A Correction & an Apology

A correction… But first this happy snap, from Allah Himself. It only goes to prove you can pick your nose; or you can pick your French; but you can’t pick your French nose. And if you don’t get that, well, you were probably cloned and never spent a year as a 10 year-old, babysat a 10 year-old, or acted like a 10 year-old.
So the correction. I recently received an email through Sasha about an entry I wrote a while back, pointing out the ginned-up nature of the Scalia legal ethics controversy, regarding his duck hunting trip with Vice President Cheney. As you will recall, the question was one of executive privilege for the Office of the Vice President. Actually you wont recall, unless you click on the link. Unless you have no life whatsovever. In which case, please hit the refresh button three or four times, and boost our hit count.

Anyhow, I tried to trace back the controversy – which was ginned up, and not much of a controversy according to legal ethics experts – back to a Mr. Savage. I rather stupidly attributed it to Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe.
The email through Sasha, from Mr. Charlie Savage, pointed out that this was a mistake, he never wrote such a column, and he hadn’t a clue where I would have gotten such a “bizzare” notion, that he could have written something like that. After all, Mr. Savage is a member of the Globe’s Washington Bureau. So it’s just a bizzare mistake I made in my “rant” – as Mr. Savage said.
First, I’m flattered he stopped by here. Good thing you google, sir. It will keep you ahead of the bloggers looking to rip your work to shreds.
Second, by way of clarification, the author of the article I pointed to was in fact David Savage, a member of the Washington Bureau of the Los Angeles Times. I didn’t link, because the LA Times requires something just short of a rectal exam to register, and frankly, I didn’t think linking to it was that important.
Third, I apologize for calling Charlie Savage biased, and stating that he is known to be biased. I meant Dan Savage. Dan is biased biased biased. Dan leans so far to the left, that Robert Scheer thinks he needs to back it off a notch.
Not Mr. Charlie Savage, however. His articles, in retrospect, look pretty decently balanced – for instance this article. Or this, which gets it about right as far as I can tell. Or this, which as far as I see is a better analysis of the cases in question than Linda Greenhouse managed.
Like Mr. (Charlie) Savage said, it’s completely bizzare that I could have mistaken him for somebody else in one of my rants.
I, for one, haven’t a clue how I would have confused a Mr. David Savage from the Washington Bureau of the LA Times, with Mr. Charlie Savage from the Washinton Bureau of the Boston Globe.
So, to everybody who is named Mr. Savage, I’ve learned my lesson. I’ll follow the example of the major papers – such as the Globe, and when I get something wrong, I’ll abjectly abase myself, beg your forgiveness for having breached the sacred trust between writer and reader; implore you to keep paying good money for my product; and I will openly wonder for a while if I should quit writing as a result of this bizzare error.
That’s what the NY Times and the Globe do, right?
Awww, nevermind. Sorry Charlie. Thanks for straightening out the record, and I’ll try to keep my Savages sorted out in the future. Keep up the good work – you seem to be reporting things pretty straight and accurate as far as I can tell – which is better than I managed in that entry, at least as to your identity.