The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Dirty Harry

4.24.07 @ 12:01AM

NONE DARE NOT CALL IT TREASON
Re: Paul Beston's Acting Out:

Excellent, excellent article.
-- Chris Gwin

Regarding Paul Beston's column of the 23rd, Harry Reid is truly a pitiful excuse for a man, a senator, an American. But he is certainly not the only poor example of the United States ruling class. The Congress has a far better military than it deserves. God save us.
-- J. C. Eaton
Chetek, Wisconsin

So, Harry Reid's statement was "nearly treasonous." At what point are we going to stop hedging about the Democrats' treasonous, unpatriotic, and subversive words and actions? What ever happened to clear, straightforward language that is not prefaced by alleged, suspected, assumed, rumored, or thought? I realize that the Republicans' have a two-pronged enemy: leftist Democrats (yes, I am questioning their patriotism) and their enablers i.e., the fifth column that is the present day media, but until they stand up to these people, the Democrats will be able to say anything they like with impunity.
-- Seth Kanter
Goodyear, Arizona

Given his tendency to exaggerate, especially on the down side of important issues, I've always felt that Senator Harry Reid should have a nickname or "street" name as some might call it. How about Harry "The Sky is Falling" Reid?
-- Stan Welli
Aurora, Illinois

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE??
Re: Richard Kirk's Darwin, Brooks, and Mass Murder:

Richard Kirk seems to have missed the point of David Brooks's article. Brooks is clearly not happy about the ascent of Darwinism, yet he recognizes that the preponderance of the evidence supports it and that it is replacing older cosmologies, religion, and even post-modernism as the dominant worldview.

Mr. Kirk also misrepresents sociobiology by suggesting that it offers no answer to why individuals might make heroic sacrifices when there is no apparent benefit to them. Books have been written on this topic, and there is no shortage of appealing and consistent explanations offered by evolutionary biologists.

Regarding good and evil, these are clearly human constructs that can easily be grouped with others such as the belief in a personal god who lives in heaven. David Brooks doesn't like this turn of events either, but at least he's trying to get with the program. I suggest that Mr. Kirk do the same.
-- Abe Grossman
Pleasantville, New York

One of the great conundrums of Darwinism has always been the teleological dilemma. Evolutionists waste no opportunity to remind the unwashed masses that our existence on planet Earth is not the work of an outside agent possessing a superior intellect. Rather, they and their mentally superior friends insist that the incredible variation and complexity observed in our world can be explained simply by the random interaction of chemicals over vast expanses of time. Furthermore, they tell us, these chance encounters somehow organized themselves without the aid of a master plan or purpose of any kind. The only thing missing from their pronouncements is any proof as to how this might have occurred given that no one has produced an example of a random process capable of pulling off such a feat.

One thing has always puzzled me. If everything in this world arrived here without the need for intelligence, why would it be necessary to evolve it? Why do life forms that possess intelligence consider their species more highly evolved than those that do not? Surely, in the Darwinists' metanarrative, blind chance working in tandem with eons of time has produced fantastic results and would have to be preferred over the use of unnecessary byproducts of evolutionary trial and error such as design, intelligence or purpose. So why have they survived as inheritable traits?
-- Rick Arand
Lee's Summit, Missouri

BROADCASTING'S BROADSIDES
Re: Happy Feder's NBC Loses It:

Sunday afternoon, while visiting the Virginia Tech campus, about 50 miles east of here, I chatted with several people. To three young people and the father of VPI students with whom I spoke, more than just NBC "lost it."

One young Blacksburg resident, who knew slain Jarrett Lane, of Narrows, Va., about 20 miles east of here, roundly criticized NBC for airing the Cho video. He said he'd heard that the families of slain students were refusing to speak with the news media, mainly because of that. That's hearsay, I know, but the young fellow made a sound point: Murderer Cho certainly got more than his 15 minutes of fame, over and over and over again. But was much said or has much been said, really, by NBC about the murdered students or faculty?

NBC's excess on Cho but shortage on the victims genuinely troubled this young man. Me, too, for what it's worthâ€"that and the Big Three choosing not to interrupt their escapist Monday night programming to report something genuinely newsworthy, here and globally.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, Religion, Islam, Global Warming, Books, Law, Military, NATO, Oil