Notes & Asides - political briefs - News Briefs - Brief Article

National Review, June 17, 2002

-- Dear Mr. Buckley: I read somewhere that your great-grandfather (or grgreat-great) was once sheriff of the infamous Duval County in South Texas. Is it true? I grew up in Jim Wells County next door.

Thank you,

James G. Shea

Doraville, Ga.

--Dear Mr. Shea: It is true. My grandfather was a law-and-order sheriff anand a devout Democrat. His allegiance to the latter transcended the former, as witness that although he died in 1904, he voted for Lyndon Johnson in 1948.

Cordially, WFB

-- Dear Mr. Buckley: In your column about Billy Graham (NR, April 22), yoyou wrote: "To have said in 1972 that pornographic entrepreneurs were heavily Jewish is different from saying such a thing as, 'Only Jews would engage in pornography' That would indeed be anti-Semitic, but that sentiment is not recorded."

Both statements about Jews are equally anti-Semitic. The veracity of a statement is not what determines whether it is anti-Semitic. Distinguishing among purveyors of porn based on their religion is, by definition, racism.

What is the purpose of pointing out that a certain activity is commonly engaged in by Jews if not to suggest to the audience that a generalization can be drawn therefrom about all Jews? What does being Jewish have to do with being involved in the pornography industry? It is the irrelevant generalization that is anti-Semitic or racist.

People who make racist comments often bemoan that they are not saying anything that is factually incorrect. That is a dangerous argument to accept. It gives legitimacy to racists and allows them to manipulate facts to create inferences.

Sincerely yours,

Daniel Weinberger

Montreal, Canada

--Dear Mr. Weinberger: I see your point, but it seems to me rather too clclinical to condemn defensible vernacular. Precisely because Jews are a small percentage of the population, the high incidence of them in any activity is remarkable.

One wouldn't say, "The Ivy League is governed by Protestants," because that is on the order of saying that whites are white. "A high proportion of Irish are drunkards" is halfway between that which is so commonplace as to be unremarkable and that which is apparently distinctive.

And then you get this subordinate point: Even if the statement about pornographers and Jews were ruled eo ipso anti-Semitic, the person who made the statement isn't derivatively anti-Semitic.

Cordially, WFB

-- Dear Mr. Buckley: It may be an East Coast vs. West Coast thing, but II've heard many East Coast folk say that they have "taken" a decision, whereas West Coasters are inclined to "make" a decision. Is it simply regional preference? I hope not, because I do not want to refer to President Bush as the country's "decision-taker."

Your help and comments, please.

Sincerely,

Philip F. Kennedy Jr.

Palm Desert, Calif.

--Dear Mr. Kennedy: I have no ear on that one, can't remember hearing ababout somebody "taking a decision." If I do, I will detain and ship him/her to you C.O.D.

Cordially, WFB

-- Dear Mr. Buckley: I have trouble with the many ways the word =93got" is used. I read in your "On the Right": "There is plenty of space left over in Guantanamo for more of what we have got . . ." Why not just say, "more of what we have"? I see "got" used so many ways that seem superfluous.

Jean Payne

Nine Mile Falls, Wash.

--Dear Ms. Payne: You see "got" used so many ways; so does the didictionary. American Heritage gives 16 varieties.

Cordially,

-- WFB