The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The Largest Selection of Liberal-baiting Merchandise on the Net!
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Reader Mail
Print Email

Reader Mail

SNL Hell

(Page 4 of 4)

It would be nice if the legislatures would simply address the seatbelt issue by authorizing insurance companies to refuse injury coverage to a driver proven to be unbuckled at the time of an accident. The burden of proof would be with the insurance company, of course.

Then the real costs of a risky choice would be born by the individual and we would be free of some of this nanny state nonsense. We could also apply the same principle to the use of helmets by motorcyclists.
-- W. E. James
Reidsville, North Carolina

WAY WITH WORDS
Re: Edmund Dantes's letter (under "Remember Hillary?") in Reader Mail's Disappointing Democracy:

As a longtime member of the George Corley Wallace school of political rhetoric (not his politics, just his rhetoric), I was pleased to see Mr. Edmund Dantes refer to Mrs. Clinton's dubious rogues gallery of pollsters, communists and hangers on with the delicious phrase "henhouse cronies." Wallace, the late lamented populist governor of our great state, gave the political lexicon such jewels as "pointy headed liberals" and "briefcase toting bureaucrat who couldn't park a bicycle straight." It's good to know that the use of apt and skewering rhetoric is alive and well among the readership of TAS. Contemporary politics, with its every smidgen of communication focus group tested to produce a message reduced to the lowest common denominator, is so boring. I long for the good old days.
-- David Atchison
Mobile, Alabama

DON'T MONKEY WITH EVOLUTION
Re: Ben Stein's Florida's Darwinian Interlude:

Ben Stein's latest article was a distinct disappointment. His opinions are usually well grounded, but he missed the central fact here in his attempt to provide cover for Creationists. The questions on the origins of energy matter, etc. at the opening of the article display his fundamental lack of understanding about science, what constitutes a scientific theory, and what does not. A scientific theory, to be valid, must be testable through observation. The origins of energy, matter, et al., i.e., what happened before the Big Bang, are not observable from within this universe, and are therefore not within the purview of science. Ben may postulate a supernatural being who decided what the speed of light and the value of Plank's constant would be, but there is nothing scientific about such speculations.

To suggest that there is no support for evolutionary theory is to blatantly ignore a large body of evidence from not only biology, but also geology, chemistry, and physics that provides clear evidence of the fundamental validity of evolutionary theory. No test or observational evidence has been shown to contradict or disprove (falsify, in the formal language) evolution as the mechanism for species progression.

Creationism on the other hand, unlike evolutionary theory, is not testable (it provides no predictions or other means to prove it wrong) and thus is not a scientific theory. The point is not one of requiring evolution to be presented as the only theory, but of refusing to include non-scientific conjectures in a science curriculum.

Unless we properly teach children what valid science is and how to properly evaluate technical claims, we will continue as a society to be prey to hucksters trying to sell us water powered engines and anthropogenic global warming.
-- Wayne Martin
Fairfax, Virginia

SERVILE STATE, WHY NOT?
Re: Jeff Emanuel's Unfree to Choose:

Mr. Emanuel concludes his essay with the following paragraph:

"Rather than continuing down this path of bigger and more intrusive government that regulates and interferes in people's lives and wallets, Mrs. Clinton should spend a few minutes studying the free market and learning how things like choice and volunteerism really work. If she is interested, we can point her in the right direction to get started."

While I agree with this statement completely, the bigger and more dire question is Do Americans want free markets and less government intrusion in their lives? When Mrs. Clinton revealed that she would use the government to force people who did not want or could afford health insurance, I expected outrage to follow. I thought that Americans would finally see the dictator the Mrs. Clinton would become if she were elected president. However, all I heard from the mainstream media was silence. No anger from the electorate over the possibility of being subjected to even more intrusion into our financial affairs. No anger over the possibility of subjugation to an even more authoritarian government. No anger over the possibility of losing even more of our freedom. This is the true problem that many, if not most conservatives refuse to believe: that the American electorate is voluntarily choosing to give up its freedoms.

After this election is over conservatives, libertarians, and other lovers of freedom must confront this truth and go about the business of preaching the moral superiority of freedom. Given that the natural desire of man is security over freedom, this will be a great challenge. We will have to stick to principles, even if this means losing power for years. But one advantage we have is that liberals always go too far when they have control. That sudden increase in temperature will alert us to the boiling water that we are in and we can escape. However, if we continue on our current path of compromise, we will be only a speed bump on the road to serfdom. We would become a servile State through the free choices of the electorate.
-- Christian Evans
Washington, D.C.

ONE BILLION ILLEGAL DOWNLOADERS CAN'T BE WRONG
Re: Li Ping's China's # 1:

But will China ever mean business about securing intellectual property rights?
-- David Govett
Davis, California

Page: ‹ First   2 34

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Health Care, John McCain, Barack Obama, Mainstream Media, Economics, Business, Earmarks, Islam, Abortion, Global Warming, Constitution, Law, Iraq, Pakistan, NATO, Energy, Oil, Unions

Comments

Leave a Comment

Related Articles

ADVERTISEMENT

Apolitical Phil

Paul Chesser

* * * *

Wait...

Shawn Macomber

* * * *

War Taxes

W. James Antle, III

* * * *

Checklist Conservatism

Philip Klein

* * * *

UCC Calls Me a "Lying Liar"

Jeffrey Lord

* * * *

Welcome Back, Carter

Ken Blackwell

* * * *

Nervous Instincts

The Prowler

* * * *

The Big Pulaski

Bill Croke

* * * *

More Cowbell

F. Vincent Vernuccio

* * * *

Getting Fooled

Reid Collins

* * * *

2012

James Bowman

* * * *
ADVERTISEMENT