William F. Buckley Jr. and Michael Kinsley
Salutations in Cyberspace
By Michael Kinsley
Posted Tuesday, March 27, 2001, at 3:29 PM ETMichael Kinsley reminisced on the late William F. Buckley during an online chat on Feb. 28, 2008. Read the transcript.
Dear Bill:
We've been staging various sorts of e-mail conversations for almost five years at Slate, but this may be the first one that goes on for a week without getting beyond the salutation! (It might make a good premise for a Nicholson Baker novel. ...)
You're correct to nail me on my crack about Bob Novak. Yes, that was just Crossfire talk. All things being equal, I'd just as soon he be happy, too. (And I grieve with him this week over the death of his writing partner, Rowlie Evans.)
Meanwhile, though, I have succumbed to your choice of topics, but you refuse to engage on the issues I raise. Let's reduce them to two:
1) You prefer to be addressed as Mr. Buckley, at least until familiarity has some basis in fact. But is this symmetrical? In the world of universal first names where I live, everybody is equal in this small symbolic respect, which is nice. Is there equality of salutation in your world, or do you first-name people who last-name you? And are you comfortable with that?
2) You say that addressing strangers as Mr. is "conventional ... customary and polite," and by implication needs no more defense than that. A classic conservative argument. But even you must allow that conventions and customs change, no? Believe me, in Seattle and in cyberspace, first names are the near-universal convention and custom. Addressing someone as "Mr." is positively impolite, verging on insult. So if you prefer Mr., it seems to me you must defend it on its merits and not rest on custom.
I have to be a bit brief today because I'm about to spend all afternoon in "Diversity Training." It's mandatory for all "managers" at Microsoft, which is what, however unlikely, I am. No doubt there is no such requirement at National Review, and you may say that, since I'm a liberal, it serves me right. I do generally support affirmative action, although (one more attempt to wrench the conversation forward) I was glad to see the Supreme Court yesterday taking up (once again) the issue of special treatment for minority businesses in awarding federal construction contracts. Favoritism for minority-owned businesses is one form of affirmative action that is truly indefensible and poisons the well for the rest. Anyone in a position to bid for a multimillion-dollar highway contract is either already well-to-do or fronting for a white male who is, or both. Undoubtedly black millionaires suffer discrimination in comparison with white millionaires. But affirmative action is powerful medicine with some toxic side effects and should be reserved for injustices that are more pressing.
Whaddya think?
Best,
Mike
Salutations in Cyberspace
By Michael Kinsley
Posted Tuesday, March 27, 2001, at 3:29 PM ETReader Comments from The Fray:
[Thursday notes from the Fray Editor: Bruce F. Cole appears to be addressing here some amalgamated version of the two distinguished Breakfast Tablers, but we never let that sort of consideration stand in the way of a cheap shot in The Fray. A couple of readers pointed out that the Girard bequest to which Mr. Buckley refers (Wednesday) was made in the 1840s; the Supreme Court struck down its whites-only provision in 1968. Tom R (yes, again) writes about diversity with the memorable sentence "Working for the Air Force you get all sorts of opportunities to find out how to discriminate against other people, sexually prey on their weaknesses, steal the government's money, and solicit bribes from government contractors." There appears to be some attempt to link this description with Slate, but best left hidden we think.]
Boycotts are for sissies. The Yale students planning a boycott of Clinton's appearance are only doing it to draw attention to themselves. They deserve no such attention. Boycotting a speech doesn't do anything. It doesn't even say anything. It just sort of suggests that people who do not want to do or even say anything want very badly to look as if they are.
Do these Yalies disapprove of Sen. Clinton, or what she represents? Fine; let them show in their post-Yale lives that they stand for something better. That would be a statement worth making. Right now it doesn't sound as if they have anything to say.
--Joseph Britt
(To reply, click here.)
[Wednesday notes from the Fray Editor: The Fray is divided into two camps: those who think modes of address a dull topic, and those who cannot pile their perceptions in fast enough. There is also a meta-level of discussion as to what makes a good "Breakfast Table" and a good Fray--see for example Charmy, here. Alexander Chancellor raises an excellent point about possible national differences in formality.
