CUT AND WHAT?
Re: William Tucker’s Call It a
Democracy and the Hell With It:
Journalism, for all I know, may be its own occupational hazard,
so that even a serious writer like William Tucker should perhaps be
permitted an occasional paroxysm of irresponsibility. Just suppose,
however, that we take the advice of Mr. Tucker and of the
perennially irresponsible lumpenintelligentsia in academia and the
media. Suppose we cut and run, abandoning Iraq to the imbecilities
of a vicious minority. Where do we go then? With a demoralized
military and a world whose thugs no longer take American power
seriously, where would Mr. Tucker propose we should hide?
— John R. Dunlap
San Jose, California
Tucker raises some important questions but it seems like his answer
is to cut and run. He does a good job of offering the disclaimer of
WWII and the Civil War because those wars were somehow more just
than this current one. Why? Because the world back then was
threatened by Hitler? What was the threat to the U.S. back then
besides our European relatives living in capitulation? The Civil
War threat was one of morality. It could be looked at as making
right years of sanctioned wrong by the U.S. government. How are the
European wars and our own Civil War different? Here at home we are
still trying to pacify the spectacle of racism more than 100 years
after the Civil War. It was only 40 years ago that we debated and
legislated civil rights. After we liberated Europe and occupied
Germany, how long did that pacification take? I don’t know, but did
our side suffer from the same type of insurgent attacks as now?
As for one segment of the Iraq society trying to impose its will
on the other, isn’t that what happens here all the time? Iraq was
invaded because there was growing danger and that danger would have
been cultivated in the next generation of Saddam in the likes of
his sons. I wonder what the world would be like if we acted against
Germany well before that cancer spread as far as it did. The costs
of doing the right thing is sometimes very high and the sacrifice
is also high. But if our foreign policy is to be analyzed strictly
on accounting principles, what should the response have been to our
being attacked by Japan?
— Diamon Sforza
San Diego, CA
William Tucker’s article — “Call It a Democracy and the Hell With
It” — is one of the best articles I have seen to date on the U.S.
involvement in Iraq. (I am a conservative Republican who sees the
absolute lunacy of Bush’s policies regarding Iraq, illegal
immigration and out-of-control federal spending — which is why I
will vote for a third party at the top of the ticket in
November.)
— Brynell Somerville
Chillicothe, Missouri
A very interesting article. Perhaps we should be sending
Massachusetts’ Supreme Court Justices to Iraq rather than the
Marines.
— Bill McManus
Great article, Not P.C. but then the truth never is.
— unsigned
AYE, AYE, SIRS
Re: Jed Babbin’s A Day in
Grootland:
One item that jumped out at me while reading Jed Babbin’s
article about the carrier Harry S. Truman: a single
warship has 3 full captains aboard. No other Navy in history
(including ours) has ever had more than one captain per ship.
Apparently, that is no longer the case. Now, we have one captain
who is the ship’s nominal commanding officer, another is the
Commander of the Air Group (CAG), and the third, apparently is the
Executive officer (i.e. second in command)! Prior to 1983, the CAG
was always an officer with the rank of commander and he reported
directly to the ship’s captain. This was changed after some
screw-ups in air strikes against Lebanon (all of which were
unrelated to the command structure on the carriers themselves). The
Executive officer was also a commander. These arrangements had been
in effect on our carriers through WWII, Korea and Vietnam, and had
worked aboard all of the post-WWII supercarriers, including the
Harry S. Truman’s immediate predecessors in the
Nimitz class. At a time when the Navy is heading towards
200 ships, isn’t it just a little bit stupid to be the only Navy in
all of history to have more than one captain aboard a single ship?
Seems the command structure is more than a tad top heavy,
particularly as the ranks of the subordinate officers have also
crept upwards.
— Anthony Mirvish
Jed Babbin replies:
Having seen how things run on this huge ship, I can assure Mr.
Mirvish that I’d put three admirals on it if it were necessary to
do things as right as they are done on the Truman. The
question is not a top-heavy command structure. It’s what our people
need to get the job done right first time, and every time. Right
now, naval aviation ain’t broke. Please don’t fix it.
NICE GUYS FINISH…
Re: The Washington Prowler’s Jamie
Gorelick in the Hot Seat:
When are we going to publicly acknowledge the facts? The GOP in
general and the Bushies in particular haven’t got the cojones to
effectively and realistically wage political warfare against the
Left in general and elected Democrats in particular. Never have,
never will. They want to change the tone, remember? The Dems are
playing major league championship level baseball and the GOP is
playing recreational league slow pitch softball. Yes, I am talking
about George Bush, Karl Rove, Sen. Hatch, Sen. Frist, and many
more.
— Ken Shreve
New Hampshire
FUELISH PRIDE
Re: Eric Peters’ Kerry and
the 2006 Chevette, “Engine Ears” letters in Reader Mail’s
Strokes of
Genius, and “Planet Prius” letters in Reader Mail’s Rice
Capades:
What kind of BS was that article? Not the type of drivel I
expected to read on American Spectator.
I am an automotive alternative fuels engineer and Republican
with more than my fair share of patented technology on the road
today. In fact, most of the innovative engineers in the alternative
fuels and hybrid technology components industry that I have the
honor to work with are Republicans and the few I conversed with who
read your poorly researched article disagree with your opinions!
Kerry is an ass, yes, but Bush allows freedom loving Americans to
make their own decision. If gas hits $4 a gallon then people will
buy more efficient vehicles and drive less. Strict CAFE legislation
will give way to loopholes and fail for a decade.
