Jim, nice op-ed piece in the Journal today.
Either this book is great or you have a great publicist. Either way, I can’t fight a strong current; I gotta get me one!
Marty
Jim, nice op-ed piece in the Journal today.
Either this book is great or you have a great publicist. Either way, I can’t fight a strong current; I gotta get me one!
Marty
This book is great!
Jeff
SR22 #085 N916LJ
Jim, nice op-ed piece in the Journal today.
Either this book is great or you have a great publicist. Either way, I can’t fight a strong current; I gotta get me one!
Marty
Droll posting! In every book I’ve done, the WSJ has led the way in “we hate this book” / “the author is a commie” reviewing. Starting 20+ years ago, with my book National Defense, which was adopted for many years at West Post, the USAF etc in courses but was seen by the Journal as some kind of fifth-column subversive text.
At the publishers we had a pool about how, exactly, they’d figure out to go after this one. Couldn’t say it was anti business, since the heroes were businessmen. They could claim that relying on GA would be an environmental problem – but wait, this is the WSJ we’re talking about. Same problem with claiming GA is too elitist.
So I assumed part of the line would be: NASA is also a protagonist of the book, so this proves the author is still a Stalin-style state-planning advocate!
The guy ended up being more creative than I expected. The strategy:
-
Ignore what the book is actually about;
-
Say it should have been about one of the WSJ’s bete noires, lawyers (yeah, I’m down on liability judgments too, just not as much as the Journal is). One nice touch here – invented numbers! The book uses a “hypothetical” figure of $10 million for Cessna’s old insurance costs, and shows how that would rise per-plane as the produciton volumes went down. This becomes “Cessna spent $10 million…” BOok also says NASA spent $180 million or so – this becomes $63 million, which then proves that insurance was costing nearly as much as NASA spent!
-
Says that the free market will open all the new, non-hub airports. And so on.
A nice review coming out this sunday in NY TImes magazine. Controversy is always good!
Jim,
I just read the WSJ ‘review.’ How can you be a “commie” at the same time you’re a hedonistic, jet-setting plutocrat? Clearly, you are just doing this to impress your wife (and us?) with “the buttery richness of (your) plane’s leather seats.” Oh, please!
Who is Eric Felton anyway? Does he actually know anything about aviation?
George
Jim,
I just read the WSJ ‘review.’ How can you be a “commie” at the same time you’re a hedonistic, jet-setting plutocrat?!
That’s what took the creativity! (Commie part is having a good word to say for NASA, when of course The Market would solve all these problems.)
Who is Eric Felton anyway? Does he actually know anything about aviation?
Believe he’s an editorial writer for the Washington Times. (Note to out of towners: this the one owned by the Moonies.) As for the second question, I assume not. THis is why the WSJ’s editorial page really is America’s answer to Pravda. It doesn’t matter what the topic is or the details are, they can find a way to fit it into their preexisting views!
As for the second question, I assume not. THis is why the WSJ’s editorial page really is America’s answer to Pravda. It doesn’t matter what the topic is or the details are, they can find a way to fit it into their preexisting views!
Jim,
Isn’t that true of all newspapers?
Jeff
As for the second question, I assume not. THis is why the WSJ’s editorial page really is America’s answer to Pravda. It doesn’t matter what the topic is or the details are, they can find a way to fit it into their preexisting views!
Jim,
Isn’t that true of all newspapers?
Jeff
Well, yes – to a degree.
What makes the WSJ more totalitarian than most other papers – more Pravda-like, more Stalinist – is that it’s an across-the-board world view. At most papers, the book reviews and culture sections aren’t part of the editorial page. At the WSJ they are, and they’re all part of the same perspective. IMO.
As for the second question, I assume not. THis is why the WSJ’s editorial page really is America’s answer to Pravda. It doesn’t matter what the topic is or the details are, they can find a way to fit it into their preexisting views!
Jim,
Isn’t that true of all newspapers?
Jeff
Well, yes – to a degree.
What makes the WSJ more totalitarian than most other papers – more Pravda-like, more Stalinist – is that it’s an across-the-board world view. At most papers, the book reviews and culture sections aren’t part of the editorial page. At the WSJ they are, and they’re all part of the same perspective. IMO.
Could someone tell me what issue of the WSJ article about Cirrus was in?