THE ROAD TO HELL:
Re: George Neumayr’s Mundy,
Mundy:
Mr. Neumayr may have been thinking of Whittaker Chambers’s
line:
“Christianity without the crucifixion is liberalism.”
— Paul J. Heffernan
Boston, MA
CHARLESTON CRACK
Re: The Prowler’s The
Senate in Jeopardy:
Terry McAuliffe may have a pipe dream of a Democrat winning in
the South Carolina Senate race to replace Strom Thurmond, but only
if he’s smoking crack could he actually believe it will happen. We
already have one liberal Democrat from Charleston whom no one can
understand — we don’t need two!
— Warren Mowry
SIMON’S CHANCHES
Re: Peter Hannaford’s The
Pandora’s Box Factor:
Great article by Peter Hannaford. I wish I could be as
optimistic as he is. Unfortunately, the only time I see Simon is on
the ad blaming him for the Savings and Loan business. California is
a one issue state: Abortion. The people here would vote themselves
into a gulag as long as it had legal abortions (preferably free —
BTW, I am pro choice). California could be rivaling Massachusetts
as having the largest bloc of dumbest voters. Hopefully, most will
be too dumb to make it to the polls and Simon will sneak in. I am
not betting on that, though.
— Ann Ellwood
KID STEPHANOPOULOS:
Re: Wlady Pleszczynski’s George,
Andrew, and William Jefferson:
Whatever makes you believe that the “brain trust” over at ABC
News would feel any pressure or guilt if Steffi went (dare I say
it!) liberal? They are the ones who elevated him to his position,
knowing exactly who he is and what he represents. We conservatives
could holler all we wanted, and it would fall on deaf ears. After
all, didn’t we holler when the rumor mill on this started? Did that
slow them down?
ABC News could care less about conservative viewers. They are
going after the “younger viewers” with this move, trying to entice
them to watch by putting in a putative MTV-known celebrity, a
pop-culture fellow. The fact that he is a shrieking liberal just
makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. A perfect choice for
them. So what if conservatives holler; we’ll just shuffle off to
Fox News and leave them alone.
Nothing but wholesale changes to the entire management at ABC
News would fix this situation. Since the mantra of TV programming
is always “counterprogramming” then hopefully one day a network
exec will wake up and say, “Hey! I’ve got an idea! Everybody else
is Liberal! Let’s go conservative!” Scorn and lots of free
advertising would follow, along with a tremendous flood of new
viewers!
Naah…
— Robert Wood
NOT A PRAYER
Re: Jed Babbin’s A
Most Dispensable Ally:
In your reporting of the Saudis telling George Bush that he
could not say a Thanksgiving prayer with our troops, I thought of
the reported incident when Teddy Roosevelt was to appear before the
English Throne.
He was advised that it was the “norm” for those leaders
appearing before the throne to genuflect as he approached it. Teddy
told them that “the President bows before no man,” and to the
horror of his hosts did not do so.
I get a feeling that had Teddy been told not to pray he would
not have, like George, accepted that Saudi insult.
Of course Teddy was Teddy and George was George.
— Ken Wyman
Huntsville, AL
Jed Babbin replies: Mr. Wyman makes a
great point, and I hope it will not be lost on the President. Bush
41 was far too concerned about keeping a coalition together in the
fight against Iraq. Bush 43 realizes, I think, that the price of
Saudi cooperation is far too high, and the support we would get
valueless. We don’t need, and really shouldn’t want, the support of
any coalition (except one made up of us, the Brits and the Turks)
in the coming fight. For the Saudis to deny us permission to use
bases in their country, to treat our people as they do, and for us
to let them continue is simply unacceptable. TR was — and Mr.
Wyman is — right on the mark. We need to fight according to our
conscience and our beliefs. The more we compromise them, the less
likely we will win.
EARNINGS
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell’s Ordinary
Heroes:
I recently retired from the Air Force Special Operations Command
and I enjoy reading the Prowler everyday at work. I
particularly was moved by your “Ordinary Heroes” tribute to the two
Medal of Honor Recipients who passed away on June 11.
I would like to correct a minor, yet significant, tendency that
I commonly observe in the civilian press. The practice of referring
to these men as Medal of Honor “winners” does not do justice to the
actual events. “Winner” implies some sort of competitive game or a
game of chance, like playing Bingo or buying a lottery ticket. It
also implies a zero sum event (when there are Medal of Honor
winners, there must also be Medal of Honor losers in our
midst).
These men did not perform these heroic acts to “win” anything,
they “earned” it. Again, people “win” at Bingo, but they “earn” the
Medal of Honor. They were simply common folks who were doing their
duty, as you so effectively pointed out in your article.
The proper way to refer to these heroes is “Medal of Honor
Recipient.” Or, Mr. John Doe was “awarded” the Medal of Honor.
Throughout my military career I have been to several professional
educational symposiums that some of these men frequent. Some
shudder when a member of the audience uses the term “won” or
“winner” during the question and answer period. They would usually
politely correct the questioner.
Thanks again for the superb article.
— Alan H. Vafides, Lt. Col., USAF (ret)
R. Emmett Tyrrell repeatedly refers to men who have “won” the
Congressional Medal of Honor. This does not sound right. Isn’t the
medal earned by heroic actions and awarded by Congress? People win
contests, not recognition for bravery of the highest order.
— unsigned
WATERGATE AS PRANK
Re: Editorial note Watergate
City:
The lion’s share of the pundit parade bordered on the
meretricious. I thought perhaps Ms. Drew was trying to draw a
teardrop from yours truly, as she recounted having to re-read her
journal that she kept daily during the Watergate interregnum. The
torching of the media was performed, at Forrest Sawyer’s expense,
by Mr. Buchanan, who finished with panache thusly: that Watergate
was the moral equivalent of a couple of college students breaking
into a professor’s office and stealing the final exams.
— Edward Del Colle
