� Sowell vs The Bell Curve | Main | Economic Horses, Political Carts �
January 08, 2005
Obligatory Seriousness on Armstrong Williams
I still sometimes confuse Armstrong Williams with Larry Elder, but I shouldn't. It should be easier in the future. One of them will still be on the air.
I expect that there's going to be a fairly large number of African Americans focused in a new type of scandal and crime over the next decade. It only proves that we're still moving on up. In some ways, it could be considered an honor to be a paid shill. But I think the vote is unanimous that Williams displayed bad form. Whether or not his blunder is illegal I haven't parsed the news that closely to see, but it's clear that he wasn't getting the best advice.
So bear witness to the new wave of black crime, the new money faux pas. You know, I think Armstrong Williams ought to have invested some of his money towards membership in the right club. If he were hobnobbing with the right kind of people, he would have never shown such bad form.
What do you do when the Department of Education asks you to pub up something of theirs that you actually believe in? My guess would be that you do a Public Service Announcement. Is a plug on the Armstrong Williams Show worth a quarter million? Undoubtedly so. Where were his producers and legal department, hmm? Or did he thoughtlessly cut them out of the loop?
Either way, what's done is done. No harm, no foul. It's not as if he landed himself at Betty Ford or left his wife for a 15 year old Vietnamese girl. Everybody pipe down.
Posted by mbowen at January 8, 2005 09:38 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.visioncircle.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3080
Comments
Agreed.
Moreover, who here wouldn't accept $250,000 for shilling for the Department of Education in their blog?
R.
Posted by: Ricky at January 9, 2005 01:55 PM
He's issued a prompt apology - see:
http://www.armstrongwilliams.com/ME2/Audiences/default.asp
Undoubtedly this is not sufficient, especially for his ideological opponents. But neither have the crooks at NAACP and the UN adequately accounted for their behavior.
At least Armstrong's positions and his funding, are consistent with each other.
Posted by: True_Liberal at January 9, 2005 02:08 PM
what crooks at the naacp?
armstrong is a conservative. under what circumstances is it ok for a small-government conservative to take money from the government?
Posted by: Lester Spence at January 10, 2005 06:41 AM
The NAACP has nothing compariable to this. Neither does the UN. They actually have something worse and of real issue.
Posted by: DarkStar at January 10, 2005 05:17 PM