Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Tuesday Afternoon

Several of you have written me to suggest that maybe the review of Al Gore's book was written from an early, uncorrected proof that didn't include the endnotes. That's possible, though if that were the case and I were the Washington Post, I think my correction would have noted that. It's a more reasonable — though not wholly forgiveable — explanation of why the reviewer got things so wrong. There's a big difference between the reviewer's assertion as to why there were no footnotes (because Gore couldn't back up his claimed facts with sourcing) and there being no footnotes because the publisher left them out of a review copy. If indeed, that's what happened.

In fairness to the reviewer, there are many Lincoln scholars who believe that the purported Lincoln quote that Gore cited is spurious, and it may well be. I guess my real problem here is something that I think I've alluded to in the past. It's the old "gotcha" game where we don't like what someone is saying so we seize upon one factual error and do the old "Well, if we can't believe him about this..." routine to try and invalidate all the other things he says.

It's a favored trick of crooked lawyers when they know a witness is burying their client. During his Watergate testimony, John W. Dean got hundreds of dates, names, places, etc. so provably correct that the Republicans on the committee were frantic to find some way to impeach his testimony. Then he confused the name of one Washington hotel where he'd had a breakfast meeting with another Washington hotel...and it was suddenly proof (to his detractors, at least) that his word could not be trusted on anything. In that case, it didn't work. Dean even had a logical explanation for why he'd confused the names. But they sure tried.

Everyone gets the occasional fact wrong. There are some folks and publications who get them wrong so often — or so inexplicably — that it's right and proper to write them off as generally unreliable. But it's dishonest to use one or two errors to impugn someone that way, especially when you're making your own mistakes.

• Posted at 1:11 PM · LINK

Tuesday Morning

Last Sunday, the Washington Post ran a scathing review of Al Gore's new book. The review was written by Andrew Ferguson. Here's a link to the whole review and here's the first paragraph of it...

You can't really blame Al Gore for not using footnotes in his new book, "The Assault on Reason." It's a sprawling, untidy blast of indignation, and annotating it with footnotes would be like trying to slip rubber bands around a puddle of quicksilver. Still, I'd love to know where he found the scary quote from Abraham Lincoln that he uses on page 88.

The Post has now added a "slight" correction to the online version of the review. And I'll put it in smaller type because they did...

Andrew Ferguson's June 10 Outlook article, "What Al Wishes Abe Said," said that former vice president Al Gore's book "The Assault on Reason" does not contain footnotes. The book contains 20 pages of endnotes.

The correction is not only insufficient because it's in a smaller font but also because it didn't mention that those endnotes include the source of the Lincoln quote.

In other words: The reviewer started right off by attacking Gore's book for not including footnotes that told us things like where he got a certain quote from Abraham Lincoln...but the book does include twenty pages of endnotes that tell us things like where he got that certain quote from Abraham Lincoln.

This kind of thing really baffles me, and I don't mean this as any kind of defense of Gore's book, which I have not read. I just don't get how an allegedly real newspaper like The Washington Post continues to print things that would have gotten me flunked in my high school Journalism class.

Did the reviewer just plain not read Gore's book thoroughly enough to notice those twenty pages of endnotes? That would call his powers of perception into a wee bit of question. Or maybe he noticed them and thought to himself, "Hmm...too bad he included those endnotes because now I can't attack him for not backing up his arguments with facts. Oh, wait! I know! I'll ignore the twenty pages of endnotes and attack him for not including footnotes!"

And remember, this is a review lambasting Al Gore for making silly, illogical arguments.

• Posted at 9:57 AM · LINK

Song Stylings

A little while ago, I posted a link to a video of Ray Stevens, a performer I'd always kinda liked. As I mentioned, his most recent record was a thing called "The New Battle of New Orleans," which I haven't heard.

A couple of folks have written me in the last hour to say that they have, and that it's wingnut claptrap with a racist edge. The lyrics to the song, which are posted over here, sure lead one to that viewpoint. It's amazing that someone could be from that area and write a song about Hurricane Katrina with zero sympathy for the victims.

Very disappointing. Like I said, I'd kinda liked Ray Stevens. I think I like him a little less now.

• Posted at 2:18 AM · LINK

More Groo

We promised you more Groo and more Groo is what you're gonna get. The Groo 25th Anniversary Special comes out in August and then the following month, you get the first issue in a new, four-issue mini-series called Groo: Hell on Earth. The drawing above is the cover of the first issue, which goes on sale September 19. Here's what the ad solicitation for this issue says...

Groo is back...and oddly enough, that may not be the biggest disaster looming over the world. It seems to be getting hotter everywhere...that is, in those places where it isn't getting colder than ever before. The usual suspects — Sergio Aragonés and Mark Evanier — bring you the first chapter of what will eventually be four issues. That is, if the planet in the comic survives that long!

I have nothing to add to that except to say that it feels good to be Grooing again. There will be a special Groo Panel this year at the Comic-Con International in San Diego...one of (at the moment) fourteen panels I'm doing there. Details will be along soon.

• Posted at 1:00 AM · LINK

Today's Video Link

Hey, you remember Ray Stevens? That's right: The guy who recorded all those weird, semi-country songs and a couple of more mainstream ones. Ray seems to be pretty much retired now, having spent the last decade or two doing shows in and around Branson, but he sold an amazing number of records in his lifetime. And CDs. And music video tapes. When people talk of the most successful musical performers of the last twenty or thirty years, he seems to be unjustly off the radar. If someone did the math though, they'd probably find him in the Top Fifty, maybe the Top Twenty of the best-selling recording artists. (Not long ago, a reporter called to ask me what the best-selling comedy record of all time was. I wasn't certain but I told him that if one counted Mr. Stevens' tune, "The Streak," as a comedy record, that might well be it.)

If you doubt what I'm telling you, take a look at this discography and see how many records and CDs and tapes this man has had. You don't have a list like that unless you're selling a helluva lot of product.

Here's Ray in a recent performance — on a benefit to raise cash for victims of Hurricane Katrina. Around the same time, he also recorded a new song about the tragedy called "The New Battle of New Orleans," which I haven't heard. As far as I know, these are the last two things he's done.

• Posted at 12:38 AM · LINK