NY Times columnist William Safire often channelled Richard Nixon, speaking from beyond the grave, as a literary device. Here we call upon the spirit of Brittany, our late beloved guinea pig and one-time honorary web editor. Hey, it’s Easter, so it’s okay to chat with the dead.

You’ll never guess what our comrades on the Left are exercised about now, Brittany.

Well, let’s see, the United States is still in the midst of a global war with Al Qaida and other radical Islamic groups, right? So I can only guess that they must be upset about terrorists, or something.

Close. Actually, they’re upset that we’re about to deport one.

That’s not funny, Mick.

I’m not kidding.

WTF?

Seriously, this dude lied on his immigration papers about previous terrorist activity, and now he’s going to be deported.

Surely there must be some kind of extenuating circumstances…

Well, he was 17 when he was involved in terrorist activity with Fatah.

Oh, ok, so he was just a young boy, cheering them on from the sidelines, chanting death to America, maybe burning a flag or two…

Mm, actually no, it was a bit more intense than that. He threw a bomb at a bus carrying Israeli civilians and lobbed Molotov cocktails at Israeli soldiers.

But he’s innocent, right, and these are just trumped-up charges?

No, he confessed to this activity, and also that he was “part of a conspiracy to bomb an Israeli police station in Nablus, in the West Bank.”

Oh, so all of the sudden it’s a deportable crime to throw bombs at buses and explosive devices at Israeli soldiers?

He’s being deported because he lied about it while seeking permanent resident alien status in the U.S.

Well, I have heard that the I-485 form is a regular labyrinth, a “perjury trap” if you will.

As you know, Brittany, I used to work for an immigration law firm, and I’ve never heard of someone unintentionally screwing up on the terrorism question.

The I-485 is essentially three pages; the first page has blanks for your name, address, some personal info, and a checkbox for application type; page two requests background information on your family, where you’re from, and any affiliations you may have had since age 16; the third page has just 14 relatively easy yes-or-no questions about your criminal record and your intentions in the United States.

Maybe you don’t realize the question at issue here is 81 words long…

…divided into five related clauses, all having to do with terrorism and support of terrorism.

Even if all you do is skim the question, you get this: “Have you ever engaged in… terrorist activity?”

Once you start seeing words like “sabotage, kidnapping, political assassination, hijacking or any other form of terrorist activity,” you’re going to take notice. You’ll make sure you understand the question, even if you have to read it twice.

In any case, he pleaded guilty to making false statements, and his attorney didn’t make any ridiculous “but this form is a perjury trap” arguments.

So he’s out of the country for good, then?

No, he’s just barred from legally reentering the country for a period of three years, after which time he can request residency again.

Let me get this straight. He was a terrorist. He lied about it. Now he’s being deported, but he can come back in a couple years. Why is the Left so upset, again?

Um, let’s see… because he’s a “slightly built” man?

Oh, I get it. He’s being starved and abused by the government, then.

Well, no. He told the judge that “he had not been mistreated during his confinement.”

Maybe he’s just a guy who got caught up in the wrong crowd, then somehow landed in Memphis where he’s a doctor or a religious worker, something like that. He’s reformed, and contributing to the community.

For one thing, the U.S. attorney described him as a “former Palestinian Authority intelligence officer,” but, whatever… the guy threw bombs at people, for crying out loud. And if he were “reformed,” he wouldn’t have lied on his immigration papers.

The accounts are somewhat jumbled, but as for occupation, he was apparently a car salesman and real estate investor. I just don’t know what the community will do without him.

Oh, and he’s not from Memphis, he lived in the Collierville and Germantown area.

I thought that was a “lily white enclave.”

Well, yeah, now it is.

Your assignment: read this story in the Commercial Appeal and the Memphis Flyer, then tell me which writer has better news judgment, and which makes best use of the inverted pyramid. Bonus points for the reader who points out the most discrepancies between the two accounts.

UPDATE: It’s take two at the Flyer, and this one is even more ridiculous than the first.

Wendi Thomas has a column in today’s CA about a survey on race we discussed in January 2006, after reading an article in the Washington Post (which had followed an earlier WaPo article printed a year before that).

Here’s Thomas writing about taking the survey online:

I knew what category I wanted to fall in, the one of which King would be proud: no preference for white or black people. I was pretty sure I’d fall right in the middle, given that more than a few black readers call me an Uncle Tom and more than a few white readers insist I go easy on folks who have similar melanin levels as I do.

Twice I took the race test, and both times found myself in the distinct minority — 12 percent — of people who had an automatic preference for black people.

Ok, fair enough… aren’t people naturally predisposed to attributing good qualities to their own characteristics?

She also issued a challenge:

Take the “Black-White” IAT if you dare, and if you’re even braver, let me know what you thought of your results.

I was pleased that she provided a link (as the WaPo had not, and I wasn’t curious enough to find it) and quite happy to take the test.

Here are my results, Wendi:

The question remains, would I be sharing this if I had received a less favorable result?

Kudos to Wendi for being brave enough to be honest about hers.

UPDATE: Here’s another blogger’s take on the column.

CA:

[Tenn. State Health Commissioner Susan] Cooper… said the smoke-free workplace bill that is stalled in the state legislature is “the only way to protect non-smoking workers” and the public from the “deadly effects of of secondhand smoke.”

Yeah, that, or a bill that would allow the public to eat and work at smoke-free establishments.

Oh wait…

UPDATE:

NY Times:

“The government’s involvement in what we’re eating is going to be increasingly visible as a way to make people healthier.”

It brings to mind a scenario:

Liberal One: Keep your laws off my body!
Liberal Two: Put your laws on my food!

But you are what you eat, right?