's paper as a vanity press after suffering a serious spell of Daphna Berman
ia. His article, "At an Anti-War March, Other Anti-'s [sic, with reference only to the baffling apostrophe] on Display," dutifully recorded the anti-Israel remarks of anti-war protestors at the March 22 demo. Some are more objectionable than others, which is actually quite beside the point. What Ira objects to is actually anybody suggesting a congruence of interest between G.W. Bush's present siege of Iraq - part of The War Against Terror (TWAT) - and Sharon's occupation of Palestinian land and repression of its occupants. This from an editor whose paper has said at least weekly since launch that Sharon and his Israel were fighting alongside the U.S. in its global-historical battle against terror. How can he in good faith object to the protestors arriving at the same equivalence his own paper postulates? If the Sun
's circulation figures weren't as abysmal as they are, the protestors could have been mistaken for subscribers. Ah, the SethAndIra-ny