GIVING OPINIONS A BAD NAME

The opinions of the Boston Herald and its columnists leave me gaping again. I lurched from Howard Manley’s column today to the editorials page, from one editorial to another, in search of a reasonable voice. In what I read, I found none -- but let’s graciously assume that in all the Herald commentary I didn’t read was wisdom and common sense.

Manley’s column bore the headline “Registry for all criminals would put public at ease,” and I read the text expecting to find that the headline writer had missed the irony. The expectation crested as I read “But what about other criminals? Shouldn’t there be a registry for drunken drivers? Don’t they pose a threat to society? What about drug dealers? Wouldn’t you want to know if one of your neighbors was convicted of selling drugs? Or armed robbery? What if the guy down the street was convicted of a particularly heinous hate crime?”

Indeed. What if? I’m particularly surprised to see anyone suggesting such a thing, in light of an apparent rampage undertaken in April by a vigilante against registered sex offenders (just as I wasn’t surprised that the violence nearly took out an innocent). But there are many ways for registries to be abused, never mind the fact that our justice system -- barring the unfortunate perversion brought about by the “Megan’s laws” identifying sex offenders -- has traditionally punished to rehabilitate. Manley supposes that no one ever learns a lesson. We must watch offenders. Forever.

But even in branding the perverts with a scarlet letter -- Manley’s own metaphor -- he errs. The Herald itself has published law enforcement assertions that the rate of recidivism among sex offenders is low. Judith Levine’s “Harmful to Minors” (Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2003) notes that “Analyses of thousands of subjects in hundreds of studies have found that about 13 percent of sex offenders are rearrested, compared with 74 percent of all prisoners. With treatment, the numbers are even better. The state of Vermont, for example, reported that in 1995 its reoffense rates after treatment were only 7 percent for pedophiles, 3 percent for incest perpetrators, and 3 percent for those who had committed ‘hands-off’ crimes such as exhibitionism.” (The data, you’ll note, is from before Megan’s law took effect.)

Some questions about Manley’s registry suggestions:

If drunken drivers were listed in a registry, how, exactly, would that serve to deter their behavior? Especially if, feeling watched by those who know them, they take their cars to faraway areas to do their drinking, possibly increasing the amount of time they spend on the road?

Would a registry of local drug dealers serve as a deterrent to crime, or as a guide for those hoping to buy? Especially in areas where drug dealing isn’t necessarily frowned upon? And does it matter that “drug dealers” can be Tony Montana or kindly old people growing marijuana for cancer sufferers?

And if it became known the guy down the street committed armed robbery and served prison time for it -- well, uh ... what then, exactly? This one truly stumps me.

It all reminds me of William S. Burroughs “Thanksgiving Prayer,” in which he gives thanks “for a country where nobody’s allowed to mind their own business ... thanks for a nation of finks.”

The editorials remind me of something else, but it’s not polite to say what.

In one, the writers (unidentified, as is the tradition with newspaper editorials) jeer again at Joseph Wilson, whose mission to Africa many months ago confirmed that information about Iraq was incorrect, only to find that information used by the Bush administration anyway to drum up support for the Iraq war. Last time, in late October, the Herald was angered, for some reason, that Wilson, a supporter of Sen. John Kerry’s run for president, would endorse Kerry and work for his candidacy.

This time, the Herald criticizes him and his wife for her appearance in Vanity Fair. The wife, Valerie Plame, was an undercover operative for the Central Intelligence Agency until someone leaked her name to conservative Robert Novak, who published it in his syndicated column in newspapers across the nation. Conservatives are supposed to know better.

Now, the Herald writes, “There’s Plame, in a two-page photo spread ... That tells us all we need to know about the severity of damage done to Plame’s undercover career by the ‘leak’ of her identity.”

Can the Herald editorial writers really be this stupid? No one denies her name and work with CIA was leaked; but once her name is out there, the undercover nature of her work is over. She’s free to become the most photographed celebrity in the world exactly because of the “severity of damage done to Plame’s undercover career.”

(Favorite moment: The editorial writers attempting snarkiness, saying “Wilson and Plame were in high dungeon about Plame’s identity being revealed.” Unfortunately for them, snarkiness is most effective when big words are used correctly.)

Finally, the editorial writers make fun of people put off by the White House spin on President Bush’s trip to Iraq for Thanksgiving. It’s only “a grumpy Washington press corps left out of the loop and Democrats eager to rain on the Bush parade,” they say, upset about Bush’s photo op with a turkey platter that wasn’t served to troops and a fake story told to enhance the drama of Bush’s trip.

“No one but them cares that the story ... turns out not to be exactly right,” they say, although it was in fact completely fabricated. “And no one cares that the president didn’t carve the photo-op turkey. In fact, for some of us (it) makes us feel all the better, because our at-home platters never look that good.”

Again, is it possible for the editorial writers -- who, as all journalists should, rely on facts -- to be this obtuse? They seem not to notice that the White House makes up stuff for the sake of drama and has a tendency to fake information for effect. The writers seem, in fact, pleased by it and irritated at people who tell the truth.

The pesky, bothersome truth.