A MILITARY PERSPECTIVE
Re: Paul Beston’s Villains and
Valor:
Right on, Mr. Beston, since retiring in ‘73 I’ve been billeted,
more or less, among those “silly villains.” And may the good G-d
excuse me, there’s no accounting for their tastes.
To me, our national elections, Iraq and Fallujah have been and
are the news, but for the last several months, I, along with all
other viewers and readers of TV and news publications, have been
bombarded with an unending stream of “did or didn’t Peterson do
it,” crappy comments by news readers, reporters and self or media
termed “experts.” And now that that trial is near an end, they are
all set to give us another Californian circus with
wha’cha’ma’call’it (the name is immaterial, but Black, I think it
is) being accused of killing his wife two and a half years ago.
You are right, Sir, “silly villains” is far too kind.
— James O. Dirden
CSM, U.S. Army
I was so gratified to read the article by Paul Beston. He amplifies
far here in rural East Texas. You see, my husband was one of those
so vilified after his honorable service in Vietnam. He returned,
after two tours, with a broken back, sustained in a helicopter
crash, the first of its kind anyone survived from.
He returned, less than 52% of his flight class returned, as
helicopter pilots suffered high attrition rates, to an America in
which he was vilified. But he returned to continue service another
20 years, training a son that came afterwards that service to his
country was honorable. This son went to the Air Force Academy, and
married an Air Force Academy grad, so they both honorably
serve.
My husband spoke to a high school in East Texas last Thursday.
The students listened with great respect. He told of an America
that once dishonored its veterans. He told of this America of the
1970s, when he and others were ordered not to travel in uniform,
less it cause him harm. They listened with surprise and perplexed
looks covered their faces.
They listened when he said that some in the recent Presidential
campaign tried to deny the very freedoms he had fought for, when
these veterans raised their voices in chorus, silent no longer.
They listened as he told them they must carry the flag for their
country, for freedom is earned by every generation, and lost when
one generation thinks they need no longer aspire to it.
They listened. In my heart, I shouted, “it’s way past time this
decent man was given the respect he was long overdue!” Thank you,
God.
— Beverly Gunn
Quitman, Texas
Proud wife, proud Mother, proud American
MY MAN KERRY
Re: William Tucker’s Go West,
Young Country:
William Tucker pretends that this election was a referendum on
public crassness and sexual practices that most people find
distasteful. I would say that this is what the radical Bush
administration tried to convey, in order to take peoples’ attention
away from the numerous ways in which it acts against the interest
of the average family. The strategy of scaring people was
brilliantly successful. As a Kerry supporter, I was voting for an
economic policy that values hard work, social policy that respects
privacy, and a foreign policy that truly makes us safer in the
world. Kerry’s programs and plans would have done much more for the
family than what we will have for the next four years — a
continued transfer of wealth to those who are already the most
affluent, a squeeze on the budget of ordinary families, a valuing
of investment over work. The conservative agenda works only for the
very wealthy and for religious crusaders who don’t care if they are
poor. The Republicans’ tendency to wrap themselves in religious
robes belies their actions that hurt the families they say they are
trying to help. And by the way, Mr. Tucker mentions polygamy and
incest as some of the “new frontier.” I have heard that these
practices, as well as child and spousal abuse, are actually more
prevalent in the households of religious fundamentalists than in
the rest of society.
Respectfully,
— Janice Jones
DEM YANKEES
Re: S. T. Karnick’s Who
Polarized Congress?:
“….Democrats are the party of privilege, atheism, pacifism,
social and economic sclerosis.”
The Democrat Party will not clearly state their convictions, and
then have courage in those convictions. They will not climb to the
mountain top and yell what they stand for. The following is a
partial list of what I have deciphered what the Democrats believe
in:
1. Government Schools (no vouchers, no charter schools, no
testing, no accountability, unlimited money…the NEA/AFT
agenda).
2. Government Pensions (Social Security with increased payroll
taxes and age qualifications).
3. Government health care (Canadian wait-in-line health care,
except for the elite Hillary, Soros, Kerry, Heinz, Kennedy get
special care, just like the old Soviet system).
4. “Peace through weakness,” a continuation of the
Carter-Clinton “play to tie.”
5. Abortion-on-demand, (legal abortion up until the day before
delivery, and no parental notification for minors, i.e. Planned
Parenthood knows what is good for our children).
6. raise taxes (except for those who can hide their
wealth…Soros, Gates, Buffet, Heinz, Kennedy, etc.).
7.$5.00/gallon gasoline (little cars for the little people).
8. Abdicate our sovereignty to the U.N.
I’ll stop here. These are the most obvious positions of the
Democrats. My list just scratches the surface. If the Democrats
clearly presented their agenda to the American people, they
wouldn’t be able to elect a dog-catcher.
— Fred Edwards
BLUE IN THE FACE
Re: Greg Goff’s letter (under “Blues Brothers”) in Reader Mail’s
Crackdowns:
Mr. Goff, while I am a Blue Stater (good guess), I am certainly
no blue blood. I am simply a TAS reader voicing my
opinion. Judging by your response as well as several others’, the
Red Staters are simply unwilling to recognize the truth that they
are overwhelmingly on the dole. If you actually followed the link I
provided, you would find that my Blue State of Minnesota receives
only $0.78 back for every dollar we fork over to the federal
government — a 22% loss. We already pay out the nose both in taxes
and at the grocery store for our food because of those subsidies.
