Cruising with a clean Slate?

Eugene Volokh, who has been documenting what appears to be highly partisan demagoguery at Slate, highlights another out-of-context quotation in one of Slate's many columns deriding "Bushisms," and makes Slate an offer:

If you're going to criticize someone, it seems to me that you should do it fairly and aptly. Many of the Bushisms strike me as unfair and inapt, which is why I comment on them. Finally, someone suggested that this is petty nitpicking on my part, and that I should move on to more important things. I offer a deal: If Slate stops its petty nitpicking of Bush -- and nitpicking which strikes me as often incorrect -- I'll stop my petty nitpicking of Slate.
Via Glenn Reynolds, who opines quite correctly:
for a web-only publication to consistently refuse to link to the original source is also disgraceful.
Isn't it possible, though, that in some cases such a refusal to link to the original source might be, simply, because there is no original source to link?

This leads to an unanswered, nagging question of my own. Why did Salon.com refuse to provide any original sources for alleged military regulations cited by Eric Boehlert in support of his speculation that Bush avoided Air Force drug testing? I posted about it repeatedly, and never saw or found any explanation from Salon. At least one military authority has declared that the Air Force had no drug testing regulations during the period in question. Yet neither Boehlert nor Salon ever offered a single link to the regulations they claimed existed. Such arrogance reminds me of Dan Rather -- and makes me wonder whether the regulations might have been made up out of whole cloth.

I hope I'm not engaged in what Professor Volokh calls "petty nitpicking" here. If I am, I too would be glad to offer to stop it with Salon, and we could all start again with a clean, um, slate.

But hell, I've already offered to go on one of Salon's fabled sea cruises -- an offer some might even call a bribe!

And still, nothing!

Simple fairness is all I seek -- but at what price?

posted by Eric on 12.08.04 at 11:49 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/1804






Comments

If you only had children, you'd be allowed on the cruise. I thought that the National Review's Danube Cruise a couple of years ago sounded fun. Or was that the Economist? At any rate, imagine a nice dinner with William Buckley.

bink   ·  December 8, 2004 02:21 PM

They made fun of Bush's speech patterns in 2000. He won the election (and, yes, I support the United States Supreme Court!). They continued to make fun of his speech patterns (and hating the Supreme Court) for the next four years after that. Guess what? He won again, by a bigger margin, an uncontestable majority (both popular and Electoral), and his party now controls not only the White House but also both Houses of Congress, as well as the Supreme Court. They can make fun of his speech patterns all they like, but they don't make the laws, they don't control the military, and, most important, they don't control religion, which is the most powerful force in history, for it shapes our view of everything else.

My friend Robin Georg Olsen has always wanted to have a nice dinner with the scintillating William F. Buckley. (RGO is not himself a conservative but, rather, is an independent-thinking pro-gun liberal, a Jeffersonian, a Jungian, an Anglican, an Anglophile. He and I have been friends since 1st grade in 1961.)

William F. Buckley is a very interesting man. I've always liked him. He has a very interesting _style_.

Here are a few of my favorite quotes from him:

In "God and Man at Yale", he wrote:
"I myself believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level."
The _style_ of that!

He once said that the racist physicist William Shockley was "ultra-liberal". Asked to explain that, he answered: "scientistic, anti-spiritual."
The _style_ of that!

Of the nuclear freeze movement operating within certain Christian churches, he observed:
"There is something subversive in contemporary Christianity, something objectively on the side of slavery. Mr. Nietzsche, you are wanted at your office."
The _style_ of that!

He often criticized others on the Right. Two of his favorite targets on the Right were Ayn Rand and the John Birch Society. The John Birch Society has recently published a book against him, charging that he is secretly a member of the Communist (or "Insider") Conspiracy.

I have thought of a conspiracy theory of my own about Buckley. After Whittacker Chambers wrote a harsh review of "Atlas Shrugged" in the "National Review", Ayn Rand made a point of never being in the same room with William F. Buckley. Think about that. Ayn Rand and William F. Buckley were never seen together in the same room! What does that tell you? The dazzling dominatrix put on her cape and dollar sign when she went forth to battle the muck of evil -- but then assumed the laughing, laid-back persona of her alleged adversary as he quietly sipped his tea.

The _style_ of it all! The _styles_! William F. Buckley, Frank S. Meyer, James Burnham, Willmoore Kendall, Whittaker Chambers, and Ayn Rand, and E. Merrill Root, Robert Welch, Gary Allen, Alan Stang.... The _styles_ of the Starboard star-fleet....

OK Eric, off the subject. Dean WAS a great actor in high school. I believe he gets his love of the arts and style from those years.

You are too funny.

Dean's Ma, Janelle

Janelle   ·  December 9, 2004 03:36 AM

The Left does not need to prove anything at all. Why bother if whatever pops into your head and supports your view is always true? You just know it's true and that's all there is to it. Why bother with links? Your view is even more true, also, the more it is attended by or constitutes anger and fear, the elements of clear sight.

Not unsurprisingly, mind reading is also a feature: one of my favorites is that "We know more people went to the polls with the intent to vote for Gore in Fla. in 2000 than for Bush." First I wondered if the real vote had already occurred before the physical vote. Well, it had.

J. Peden   ·  December 9, 2004 04:51 AM

Thanks everybody, but I'm just tickled pink to see Dean Esmay's mom leave a comment here. (Surely Steven Malcolm Anderson must have goaded you on....)

Thanks for visiting and for the compliment!

Eric Scheie   ·  December 9, 2004 09:33 AM

"Fake but Accurate"

Uncle Bill   ·  December 9, 2004 02:59 PM

Here's another one, coutesy of Ann Coulter's most recent column:

"On the Sean Hannity radio show, Democratic pundit Pat Halpin defended Sen. Reid's laughable attack on Thomas by citing Bob Woodward's book 'The Brethren,' which – according to Halpin – vividly portrays Thomas as a nincompoop.

"I return to my standing point that liberals don't read. Harry Reid clearly hasn't read any of the decisions Justice Thomas has written, and Pat Halpin clearly hasn't read "The Brethren."

"'The Brethren' came out a decade before Thomas was even nominated to the Supreme Court. The only black Supreme Court justice discussed in 'The Brethren' is Thurgood Marshall. That's one we haven't heard in a while: I just can't tell you guys apart...."

Or maybe Coulter is lying? Very doubtful.

J. Peden   ·  December 9, 2004 03:12 PM

Dear Eric:

I, too, was quite pleased to see Dean's Mama and one of my favorite commenters [commentress/commentrix?] in Dean's World here. I just saw her in Sean Kinsell's blog "The White Peril". She is also a good friend of Arnold Harris. But, no, I didn't put her up to it. She did it on her own.



December 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits