I take it back Bob ...
... you may remember that recently that I was making some snarky comments about Bob Novak's obvious (I thought) stupidity and dishonesty about hitting a pedestrian. It may in fact been the result of a truly unfortunate medical condition, as this post from TPM explains:
Bob Novak has been diagnosed with a brain tumor and is now in a Boston hospital awaiting further tests. According to late reports, doctors have not yet determined whether the tumor is malignant, but a biopsy is planned for later today. We wish him the very best.
So his personal responsibility may be greatly diminished. Don't know yet, but what will we do without Novak to react against? Not to mention his always interesting scoops from conservative sources no one else has.
Sorry Bob. May you be back to annoy the hell out of me soon.
though I will maintain the snark against compassionate conservatism in general.
.
Labels: apologies and regrets
posted by Clemens @ 2:45 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Think the tumor can explain his outing Valerie Plame, another lapse in judgment? Or maybe, tumor or no, the guy's just a turd.
Are we talking about the same guy here?!?
Calling Bob Novak a turd would probably give him a smile. After all, this is the guy who has gladly accepted the moniker of the Prince of Darkness.
Likewise, tying him to compassionate conservatism suggests that you've confused him with Michael Gerson. Novak has generally been critical of the Bush administration. He even opposed the Iraq War.
You're gonna have to do more to convince me (at least) that the guy is such a blight on journalism and/or humanity.
Sorry Jack. While I was the first blog (I think) to suggest that Novak couldn't help the accident, I will always regard him as a blight upon humanity. Ever since I heard him on TV literally shrugging his shoulders at the story of the rape and murder of American nuns in Central America by US backed forces as just one of those inconsequential byproducts of the great War Against Communism. That was decades ago but I still regard him about as fondly as I regard the legacy of Jesse Helms.
Though perhaps his dog loves him.
I'm still sorry about the brain tumor though. 'Compassionate Conservative' was meant ironically, not to say sarcastically.
And yes, he was against the Iraq war, as was Pat Buchanan, William F Buckley and a lot of old time conservatives - to their credit. Why didn't the administration and the new 'conservatives' listen to them?
Was Buckley against the war? I thought he merely changed his mind a posteriori.
I confess that I have never enjoyed reading Novak's point of view, although I enjoy a number of his "scoops" (can't think of one off the top of my head though). I was unaware of his mere shrug regarding the rape & murder of the nuns. It would be interesting to hear his point of view on that, or whether he merely considers himself above explanation.
I still don't see that as a blight on humanity, considering how many left-leaning journalists shrugged at what leftist revolutionaries did and are doing in Latin America. I posted a while back on a curious discrepancy: Everyone, it seems, has heard of Pinochet and his crimes, and rightly so. A Spanish court even went after the man. Yet no one seems to have heard of a fellow by the name of Abimael Guzman, who is responsible for far more deaths, on the order of an entire magnitude. Is that not a curious discrepancy?
Or we could take Che Guevara, who by some bizarre twist of irony is making capitalists rich with his image on the T-shirts they sell. This has distressed the journalist responsible for the original photo, who complained that the people making money off his photo are betraying the cause—as if Che did not do that himself by murdering innocent civilians.
The crimes of right-wing death squads should indeed raise our hackles, but unless you wish to label broad swaths of the journalism community as a blight on humanity, I remain unconvinced.
The shrug was accompanied by his explicit statement that I paraphrased. Buchanan made virtually the exact same comment about the incident. And to me both earned a great deal of contempt from me. I may have used a bit of hyperbole, but I am not so sure.
And I know exactly who Abimael Guzman is and rejoiced when the bastard was captured. I believe he is still serving time in a Lima prison and I hope he rots there. Carmen watched Che march into her hometown. Neither she nor any of her family have any fondness for the man and for better reasons than you or I. I have never had much truck with leftie bloviators either. Violence is violence, stupidity is stupidity.
I wasn't sure about Buckley. I certainly read a lot about his later stand. When he stood up to give a speech about it at one of the last National Review outings he attended at least some of the attendees made motions to their heads to indicate he was nuts.
But then, unlike Novak I have always had a soft spot in my heart for Buckley. He could write, he could think, he didn't take any prisoners, but unlike Novak he had a heart. It managed to come through in even the stuff I disagreed with, even when I knew he was being manipulative.
I wrote a reply, but rereading what you wrote, I suspect the difference is that we are emphasizing different things, so I'll be happy to let it go, except to say that I think our definitions of "blight" differ.
Then again, all that is necessary for evil to triumph and all that, so I see your point.
This is unrelated, but I saw a tshirt with Hitler's face on it and below it read:
"My Che and Mao shirts are in the wash"
--Joey
Post a Comment
<< Home