The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Feel the Draft

11.30.06 @ 12:01AM

PRE-GAME WARMUP
Re: Quin Hillyer's Two Double Sets of Footprints:

Please thank Mr. Hillyer on my behalf. After a busy, dizzying day, I sat down for a few moments looking for something good to read and of course headed straight for The American Spectator where I found his gem of a column. Now I am off to my 12-year old son's first basketball game of the season in the very best frame of mind.
-- Dave Mills
Rolla, Missouri

BACKLASH
Re: William Tucker's From O.J. to Anita O'Day:

I have no quarrel with Judith Regan's attempt to give O.J. Simpson yet another sickening 15 minutes of fame. I do find it interesting that she has no one with the slightest bit of common sense editing her letters to you. First, she "was told" the company was owned by Mr. Simpson's children. Who told her -- Simpson himself? Since he's got custody of them, wouldn't that give him access to whatever monies the company produces? Second, these 2 children are the "true victims" of this crime? Geez, I thought Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown were the victims. And what about their families? Aren't they victims, too? Do they deserve ever to see the first dollar out of the $33 million they've won in civil judgment against Mr. Simpson? Was Miz Regan in fact helping Mr. Simpson shelter these monies from that judgment?

We unwashed common citizens in fly-over country really don't care what Miz Regan and Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Simpson do. But please, none of them were doing this "for the kids." We're not complete idiots.
-- Tim Jones
Cordova, Tennessee

Possibly the worst criticism of William Tucker's column on O.J. Simpson is the letter you received from Judith Regan praising it. Tucker's main point is that the book provides a confession that is cathartic to the nation's soul, and Regan writes that her advance (she was told) went to the "real victims" of the crime, Simpson's children.

Unfortunately for both writers, Simpson has already given an interview in which he says the ghostwriter made up the confessional parts, and he needed the proceeds of the book to address tax problems. What more is there to say? The brother lied. Who could have guessed?

Oh, and the "real victims" of the crime were the two people actually killed in the crime. Not a hard concept.
-- Glen Hoffing
Shamong, New Jersey

HELL NO, WE WON'T GO
Re: G. Tracy Mehan's Charle Rangel Wants to Draft My Daughters:

I want to draft your daughters too!!

If women want full equality, they should bear equal responsibility. Making men register for selective service but not women is blatantly unconstitutional.

Why should Johnny be forced into military service but Janey doesn't even have to register? Discrimination to the extreme.

We hear the feminists screaming about the "male dominated" society yet get a pass at military service. If men only are required to serve, then there must be built-in advantages that they receive under the law that women will not receive. Preferences in hiring or an extra vote or higher pension benefits perhaps.

The biological argument is nonsense as many women do not plan for families until they are in their 30s.

I have no intention of letting any male family members register until women are required to do the same.
-- Mashall Maguire III

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, Business, Books, Movies, Constitution, Law, Military, Russia, Israel, NATO, Africa, North Korea, Alaska, Oil