The Commentariat -- May 18, 2014
CW: It pains me to owe an apology to Charles Murray, the charlatan "scholar" of the American Enterprise Institute, but it rends me in two Rumpelstiltskin-style to owe a big mea culpa to David Fucking Brooks. But I do, I do. Yesterday I linked as straight news a satirical article about Murray that claimed he said women had smaller brains than men -- which explained why there were no great female philosophers. He did make the assertion about female philosophers, but he never claimed women had teeny-weeny brains. So, Charles Murray, I apologize. Gulp. And David Brooks, I'm vewwy, vewwy sorry. I am sorriest for misleading readers who trusted me not to lead them astray. Thanks to contributor Lisa for setting me straight.
Annals of Journalism, CYA Edition
NEW. Ravi Somaiya of the New York Times: "Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The New York Times, released a statement Saturday afternoon detailing his decision to fire the newspaper’s executive editor, Jill Abramson. He was responding to a growing controversy over accusations by Ms. Abramson’s supporters that gender played a role in her dismissal."
... Sulzberger's statement is here. CW: Nothing about her smallish brain. The Times is all for gender equality, Sulzberger sez.
NEW. Dylan Byers of Politico: "New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger fired executive editor Jill Abramson after concluding that she had misled both him and chief executive Mark Thompson during her effort to hire a new co-managing editor, according to two sources with knowledge of the reason for her termination."
Nicholas Confessore of the New York Times on the early history of the Koch brothers' political involvement in politics. CW: I was interested to see they were among those influenced by the Powell memo.
David Ferguson of the Raw Story: "Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) said in an interview Friday that he is ready and willing to serve on the House Republican committee slated to investigate the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.... In appearance on Rev. Al Sharpton’s MSNBC show on Friday night, Grayson said, 'I would be their worst, worst nightmare. I’d be their worst and last nightmare.'”
Maureen Dowd, following up on Tim Egan's most recent column (linked here May 15), writes an excellent essay about Condoleezza Rice.
Senate Race -- Mississippi-Style
AP: "Authorities say a conservative Mississippi blogger went into a nursing home, photographed the bedridden wife of Republican U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran without permission and posted an image online. Rose Cochran has lived at St. Catherine's Village since 2000 and has dementia. Madison police say 28-year-old Clayton Thomas Kelly of Pearl was arrested Friday and charged with a felony, exploitation of a vulnerable adult. He remained jailed Saturday under $100,000 bond." ...
... Josh Marshall of TPM: "I'm inclined to say this is what happens when you've got a Tea Party candidate who dabbles in neo-confederate and supremacist politics. But boy is this one weird and dirty. Here are the key facts. Incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran's wife has been in a nursing home for more than a decade. Precise details are sketchy but she appears to suffer from some form of advanced dementia and is in precarious health. The Tea Party candidate McDaniel has been dishing out an avalanche of oppo over recent days including a very weird article in Breitbart which in the guise of talking about spending on congressional trips was clearly intended to suggest that Cochran is having an affair." ...
... CW: Excuse me. Are voters supposed to be horrified that a man whose wife has been hospitalized with dementia for 10 years has a relationship with another woman? Is Jane Eyre really relavant in 21st-century Mississippi? Maybe so.
Reader Comments (7)
Marie: what you posted about Charles Murray may not have BEEN true, but it sure FELT true to one who has read about his views or seen him in action ( he was on Bill Maher's show recently). It had the quality that Colbert described so well: truthiness. In abundance.
Marie,
I'm with Victoria on this one. Just the fact that you thought it could be true is bad enough.
And no apology is necessary to Brooks. You didn't say anything about him that wasn't true. He DOES think Charles Murray is a genius. A couple of years ago, Brooks was beside himself after mainlining Murray's latest claptrap in which he claimed that blacks weren't the only low IQ troublemakers out there. Po' white trash types had, according to Murray, descended the evolutionary tree to sit in the mud alongside blacks because they had been taking handouts from the government, which, of course, shrinks your brain (but not as to the size of the conservative's).
Brooks wondered, in his usual waste of space in the Times, if anyone else that year could possibly write anything equally profound.
So, no. You don't owe that asshole anything. And you're equally correct that Brooks would have to be caught trading kiddie porn with online pedophiles before the Times would get rid of his worthless ass.
And it doesn't matter if the piece was satirical or not. The best satire is good because it's at least somewhat believable. Murray is a discredited imposter, an ideological grifter, and a racist pig-dog.
I get why you need to set the record straight, but this for him, and this for the horse he rode in on.
@CW: I'm with Victoria and Ak. You don't owe that pair of slimeballs an apology. But you did apologize. That shows you have class and integrity. I don't think that applies to either of them. As I've said before, when I see Brooks on the teevee, he reminds me of some kind of rodent. (How 'bout a rat?) As far as Murray is concerned, he definitely has no integrity.
Thanks, Ken. We are citizens of the world first and foremost. Good mojo is best shared.
And today, yes, I guess we see why MoDo has got a job.
Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
You needn't apologize to someone because what you said about him COULD have been true? Using that measuring stick George W. Bush doesn't owe anyone an apology for Iraq.
I agree that the apology to Brooks was unnecessary, and that the apology to both Brooks and Murray showed a good deal of class and demonstrates integrity on the part of the CW. But the apology to Murray was certainly warranted.
Just because Murray is six different kinds of asshole doesn't mean we can lie about him, intentionally or not. Kudos to the CW for maintaining that standard.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/drone-pilots-reaper-photo-essay
Wanna be a drone pilot? Elijah Solomon Hurwitz in "Mother Jones" describing what it's like. This post was from last June, but it still applies.
To me, there's something creepy about killing from 7,000 miles away.
Noodge,
I think if you go back and read what I wrote you'll see that I was not suggesting that it was okay to lie about Murray or that an apology was not called for (I did say that setting the record straight was the way to go), but that I could see how someone might be taken in by the suggestion because of Murray's history. But just because something could be true doesn't make it okay to claim or suggest that it is.
Murray has said and written quite enough for me not to hold him in any kind of esteem, but spreading disinformation about him or anyone else is not something I hold with.
When I wrote "you don't owe that asshole anything" I was referring to Brooks, not Murray.