The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Staying Active

9.14.05 @ 12:01AM

FUN STUFF
Re: Judd Magilnick's Somewhere Over the Penumbra:

Ok, I've dusted myself off from rolling on the floor in painful laughter. May I live long enough to see it. The Tancredo v. Bush idea of letters of marque has been suggested in Reader Mail sometime in the past. (I am willing to split the percentage with the Spectator.) But paying bounty is really not that farfetched or old-fashioned. It is similar to the writ of arrest that a bounty hunter uses against someone who has jumped bail.

But I have to say, this is one of the funniest pieces I have read in quite a while. Thanks.
-- John McGinnis
Arlington, Texas

Mr. Magilnick in his "Somewhere Over the Penumbra" essay makes some good points, but starts out by saying that there are no longer any repressed opinions in today's society.

I have to disagree. Every society I ever heard of has its taboos and shibboleths, including ours. Sometimes it is called political correctness, but it's really more than just politics. For example, in today's society, the racists are always white. Officially, at least, there is no such thing as a black racist. The sexists, of course, are always male. Religion can have filth poured all over it, but only if it's Christianity. All other religions -- Islam most of all -- must be handled with hushed reverence. When talking of the frontier wars, it is all about Indian violence against whites, never Indian violence against whites, or even against other Indians.

Of course, it involves more than just general or specific political taboos. There are many others. For example, our ancestors had no trouble talking about age, loneliness, and death, and often did so. We don't -- except briefly at times like Hurricane Katrina.

Tragic views of life really aren't permitted in the public square. If celebrities in public life or nobodies in private life get old or sick, it's as if they become invisible. Widows and widowers don't exist, except in the occasional uplift article showing some oldster as an activist or something. In the most pornographic society in history, we pretend that physical looks don't matter. We ignore (except as comic figures to laugh at) the people who will be alone all their lives because no one wants them. And don't talk about dying alone, or dying at all.

The list goes ever on, but I think the above gives some idea.
-- John Lockwood

I think you should add another item: U.S. Congress vs. Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kennedy. The Constitution demands that, under oath, Supreme Court justices (and all other judges in the Judicial Branch) uphold and defend the United States Constitution. These judges have affirmed that they look to the laws and constitutions of other countries in forming opinions on issues before the United States Supreme Court. Therefore, they should be impeached and FIRED; for violating their oath of office, which must be considered a "high crime" and an impeachable offense.

End of "judicial activism."
-- unsigned

MOVING ALONG
Re: Eric Peters's Safe At Any Speed:

Eric Peters is too sanguine about the risks of speeding on our highways. Although many drivers have the skills and equipment to safely travel 75-80 mph, there are many more who do not. I see too many distracted drivers talking on cell phones traveling at unsafe speeds. I doubt that some of them have checked their tire pressure in months, just to mention one equipment-related factor.

As to the reduction in highway deaths, don't forget that there have been great improvements in the trauma response apparatus during this time; some of this reduction actually reflects better survival DESPITE high speed crashes.
-- Joseph Hamad, M.D.
Cincinnati, Ohio

I agree with your article ("Safe At Any Speed") with one observation. There appears to be a polarization of traffic patterns associated with the change back to "high speed" driving. It seems there are only two types of drivers these days, those that drive below the posted speed limit (with a cell phone attached to an ear, and the seat set in the "waaaay back" position) and the rest of us at 5 to 10 mph over the posted speed limit. This creates some dangerous situations, especially on the interstate system. Along with higher speed limits we need a better system of training young folks merging into the driving scene and monitoring older folks driving abilities more frequently after age 65 (OK, 70, well OK, 75, or maybe 80). I'm sure AARP loves this topic. I don't have the answer but I know we can't continue to just issue licenses to anyone that can parallel park and call them qualified nor can we continue to allow older folks to drive through grocery stores that don't have drive-through service. It's not about restricting young folks just because they're young or getting rid of the older folks just because they're old. It's a matter of recognizing and accepting the fact that young folks are simply less experienced drivers and eye/hand coordination as well as our faculties decrease with age. I'm sure none of this makes for a good 15-second sound bite, so it probably has no political legs.
-- unsigned

I certainly admire Mr. Peters's tenacity and single-minded purpose. This article, after all, being his 427th published on Spectator online in the last six months pushing the exact same agenda. I don't disagree with Mr. Peters at all. Normally on a highway I settle in at a comfy 70-75 mph if traffic allows. I find that to be a perfect speed for me, not too fast and not too slow. Yet there is something in his logic that strikes me as odd. Mr. Peters concludes that since fatalities have gone down since speeds have gone up, that must mean that faster speeds are safer. Come on, man. Don't you think the more likely reason there are fewer fatalities is that the cars themselves are safer? That would seem to make more sense.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Education, Hillary Clinton, Mainstream Media, Economics, Federal Budget, Religion, Islam, Global Warming, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, Israel, Alaska, Unions, Medicare