Those who could tear themselves away from names wanted to discuss affirmative action here, and here ("I'm confused, they're both wrong"). Tom R, in addition to the contribution below, revealed that he once received a memorably specific grant for being an "exceptional married engineering student who planned to attend grad school". We're sure you deserved it Tom. More good stories here and here.
Publius wants the Fray Editor to ask Mr Buckley a question, but Zeitguy knows why she can't: "We talk to Kinsley, Kinsley talks to God, God sends email to Buckley..."]
Being an old friend of Michael or Mike Kinsley, yet still undecided whether to call him Mike or Michael, I am particularly interested in this correspondence. I tend towards calling him Michael, not because I object to "Mike" in any way at all but because I am British and somehow assume that "Michael" is what would be expected of me by Americans, even though Britain long ago became a nation of "Mikes" rather than "Michaels". When I was editor of the Spectator in the 1970s, I published a couple of rather dull articles by a young lawyer under the name Anthony Blair. He is now Prime Minister and would be appalled if anyone called him anything other than Tony.
--Alexander Chancellor
(To reply, or to read this post in full, click here.)
If, as Mr. Kinsley suggests, Mr. Buckley must defend his preference for civilized formality on grounds other than tradition, it seems to me Kinsley should argue for informality on grounds other than its current vogue among Internet users. They've also made all-lowercase the standard for email, but we're in no rush to adopt that as general usage.
--Scott Dickensheets
(To reply, click here.)
Harvard may be privately controlled but it's larded with government funding in both its research programs and in government subsidies for basic education programs. I'd only accept Mr. Buckley's concept about affirmative action being acceptable for the private sector if in fact Harvard (or any other private college) could set up some sort of 'Chinese Wall' to segregate the publicly funded segments from the privately funded segments. The latter then could come under the Buckley programmatic blessing.
--Tom R
(To reply, click here.)
[Monday notes from the Fray Editor: It would be quite an achievement to be considered the biggest troublemaker on the Fray, but we may have a contender: step forward Neill Hamilton. We are naturally not going to publish the offending post, in which he tries to turn Breakfast Tablers against each other, but we will tell you that he has tried this in the past (here and here) and made a notably bad taste post which required a special reader warning. Amber, below, is doing her best, too.]
Two thoughts for Mr. Buckley: The nicknamed figures of stature you mention are Southerners. For reasons I've never quite plumbed, given names are normally shortened there (I accepted the same sort of abbreviation during several years in the South), regardless of the formality of the situation. Yankees adopt nicknames less consistently.
As a New Yorker somewhere in age between you and Michael Kinsley, I can't escape thinking of you as Mr. Buckley and him as Michael. Age evidently has something to do with it. In print, his bylines are always Michael, but he's a leader in an industry largely run by and for an even younger generation, one far less formal than either of you.
The more interesting question might be if it matters at all in this era. A great many Southerners command respect whatever they're called.
--Ellie C
(To reply, click here.)
What do your parents call you when you are in trouble? By your nickname or by your full name? Seems to me William, and poor Christopher, were awful children who did nothing but get into mischief and trouble. They are just used to being called by their full names.
--Amber
(To reply, click here.)
(3/26)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
News of the World Hush-Money Scandal: How Much Did Rupert Murdoch Know?
Obama's Nominee for NIH Chief Is an Evangelical Christian. And That's OK.
It's Way Too Soon To Call the Stimulus a Failure
I'm Having a Dinner To Celebrate My Divorce
Can the Kid Who Settled Child-Abuse Claims With Michael Jackson Finally Speak Out?
Fake News You Can Dance To
Reader Comments from The Fray:
[Thursday notes from the Fray Editor: Bruce F. Cole appears to be addressing here some amalgamated version of the two distinguished Breakfast Tablers, but we never let that sort of consideration stand in the way of a cheap shot in The Fray. A couple of readers pointed out that the Girard bequest to which Mr. Buckley refers (Wednesday) was made in the 1840s; the Supreme Court struck down its whites-only provision in 1968. Tom R (yes, again) writes about diversity with the memorable sentence "Working for the Air Force you get all sorts of opportunities to find out how to discriminate against other people, sexually prey on their weaknesses, steal the government's money, and solicit bribes from government contractors." There appears to be some attempt to link this description with Slate, but best left hidden we think.]
