SearchRecent EntriesTELL IT TO OFFICER KRUPKETALKING BACK TO LIBERAL POWER PURSUIT OF PLEASURE RAINOUT READING: "ASSIGN YOGI BERRA TO CAPE CANAVERAL; HE COULD HANDLE ANY MISSILE" OPENING DAY AT THE HOUSE THAT RUTH BUILT GEERT WILDERS VS THE BARBARIANS Spitzer Agonistes BUSH IS TO BLAME TRADERS CATCHING UP WITH HORSEFEATHERS AN ARMY OF MURDERERS ROAMS AMERICA ArchivesCategory:Baseball Culture History Media Middle East Miscellaneous Movie/Theater Reviews Politics Sports THE NEW YORK TIMES War Monthly: July 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 Old Horsefeathers Archives |
October 29, 2005SCHOOL FOR NON-SCANDAL        Afficionados of scandal know the really juicy ones involve sex, lies, money and politics. Best of all are scandals in which hubris is followed by humiliation, and in which someone previously thought to be virtuous is exposed. Horsefeathers always turns hopefully to Page Six, after checking the box scores. We take non-partisan pleasure from scandals, since they derive from unchanging human nature and afflict liberals as well as conservatives. Regrettably, the 'Scooter Libby' scandal is pretty thin gruel. Where's the sex angle? Maureen Dowd sure tried when she spoke of Judy Miller's "entanglement" with Libby, but even she subsequently backed away from that one. Money? Nothing there. Lies? Okay, perhaps Libby lied to the grand jury (we'll adhere to the increasingly rare notion that an indictment is not proof of guilt)and that's a bad and stupid thing to do when there was no underlying crime, but is it scandalous? All one has to do to answer the question is recall the Clinton lies. Blow jobs in the oval office. Now there was something worth lying about! Besides we've known for centuries that government officials lie, as do journalists. In the 18th century, Dr. Johnson wrote: "...An Ambassador is said to be a man of virtue sent abroad to tell lies for the advantage of his country; a news-writer is a man without virtue, who lies at home for his own profit..." << Back to Horsefeathers |
Favorite LinksPajamas MediaMiddle East Strategy at Harvard Politics Central Michael Yon Victor Hanson Mideast Outpost Captain's Quarters ChicagoBoyz Faultline USA SteveForPrez Democracy Project Iowahawk Instapundit News Forum Hotair Real Clear Politics Counterterrorism Blog Ace of Spades Contentions Mark Steyn Bookworm Gateway Pundit PoliPundit Transatlantic Intelligencer Sisu Villainous Company Bill Whittle Eye on the UN Armavirunque Cox & Forkum Michelle Malkin Baseball Crank Terry Teachout No Pasaran Power Line Hugh Hewitt Jihad Watch Kim du Toit Dhimmi Watch Steven Plaut Belmont Club Scott Burgess The Anti-Idiotarian Insomnomaniac Politburo Diktat Iraq the Model Roger Simon Mediacrity Shrinkwrapped Neo-neocon American Thinker New English Review Baseball Musings Eternity Road Heretical Ideas The Iconoclast Intellectual Conservative Vodkapundit The Corner Davids Medienkritik Samizdata Volokh Conspiracy Dinocrat Scott Ott Milt's File Daily Pundit ExtrasSyndicate this site (XML)Powered by Movable Type 3.11 |
Comments
"Besides, we've known for centuries that government officials lie, as do journalists."
Regarding your quip and in keeping with the season, it is said by cynical Brits (English Catholics?) that Guy Fawkes was the only man to go to Parliament with honorable intentions.
Posted by: Mark_Belt
at October 29, 2005 05:19 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)