SORE WINNERS
Re: Editor’s Note A
Football Hero:
“Miami defeated Ohio State, a referee’s personal foul
notwithstanding.” By definition, sour grapes. If you play the game
so that a referee’s call makes any difference you have no more
legitimate claim to have won than crying that the coin toss was
unfair.
A conservative e-publication, heir to fifty years in the
cultural wilderness, should know better.
— Steve Malynn
Who wrote this “Miami defeated Ohio State, a referee’s personal
foul notwithstanding”? A myopic Miami Hurricanes fan or a blind
man, er, person?
The game should have never gone to overtime thanks to the
incompetent referees. Watch it again this weekend on ESPN if you
can recover from your denial by then and specifically check out the
last OSU drive prior to overtime with the incomplete pass call on
3rd down. This was, in fact, a complete pass made in bounds by the
talented Mr. Chris Gamble. And, oh yeah, he was interfered with too
— which was not called either.
With that first down Miami’s punt return and the game-tying
field goal would have never happened.
— Michelle Heisler
Proud OSU Buckeye
Champion by proxy
Wow, talk about perpetrating a myth. Miami never even would have
had the opportunity to get to overtime had the refs not botched the
call on Gamble on third down in the last minute of regulation. Not
only was there holding on the play, but Gamble caught the ball in
bounds nonetheless. There are plenty of bad calls to go around —
why focus only on the one that hurt Miami? Finally, the official
himself has said that the PI flag was for the holding before the
ball got to the receiver, something the replays never even show —
it was not thrown for the tussle between Sharpe and Gamble when the
ball arrived. Ohio State pounded the crap out of Miami, how can you
say Miami beat Ohio State — call or no call????? I’m disappointed.
American Prowler usually doesn’t give credence to
whiners.
— Yvonne Lundwall Twiss, Esq.
Columbus, Ohio
Your statement, “Miami defeated Ohio State, a referee’s personal
foul notwithstanding” was a stupid remark, for several reasons.
First, Ohio State won the game. Second, no one would have
questioned the call by the referee if he had thrown the flag more
quickly. If you had done your homework, you would have known that
the reason he threw the flag late is because he was trying to
decide whether the call should be defensive holding or pass
interference, not whether a foul had been committed or not. Third,
and probably the stupidest thing about the remark, is that you are
insulting the 2nd largest university in the country, which not only
happens to have more alumni than any other university, but is also
one of the most conservative colleges in America. You are
alienating a large part of your audience, including myself. Unlike
liberals, conservatives do not believe in rewarding stupidity. You
may have eliminated a substantial part of your audience with one
stupid remark.
— Louis Burwell
IN COMMUNICADO
Re: “Long Time No Hear” letter in Reader Mail’s Dividend
Divisions:
“Unsigned” asserts: “There has been no communication between
Pyongyang and Baghdad for the past 22 years. Period.”
Except, I suppose, for the visits by Saddam Hussein’s son to
Pyongyang for the purpose of buying WMD technology.
There is a difference between formal diplomatic relations and
“communication” — as anyone less naive than “Unsigned” would know
from the persistent back-and-forth between the United States and
Cuba over various issues.
— Kevin McGehee
Coweta County, GA
LOTT RULES
Re: The Washington Prowler’s Santorum’s
Sacrifice and Peter Hannaford’s Slipping
Into Minorityhood:
To Trent Lott: Please remember that despite the traditional
manner of Senatorial address, Daschle, Leahy, Kennedy, Jeffords and
the others are not really your “friends”. Soviet style discipline
dictates that all personal loyalties must be suppressed in the
Party’s pursuit of power and attainment of ends—and the ends
justify all means. All of these “friends” are ready to line up and
stab you in the back; as they, of course, already have many
times.
— J. R. Wheatley
Peter Hannaford’s “Slipping Into Minorityhood” was a good article
and I liked his optimism.
But, unfortunately, I read it after reading the Washington
Prowler piece on the possible future of the Senate Republicans with
Trent Lott as chairman of the Rules Committee and I came away a
pessimist.
The Democrats don’t need to come up with something to counter
Republican ideas. Whining and going negative is the surest way to
get Republicans like Sen. Lott, the Nancy Drew Senators in Maine,
Sen. Chafee, et al to cave and water down their proposals or throw
in bad policy bones like increasing unemployment benefits (a
business tax increase raising the cost of hiring new
employees).
