William F. Buckley Jr. and Michael Kinsley
Boolah Boolah
By Michael Kinsley
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2001, at 7:58 PM ETMichael Kinsley reminisced on the late William F. Buckley during an online chat on Feb. 28, 2008. Read the transcript.
Dear Bill--
My Slate colleague Tim Noah sent me, and I sent you, a story I'm really eager for your reaction to. It's from your own National Review Web site and reports that conservative students at Yale are organizing a boycott of this year's commencement speech, by Hillary Clinton.
Now, a boycott is not censorship or even attempted censorship. And your famous first book, God and Man at Yale, argued forcefully that First Amendment values are out of place on (private) college campuses. Anyway, no one is obligated to attend a college graduation ceremony, even his or her own. On the other hand, an organized boycott is a bit different from individuals deciding individually not to attend. This kind of action and the fuss generated around it are a currency that can lose value from overuse. Even after eight-plus years, I am amazed at the depth of Hillary hatred. Is she really so terrible that she's worth this kind of protest? If you were at Yale now, would you join the boycott?
The other issue I'd like your take on, because I'm of two minds, comes from an article in today's Wall Street Journal, which reports that the FDA is looking again at its 1997 policy change that allowed prescription drugs to be advertised to consumers. The Rx ads that now crowd the tube are often hilarious. Presumably because of residual regulations, or fear of lawsuits, they tend to be vague about the product's benefits but specific about its risks. Some of them don't even tell you what the pill in question is supposed to do, only that it is very wonderful ("Honestly, Helen, it's changed my life." "I know, Marge, and I'm going to call my doctor about it tomorrow!"), and by the way it can cause diarrhea, bad breath, cancer, and depression.
But the ads work. Patients badger their doctors for these drugs and the doctors go along. I have no doubt that in many, many cases a cheaper drug or no drug at all would be just as good. You might say, so what? Free people have the right to waste their own money. But the cost of drugs, or much of it, is socialized through government programs or private insurance. And of course you have spent decades rebutting J.K. Galbraith (rebutting, not refuting) about the nefarious demand-creating effects of advertising. But here it seems undeniable.
On the other hand, in the land of the First Amendment, why should the government be telling companies they can't communicate (presumably) accurate information to anyone they want? (There's a whole thicket of arguments and counterarguments about "commercial" speech, but that's where I come out.) Furthermore, the whole prescription regime is a government-run protection racket for doctors. You're famous for believing that people should be able to use whatever illegal drugs they want without government interference. What about prescription drugs?
Yours,
M
P.S.: I see we're down to initials now. Do you prefer to be B, or Mr. B? (No, wait, let's not start all that up again ...)
Boolah Boolah
By Michael Kinsley
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2001, at 7:58 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
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
What It Will Cost You To Deny Illegal Immigrants Health Insurance
Stupid Drug Story of the Week: NBC's Today Show Discovers Huffing
Can the Government Call God Jesus? What About Allah?
How Twilight Made Goth Fashion Mainstream
Is Disney's The Suite Life Making Your Child Into an Evil Lothario?
The Blind Side: Illegal Use of Sandra Bullock
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)