Do your homework before disgracing me again!
— Jimmy “Turbo” Cohen
I’m excited all those Prius lovers are happy with their smaller
mid-sized vehicle.
Sorry, not the vehicle I want to drive at 70-75 mph down the
interstate along side SUV’s and 18 wheelers.
My Pontiac Grand Am SE is almost a foot longer, 180-200 pounds
heavier, more inside room, more torque, more horsepower and an
average of $2,500 less than the Toyota Prius.
And I get a solid 35 mpg on the highway and around 22-25 mpg
city driving. At an average of 12,000 miles a year (mixed usage of
6K hwy and 6K city), the extra gas consumption, even at today’s
higher price per gallon average of $1.75 (which will go down
again), is only about $30 more a month.
So the increased cost of the Prius, over a five-year loan period
with the same interest rate, is about the same as the extra cost of
fuel I would use for 7 years. So the fuel savings, to me, aren’t
worth a smaller and less powerful car.
And it’s ugly in my opinion.
— Greg Barnard
Franklin, Tennessee
IT’S RIGHT THERE
Re: Paul J. Cella III’s Locke
Box:
One need only read the passage, Chapter II, Sec. 4, of The
Second Treatise of Civil Government to note that it was
fundamental to his argument of the Natural Law of man. Without it
the balance of the document would fail any relevance. For it is
there that Locke defines the source of all powers bequeathed to the
Sovereign. To wit is the relevant passage:
“To understand political power right, and derive it from its
original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in,
and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and
dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within
the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending
upon the will of any other man.
“A state also of equality wherein all the power and jurisdiction
is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing
more evident, than that the creatures of the same species and rank,
promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the
use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another
without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of
them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one
above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear
appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.”
— John McGinnis
Arlington, Texas
UNMOVED
Re: Todd M. Aglialoro’s Gibson and
the Neo-Gnostics:
I respectfully disagree with this piece and its interpretation
and parallel. I saw Gibson’s Passion and was not
substantially moved by it even though I tried to be fair and
objective about it. I tend to think that many Christians believe it
their “Christian Duty” to embrace it. As a lifelong Christian, I
think Gibson has given us his artistic rendition, not necessarily
an accurate or factual account however much we (and he) would like
to believe otherwise. I think we should accept the film this way,
and this way only. Christ and his ministry, I believe, should be
focused on its totality. The Gospels do not dwell on the manner of
His death so much as the fact and purpose of His crucifixion. We
err if we focus too narrowly on any aspect of Christ, including the
manner of his sacrificial death.
— James N. Anderson
Green Valley, Arizona
I thought the Gnostics, who were of the educated class, found many
elements of the Christian faith attractive but were repelled by
other elements; i.e. accepting from the Jewish law, its harsh
penalties, prohibitions and general irrationalities! They also
didn’t accept that a divinity could be crucified, or that he would
possess human passions; i.e., vanity, jealousy. Crucifixions were a
once a year event, at Passover, almost a sacrifice! I think all of
these conversations since the opening of this movie need a
re-write, and some rational thought, not blind faith.
— Edward Del Colle
SLG SIGNS OFF
Re: Reader Mail’s Rice
Capades:
The more things change, the more they stay the same? Guess so.
Back when I was doing interview/call-in/talk shows on the radio,
only two subjects were forbidden - homosexuality and abortion. Now
I remember why.
Seemed as if 35% of the folks were defending the gay lifestyle,
a similar number hard-core against ‘em, and the rest didn’t really
care one way or the other.
Then I found that there were about 5% of the hard-left nuts who
were so far-out that they recommended abortions even if you weren’t
pregnant — the “NOW” types and radical feminists.
Probably about the same percentage had sympathy with the
murderers of abortion providers, the bombers, and similarly
deranged. Call them “anti-choice nazis” maybe?
Then, I found, roughly 30% had no sympathy for the
bomber/murder-types, but were adamantly against abortion,
regardless of circumstances. They called themselves “pro-life”
although a disproportionate number were for the death penalty — go
figure.
The remainder, about 40% were certainly not for abortion, but
defended the rights of women to choose.
The reason for outlawing those two subjects for on-air
discussion was simple. The advocates for each were never willing to
even entertain anyone else’s point of view — there was never any
instance I can recall where any person persuaded anyone else to
change his/her mind. There were never any “discussions,” only
hard-boiled, inflexible opinions, often stated in the strongest,
most hateful terms — sometimes with demented threats included.
It appears that nothing’s changed — nobody chooses to
“negotiate” or exchange ideas (in today’s language it’s called
“dialoguing”). So, all you hard-boiled “anti-choice” advocates, go
ahead and hate if you must — but I think I’ll remain a “Small-L”
libertarian individual who certainly doesn’t like abortion, but
remains Pro-Choice. I’ll answer to God; critics like these guys
don’t deserve any further thought.
That said, for the same reasons cited above — the fact that no
one seems capable of changing his/her mind, the “granite” will
remain undisturbed — and this will conclude my part in this
series. Those wishing to make hard-headed charges Quixote style,
futility hoping to change some minds, labor on.
I’d wager you don’t win a soul to your cause, even though
there’s been a fair degree of eloquence expressed, even from those
who seem to hate so vehemently. But, there again, people like Ted
Bundy were quite lucid too.
That’s sufficient — fini.
— slg (Sweet Lovable Geoff)
