The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Northern Exposure

2.27.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 3 of 3)

If Obama is elected "messiah" this is one conservative Republican who plans to remain a "heretic" until the advent of sanity (i.e., Republican Congressional majorities or a Republican President). That is if the nation can survive a man with the abilities of Jimmy Carter, the charisma of Bill Clinton, the honesty of LBJ, the courage of Mike Dukakis, the meanness of Harry Reid, the masculinity of Nancy Pelosi and the politics of Ted Kennedy.
-- Michael Tomlinson

I always look forward to Mr. Lord's commentaries, but today I'm blown away! Great piece!

I find it absolutely amazing that seemingly intelligent, educated people are ready, willing, and apparently unable to stop themselves from this supplication. Having lived through the last half of the 20th century I have seen what "liberal" or "progressive" actually means and find it troubling that in this new century so many of us are willing to throw away our future and our children's future for the false hope of socialism. I have seen up close the City of Detroit under liberal Democrat rule for the past 50 years, decaying and dying neighborhoods, disastrous schools, etc. -- in other words a reflection of the south side of Chicago, or of Newark, or of New Orleans, or (fill in the blank) any major city in this country that has been gutted by their "liberal, progressive" leadership. Of course these same supplicants either ignore or demean the progress made by the Giuliani administration in New York in lowering crime, lowering taxes, and in general improving EVERYONE'S quality of life during his tenure.

Delusion? Seems like a strong descriptor, after all some of these supplicants are folks I otherwise love and admire, but there it is.
-- Stuart Reed
Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan

Mr. Obama does not want to be President of the USA. He wants to be the first NDP Premier of Canada. This country is made up primarily of beggars.
-- Kate Shaw

SWISS SECOND AMENDMENT
Re: Robert VerBruggen's Say it with Bullets:

Mr. VerBruggen, my chief problem with statements like this -- "The gun debate, not to mention gun technology, has changed significantly since the Founding era. The Constitution didn't spring from concerns about protection against crime, and there's no obvious way to decide what modern guns the Framers would have defined as 'Arms.'" -- is that you discount the central purpose of the 2nd Amendment and then slice and dice what the general understanding was in 1787.

"Arms" are and will always be that which the Government has access to else the 2nd Amendment is moot. The "Arms" used in the Revolution were as "modern" as anywhere else in the world at that time. Calling up the local "militia" armed with the standard deer rifle of today doesn't quiet serve the same purpose as the same number of people armed with M16s does it? The technological differences between a Brown Bess smooth bore musket and a Kentucky Long rifle as they relate to battlefield effectiveness were significant even in the 1780s. 80 years later the Percussion rifled musket was a faster firing version of that same flintlock Kentucky Rifle that the British Redcoats paid a dear price against on their outing to and from Boston. By the 1870s the 13 shot lever action was by the technology of the day a "machine gun" compared to what came before. Technology is irrelevant to the "right" simply put.

The Swiss are the only Nation that actually practices what our Founders preached. They have not separated individual responsibility from individual freedoms as we have. Close to 10% of their population or every able bodied adult male of military age is mandated to "keep and bear" modern military arms of the type that most Americans get their knowledge of from a Hollywood movie. Their kids aren't walking into their schools and killing their fellow citizens either. In our society those that opt to not be responsible civic minded citizens are celebrated while those that do step up to the plate are threatened, intimidated and sued at every chance for doing the right thing. Let no good deed go unpunished is common practice in the United States today. That's why the Founder did not put restrictions on individual weapons in 1787. They understood Human Nature better than most of our citizens do today.
-- Thom Bateman
Newport News, Virginia

Here are two points not often made in a discussion of the Second Amendment:

1. If the colonists had not had the right to keep and bear arms, there would not have been a United States of America. The framers understood that full well.

2. The framers also understood that tyranny was not a one-time event, but lurks in the darkness waiting to strike anywhere at any time it can seize the opportunity.

Many shudder at the thought that The People need a backup plan for when our government turns again to tyranny, but the framers, who experienced it all first hand, provided just that.

