john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) (12/31/85)
Recently, in an article entitled "Meese, Gramm, Rudman, and the intentions of the framers" thau@h-sc1.UUCP (robert thau) complained a bit about Edwin Meese and his perceived shortcomings. That's all very well, and I have no objection to people flaming at Meese if they want to. But then Mr. Thau goes on to issue a paragraph of what he must have known were flagrant lies, in what has got to be one of the most intellectually dishonest statements to go across the net since I've been reading it. Strong language, I know. But look at this. Mr. Thau writes: >What is perhaps most frightening is that this hypocrisy seems to be coming >straight down from the conservative ivory towers. In recent issues of the >National Review, for instance, William F. Buckley has inveighed against >court protection of the rights of homosexuals, on the basis of no law (he >claims). He has also editorialized against Gramm-Rudman, but on the grounds >that it doesn't go *far enough*. He wants a line-item veto, and seems >blissfully unaware that a constitutional amendment would be needed to get it. > >Is anyone else noticing these things, or am I just paranoid? > >Robert Thau Mr. Thau here makes three claims, each of which is absolutely false, and none of which is difficult to check. He claims that: 1. In recent issues of National Review, William F. Buckley, Jr. has opposed (Mr. Thau's phrase is "inveighed against") court protection of the rights of homosexuals, 2. Buckley has editorialized against the Gramm-Rudman "balance the budget" bill, and 3. He "seems blissfully unaware" that a line-item veto would require a constitutional amendment. Now I generally read the National Review, pretty carefully. When I saw Mr. Thau's posting, I thought it was odd, because I didn't remember Buckley's having written anything about Gramm-Rudman *or* homosexual rights. So I went and reread every word Buckley has written in National Review since September. In the last eight issues of the National Review, nowhere, absolutely *NOWHERE*, does Buckley say the things Mr. Thau tries to make us believe he said. The *only* thing even vaguely related to homosexuality written by Buckley in those eight issues is a short column on AIDS in school-age children, in which he explicitly says he is *not* in favour of quarantine, and that homosexuality should make *no difference* in how the law treats AIDS victims. There's not a word, anywhere, signed by Buckley or not, advocating that homosexual's rights be curtailed, ignored, abridged, or anything of the sort. As far as I can tell, Mr. Thau simply made it all up. As for Gramm-Rudman, National Review's only editorial mention of the bill was in an *unsigned* editorial, which from the style I would guess was written by Linda Bridges. (Buckley's columns appear over his signature in every issue.) This unsigned editorial may well have been the source of Mr. Thau's fantacizing about Buckley and Gramm-Rudman. It indeed opposes Gramm-Rudman, in part because its passage would hurt the prospects for a line-item veto. But not even this unsigned piece could possibly be construed as being "blissfully unaware" of anything. And Thau has the nerve to complain about "hypocrisy". How about some simple honesty? Why would Mr. Thau make these things up? It doesn't make much sense, I know. Aside from the fact that it's pretty dumb for *anyone* to indulge in intellectual condescension toward William Buckley, didn't Mr. Thau realize someone could check his charges? Did he just get carried away with, ah, creativity? Generally, if someone is caught faking citations in a debate, he's immediately disqualified. Of course, that rule can't be enforced on the net, but I think people should be aware of the depths to which some netters are willing to stoop to try to disparage people they disagree with. In any case, Mr. Thau owes us all an apology. An explanation might be entertaining, but it's unlikely to convince. -- Peace and Good!, Fr. John Woolley "The heart has its reasons that the mind does not know." -- Blaise Pascal