|
August 26, 2004
Write as I say, not as I do?
Inspired by this post (by Freelance Journalist Dennis), last month I questioned the following assertion by Salon.com's Senior Editor Eric Boehlert that the United States Air Force began drug screening tests in 1972: In 1972 he asked to be transferred to an Alabama unit so he could work on a Senate campaign for a friend of his father's. But some skeptics have speculated that Bush might have dropped out to avoid being tested for drugs. Which is where Air Force Regulation 160-23, also known as the Medical Service Drug Abuse Testing Program, comes in. The new drug-testing effort was officially launched by the Air Force on April 21, 1972, following a Jan. 11, 1972, directive issued by the Department of Defense.The above looks extremely authorititative, but I found no evidence whatsoever that the regulation Boehlert cited existed in 1972. Instead I found evidence to the contrary. And now I see that there's yet another letter to the Washington Times from Colonel Campenni which states that the Air Force did not begin its drug testing program until the 1980s: Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by the Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special part of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because of its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not confront a drug user.Once again, I ask: who is right? Salon.com or Colonel Campenni? It goes without saying that there's a lot of false information on the Internet, but I was surprised to see it coming (apparently) from a source most people assume is reputable. When I have on occasion cited WorldNetDaily or Newsmax.com, people have told me that these sources are unreliable, and that I shouldn't cite them because nothing they write can be believed. I try to focus on whether something is true, and even if there's skepticism about the source, discussing public opinion and attempting to get at the facts is what blogging is all about. I saw a clear conflict between what Boehlert wrote and what a military insider says, and what I remembered from my own experience. Boehlert's assertion just seemed wrong, but not in the ordinary way. The assertion of a military regulation, complete with detailed dates and numbers, seemed so thoroughly authoritative that if it turned out to be wrong, at the very least, an explanation was in order. I can find no explanation or retraction, anywhere, from Eric Boehlert. What's the protocol here? I'm a little stumped over what to do. Should I go on that all-in-the-same-boat cruise and ask him? Nah! I'm not an in-your-face type of guy, and besides, I just got back from a cruise. (NOTE: It's only fair to point out, however, that I never would have learned about the Salon cruise but for Glenn Reynolds' spontaneous free advertising.) And it's not that big of a deal, really, because I'm a First Amendment absolutist, and I think that even if he was found to be lying and making stuff up, Eric Boehlert should have every right to do that. So why don't I just shut the hell up? Even if an online journalist made stuff up, so what? Normally I wouldn't be so bothered, but considering what Boehlert said recently, I'm a little concerned about a double standard: In an article entitled "Unfit for Bookstores," Eric Boehlert of Salon.com reported that a representative of the Kerry campaign had said Regnery Publishing, which printed Unfit for Command, is retailing a hoax and should consider withdrawing it from bookstores.What gives Boehlert such moral authority? His status as a Senior Editor at Salon.com? What if he has promulgated (or fabricated) a lie about Air Force drug testing? Either the "long-standing tradition by reputable publishers" he champions applies to Salon or it does not. Hope my suspicions are unfounded, because I've always enjoyed Salon. posted by Eric on 08.26.04 at 09:43 AM
Comments
Interesting; I guess you saw that other blogger's suggestion that Boehlert conduct a book burning party! http://slingsnarrows.erudite-absurdity.com/archive/002236.html Eric Scheie · August 27, 2004 04:23 PM Abstaining as a means of beating a drug test works especially well with the cocaine Bush is alleged to have been abusing. A few days of drinking water and cranberry juice would flush every trace from the body. Us potsmokers would have to abstain for a month to be sure were it not for the availability of cleansing concoctions. My son, who just passed one with ease opines that the whiz quiz is actually an intelligence test. triticale · August 27, 2004 11:00 PM Abstaining as a means of beating a drug test works. Can't argue with the logic of that! But if there weren't any drugs tests in 1972, there'd have been no reason to beat them. Eric Scheie · August 27, 2004 11:28 PM Military drug testing began in 1970. See navydrugscreeninglabsandiego.med.navy.mil/homepage.nsf/NDSL, SD Command History.pdf Steve · September 15, 2004 10:56 AM Can't get that last link to work properly, but the text you provided says nothing about drug testing programs. Specific information would be helpful. Thanks. Eric Scheie · September 15, 2004 11:38 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I stopped reading Salon after Camille Paglia stopped writing there.
America's massed Left: book-burning Brown Shirts