Boycotts are for sissies. The Yale students planning a boycott of Clinton's appearance are only doing it to draw attention to themselves. They deserve no such attention. Boycotting a speech doesn't do anything. It doesn't even say anything. It just sort of suggests that people who do not want to do or even say anything want very badly to look as if they are.
Do these Yalies disapprove of Sen. Clinton, or what she represents? Fine; let them show in their post-Yale lives that they stand for something better. That would be a statement worth making. Right now it doesn't sound as if they have anything to say.
--Joseph Britt
(To reply, click here.)
[Wednesday notes from the Fray Editor: The Fray is divided into two camps: those who think modes of address a dull topic, and those who cannot pile their perceptions in fast enough. There is also a meta-level of discussion as to what makes a good "Breakfast Table" and a good Fray--see for example Charmy, here. Alexander Chancellor raises an excellent point about possible national differences in formality.
Those who could tear themselves away from names wanted to discuss affirmative action here, and here ("I'm confused, they're both wrong"). Tom R, in addition to the contribution below, revealed that he once received a memorably specific grant for being an "exceptional married engineering student who planned to attend grad school". We're sure you deserved it Tom. More good stories here and here.
Publius wants the Fray Editor to ask Mr Buckley a question, but Zeitguy knows why she can't: "We talk to Kinsley, Kinsley talks to God, God sends email to Buckley..."]
Being an old friend of Michael or Mike Kinsley, yet still undecided whether to call him Mike or Michael, I am particularly interested in this correspondence. I tend towards calling him Michael, not because I object to "Mike" in any way at all but because I am British and somehow assume that "Michael" is what would be expected of me by Americans, even though Britain long ago became a nation of "Mikes" rather than "Michaels". When I was editor of the Spectator in the 1970s, I published a couple of rather dull articles by a young lawyer under the name Anthony Blair. He is now Prime Minister and would be appalled if anyone called him anything other than Tony.
--Alexander Chancellor
(To reply, or to read this post in full, click here.)
If, as Mr. Kinsley suggests, Mr. Buckley must defend his preference for civilized formality on grounds other than tradition, it seems to me Kinsley should argue for informality on grounds other than its current vogue among Internet users. They've also made all-lowercase the standard for email, but we're in no rush to adopt that as general usage.
--Scott Dickensheets
(To reply, click here.)
Harvard may be privately controlled but it's larded with government funding in both its research programs and in government subsidies for basic education programs. I'd only accept Mr. Buckley's concept about affirmative action being acceptable for the private sector if in fact Harvard (or any other private college) could set up some sort of 'Chinese Wall' to segregate the publicly funded segments from the privately funded segments. The latter then could come under the Buckley programmatic blessing.
--Tom R
(To reply, click here.)
[Monday notes from the Fray Editor: It would be quite an achievement to be considered the biggest troublemaker on the Fray, but we may have a contender: step forward Neill Hamilton. We are naturally not going to publish the offending post, in which he tries to turn Breakfast Tablers against each other, but we will tell you that he has tried this in the past (here and here) and made a notably bad taste post which required a special reader warning. Amber, below, is doing her best, too.]
Two thoughts for Mr. Buckley: The nicknamed figures of stature you mention are Southerners. For reasons I've never quite plumbed, given names are normally shortened there (I accepted the same sort of abbreviation during several years in the South), regardless of the formality of the situation. Yankees adopt nicknames less consistently.
As a New Yorker somewhere in age between you and Michael Kinsley, I can't escape thinking of you as Mr. Buckley and him as Michael. Age evidently has something to do with it. In print, his bylines are always Michael, but he's a leader in an industry largely run by and for an even younger generation, one far less formal than either of you.
The more interesting question might be if it matters at all in this era. A great many Southerners command respect whatever they're called.
--Ellie C
(To reply, click here.)
What do your parents call you when you are in trouble? By your nickname or by your full name? Seems to me William, and poor Christopher, were awful children who did nothing but get into mischief and trouble. They are just used to being called by their full names.
--Amber
(To reply, click here.)
(3/26)