Someone from the Pacific Institute has a lot of ‘splainin’ to do. And no one should be satisfied with the answers–or the non-answers, to be more precise–that have been given thus far.
I imagine that some readers may get tired of me asking them to imagine the reaction if someone on the right tried to get away with some of the shenanigans pulled over on the left. But does anyone really doubt that if a member of a conservative or libertarian think tank got accused of the things Peter Gleick was accused of, and then returned to his/her job after a short exile, the outrage on the left would have been nothing short of incandescent?
Hypocrisy Watch: Back in February, I wrote that while Gleick’s initial exploits were lauded by the port side, one could expect to hear crickets from his ideological compatriots concerning the dishonest acts he engaged in. I’d say that generally speaking, that prediction turned out to be very much on the mark; lefty blogs denouncing Gleick for his tactics appear most emphatically to be the exception, and not the rule. But I have to confess to having been at least partially wrong about one thing. I wrote that “there can be no denying that Gleick has immolated his own reputation.” In a very real sense, that is true; this scandal will follow him for the rest of his life. But the port side takes care of its own–ethics be damned–and so, they and Gleick will be quite content to think that a phoenix has risen from the flames that engulfed his professional standing.