WRONG COOGLER
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell’s Jon Coogler
Stewart:
I write with respect to this year’s J. Gordon Coogler Award for
the Worst Book of the Year. Although I can appreciate the merits of
your ultimate selection, I find it difficult to accept that
anyone but Michael Moore could win the award in
any year in which Michael Moore has been published.
According to Amazon.com, Will They Ever Trust Us Again,
the aforementioned’s latest, was published in October, 2004 — a
month after, and thus more recently, than the Jon Stewart
volume.
I am not one to cry, “Fix!” but… one has one’s suspicions.
— Rufus Thompson
Great article, as usual. I read conservatives at NRO think Howard
Dean will be more of the same 2004 candidate Dean as DNC chairman.
Having just reread your article
on Dean from early January, I am looking forward to your
thoughts about this subject. If Dean is a closet Clintonista, your
position that he is not as hard left as he seems rings true. The
Clintons certainly won’t run as hard left as the 2004 Democrats
did. I emailed your article to the NRO editors in response to their
article from yesterday detailing how lousy Dean will be as DNC
chairman, and suggested they should interview you in light of your
personal knowledge of the man. Not trying to start any squabbles
(seriously), but I think that would be an interesting Q &
A.
Anyway, look forward to your thoughts on this in future
articles.
— Lee Wheeler
As a long time reader, I just wanted to comment on this year’s
Coogler winner. I read it, thought it was funny and seemed to poke
equal fun at both parties and was just basically smart-aleck.
Great? No, but there had to have been worse books (Joe Wilson’s
liefest? Richard Clarke? Will they ever trust us again?) amongst
the deluge of anti-Bush books this year. Just a thought. As a side
note, I introduced myself to you at Bill Buckley’s appearance at
the B&N in Georgetown last March while you were holding court
in the cafe after the event. Keep up the good work.
— Rick Hiteshew
SMART MOVES
Re: George Neumayr’s Democrats in
Bush’s Shadow:
Mr. Neumayr wonders if Harry Reid, in his reference to
Groundhog Day, has seen the movie. Listening to both Harry
Reid and Nancy Pelosi I would lean more toward the movie Dumb
and Dumber. Both their speeches last night just illustrates
how out of touch these people are with reality. Their main purpose
on the job is to criticize the current administration. We can do
much better than these two. I think people are so tired of rhetoric
that doesn’t amount to anything more than whining.
— Jane McNair
Connecticut
Seems to me that much progress could be made toward balancing the
budget if pork-barrel “I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch
mine” spending was eliminated, earmarked edicts to agencies were
curtailed, and giveaway social programs were carefully scrutinized.
A simple reading of the federal budget allocations easily shows
some of the obscure, needless things that are funded. Give the
president line item veto authority!
— Gary Johnson Madison, Alabama
ONE SPEECH
Re: John Tabin’s Three
Speeches:
Well done! Moving overview of speech last night.
— Sam Phillips
John and I must have watched two different speeches. I agree on one
and two, but three, rather than a “laundry list,” both my wife and
I viewed it as a repeat of his campaign promises. When are you
pundits and publishers going to get the fact that with this
president you get what you see. He says what he means and means
what he says - period! And that is what is resonating with us.
— Jim LariaClermont, Florida
ONE SPEECH
Re: Shawn Macomber’s Apocalypse
Now:
Excellent work by Mr. Macomber. He has been active in canvassing
the news and the portents are disturbing. But, as disturbing as a
Russia-Iranian nuclear club might be, there are far more worrisome
activities being undertaken by the Bear of the North.
It seems that the U.S. media has completely missed the current
Sino-Russian Friendship pact that Russia entered into with China in
2001. Though ostensibly an “understanding” between the two
countries to oppose the US anti-ballistic missile development
program, since then there has been a significant amount of
sophisticated Russian military sales to China. These include SU-27
and SU-30 fighters and the “Sunburn” supersonic anti-ship missile.
In addition to these munitions sales, the two Asian powers have
held joint military exercises.
The actions of Russia in selling these arms to China should be
of grave concern to Americans. With China’s continuing statements
that Taiwan is “part” of mainland China and the newly acquired
capability to significantly impact our naval combat operations in
the region, America’s “resolve” should not be seen to waiver.
Russia is not a friend to the United States. President Putin has
embarked upon a calculated course to reduce the power of the United
States through the use of client states and “allies” such as China.
