The following is an excerpt from OpinionJournal.com’s “Best of the Web” written by the editor, James Taranto.

They Don’t Need No Education Neither
” ‘We’re Fired Up, Can’t Take No More’.. UCLA Students Chant”–headline, CNN iReport, Nov. 20

Bottom Stories of the Day

  • “Rhodes Doesn’t Choose Local Student”–headline, Tallahassee (Fla.) Democrat, Nov. 22
  • “Ocean City Merchants Not Greatly Affected by Youth Hoodie Recall”–headline, Press of Atlantic City (N.J.), Nov. 20
  • “Martha Stewart Says Sarah Palin Is ‘a Dangerous Person’ “–headline, NewsBusters.org, Nov. 21
  • “Barack Obama Dream Fades as China Visit Fails to Bring Change”–headline, Sunday Times (London), Nov. 22
  • “Roland Burris Is a Lying Snake”–headline, Chicago Tribune Web site, Nov. 20
  • “Report: ACORN Mismanaged Grant Money”–headline, Washington Times, Nov. 21

Redefining ‘Consensus’ 
… maybe “consensus” doesn’t mean what we thought it did. Consider the first three paragraphs of a New York Times article about economists’ views of President Obama’s so-called stimulus:

Now that unemployment has topped 10 percent, some liberal-leaning economists see confirmation of their warnings that the $787 billion stimulus package President Obama signed into law last February was way too small. The economy needs a second big infusion, they say.

No, some conservative-leaning economists counter, we were right: The package has been wasteful, ineffectual and even harmful to the extent that it adds to the nation’s debt and crowds out private-sector borrowing.

These long-running arguments have flared now that the White House and Congressional leaders are talking about a new “jobs bill.” But with roughly a quarter of the stimulus money out the door after nine months, the accumulation of hard data and real-life experience has allowed more dispassionate analysts to reach a consensus that the stimulus package, messy as it is, is working.

So there’s one group of economists that thinks the stimulus was insufficient, another that thinks it was harmful, and a third that thinks it was both beneficial and sufficient. This is not normally what one would describe as a consensus.

But then, if you read that third paragraph carefully, you’ll see that the Times is claiming a consensus only in the third group, i.e., “more dispassionate analysts,” which seems to be defined as those who think the stimulus is working. It’s a consensus by tautology! …

For more “Best of the Web” click here and look for the “Best of the Web Today” link in the middle column below “Today’s Columnists.