SELL OFF
Re: George Neumayr’s Losing
by Winning:
George Neumayr seems to think that California Republicans voting
for Arnold Schwarzenegger is tantamount to Episcopalians voting for
a gay bishop. The fact is, Arnold is not a “de facto Democrat and
Hollywood liberal.”
I like Tom McClintock. I’ve given money to his campaigns in the
past. And up to about a week ago, if any pollster had called me, I
would have told them I was voting for McClintock. But with polls
now showing Arnold beating McClintock by 22 or more points, neither
I nor the California Republican Party “elites” are sabotaging
McClintock’s campaign by endorsing Arnold. Though I (and most of
the party “elites”) agree with Mr. Neumayr that McClintock could
beat Bustamante — in a two-way race — the fact is, we don’t have
a two-way race. And it seems a bit much to ask of the Republican
“elites” to pressure Arnold (polling at 40%) to drop out so that
McClintock (polling at 15%) can have a chance to win.
It appears that one of the biggest problems conservatives like
Mr. Neumayr have with Arnold is that he is not pro-life. But with
Roe v. Wade the law of the land, this is irrelevant in a
gubernatorial race. And certainly the California legislature,
dominated by liberal Democrats, is not going to pass anything
restricting abortion rights.
As commentators, we can be as ideologically pure as we want,
without consequences. That’s not true in politics. Any political
party that wants to be more significant than the Libertarians has
to allow for a reasonable variation from its ideological core for
the simple fact that the vast majority of voters are not
ideological. Having little record to go by, Arnold is a bit of a
question mark, but he says enough of the right things that this
conservative is going to have no trouble punching his San Diego
County punch-card ballot all the way through for Arnold on
Tuesday.
I would like to remind Mr. Neumayr and like-minded
conservatives, that George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan (or Tom
McClintock). But we are all better off that in 2000 Republicans
decided to win with George W. Bush rather than to lose with Alan
Keyes.
— Brandon Crocker
San Diego, CA
George Neumayr is right about Ah-nuld. But, sadly, most of his
criticisms could apply to the national Republican Party as well.
Just a brief examination of Dubya’s domestic record compels the
conclusion that the Republicans have very little soul left to sell.
I see no evidence they’re engaging the left anywhere. They aren’t
even trying to advance the conservative agenda — don’t even use
the word “conservative” except in fund raising letters to their
“dinosaur list.” The GOP battle cry for ‘04 could be, “Our liberals
can beat your liberals.”
—Larry Thornberry
A dinosaur in Tampa
When was it decided that the Republican Party was a subsidiary of
the Vatican? Arnold has supported both Presidents Bush and the
efforts of the American military in Iraq. Republicans might do a
little better if they keep their religion separate from their
politics.
— Gene Schmidt
Come on, George, I think it’s time you stepped back and tried to be
objective. The only reason the California Republican Party exists
is to help elect a Republican President. Period. Arnold as Governor
does this.
— Mo Sandvig
We regard Arnold as “The Infiltrator” and have e-mailed his office
as such and the Republican offices as such and that he should step
aside for the experienced Sen. McClintock.
We are exasperated with the Republican party for what they are
doing and will not support them.
Thank you,
— Mr. & Mrs. Martin J. Edwards
Livermore, CA
But, a Schwarzenegger administration has to be a disaster!
He will have exactly the same Democrat-controlled legislature, a
body that hasn’t the slightest interest in making him look good.
“Renegotiate with the public sector unions?” Is Arnie on something?
McClintock will probably take his notoriety and steadfastness and
leadership out of the legislature and into the next campaign for
U.S. Senator. But, in 2004, where we used to have the ability to
point at California as an example of the terrible damage that
liberal Democrats can do, if Arnie wins, the Democrats will now
have proof of the Republicans’ (liberal and conservative)
failure to meet campaign promises. Maybe Arnie can pull something
off, but my view is that, over the near term, California and the
country would be far better off with no recall and Davis still
running the quagmire.
— M in Colleyville
SAD SCIENCE
Re: Hunter Baker’s Unintelligent
Designs on Academic Freedom:
I read with sadness Hunter Baker’s Special Report.
I am not a constitutional scholar, but I assume that presenting
students with a Stork Theory as opposed to teaching Sexual
Reproduction would no doubt pass constitutional muster. And yet we
would rightly ridicule anyone who proposed such a thing.
It is indeed sad that in the twenty-first century there is still
any serious consideration given to hobbling our younger
generation’s education by presenting magical thinking such as ID or
Creationism on a par with effective theories produced by the
scientific method. The pace of technological change today’s kids
will face will outrace anything we have seen in previous centuries,
especially in the biological sciences. Let us educate them
technically and morally/spiritually so that they will be as
prepared as possible.
— Ben Zipperer
Duluth, GA
Aside from the left knowing where to challenge “academic freedom”
in the courts (since, like most of their “arguments,” it has been
made up through verbal gymnastics over decades), it is heartening
to realize that there are folks in this country who are still
actually willing to stand up to the anti-religious thuggery of the
Darwinists (many of whom feel the need to prove that we came from
apes but to do so requires more federal funding).
By the way, I doubt many kids in public schools know what a
monkey trial is/was. Either way, it occurs me that monkeys and
faith can never be reconciled no matter what label is placed on it
for legal expediency.