China has its own desires in the Pacific region and bears watching
closely.
Look for the proliferation of more sophisticated weapons systems
and even nuclear technology from the Russian government in the near
future. Though rogue nuclear states such as Iran and North Korea
pose the greatest short term threat to this country, there are
long-term adversaries out there possessing much greater resources.
And, though the US has no imperialistic aims in the world, others
do.
Vigilance is extremely important and we will never have very
many friends in this world. We are, for all intents and purposes,
family in this country. We can squabble among ourselves, but we
should never do it in front of the neighbors. If we don’t learn
this soon, we may all be in serious trouble.
— Michael Tobias
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
MAKES TOO MUCH SENSE
Re: Jay D. Homnick’s Hero
Insurance:
Mr. Homnick, sorry. You’re suggestion re upping individual
paychecks to cover insurance premiums for Soldier Group Life
Insurance is just too, logical, too efficient, too obvious. You
can’t expect our government to implement such a reasonable plan,
can you? Sir, come back to reality. Our elected representatives
will surely find another way to reward the families of fallen
military heroes. A more expensive way? Certainly. A way they can
ride to endless re-elections? Ah! Of course.
— Tim Jones
CLARK’S KOSOVO
Re: Julia Gorin’s Found in
Translation:
This was superb! Congratulations to Julia Gorin for cutting
through the BS.
— Mirjana Samardzija
JUDICIAL HELLHOLES
Re: William Tucker’s Tort
Reform’s Ground Zero:
Recently, President Bush went into “judicial hellhole” country
to call for tort reform, which is designed to assure the lowering
of medical malpractice insurance rates. Before making this claim,
he should have noted what happened in Mississippi where five
counties were listed on the American Tort Reform Association’s
“judicial hellhole” list.
After tort reform was effected in Mississippi, Dr. Keith
Goodfellow said that skyrocketing malpractice rates are forcing him
to give up part of his practice. I can’t think he is the only
Mississippi doctor to find that tort reformers’ promises now have a
hollow ring.
When Mississippi placed a cap on pain and suffering awards, it
joined other states that have done so on the “medical malpractice
victims’ hellhole” list.
Medical malpractice creates victims. Then tort reformers seek to
make them victims once more by denying them a basic constitutional
right: that a jury decides what recompense for their injury is
appropriate.
Tort reformers, who surely know better, persist in promoting
California as their poster boy, who didn’t have staying power.
Doctors’ premiums increased by 450 percent during the 13 years
after medical liability caps in California were imposed and only
declined after voters enacted comprehensive insurance industry
reform and rate regulation of insurance companies, known as
Proposition 103.
With appalling insensitivity, tort reformers, most notably the
president, add insult to injury by referring to medical malpractice
lawsuits as frivolous. That is outrageous. I am insulted on behalf
of people dear to me whose lawsuits were not frivolous.
Obviously, Bush isn’t going to stop promoting the myth of tort
reform, but Congress should look beyond rhetoric and support the
interests of victims of medical malpractice, not the interests of
insurance companies and bad doctors who are the only beneficiaries
of tort reform.
— Jane Marshall
Clarksville, Tennessee
A LIBERTARIAN FOR LIFE
Re: slg’s letter (under “Left Coast Ethics”) in Reader Mail’s
Matters of
Life:
“slg” seems to feel that he should have the right to choose his
own death. I say, choose away slg. I mean, we don’t have a jail
term or the death penalty for suicide. I think that if a person
chooses to die, let him/her have at it. I do, however, take issue
with his patently ridiculous attack on what he called “legislating
morality.” If my memory serves me correctly, he wanted legislators
to “stay out of [his] life.” What absolute pap! What does he think
laws against assault, murder, theft, rape, etc. are? OF COURSE WE
CAN LEGISLATE MORALITY. In fact, most laws stem from our concept of
morality. Being a libertarian (small “l”) is fine, but be a logical
one. Yes, we want as little government intrusion into our lives as
possible. At the same time, we don’t want to go back to the cave
days when government not only did not intrude, but did not even
exist. What happened to might makes right is civilization.
— Joseph Baum
Newton Falls, Ohio
LIFE SENTENCE
Re: The Prowler’s Innocents
Abroad:
I am so embarrassed that so many of my fellow Delawareans
reelected Joe Biden last November. Six more years, I don’t know if
I can take it!!!
— Ruth Ann