At least when Rocky Balboa takes a beating for 14 rounds, we
know he’s going to win in the end. I’m not so sure the Republican
Senators will. This could also apply to President Bush in that he
also should be bolder with his economic proposals.
— Greg Barnard
Franklin, TN
THINK AGAIN
Re: George Neumayr’s The
Press Gets Rael:
I typically agree with all the positions in your pointed and
well argued essays and especially applaud your stalwart defense of
orthodox catholic Christianity. Your piece on cloning (January 7),
however, was not up to your standard.
As regards grammar, “media” is a plural not singular noun. This
is a common error but one I would not expect from a writer of your
skills.
With respect to the content, I believe that your mind has closed
too quickly on the subject. Indeed, even among us “orthodox” Roman
Catholics a discussion of first principles is required on the
subject of advances in reproductive technologies before it can be
condemned in its entirety.
The subject of “therapeutic” human cloning is a good case on
point. I agree that the harvesting of fertilized human embryos for
research purposes is an abomination, clearly the exploitation of a
unique human being. But, what of the case of genetic material being
inserted into an unfertilized egg? By my way of thinking, an
unfertilized egg is not a unique human being, not an embryo at all,
not different in any material or metaphysical respect from any
group of human cells.
So why do some on our side of the fence argue that this practice
must be banned? Perhaps they are right. But good arguments need to
be put forth defending that position. So far, I have heard none and
the one that you seem to put forth in the essay — let’s call it
the Pandora’s Box approach — seems less than Aristotelian.
Clearly, we sit at the precipice of a Brave New World. As
apologists for Christianity we are called to defend the faith
bravely, especially in trying times as these. Let us do so as
Aquinas and Augustine would have, with reason so powerful that it
cannot be denied.
Best wishes,
— Daniel J. Hogan
I would like to congratulate George Neumayr for his excellent
article, “The Press Gets Rael.” I’ve read several articles on the
same topic, but Neumayr’s has been the best so far.
— Nadir Martello
BAMBI-PAMBY
Re: Bill Croke’s Wild
Horses:
The problem of the abundance of wild horses in the west is
mirrored in the similar problem of deer living off residential
landscaping in the east. Again, this is part of what I call the
Bambi Menace. The Walt Disney Company led the way in giving
anthropomorphic qualities to animals. Walt’s cartoons had these
animals speaking, thinking, reasoning, planning and forever being
cute and cuddly. Thank you, but my considered reasoning leads me
away from snuggling down with an adult male African lion (The
Lion King), being counseled by a cricket named Jiminy or
finding a warthog the least little bit attractive (The Lion
King) again. The granddaddy of this nonsense began with the
feature film Bambi where men were the evil ones who shot and burned
the forest critters like Thumper, Flower, et al.
This is the basis of the terrorist group PETA that works to wipe
out the ranching industry, hamburger fast food places and having
turkey for Thanksgiving. They would, if able to work their will,
turn all the domestic animals loose to fend for themselves. Can you
imagine a pampered and trimmed poodle living off the land? Cattle
must be tended for. Sheep would disappear overnight and chickens
would hardly survive. We need these animal resources for our
existence as well. There is no way we could survive on a
hunter/gatherer system. Of course, that is the goal of PETA and
similar organizations — eliminating human beings and let nature
take its course.
From this we get the banning of culling wild horse herds,
restrictions on deer hunting and the like which has caused the
animal populations to explode and outstrip the available food.
Instead of being killed for the service of man, they are allowed to
slowly starve to death and truly become one with the earth — a
total waste. To their dismay the PETA types become brunch for the
growing cougar and bear populations which are moving into the outer
residential developments. Nothing like a fresh jogger on the hoof
to satisfy a hungry mountain lion.
The socialists will never learn the law of unintended
consequences. “Yum, yum,” said the big bear.
— Al Martin
Portland, OR
GONE TO THE DOGS
Re: John Corry’s The
Bloom Is Off Bloomberg:
Amen to your Bloomberg article.
Please write more on Bloomberg; he’s turning out to be a
major
disappointment.
— unsigned
Dog Doo in Carl Schurz Park. This was a memorable book by
Orson Bean, many summers ago. Plus ça change
…
— unsigned
