Forgive me all, but the long-awaited proof is at hand! Remember when I said that the WSJ had in each case offered the most hostile review of every book I’ve written, because back in the dim past I made fun of its editorial-page editor in print?
Test-case is a book whose argument they structurally should love (pro-technology, pro-small company), written by a writer who they clearly do not love. We saw how it turned out!
Now, for comparison purposes, the new Economist – or for my purposes, the WSJ minus the personal score settling:
The buzz is that you got Bartley canned over the review and you offered Gigot a ride to his new office in NY! Message to literary circle: don’t screw with JF!
Good review! Proof accepted. But we need another word. “Stalinist” to me means authoritarian, nationalist, narrow-minded, and communist. What’s the word for authoritarian, nationalist, narrow-minded, and capitalist?
Forgive me all, but the long-awaited proof is at hand! Remember when I said that the WSJ had in each case offered the most hostile review of every book I’ve written, because back in the dim past I made fun of its editorial-page editor in print?
Test-case is a book whose argument they structurally should love (pro-technology, pro-small company), written by a writer who they clearly do not love. We saw how it turned out!
Now, for comparison purposes, the new Economist – or for my purposes, the WSJ minus the personal score settling:
The way we fly now
Hmmm . . . one of the two combatants in this 25-year-old grudge match between WSJ and JF thought we’d all be speaking Japanese by 2001 if the U.S. didn’t get its economic act together . . . at it wasn’t WSJ. But JF has redeemed himself at last with the best book of the year.
Actually, the harshest criticism for FREE FLIGHT will come from the pro-Kyoto crowd. They will accuse JF of heating up earth, one flight at a time.
The answer to that — and only the WSJ will dissent from the current global warming blather to tell you this — is that planes don’t add to global warming. They feed the trees, grass and flowers the carbon dioxide they need!
Forgive me all, but the long-awaited proof is at hand! Remember when I said that the WSJ had in each case offered the most hostile review of every book I’ve written, because back in the dim past I made fun of its editorial-page editor in print?
Test-case is a book whose argument they structurally should love (pro-technology, pro-small company), written by a writer who they clearly do not love. We saw how it turned out!
Now, for comparison purposes, the new Economist – or for my purposes, the WSJ minus the personal score settling:
The way we fly now
thought we’d all be speaking Japanese by 2001 if the U.S. didn’t get its economic act together . . . at it wasn’t WSJ.
Hey! The US did get its act together, partly thanks to timely warnings! 
And Japan – in keeping with the view of some “revisionists,” contrary to the WSJ view – persisted in not becoming a Western, market-driven economy! Ten years ago I would have bet wrong on the year-2001 dollar/yen exchange rate. But I would have bet right on the role of the LDP, the Ministry of Finance, the banks, and so on.
But how about this as a compromise: I’ll agree with you about C02!
The answer to that — and only the WSJ will dissent from the current global warming blather to tell you this — is that planes don’t add to global warming. They feed the trees, grass and flowers the carbon dioxide they need!
Unfortunately, the same faulty logic that claimed that phosphates were good for plants therefore good for lakes and streams is at work in the CO2 debate. Nobody questions CO2’s role in photosynthesis, but reasonable people do question the effect of aggregate concentration on other ecological systems.
Ken Hansen
Jim —
I just read The Economist review. It was terrific, and terrifically deserved! They gave you credit for taking a chance on a really cool idea.
Glad you agree about CO2 skepticism. And Ken, I’m just calling for skepticism on the matter. The NYT and their running dogs at ABC, CBS, NBC, etc., seemingly have already decided on the issue. Kyoto is good; “all” legitimate scientists agree, and let’s get on with demonizing SUVs.
Anyway, it’s been colder than Al Gore’s pectorals in the Bay Area lately! I think it’s our duty, as Bay Areans, to go up in the sky and spray as much CO2 as we can in the effort to send this wicked marine layer back out to sea! Don’t you think? 
thought we’d all be speaking Japanese by 2001 if the U.S. didn’t get its economic act together . . . at it wasn’t WSJ.
Hey! The US did get its act together, partly thanks to timely warnings! And Japan – in keeping with the view of some “revisionists,” contrary to the WSJ view – persisted in not becoming a Western, market-driven economy! Ten years ago I would have bet wrong on the year-2001 dollar/yen exchange rate. But I would have bet right on the role of the LDP, the Ministry of Finance, the banks, and so on.
But how about this as a compromise: I’ll agree with you about C02!
Rich,
As soon as you posted this note, the sun came out. Perhaps this web site is read by a Higher Authority after all
Jim —
I just read The Economist review. It was terrific, and terrifically deserved! They gave you credit for taking a chance on a really cool idea.
Glad you agree about CO2 skepticism. And Ken, I’m just calling for skepticism on the matter. The NYT and their running dogs at ABC, CBS, NBC, etc., seemingly have already decided on the issue. Kyoto is good; “all” legitimate scientists agree, and let’s get on with demonizing SUVs.
Anyway, it’s been colder than Al Gore’s pectorals in the Bay Area lately! I think it’s our duty, as Bay Areans, to go up in the sky and spray as much CO2 as we can in the effort to send this wicked marine layer back out to sea! Don’t you think?
Glad you agree about CO2 skepticism. And Ken, I’m just calling for skepticism on the matter.
Rich,
I couldn’t let this quote from the July 23rd WSJ slip by.
“It is a curious fact that skepticism and irrationalism are often the result of a misjudged demand for certainty. The antidote to this mistake may be found in Aristotle… he observes that ‘the same degree of precision is not to be sought for in all subjects’ and that ‘it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the subject admits.’ …we neglect Artistotle’s words at our peril.”
Ken Hansen