I have a question, too: Why is Jonah Goldberg opining in the Chicago Tribune that Julian Assange should be assassinated?
John Cook wants to know why Jonah Goldberg hasn’t been punched in the face yet today.
Goldberg responds, at his National Review space:
An old editor of mine at Brill’s Content (at least I think that’s how I know him) writes a spectacularly dumb item about my column today. I think he’s upset about the things I don’t say but which he thinks I should so it would be easier for him to write something halfway intelligible.
Sigh. A couple things. One, if Cook wants to weasel out of being a jerk by saying nice things about me at the end, he shouldn’t have bothered. And if he thinks I need to be punched in the face, I invite him to give it a whirl himself. If memory serves, it could lead to a fun few minutes for me. Oh, and he might bother actually characterizing my book correctly. When he was at Brill’s Content he had much higher standards.
Two things interesting about this response. First, you will notice that it’s actually not a response. Nowhere in it does Goldberg actually address Cook’s substantive criticisms. The ellipses in my paste are Goldberg’s quote paste from the Gawker post, and Goldberg has quoted essentially the entire post. Second, why does Goldberg accuse Cook of thinking Goldberg “needs to be punched in the face”? All Cook did was ask why Goldberg hasn’t been punched in the face today. He didn’t say he should be.