Whether as a shield against tyranny, or a sword to defeat it, we will always need the Second Amendment. Without it, we will surely lose our freedom.
-- A. C. Santore

BUILDING THE SHARK JUMPER
Re: Eric Peters' Crossover Repeal:

'Twas ever thus...

This is nothing new. The auto industry is built on repackaging the same features and calling something else. Good grief...what was the real difference between a Pontiac Bonneville, Chevrolet Impala, Buick LeSabre or Oldsmobile 98? Or a Ford Galaxy or a Mercury Monterey? Or a Dodge Caravan, Plymouth Voyager or Chrysler Town & Country? Or a VW Phaeton and an Audi A8? It goes on and on.

You should save this article and republish it in about 3 years. No one will remember.

When conglomerates compete, the only way to add market share is to artificially expand the market with new models of the same thing. The only way to get people to replace something that meets their needs is to convince them that they have new needs that can only be met by the new model.

There is nothing new under the sun.
-- Barry Washington

This business with the crossover utility vehicle has more to do with CAFE standards and the 1990's East Asian Economic Crisis.

The CAFE standards made it hard to keep building station wagons. The Asian Economic Crisis made gas cheaper than store-bought water. Big boxy pickup trucks were something GM, Ford, and Chrysler knew how to build at a profit. Boom! The SUV became the family car.

The CUV is an attempt to piggyback on the acquired fashion for a big boxy family vehicle while slimming down the weight and improving the gas mileage. I see these vehicles more for their styling than their utility. If I needed to move cubic feet of matter, whether passengers or inanimate belongings, a minivan seems to offer the most utility -- the CUV's I have seen don't seem to offer much interior room for their gas consumption and price.

I chatted up a fellow at the hardware store about his shiny new Ford Edge, essentially a bulked up Mazda 6. "How do you like it? How is the gas mileage?" His response was that it was a fine car, but gas mileage was below that of his Taurus station wagon, but "they don't make those anymore."
-- Paul Milenkovic

Eric Peters article is silly. How many cars is too many? Whatever the marketplace -- as opposed to a cranky writer -- determines.
-- Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida

NOT OKAY
Re: Hal G.P. Colebatch's Money and Misery:

Let me see if I have this right. New Line Cinema just settled with Peter Jackson for holding out on him. In effect, New Line admitted to withholding money rightfully belonging to Mr. Jackson. So now, they are doing to same thing to the Tolkien Estate, which, according to Mr. Colebatch, has enough money that they should just take it in the shorts and let New Line make their movie. That's okay, this ridiculous logic goes, the book sales will make up for lack of integrity. What a pile of dragon excrement! What the founder of New Line should do is, take a cashier's check for $150 million, hop on his private jet for a trip to Europe and the Tolkien Estate therein, then present the check over dinner to Professor Tolkien and offer him a job as consultant for the new movie. Stick a crowbar in your bank vault, New Line, pay the man what you owe!
-- Scott Brown
Colorado Springs, Colorado

STILL CATS AND DOGS
Re: Wayne Martin's letter (under "Don't Monkey with Evolution") in Reader Mail's SNL Hell:

I am writing this letter in response to Wayne Martin's statement that "A scientific theory, to be valid, must be testable through observation." While this is true, it is also true that a valid scientific theory must also be testable and repeatable through scientific experimentation and not just through mere observation. Since no one has been able to create a cell from scratch and guide it through evolutionary stages via scientific experimentation, it is highly unlikely that science has compiled "clear evidence of the fundamental validity of evolutionary theory" as Mr. Martin states.

Just how valid IS a theory if it can not be demonstrated through experimentation? If life formed and evolved through random chance and environmentally selected breeding, as current theory states, why hasn't science been able to conduct any repeatable experiments that actually demonstrate the theory in question? Why, for example, has science been unable to create a new species without resorting to altering the genetic code directly through gene splicing technology? Why can't we simply breed a new species into existence if this is how life is supposed to evolve? The theory would allow for such directed evolution yet, even after thousands of years of repeated selective breeding of animals like dogs and cats, we have been unable to produce a new species.
-- Raymond Swanson

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, John McCain, Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Business, Islam, Abortion, Environment, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Military, Iraq, NATO, Socialism, Communism, Alaska, Oil