Where do some of those subsidies go? The leeching state of Wyoming.
You, Mr. Goff, receive $1.05 back for every dollar you “invest” in
the government. You are a welfare state. Every time you go for a
drive on a nicely paved road, pick up the phone, or turn on the tap
and have fresh water; think of me and my family and the taxes we
pay. You can thank us Blue Staters that you have those
luxuries.
I might add that free market economics and trade seem to be a
foreign concept for some of the respondents, despite the fact that
we are reading The American Spectator. Subsidizing
agriculture not only makes farmers uncompetitive, but it also
raises the price for the rest of America. This summer’s milk
inflation is a great example. Did the market determine the price?
No. Government did through regulation and subsidization. Frankly,
the Red States would be worse off selling to Blue States because
without subsidies and the protection of agricultural tariffs they
would be forced to compete in a free market, which is to say,
selling at a substantially lower price than they do now. And unlike
current policy, they would not be paid for NOT growing food.
Moreover, without irrigation subsidies and corn/wheat/sugar
subsidies the Blue State’s farming sectors would once again be
competitive. And aside from Texas (which would probably prefer to
be a county rather than part of a massive welfare system) the blue
states have infrastructure. Rail, ports, factories, etc. are scarce
in Red States. The Red State “resources” are dubious as well since
they apparently require subsidies to remain competitive.
At any rate, my original point was that it is entertaining to
see Red States voting predominantly for limited government, more
freedom, less taxes, etc. with one hand while with the other they
are taking from the rest of the country. The fact is, they may not
call themselves socialists but actions speak louder than words. As
in Catch 22, many Red States are suspicious of everything
the government does thinking it to be creeping socialism, so long
as it doesn’t affect its monthly check from Uncle Sam for not
growing.
— Devin Foley
St. Paul, Minnesota
ON THE WATERFRONT
Re: The “Bluer Than Blue” letters in Reader Mail’s If At First
You Don’t Secede:
A couple of astute readers have noted that the so-called Blue
states (who decides these things anyway?) are located on or near
waterways and wondered why this was. I believe I have an answer,
and I’ll try to be brief.
Look at any map of the world and you will see that nearly all
major cities are located on rivers. (Even cities such as San
Antonio, which would appear to be an exception. As it happens, San
Antonio’s “river” is underground; it is called the Edwards
Aquifer.)
There is a reason for this. No matter what kind of civilization
you are trying to build, your first requirement is an adequate
supply of water, and if you have to carry that water in on your
back, you are not going to stay in that location long.
So all great cities grew from human settlements on rivers,
lakes, or — as is the case of San Antonio — large underground
sources.
Now, if you live in a city — and especially if you were born
and raised in one — you have a tendency to see government as the
bringer of all good things. Over the course of generations, there
is a tendency to turn to government more and more to solve your
problems, even problems that were once considered trivial and/or
personal in nature. Is this not the very essence of liberalism?
(Yes, I know that is an oversimplification, but stay with me
here.)
If, on the other hand, you live in a rural or semi-rural area —
and again, especially if you were born and raised there — there is
much more of a tendency to self-reliance. You know from firsthand
experience that “…by the sweat of your brow shall ye eat
bread…” and it literally never occurs to you that you are
entitled to the fruit of someone else’s labor. Further, emergency
services are far away, so you keep a shotgun in the closet, and a
bucket by the pump. For you, “gu’mmint” is at best a necessary
nuisance, and at worst positively hostile to your pursuit of
happiness. And is this not the oversimplified essence of
conservatism?
Look at the map and Michigan appears to be solidly “blue,” but
zoom in tight to a map of the state alone, showing a breakdown of
counties, and the obvious jumps right out at you. It is only the
cities — Detroit, Lansing Grand Rapids, etc. — that are blue. The
entire rest of the state is remarkably “red.” Unfortunately, it is
the cities where most of our population is.
And being a conservative in Muskegon is about like being the
only gringo in Fallujah.
— William M. Zwiker
North Muskegon-in-the-Puckerbrush, Michigan
I’d like to thank A. Robinson and Jeff Kocur for mentioning in
Reader Mail something I too noticed and wondered about: why are all
the blue counties near large bodies of water?
I brought this up with my wife just after the red/blue maps
showed up for the 2004 election and she thought I was nuts. Okay,
she too thought it a weird coincidence about them living near the
water. It was my theory that socialist liberal Democrats are aliens
from some ancient water planet she found nuts.
— Greg Barnard
Franklin, Tennessee
SPECTER’S LOTT
Re: The “Comeback Senator” letters in Reader Mail’s The Comeback
Senator:
Re. the two letters printed on 11/16 about Tim Carney’s article
“Unfit to Command.” The first letter says Rush Limbaugh was
pitching softballs to Senator Specter on his talk show. It was
really Sean Hannity who was doing it on his show. The second letter
identifies Trent Lott as Speaker of the House. He was Senate
Majority Leader. Other than that, both letters have made good
points.
— Robert Keiser
Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania
