Got a note from a reader yesterday, saying, “Have you seen your Wikipedia page? FYI, there’s a little gotcha in there about your ignorance of ‘Monica Goodling.’ I never heard of Monica Goodling. Listen, if this is the worst they can pin on you — congratulations.”
My curiosity piqued, I went to Wikipedia, and this is what I read: “In 2009, Nordlinger admitted he did not know who Monica Goodling - a central figure in the controversy over the firing of U.S. Attorneys- was, despite the fact that he was a senior editor of National Review during the scandal.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ADVERTISEMENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Funny old world. I was discussing the U.S.-attorneys scandal with Judge Mukasey not very long ago — July, I think. Let me tell you a bit about how things work these days:
As I said on our Corner a couple of weeks ago, I got this e-mail with no salutation and no signature. It said, “Your memory is either very short or very selective” — and then it gave a link. The e-mail turned out to be from a writer at Salon.com, Glenn Greenwald. The link was to a piece of his, going after me. I wrote him back, saying I’d take a look at what he was doing and make a note of it on the Corner.
His piece was called “Deleting the Bush Personality Cult from history.” And the gist of it was this: Conservatives like Nordlinger were saying that President Obama’s admirers are on the creepy-culty side; but there was a cult of personality around Bush (43), which they were conveniently forgetting — what hypocrites.
I did indeed reply on the Corner — don’t quite know why. First, I had said I would. And second, I wanted to be sporting, I guess. I seldom do much with liberal blogs. (For reasons we could get into.) Anyway, here is that reply. I linked to Greenwald’s piece — here. And I said that I myself had not discerned a cult of personality around Bush: but everyone is entitled to his opinion, or perception.
I also noted that Greenwald dwelled on two figures: Angela Williamson and Monica Goodling, staffers at the Justice Department. They were supposed to be major cultists (or something). Remember that the man had e-mailed me, “Your memory is either very short or very selective.” I said in the Corner that I wasn’t trying to sweep these ladies under the rug: Frankly, I had never heard of them. I certainly didn’t remember them.
But my main point was that I disliked cults of personality, strongly, whether they were from the left or right (or whatever). Civics 101. Kindergarten stuff. That ended the discussion, I thought. But no.
I got several e-mails from Salon.com readers, spilling bile on me, and saying that I had no right to call myself a political journalist, because I had never heard of Williamson and Goodling — especially Goodling. I soon learned that Greenwald himself was saying this; his readers were simply echoing it.
I did not realize that these women were so important (no offense to them, honestly). I thought that the important figure in the U.S.-attorneys thing was Gonzales, and, relatedly, Bush. I didn’t realize that not knowing Monica Goodling was sort of like not knowing FDR, or Machine Gun Kelly.
I still don’t believe it.
Anyway, then came this Wikipedia caper: “Nordlinger admitted . . . despite the fact that he was a senior editor of National Review . . .” Guess I’m just a big ignoramus. And here I thought I knew a fair amount, over a variety of fields! There is a lot I don’t know, true. To borrow my e-mailer’s language — the e-mailer who told me about Wikipedia — there is a lot more, a lot worse, they could “pin” on me. Do you know I’ve never made it through The Odyssey? I am somewhere adrift in the wine-dark sea.
Or is that The Iliad? Haven’t finished that either. Come and get me, copper! Do your worst, Wikipedia-ists!
I guess this is how the world works now. Sort of strange, isn’t it? In National Review last year, we had a piece by JJM (John J. Miller) saying that Wikipedia is something of a liberal fief, where political entries are concerned. I am not in a position to argue with him. And I warn one and all: If you’re thinking about trying to make nice with Salon.com, think twice.