Just teach both (i.e. religion and science). Make it legal to do
so and let the educated individual make the choice. When knowledge
and understanding are not able to fill the void between science and
religion, faith will step in no matter how hard lawyers and the
left try to prevent it.
— Stu Margrey
Denton, MD
YEARS ON MY PILLOW
Re: Jeremy Lott’s Crossfire
Hurricane:
Dear Jeremy: What! You are only 25 and so smart! I couldn’t
believe what I was reading, your columns sound so clever and full
of wisdom, and now I find out you are just a kid, what a
surprise!
I am not being sarcastic, I really was surprised, and think how
wonderful it must be to just be 25, you are not expected to be
grown until you are 30, did you not know that?
At 30, it is, “Oh, God, I have to grow up now!” (It is not so
bad, really.) At 40, small slide into “what is it all about?” time.
(Deep, moody, “why am I here?” and growing — or buy a sports car.)
At 50, just cry a lot. At 60, I feel like I am twenty, my body
refuses to think so, but hey, there are still adventures out there.
Can’t go further than that, but have a suspicion that life can
still be fun.
The best part, Jeremy, is when you are sixty, you will still
feel 19 in your heart, that does not ever change!
Get out there and enjoy being 25, it could be worse! Happy
Birthday,
— Carole
Hello Jeremy. Cheer up! You’re half-way to 50!
— John Carrigg
49 years old in Downers Grove, IL
Jeremy, wait till you are approaching 70 and only have 35 days to
enjoy your sixties. That’s something to dread so enjoy the great
years of your life and I hope you have many more to enjoy.
— unsigned
CAPTIVE TO THE WORD
Re: James Bowman’s review of Luther:
I was pleased to note that someone was paying attention to the
Luther film. I was disappointed that Mr. Bowman paid so little
attention. Like so many others, he bases his critique on outdated
attempts to understand Luther. I share the reviewer’s disdain for
portrayals of Luther as some larger than life hero which is the
stuff of nineteenth century Protestantism. The portrayal of the
posting of the 95 theses is portrayed in the film, not as an heroic
act, but as the everyday occurrence it was in the sixteenth century
academic world.
What Mr. Bowman fails to notice in the film, is that it is
Luther’s being “captive to the Word” which drives him to confess at
peril to his life. This is thoroughly un-modern and
counter-cultural in this 21st century. Unfortunately the reviewer
chose to distort the film by throwing it into an anti-Catholic
movement in our culture. I would agree that there are such
tendencies in our culture and they are of concern to me. This film
does not strike me as a part of that tendency. The portrayal of
early sixteenth century Western Christianity is as accurate as a
film covering a span of 25 years can be expected to be.
I would suggest that the reviewer view the film again — without
the biases which blinded him to what the film actually portrays. He
might even begin to understand why Luther remains such a towering
figure in the history of Western thought. He will also understand
the films portrayal of Luther’s friend Ulrich and of the Electors
at the Diet of Augsburg. Captivity to the Word and the compulsion
to share the Good News with others who languish in self-absorbed
hopelessness are motifs the reviewer would do well to note at his
second viewing of the film. He will perhaps discover that he
over-looked and failed to hear much of the film.
— Michael Zamzow
Little Suamico, WI
CREATIVE SIGNS
Re: Richard McEnroe’s letter (“Create Something First”) in Reader
Mail’s Sticking
It to Stuck Democrats :
In response to Mr. R. McEnroe:
1) I am coauthoring a book on Linux for the University at which
I teach. I have also written several articles on Open Source
deployments. Have been the programmer, designer or systems
architect on two dozen projects over the years. So I know of the
effort associated with IP related products. But no, I am not a
musician.
2) If 10 million people download one of your songs that you have
not positioned yourself to get paid via the medium, that is a
marketing problem not a crime scene. The RIAA has consistently
resisted any effort to develop or accept a pay per song schema for
the Internet. The RIAA at this writing is making waves about the
Apple pay for play download site.
3) The record industry is stealing from you today if you walk
into a local Office Max and buy blank CD’s. As a compromise plan,
Congress passed back in the late 80’s, a bill that the record
industry would be reimbursed for “fair use” copying of CD’s. The
provisions of that bill were to apply to audio CD’s only but it is
applied to all CD’s at point of manufacture. So when you or I buy a
50 pack a percentage of the cost goes to the record industry, even
if I only intended to use them to back up my PC. That, Sir, is
conversion.
4) I would agree that each player in the record chain is only
taking a small percentage, adding to the costs. And there is the
rub. Most of the players are not required anymore. Sorry. I have
been part of or seen whole layers of middlemen eliminated in
several industries due to information/automation of the supply
chain. I usually follow Jazz as a genre. Most of the artists have
small followings. I buy most of my CD’s direct from the artist —
$10-12. He is getting the lion’s share of the profit. If you wish
to see the future of music, look at Amazon. Several artists sell
through this venue, collapsing the supply chain.
5) Lastly I would suggest a review of Jefferson and Madison on
the issue of patents and IP in general. Had it not been for these
two gentlemen this country would not have a Patent Office at all.
But if you read their assessments IP is to be used to
promote the scientific and intellectual arts not
to suppress them as is generally done today in the business
arena.
I do not condone stealing property. But the RIAA’s tactics and
inability to address change is unacceptable. Give the American
Public a means to buy a single song electronically and this issue
will become moot.
— John McGinnis
Arlington, Texas
