The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Readiness Matters

12.14.04 @ 12:01AM

BYE BYE BERNIE
Re: The Washington Prowler's Kerik Moves:

I disagree with your reference to Bernard Kerik's earlier life as varied and colorful. It appears he was an adulterer. As an average citizen, that is an unfortunate fault, but as a potential Director of Homeland Security it reflects the extremely poor judgment of a person with power. Even more troubling is that he thought he could slide by the confirmation process. I understand that everyone makes mistakes throughout their life. However, Kerik's decisions earlier in life reflects a skewed moral compass by which he makes decisions. Good for the country? I think not.
-- Shelly F.
Denver, Colorado

BOTTLE AXIS
Re: Shawn Macomber's Redemption Center:

Massachusetts runs one of the most cynical of all recycling regimes. I studied it in the mid-1980s as I was developing a dissertation topic on deposit-refund systems. It suffers huge transactions costs, and it is designed to do so. Why? Because that way the beverage distributors, and not consumers, are forced to bear the cost. They have to pay redemption fees out of whatever revenue they can glean from unreturned containers. They break even only if redemptions, plus the cost of managing "redemption centers," is less than the value of deposits collected on unreturned containers. Retailers who must accept returns are paid a pittance of the cost of managing them. So they make it as inconvenient and unpleasant as possible.

Who bothers to return empties under this sorry regime? The upper middle class Volvopia and the men Shawn Macomber encountered. For the latter, this is a high valued use of time. It generates tax-free cash and an obvious place to spend it. For the former, it is a hugely inefficient use of time but it yields warm feelings about having contributed toward saving the Earth. Vast amounts of Volvo fuel are consumed carting the empties to suburban "redemption centers" -- all in order to save resources. That which is sociologically sad on skid row is positively amusing in Lexington and Concord.
-- Richard Belzer

Just finished Shawn Macomber's piece "Redemption Center". Wonderful! Welcome, brother and comrade, to the world of Dumpster Diving! We accept you! We accept you! One of us! One of us!

Even Jesus said that the smelly bums will always be with us. Something like that.

Stay away from the Sterno.
-- Street name "Sarge"

WHAT YOU HAVE
Re: Jed Babbin's Dirty, Rotten Scoundrels:

"The whole armor question could be solved almost immediately if someone would sort out what's needed and when (like, now for instance?), get the army procurement weenies to get off their butts, and buy what we need. What's the big deal?"

What's the big deal? As the economist Thomas Sowell would say, "There are no solutions, only trade-offs." A thousand pounds of armor added to a vehicle reduces its ability to do its intended mission. A few weeks ago, a soldier refused to drive a supply truck because he felt it did not afford enough protection from enemy fire. We could armor those trucks, too, but that would mean less supplies (read: ammunition) per truck to the troops. Can you imagine the uproar from the media if the troops were not getting enough ammunition?

The "someone to sort out what's needed" are what the DOD calls "in-service engineering" agencies. These DOD engineers work with the military units who use the equipment, and determine what modifications/upgrades are justified based on many factors involved in the unavoidable trade-offs. I worked for such an agency for the Navy for 30 years. A modification made by a sailor acting on his own was called a "sailor alt" which was strictly prohibited because of the possible degradation of the mission and supportability of the equipment. A soldier doing essentially the same does not have the legal or moral right to make whatever modifications he wants to his equipment at the risk of jeopardizing the rest of the fighting forces. This is what Rumsfeld meant when he said, "You go to war with what you have."

Rest assured that some "Army procurement weenies" are "off their butts" determining "what is needed," because that's one of the reasons the United States wins wars; it incorporates lessons learned from past wars.
-- Gordon Paravano
Sedona, Arizona

While Jed Babbin's contempt for the UN is well-justified, he repeats the longstanding conservative fantasy that, if only we limited the UN to democracies, it would be so much better. Excuse me, but even under the strictest entry terms, wouldn't we still have to let in France, Germany and Russia? France, in particular, is not lacking in democratic tradition. The French are the way they are for the straightforward reason that they choose to be that way.

Admittedly, a slimmed-down UN where we no longer have to be lectured by the likes of Fredonia and the Central Leprotic Republic would be a marginal improvement, but is there any real prospect of it accomplishing something useful?
-- Glen Hoffing
Shamong, New Jersey

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Education, Trade, John McCain, Harry Reid, Mainstream Media, Business, Hollywood, Movies, Law, Military, Russia, Israel, NATO, Africa