Quadrant Couldn’t Have Timed Things Any Worse

This time last year, Quadrant lost the last of its government funding. Rather than giving them a handout, I advocated subscribing on the basis that it represented good value for money. I also put my money where my mouth was and subscribed. Many others would have done the same and the folks at Quadrant probably saw a nice spike in subscriptions.

Now that the year is up, many are reflecting on what they got for their money. Doublethink wasn’t supposed to be part of the subscription.

It all started on the ABC’s Q&A last week – where the show’s panelists were curiously agreeing that you’ve got a better chance of getting hit by a falling fridge than being killed by a terrorist (yes, really). Then the Manchester attack happened a few hours later.

Roger Franklin then wrote the following:

Life isn’t fair and death less so. Had there been a shred of justice, that blast would have detonated in an Ultimo TV studio. Unlike those young girls in Manchester, their lives snuffed out before they could begin, none of the panel’s likely casualties would have represented the slightest reduction in humanity’s intelligence, decency, empathy or honesty.

Before changing it to read as follows:

Life isn’t fair and death less so. Had there been a shred of justice, that blast would have detonated in an Ultimo TV studio. What if that blast had detonated in an Ultimo TV studio? Unlike those young girls in Manchester, their lives snuffed out before they could begin, none of the panel’s likely casualties would have represented the slightest reduction in humanity’s intelligence, decency, empathy or honesty.

Instead of there being a strong focus on the sheer lunacy of what had been said on Q&A (I’m still waiting), the following things happened:

  • The ABC got angry, demanded an apology and that the article be pulled.

Communications Minister, Mitch Fifield, on Wednesday described the article as ‘sick and unhinged’ and ‘a new low’. 

  • Many on the conservative side of politics did their best to either join the virtue band wagon in condemning Franklin or run away from the issue and pretend it never happened.

For good measure, Franklin’s future at Quadrant is also in serious doubt with a trip to the Ministry of Love on the cards:

But it’s believed the online editor and author of the article, Roger Franklin, will be counselled, rather than sacked.

Anyone want to guess what happens next?

What Roger Franklin did was exercise his right to free speech, albeit poorly. But so what? Are we really now saying that if you write something wrong, offensive or tasteless, that it should be stricken from the record? That we should treat it as if it never existed? And who should be the arbiter of this new standard?

What a sick joke.

Free speech entails saying and writing whatever you want on these topics – even if it seeks to make people more scared of fridges than they otherwise should be. If it turns out to be wrong or offensive, then free speech allows people to call you out. From there, you are supposed to own what you have said or written: either by intelligently defending it or admitting that you were wrong. This is called accountability. It’s also how ideas get formulated, discussed, challenged and developed.

It is inconceivable that Quadrant could regularly campaign in support of amending or abolishing section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act – on the grounds of freedom of speech – but then actually pull one of its own articles, even though it didn’t breach any law. As far as Quadrant is concerned, Roger Franklin’s article doesn’t exist and never existed – the quintessence of doublethink*:

If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened — that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death?

And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’ And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. ‘Reality control’, they called it: in Newspeak, ‘doublethink’.

The past, he reflected, had not merely been altered, it had been actually destroyed. For how could you establish even the most obvious fact when there existed no record outside your own memory?

Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth.

Orwell’s 1984 isn’t supposed to be a blue print for a successful society: it’s supposed to be a warning as to how easy it is to destroy one. The Franklin saga shows that we’re well on our way.


(*) “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

This entry was posted in Politics, Politics of the Left and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to Quadrant Couldn’t Have Timed Things Any Worse

  1. Eddystone

    That Quadrant and Nick Cater reacted as they did is pretty bad.

    I feel as though they played right into the hands of their enemies, who would like nothing more than to see Quadrant fold.

    Surely a show of defiance, and a counter attack using the plentiful ammunition provided by the ABC, would have been better.

    I really hope Nick Cater didn’t cave just to keep his spot on the ABC.

  2. Neilo

    Time will tell I guess but George Orwell May have got it wrong .. he predicted “newspeak” would be perfected by 2050, we could have it well before then.

  3. Neilo

    Time will tell I guess but George Orwell May have got it wrong .. he predicted “newspeak” would be perfected by 2050, we could have it well before then.

  4. whyisitso

    We’ve just seen the death of Quadrant. Paddy would never have surrendered.

  5. Cato the Elder

    The American alt-right has coined a new term for this behaviour, they call it “cucking” and those who do it “cuckservatives”. The traditional term “cowardice” covers most of it, but cuckservative has the additional nuance of supporting one’s supposed enemies against one’s supposed friends; and of folding up like a cheap chair at the slightest pressure.

    That seems to cover it. Sad, really sad.

  6. Nathan

    My resubsription letter turned up today and was ripped up and put in the bin.

  7. Pyrmonter

    When so many self-described “conservatives” think it is acceptable to write:

    Had there been a shred of justice, that blast would have detonated in an Ultimo TV studio.

    it is little wonder that your natural allies – the classical liberals, the social liberals, the non-labor “progressives”, the small “c” conservative social democrats – despair of the current state of that strain of political thought in Australia.

    What was said on Q&A deserved mockery, not descent to the level of those well-deserving of that mockery.

  8. Roger

    Meanwhile, Margaret Court has just doubled down.

  9. Warty

    I agree with much that ‘Marcus’ has said, but I have one qualification: why on earth did he not say this as a ‘response’ in the Quadrant on-line? I have done so three times now, including today, and posting the comments to articles that have no bearing on the issue, simply to point out that things are just not right on the Quadrant board, that both Keith Windshuttle and grovelling Nick Cater are a part of.
    Marcus is free to voice his opinion here, but it would be even more worthwhile doing it there.

  10. The Good Guys, Bing Lee, Harvey Norman, etc, etc should demand an apology from the ABC for their slanderous misrepresentation of the danger of fridges.

  11. pbw

    What Roger Franklin did was exercise his right to free speech, albeit poorly.

    Albeit poorly? Pardon? What he did was express his outrage at the crypto-Marxist bludgers on Q&A and the ABC generally, in the light of another Islamist terror irritation. While you’re talking about sick jokes, one I’m heartily sick of hearing is the not so discreet distancing by conservative commentators of any straying from the reservation of etiquette that the ABC barbarians and their ilk maintain for the benefit of conservatives; a reservation from which the Yahoos exclude themselves. Peter Smith points out this phenomenon in respect of Trump in, of all places, Quadrant.

    Instead of her pro-forma hankie-clutching, Ms Guthrie would be better advised to take note of the boiling resentment that informed Roger’s comment; a resentment widely shared by readers of this blog. Having taken note, she might then take steps to address the C. elegans intellectual monculture of the ABC, before the resentment and disgust achieve critical mass and destroy all Parliamentary support for The Blob.

  12. Michael Muscat

    Quintessentially Cuckservative.

    Whatever replaces “conservatism” will look least kindly upon those who prosthelytized themselves before the altar of leftist dogma, against the wishes of their very own people.

    The Australian Ethnocentric Nationalist movement can’t happen soon enough. We will take no prisoners.

  13. Generic Person

    Who reads quadrant? There’s your problem.

  14. Driftforge

    it is little wonder that your natural allies – the classical liberals, the social liberals, the non-labor “progressives”, the small “c” conservative social democrats – despair of the current state of that strain of political thought in Australia.

    Allies? Looks like a list of leftists and leftist enablers.

    A liberal is someone who thinks that civilisational foundations are up for discussion, for arbitrary redirection, that the ‘best’ ideas always win out.

    Can’t go into conflict with vacillators like that at your side.

  15. Cato the Elder

    The original article was trenchant criticism, fine polemics and inspired invective, all fully justified. The apologies were at best misguided and at worst cowardly. If they felt like that, then why did the ever publish?

    FFS, do they know nothing? Never apologize to slime like that, it just gives them more ammunition.

    http://www.voxday.net/mart/SJW_Attack_Survival_Guide.pdf

  16. Megan

    The reaction from the ABC was completely ridiculous. They never, ever apologise for the outrageous lies and beat ups they pass off as news and yet they all, from the Managing Director down, wet their pants when one writer dares to hypothesise on the possibility of a terrorist destroying the ABC studios. All this in the very same week they have told the rest of us that the likelihood of such an attack is less than being clobbered by a random refrigerator. What possible leap of neurons, or lack thereof, could be responsible for such a pitifully stupid reaction? To the extent that they they had to upgrade their security. Did they also remove all chilling devices from the staff kitchens throughout the building? We have it ON THEIR AUTHORITY via Q&A that those things are the real danger.
    Quadrant’s response is also a massive disappointment. Cowardice and appeasement from a publication that pretends it represents a strong commitment to free speech. Well, Quadrant Board, actions always speak louder than words. Running from a fight? Defending free speech? Nothing you have to say in the future has any meaning because now we all know you will turn to water when the heat is on. Rebuilding your reputation after this debacle will take some doing.

  17. Sinclair Davidson

    Pyrmonter – a first draft got published and got reworded within 2 hours. The question remains valid and has been answered – our ABC friends are sanguine about terrorism until they feel threatened.

  18. Generic Person

    You don’t win a culture war by arguing for your opponents to be massacred by terrorists.

  19. Sinclair Davidson

    You don’t win a culture war by arguing for your opponents to be massacred by terrorists.

    You’re quite right. Our opponents should be given a fair trial and then legally executed.

    Mind you – I don’t know anyone who has argued that out opponents be massacred by terrorist. I do know people who have argued that our opponents would have a very different view of terrorism if they were being targeted.

  20. Generic Person

    I loathe the ABC groupthink as much as the next Cat but seriously, conservatives need to be a bit cleverer. The Q&A show has always been a hotbed of terrorist sympathisers, why stoop to their level?

  21. Awake

    And that my friend is the pathetic state of freedom of speech in Australia.

    No wonder there are no more great stand-up comedians in the country.

  22. Nerblnob

    There were worse things written and broadcast about Abbott every day, and not even hypothetical.

    Nobody ever apologised, as far as I know.

  23. Senile Old Guy

    Meanwhile, Margaret Court has just doubled down.

    Exactly.

    Media uproar and Margaret Court stood by her views.

    There is a lesson there.

  24. I am the Walras, Equilibrate, and Price-Take

    Senile Old Guy
    #2395021, posted on May 30, 2017 at 6:20 am
    Media uproar and Margaret Court stood by her views.

    There is a lesson there.

    Seconded.

    Have the courage of your convictions.

    Dare to be a Daniel,
    Dare to stand alone.
    Dare to have a purpose firm,
    Dare to make it known.

  25. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    I don’t know anyone who has argued that our opponents be massacred by terrorist. I do know people who have argued that our opponents would have a very different view of terrorism if they were being targeted.

    The crux of the matter. The point of RF’s comment.
    No need to apologise for holding to that point; just write to Guthrie saying that this is the case.
    The ABC would not be going on about fridges if they were targeted like the children in Manchester.
    As the ABC subsequently beefed-up security suggests.
    Let Guthrie deal with the fridge comments. They are offensive and insensitive.
    I am offended and outraged by them. So are all decent Australians.

    Quadrant has let us conservatives down badly. Can, and should, do better.
    Don’t cancel that subscription yet. Let’s wait and see what the Board does.

  26. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    As I’ve also commented on another similar thread, as a ‘literary’ magazine that supports free speech, Quadrant should be able to handle and defend hyperbole and satire.

  27. A Lurker

    I asked this on another thread, and am going to ask it again here.

    So what (if Quadrant has given up)?
    Create another.
    Set up a website and encourage submissions from all and sundry (vetted of course so that all abide by Conservative or Libertarian values). Also, ask for guest submissions from existing Conservative and Libertarian bloggers – unpaid at first to get the online journal going. Then ask for donations. Later, when you have sufficient funds, go print with reimbursement to authors.

    Surely there are enough retired, or semi-retired literary or academic or business types around (points a finger at the Cats) who would have the knowledge, network and contacts to get this up and running.

    Come on guys, it’s not rocket science.

  28. cynical1

    it is little wonder that your natural allies – the classical liberals, the social liberals, the non-labor “progressives”, the small “c” conservative social democrats – despair of the current state of that strain of political thought in Australia.

    If they can’t understand the point, they are no loss.

    The article was clearly not a threat.

    It was pointing out that the ridiculous attempt to trivialise terrorism was disgusting.

    And the arseholes doing the smug,were not the ones doing the paying.

    This stupid attempt to turn it into some sort of death threat is bullshit.

  29. Ilajd

    CROWD: cheering

    PILATE: People of Jewusalem!

    CROWD: chuckling

    PILATE: Wome is your fwiend.

    CROWD: laughing

    PILATE: To pwove our fwiendship, it is customawy at this time to welease a wongdoer fwom our pwisons.

    CROWD: laughing

    GUARD #3: chuckling

    PILATE: Whom would you have me welease?

    BOB HOSKINS: Welease Woger!

    CROWD: Yes! Welease Woger! Welease Woger! laughing

    PILATE: Vewy well. I shall welease Woger!

    CROWD: cheering

  30. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    They certainly couldn’t have timed their current EOFY appeal for funding any more poorly.
    However, if their campaign generates fewer funds than before, what’s the betting they will do what Turnbull does when his base is fed up, and go further left? Not blame it on the real issue – i.e. you have significantly alienated your base – but blame it on RF’s comment as driving ‘moderates’ away.

  31. I was not surprised by the reaction from the ABC or Minister Fifield. I was very surprised by the reaction of Quadrant and Nick Cater to the reaction of the ABC and Minister Fifield.

  32. Eddystone

    The article was clearly not a threat.

    It was pointing out that the ridiculous attempt to trivialise terrorism was disgusting.

    And the arseholes doing the smug,were not the ones doing the paying.

    This stupid attempt to turn it into some sort of death threat is bullshit.

    That’s as neat as summing up as anyone has made.

    Why couldn’t Quadrant see it like that?

  33. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Create another.

    Do that anyway. The conservative centre right so far only has Quadrant, compared to the plethora of left outpourings. It takes enormous effort though to get such a thing going and keep it running. As I’ve said on another thread, the Cat would be a good place from which to develop such a thing, due to Sinc’s good work.

    That all said, we still need Quadrant. It is well established, the work of generations. We need it for its history, its honoured place in Australian letters (which is what Windschuttle’s misguided apology was intended to protect), for its past was well as its present and future.

  34. Herodotus

    “If it turns out to be wrong or offensive, then free speech allows people to call you out. ”

    I am offended by the wrongs published daily by the largely leftoid media. We have all been calling them out on it for the best part of three decades, to no avail.

    “I don’t know anyone who has argued that our opponents be massacred by terrorists …”

    Maybe. I’ve certainly known leftoid journos (particularly some of the frightbats) to wish a painful death on those they disagree with. Their bosses have not apologised.

  35. Gilas

    “Never retreat, never explain, never apologize—get the thing done and let them howl.” – Nellie McClung
    Source: Colombo, John Robert, ed.. New Canadian Quotations. Edmonton: Hurtig, 1987, p. 2

    Several variations of this ?apocryphal? statement exists:

    I recall Paul Keating quoted this in the early 90s. He would know a thing or two about leftist thought and method.

    The problem with “conservatives” is that they simply don’t have a clue about dealing with leftards.

    Not a clue.

  36. David

    Stop talking about the article and start applying the blowtorch to what the whas was said on that ABC segment said. By focusing on the rubbish aftermath you are just playing into their hands. You and others are instinctively playing defense on this subject. It goes without saying Quadrant will suffer from their weakness in the form of subscriptions – you don’t need to say it. You should be expending every ounce of your writings applying the pressure back to them. Start demanding explanations, apologies, clarifications from the talking heads who think it ok to minimize the deaths of innocents in the future. Ask them to explain why they are happy to minimize evil because accidents happen. Take your own advice….start focusing on the sheer lunacy of what was said.

  37. Tel

    Progressive philosophy deep question:

    There’s a railway trolley coming down the hill, and it contains a terrorist bomb. You cannot stop the trolley, but you have one decision to make. There’s a switch in the track so you could switch that terrorist bomb to go one way where it would hit a bunch of innocent young girls in Manchester who may grow up to be very decent people (should they ignore their indoctrination in school), possibly even they could be great scientists, artists, engineers and other wonderful and productive outcomes. If you throw the switch the other way then the terrorist bomb will hurtle into the ABC quanda studio and blow up a bunch of insufferably smug rich old blowhards who have pretty much wasted their lives already and who enjoy making other people miserable where possible.

    That’s the only choice you can make, switch one way or the other. If you do nothing then it will hit the girls in Manchester and you can see what’s going to happen so you cannot claim ignorance thus making a decision to do nothing is still making a decision.

    What do you do?

    Remember, this is about the greater good. Sometimes sacrifice is necessary because society wants it that way.

    http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2016/10/24/4562269.htm

  38. Simon

    This is germane:

    No, You’re Not More Likely to Be Killed by a Right-Wing Extremist than an Islamic Terrorist

    In the article, Damion Daniels ends with this:

    But it is simply a fact that Islamic terrorism is currently the deadliest form of terrorism on the global stage. I care about that for several reasons, but primarily because I care about the victims of Islamic terrorism. I care about the people who are routinely maimed and murdered as a result of the toxic influences of archaic superstition on a 21st Century world. And I care about these victims no matter where they reside globally, no matter what their race, no matter what their ethnicity, their nationality, their religion, or their skin color. I care about them whether they are Bangladeshi secularists pulled apart by Islamists blades, whether they are French cartoonists gunned down for defying Islamic blasphemy laws, whether they are Pakistani Sufis incinerated in Lahore for being the wrong kind of Muslims, or whether they are British children blown to pieces and lacerated by shrapnel in a Manchester concert hall. I care about them all and I want it to stop. I can’t for a second see how the people who make it their life’s work to obfuscate and dismiss this issue can even begin to say the same.

  39. Rococo Liberal

    Privatise the ABC, now.
    Sinistra delenda est

  40. rich

    Never capitulate to SJWs like the panelists at auntie. They are like piranhas and they see any display of weakness as a signal to redouble their attack.

  41. Laurie Martinelli

    If an environmental activist had written the same paragraph with “Ultimo TV studio” replaced with “BHP boardroom” or “Adami shareholders meeting”, would there have been the same indignation from the ABC et al. ? Likely there would have been the usual ‘speaking truth to power”, etc. congratulations.

  42. jupes

    But it’s believed the online editor and author of the article, Roger Franklin, will be counselled, rather than sacked.

    A fate worse than death.

    He should tell them to get fucked.

  43. BM

    The ABC very quickly shifted from “Who’s afraid of the Big Bad Wolf” to “OMG, call the guards and run for your life, the Big Bad Wolf is coming for us”! Roger Franklin should get a Walkley for exposing those cretins’ real feelings about terrorism, when they are in the sights, even if it was clearly hypothetical! Which also shows how little they truly care about anyone else.

    Furthermore, it says so much about the ABC and their Lefty comrades in politics and media that they can find more outrage for a satirical opinion piece than the brutal murder of 22 innocent people.

    Their motto appears to be: “Sticks and stones may break other peoples’ bones, but nothing compares to the psychological trauma that a few offensive words may cause me.”

    It makes me so angry. They are the scum of the earth. Well done to Roger for sticking the boot in and I hope he knows how much support he has in this country right now.

  44. marcus

    We can all debate about the appropriateness of what Franklin wrote. But for me, this is a side-issue. The real issue is the speed and extent of capitulation by Quadrant – two grovelling apologies and a full yanking of Franklin’s article. That’s the sick joke in my view.

    Zyconoclast asked me a very good question yesterday:

    What do you think the actual outcome would have been (as opposed to the perceived or threatened) if they had just ignored the ABC bleating or doubled down with a two fingered salute?

    My answer:

    My best guess is that it would have blown over like everything else in the news cycle and been quickly forgotten – which makes Quadrant’s behaviour all the more disappointing.

    Personally, I would have issued one of those half-hearted, ‘if anyone was offended’ non-apologies and left it at that.

    Another question – why has Franklin been muzzled in all of this? Why hasn’t he been allowed to speak his mind?

  45. jupes

    Another question – why has Franklin been muzzled in all of this? Why hasn’t he been allowed to speak his mind?

    He’s in the naughty corner being counselled.

  46. Leo G

    If an environmental activist had written the same paragraph with “Ultimo TV studio” replaced with “BHP boardroom” or “Adami shareholders meeting”, would there have been the same indignation from the ABC et al. ?

    How could anyone sympathise with the kind of black humour which depicts young people being detonated?

  47. Tel

    They are like piranhas and they see any display of weakness as a signal to redouble their attack.

    Agreed!

    Also, the SJW “Progressives” never apologise about anything, ever… regardless of how off colour or off the wall it might be. There’s no value in showing a sign of your own good faith unless you expect some plausible likelihood of good faith in return.

    Well, OK, that’s quite not literally true, they have been apologists for Stalin, Mao and Castro often enough… but that’s a bit different. You know what I’m getting at here.

  48. Libby Zee

    why has Franklin been muzzled in all of this?

    He’s not been muzzled. He’s otherwise engaged … as Sinclair said on the Helen Letter thread.

  49. Cynic of Ayr

    To those who are not renewing their subscription as a protest at the apparent “caving in” and “grovelling apologies” I say, “Please re-consider, and subscribe.”
    Yes, it’s all a bother, but what are you protesting against? Not against Franklin, which is a good thing, but against the magazine for apologising.
    With all due respect, people, I think you’re wrong on this one.
    By not subscribing, you are sending the message to our enemies, that you are protesting against Franklin and the Magazine! No one on the Left will see it as any other way.
    By subscribing, you send the message that you do agree with Franklin, and the other part of the message is, “ABC! Go to Hell!”
    I re-subscribed immediately Franklin’s article was published. Yahoo, ripper darts! Here’s a bloke and a Magazine saying exactly what I believe!
    Finally, if the Magazine folds, because you did not re-subscribe in protest, because the magazine did not stick up for the Right, what Magazine will replace it?
    None.
    Please, re-subscribe.
    (Disclosure, I have nothing at all to do with the magazine or it’s people. I don’t know any of them.)

  50. Nelson Kidd-Fridges

    What is the path to getting on the Quadrant board? We need a(nother) Cat there!

  51. Rob

    The amazing level of support for Roger Franklin sends a huge message to those who have condemned him – bugger off and take your grovelling to the lefties. But don’t be surprised at the sneering contempt that will greet you.

  52. Siltstone

    Got the letter from Keith today, asking for money. Feel like saying i will give the mag 10 big ones if Kowtow Cater is kicked off the Board, never to go anywhere near the mag again. And Roger to be given an award of appreciation. And Kowtow, on his knees has to hand over the award, in front of an audience of Cats. That would be worth paying for.

  53. IainC

    Well may we say that fridges kill more people than terrorists in the US. But if 99% of those fridges were Westinghouse, wouldn’t there be an investigation into why that was so? Wouldn’t enquiries be made into the nature of the Westinghouse model, how it operates and malfunctions, whether a full scale recall needs to be conducted to fix the problem? Or whether Westinghouse fridges need to be banned from sale altogether?

  54. Contrary to what bullshit lefties spout, polite society is where you apologise if you go too far, and move on, not persecute the offender, using any apology to escalate until any and all potential dissenters are expunged from society altogether.

    They are totalitarians who hide behind their fellow travellers to compensate for their considerable shortcomings. The common thread is cowardice.

  55. I personally take offence to the comparison between fridges and terrorists. Fridges are a force of good in the universe. Keeping beer cold is god’s work.

  56. Helen

    Cynic, many of us are waiting to see what the Quadrant board does after its meeting on June 5th. If they do not sack Roger and further, support him with a public statement, my subscription stays. IMHO it is That weasel Cater who needs to find another job.

  57. Helen

    I urge you to write to Keith in support of Roger so that Keith may take this to the Board meeting as editor in chief. We have no assurance that Roger will be invited to the meeting to defend himself or to explian the Manchester piece.

  58. Cynic of Ayr

    Helen… OK, but if the Mag folds, there will be no board to attack, and no way to get Cater sacked.
    However, y’all (I’ve always wanted to use that!) y’all do as you think best.
    Take the scientific approach. “Do what you think, and hope for the best.” I use it often.
    Btw, I think you have a “not” in the wrong place.
    Cynic, many of us are waiting to see what the Quadrant board does after its meeting on June 5th. If they do not sack Roger and further, support him with a public statement, my subscription stays. IMHO it is That weasel Cater who needs to find another job.
    Not nit-picking, just clarifying. 🙂

  59. marcus

    If Quadrant were to fold, then the laws of supply and demand dictate that something else would take its place – perhaps something even better.

  60. Haidee

    I’m going to stick with Quadrant

  61. Pingback: Mark Steyn on the refrigerator risk to freedom | Catallaxy Files

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *