Armed Liberal disagrees with me that Gen. Mattis should be reprimanded for Mattis’s counterproductive remarks, but says that Gen. Mattis should have known better.
I’ll say this one more time: military men should not be faulted for being warriors — and that’s not what I’m doing. But when a general publicly says that “it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot” people because they “slap women around” then he is reinforcing the worst stereotypes of American soldiers around the world. And no, I don’t condone wife-beating — and no, I don’t disapprove of killing murderers and terrorists. But these particular remarks were beyond the pale. They don’t help our battle to win hearts and minds — which we are in whether you like it or not — and they consequently do little to help our soldiers on the battlefield.
I can respectfully disagree with those who don’t want to see the general reprimanded — and as good a general as he is reputed to be, I certainly don’t want to see him resign. But I do want someone to order him to watch what he says in public in the future. It’s nice to see someone who is supportive of the war agree with me on that point, since precious few have up until now. (Some people are even winning contests by writing posts telling me “f— you.” I know most of my readers disagree with me on this issue; luckily most of them are able to express their disagreement in a more civil fashion than that.)
Eugene Volokh, writing about a Slate correction to an error in a “Bushism” entry, says:
It’s to Slate’s credit that it promptly published the correction. Yet I wonder: Given the way Slate is organized — and the same goes for some other online journals — wouldn’t it be better to post a correction in the same e-column (which is to say under the rubric on the front screen) as the error appeared?
The front screen naturally doesn’t indicate exactly what the corrections are. I suspect that many readers don’t normally read the Corrections section. So as a result many readers who do habitually read the Bushisms column, and who read yesterday’s column, will never learn that what they were told yesterday wasn’t actually so.
Am I mistaken? I realize that newspaper tradition is to segregate corrections in a special corrections section. I’m not sure that’s right even for print newspapers, but does it really make sense online? Or is it the case that lots of people do read the Corrections section, and that the best way to reach Bushism readers — again, to un-mislead them — is through an entry in Corrections, rather than a new entry in Bushisms?
(All emphasis mine.)
A very timely comment, especially as to corrections by print newspapers, in light of my piece running in tomorrow’s L.A. Times on that very issue.
In local news, a serial rapist who terrorized women in the Los Angeles area has been convicted. The rapist “invaded each victim’s home in the predawn hours, went to their beds, covered their eyes and threatened to kill them and, in some instances, their children.” Congratulations to the prosecutor, Christi Frey — who also happens to be the lovely Mrs. Patterico.
The L.A. Times reports on Eason Jordan’s resignation. Captain Ed kindly says that I will be “all over” the story, but in all honesty, I don’t have much to add to Captain Ed’s comments, as he has been all over the Eason Jordan story from the beginning. Captain Ed nails it when he quotes part of the L.A. Times article, and notes:
Ned Martel never delves any deeper into the story than that, only covering what we all knew more than ten days ago. Martel never mentions, for instance, that Eason Jordan sits on the World Economic Forum board and could have pressured the WEF to release that videotape. Martel makes Jordan look like a victim of the WEF instead. Martel even notes further that “the furor grew beyond the reported mild gasps at the Davos session into a wider media discussion,” in an attempt to make it sound like Jordan got caught up by mob hysteria.
One additional observation: the Times story says:
The announcement comes after a week when commentators and newspaper editorial writers joined the chorus of complaints among Internet bloggers that Jordan had made insupportable accusations.
Yes, it does — not that L.A. Times readers had any idea. As a search of the Times website shows, the first hint in the L.A. Times that there was any sort of controversy about Jordan came yesterday — after Jordan resigned. Those readers foolish enough to get all their news from the L.A. Times are no doubt scratching their heads today, wondering what all the fuss is about.
Time to branch out, L.A. Times readers. And there’s no better way to start than by checking out the Captain’s Quarters blog every day.
UPDATE: The Captain publishes this correction to his assertion that Eason Jordan sits on the World Economic Forum board. It still seems clear to me that Jordan “could have pressured the WEF to release that videotape” if he really wanted to. Apparently, with his resignation, it is now clear that the tape will never be released. Hmmmm.