Huffington Is Dumb
On "The Huffington Post," Arianna posted a "blog" purporting to be from George Clooney. It was not. His publicist, according to Arianna, approved it.
There's three major problems with this. First, there's the ethical problem of saying this was written by Clooney, when it was not. No need to belabor the point.
Second, there's the fact that she calls a single entry in a "blog" a "blog." For example, she wrote: "The George Clooney blog that was posted on the Huffington Post Sunday was published only after we received written approval from his representative to do so."
The word "blog" is annoying enough with it being so misused. It's like George Will saying "the magazine I wrote for Newsweek last week ... ." Stop it, it's stupid.
Third, the "Clooney" article itself -- which, again, he didn't write -- was just stupid.
It implies things like suffrage and equal pay for women and civil rights for blacks are "liberal" issues, even though those issues were championed by Republicans long before Democrats, and today those are not "liberal" issues at all.
It says "liberals" believe Vietnam was wrong, even though it was a liberal Democrat war.
It says "liberals" believe Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, even though Bush has for years said Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, and never said anything to the contrary.
The article also whines about McCarthy, perhaps in reference to Clooney's recent movie. Yes, McCarthy was "wrong" in a significant sense, but you have to be able to separate mission from method. McCarthy's method was wrong. I know of no one who thinks otherwise, and that's what Clooney's movie was about. But McCarthy's mission was perfectly defensible: that Communists -- or, in today's terms, radical Islamists -- should not be in sensitive government positions. Duh.
Summary: dumb process, dumb terminology, dumb article.
There's three major problems with this. First, there's the ethical problem of saying this was written by Clooney, when it was not. No need to belabor the point.
Second, there's the fact that she calls a single entry in a "blog" a "blog." For example, she wrote: "The George Clooney blog that was posted on the Huffington Post Sunday was published only after we received written approval from his representative to do so."
The word "blog" is annoying enough with it being so misused. It's like George Will saying "the magazine I wrote for Newsweek last week ... ." Stop it, it's stupid.
Third, the "Clooney" article itself -- which, again, he didn't write -- was just stupid.
It implies things like suffrage and equal pay for women and civil rights for blacks are "liberal" issues, even though those issues were championed by Republicans long before Democrats, and today those are not "liberal" issues at all.
It says "liberals" believe Vietnam was wrong, even though it was a liberal Democrat war.
It says "liberals" believe Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, even though Bush has for years said Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, and never said anything to the contrary.
The article also whines about McCarthy, perhaps in reference to Clooney's recent movie. Yes, McCarthy was "wrong" in a significant sense, but you have to be able to separate mission from method. McCarthy's method was wrong. I know of no one who thinks otherwise, and that's what Clooney's movie was about. But McCarthy's mission was perfectly defensible: that Communists -- or, in today's terms, radical Islamists -- should not be in sensitive government positions. Duh.
Summary: dumb process, dumb terminology, dumb article.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment