Because?
That's pretty funny, coming from you. Care to elaborate on why you think Buckley is not objective? Do you think he shoots up every day or something?
From the introduction to this article:
But NATIONAL REVIEW has not, until now, opined formally on the subject. We do so at this point. To put off a declarative judgment would be morally and intellectually weak-kneed.
Things being as they are, and people as they are, there is no way to prevent somebody, somewhere, from concluding that ``NATIONAL REVIEW favors drugs.'' We don't; we deplore their use; we urge the stiffest feasible sentences against anyone convicted of selling a drug to a minor. But that said, it is our judgment that the war on drugs has failed, that it is diverting intelligent energy away from how to deal with the problem of addiction, that it is wasting our resources, and that it is encouraging civil, judicial, and penal procedures associated with police states. We all agree on movement toward legalization, even though we may differ on just how far.
That sounds very objective to me. Maybe we should instead get you to give us your definition of objective.
Actually, he proceeds with a very convincing objective analysis here. However, why would you fight a subjective battle on an objective basis anyway? This ain't math, you know.
Buckley can hardly be considered objective on this issue.And of course bureaucrats whose jobs depend on the WoD are entirely objective. >:0
-Eric