Gun Control Book a Fake? -- George Will: "Gunning for a Bad Book"

Newsweek ^ | May 20, 2002 | George Will

[The Raven]

In a large event, much commented on, the Justice Department last week told the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment (

[The Raven]

OK.....Why didn't this make the news?

[Joe Brower]

[elbucko]

"OK.....Why didn't this make the news?"

We all know why. The news rooms in this country, ink and electronic, are patently and overwhelmingly against the second amendment and in favor of severe gun control.

[steve-b]

tries to change the subject, to the meaning of "culture"

BWAHAHAHA!! Where have we heard this line of defense before?

[Physicist]

Bellesiles’s malfeasance, although startling in its sweep, brazenness and apparently political purpose, actually reveals something heartening—a considerable strength in America’s scholarly community. Its critical apparatus is working. Scholars and their journals are doing their duty, which is to hold works of scholarship up to the bright light of high standards.

And that's absolutely that last thing that Mr. Bellesiles ever expected. My own astonishment is no less than his.

[Billthedrill]

Part of the reason it didn't make the news is that it is so exquisitely embarrassing. Bellesiles has not a leg to stand on here, and the rapture with which this little academic turd-in-a-punchbowl was received will prove humiliating to those who hyped it as "the NRA's worst nightmare," which was virtually all the mainstream media. Yes, they are uniformly for gun control, but this is much worse - this attacks more than a political position, this attacks their hyperinflated egos. Look for it on page 37, third section...below the fold.

[The Raven]

>>And that's absolutely that last thing that Mr. Bellesiles ever expected. My own astonishment is no less than his.

I'm curious as to why you said this, I take it you think it's more widespread (rewriting history).

[citizen]

It did make big news............when this fraud was first published -- The NYT, WPost and other lib book reviewers went nuts for it.

They ain't talking now though.

[The Raven]

That's what I was referring to...the silence of the lambs

[Dan Day]

We all know why. The news rooms in this country, ink and electronic, are patently and overwhelmingly against the second amendment and in favor of severe gun control.

You certainly won't hear much about in TIME magazine. Here's the form letter they sent out in response to people who wrote in complaining about their "Death by Gun" cover story, which was heavily slanted -- note that the letter admits this and describes it as a *good* thing:

August 1, 1989

The July 17 cover story is the most recent in a growing number of
attempts on the part of TIME editors to keep the gun-availability
issue resolutely in view.  Such an editorial closing of ranks
represents the exception rather than the rule in the history of the
magazine, which has always endeavored to provide a variety of
opinions and comment, in addition to straightforward news reporting,
as a way of engaging readers in interpreting the significance if
issues and events as they arise.  But the time for opinions on the
dangers of gun availability is long since gone, replaced by
overwhelming evidence that it represents a growing threat to public
safety.

          As we see it--and as we indicated in the report--our
responsibility now is to confront indifference about the escalating
violence and the unwillingness to do something about it.  Our appeal
is for consideration of reasonable control over gun ownership--not,
as some have charged, for an outright ban--as a means of making it
more difficult for individuals to become targets of their own or of
others' deadly violent impulses.  Not a panacea, to be sure.  And
indeed, we are not asking for a cure for all of society's ills, only
for relief from one of its most needlessly destructive symptoms.
Certainly, readers are entitled to challenge our approach or our
position on this matter, and we appreciate your taking the time to
share your sentiments with the editors.  Thank you for writing, and
best wishes.

Sincerely, Gloria Hammond, TIME Editorial Offices

[Physicist]

I'm curious as to why you said this, I take it you think it's more widespread (rewriting history).

History departments are famous for having become extremely and radically leftist in recent years. Many of them have become severely intolerant of anything even hinting at a conservative perspective, or challenging any facet of left-wing extremist ideology.

[Robert357]

Let's see, Time Magazine is clearly anti-gun. AOL has demostrated an anti-gun policy on a number of different occasions. Therefore, we can conclude that AOL/Time-Warner is probably very anti-gun at the highest levels and that the Board of Directors and chief officers must in either out of the loop or in favor of gun control:

I wonder if it is a company policy formally approved by the Board of Directors or if as in so many of the Board of Director lawsuits that are occuring these days if it is through lack of oversight an error of omission on the part of the officers of the company??? Inquiring minds want to know. Maybe a Freeper or two should ask some of them?

i) Principal Executive Officer Director and Chief Executive Officer
Gerald M. Levin
(ii) Principal Financial Officer
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Wayne H. Pace
(iii) Principal Accounting Officer Vice President and Controller
James W. Barge
(iv) Directors:
Daniel F. Akerson
James L. Barksdale
Stephen F. Bollenbach
Stephen M. Case
Frank J. Caufield
Miles R. Gilburne
Carla A. Hills
Reuben Mark
Michael A. Miles
Kenneth J. Novack
Richard D. Parsons
Robert W. Pittman
Franklin D. Raines
R.E. Turner
Francis T. Vincent Jr.

[Cicero]

Scholars and their journals are doing their duty, which is to hold works of scholarship up to the bright light of high standards.

Well, hardly. The scholarly community of historians is doing everything it can to downplay this fiasco. The Newberry Library of Chicago awarded Belisle a second NEH grant, well after the details of the scandal over his first book had started to come out. And it's still not certain that Bellisles will be punished for his misdeeds.

Moreover, many of the most prominent scholars in such fields as history and literature publish lies like this all the time. They seldom get caught, and even if caught they seldom are punished. The academic profession is full of liars and political hacks at the highest levels. This is so because political correctness gets you a lot further in your career than good scholarship.

If a conservative scholar were to commit Bellisles' scholarly sins, he would be out of a job by now. But it's by no means sure, even now, that Bellisles will be punished as he deserves.

[JusticeLives]

"If a conservative scholar were to commit Bellisles' scholarly sins, he would be out of a job by now."

..even the flip-flopper David Brock?

[The Raven]

>>History departments are famous for having become extremely and radically leftist in recent years.

Did you see the PBS series "Commanding Heights" ?? Seems as though left wing policies have failed everywhere. Behind every economic failure, purge, war, famine or enslavement - is a government policy or worse.

[The Raven]

>>The Newberry Library of Chicago awarded Belisle a second NEH grant,

That figures.....If at first you can't perjury ---lie, lie, again

[GSWarrior]

He said he had examined probate records in 30 places around the country, such as the San Francisco Superior Court. But those records were destroyed in the 1906 earthquake.

I believe I read that the S.F. Superior Court survived the 1906 earthquake.

[timestax]

bump

[lowbridge]

Belles bump

[Angelique]

History departments are famous for having become extremely and radically leftist in recent years.

What history departments? History is no longer a required curriculum in most Universities, and it is sorely lacking in reality in lower school levels. It is pick and choose by the instructor, developing an army of little leftists.