 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Still, a couple of observations on its big spread in yesterday's edition. One observation is smallish, the other quite big. First, Blair is quoted as saying, "My kindred spirits are the ones who became journalists because they wanted to help people." This is the wrong attitude, if I may, and an often-destructive one, in the field of journalism. A journalist — a reporter, let's say — ought to want to perform the relatively mundane task of finding things out and letting others know about them, coolly and factually. In this process, many people will be helped (and hurt). But one's aim ought to be less Mother Teresa-like and more workaday, in my view. It's like the old story concerning Oliver Wendell Holmes, to whom Learned Hand (allegedly) said, "Do justice, sir, do justice." Holmes replied, "That is not my job. My job is to apply the law." Okay, more Jayson Blair. The Times said, "Mr. Blair's . . . supervisors and [University of] Maryland professors emphasize that he earned an internship at The Times because of glowing recommendations and a remarkable work history, not because he is black. [Amazingly defensive, this — but necessary. And nobody had brought it up! The Times was anticipating, clearly.] But The Times offered him a slot in an internship program that was being used to help the paper diversify its newsroom." Okay, but which is it? Was he hired on the merits or as a "diversifier"? Or does the Times mean that he was extremely well qualified — perhaps the best — within a pool of black applicants only? In the paragraph quoted above, the paper sort of gives with one hand, and takes away with the other. Finally, a big and awful question is, Would Blair have been treated as he was — with jaw-dropping indulgence — if he had been white? We really can't know that — except through our common sense and experience of life. And even those might not be good enough.
A neat little distillation of a current European mentality: two symbols of "revolutionary" violence and then another banner that speaks "peace" — when there is no peace, of course (thanks not least to the likes of Arafat and Guevara). (And let us have no blather that that Palestinian flag stands for innocent sufferers, not for the PLO and its works. The Europeans who raise that banner know what they are doing, believe me.)
Oh, oh, make no mistake: George W. Bush is short. He just carries himself tall (which is wonderful). 2) Rich refers to the 2000 Republican convention — at which the GOP featured boatloads of blacks and Hispanics — as a "minstrel show." Now, that convention has been called a "minstrel show" . . . what? A thousand times? A million? Surely so rich a writer as Rich can do better than that smelly little trope. 3) He writes that Bush, during Vietnam, was "safely at home as a member of the Texas Air National Guard, a k a the Champagne Unit for its high quotient of Houston society sons." Before we get smirky about W., what did Rich do in the Vietnam war, to beat back the Beast and spare the future Boat People? What was his service, that makes him so scornful of Bush's? I have no idea how old this columnist is. I simply say: Don't be so judgmental, please, and recall that there were less dangerous ways of serving than jumping into fighter jets, whether stateside or not. 4) This is a lightish one. Rich writes that "the Republicans were [clueless] when they let Richard Nixon go before a camera without makeup when debating John Kennedy in 1960." Actually, Nixon was about to have makeup applied, when the other candidate was asked whether he himself desired makeup. He said no. (He had just been to California, I believe, and had a glowing tan, making TV makeup superfluous, evidently.) Nixon, not wanting to be seen as a pansy, declined himself. Big mistake, what this vanity — or pride — led to.
Hmmm. I have a memory of 1984. Fritz Mondale has shot an ad of himself on an aircraft carrier. I believe that, as a senator, he opposed the building of that carrier. So Reagan — in the second debate (which went much better for him) — says (something like), "If Mr. Mondale had had his way, he'd have been standing in some pretty deep water." Nice.
Brock has asked the congressman, "Would [you] continue to fight for [your] proposal if the White House opposed it?" "Absolutely," answered Shaw. "If the far right is driving the agenda, I might find myself at odds with the White House." If the "far right" is those of us who favor Bush-style Social Security reform — which proposes the independent use of a puny percentage of Social Security money — then "far right" has ceased to mean anything plausible. A grandson of FDR stood with Candidate Bush to support this reform of Social Security. Millions of others, from both parties and in various walks of life, favor it. Are they — are we — all far rightists? Guess so. Pathetic.
César G. Soriano tells us in USA Today about the U.S. Civil Military Assistance Center, "a place where Iraqis can voice their complaints about coalition forces." He quotes Spc. Rena Brownridge, a 27-year-old University of Maryland student. (Classmate of Jayson Blair? Never mind.) "We're very patient with people. We listen. Sometimes they yell. Iraqis are a very passionate people. But when they finish, they're usually happy we listened to their story." Just like under Baath rule, huh? My message: Don't let anyone — the Dowds — spoil your joy over what has been accomplished for this battered people.
"John Thompson, the former Georgetown coach and N.B.A. analyst [and one of the worst racial whiners and dividers and accusers in American sports], used his afternoon radio show to draw a disturbing parallel, likening Jordan's dismissal to Pollin sending Jordan back to the plantation after reaping profit from his labor." The Times writer feels compelled to say, "The image did not mesh with Pollin's history of philanthropy in Washington. Only a few years ago, he was the lone N.B.A. owner to employ a black coach (Bernie Bickerstaff) and general manager (Wes Unseld) at the same time." Whew. That's a relief!
I'd like to draw your attention to a review of this book by our David Pryce-Jones. It appears in Commentary, and it is a model — isn't it always? — of beautiful prose and exceptional understanding. P-J ("Peej") writes
Makes me sort of shudder.
I've read this passage about three times, and wish to see if I understand: Halliburton knew about the administration's "empire plans," and kept its mouth shut, whereby Cheney "repaid the favor and gave" the company these contracts? All by himself? Wow. But then, Maureen Dowd and her friends could have put out those fires all by themselves, no doubt. And if we — if the U.S., Halliburton, etc. — hadn't put out those fires, and immediately? Why, we would have been not only museum looters, but environmental despoilers!
A little weird, if you ask me.
I liked him, a lot. Later, y'all. (P.S. Basically the only time you say "Or-LEENS" is in songs, e.g., "Way down yonder in New Orleans, in the land of dreamy scenes" — you need the rhymes. Otherwise, "New Orlins," please — and "N'awlins," if you want to get fancy.) |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
ho
would have thought the Blair in the news these days would be, not Tony,
but Jayson? (For those of you not caught up: Jayson Blair is a reporter
fired by the New York Times for a career of spectacular falsification.)
The Times has performed excellent damage control — but that's
a little too grudging. The paper has not only engaged in (necessary) damage
control, it has conducted itself admirably.
Someone should have sniffed that something was awry just by that spelling
of Jason.
