The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Guy Walks Into a...

4.8.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 6 of 6)

Seems to me this is reasonable evidence that an armed citizen does prevent innocent deaths. I don't think of it as Hollywood fiction as Mr. Sciacchitano suggests. In fact, at the moment of truth a young woman did in fact dispense the villain with a well-placed shot.
-- Nelson Ward
Cowles, New Mexico

HOW THE OTHER HALF WRITES
Re: Mark Falcoff's Arthur and Writer:

Compare Schlesinger's journal to President Reagan's early hand scripted speeches and his recently published White House diary, and no doubt, the juxtaposition between the soft hands of elite liberalism and the hard scrabble common sense of conservatism, will be complete. It's not the least bit surprising that Schlesinger's many inaccurate and fatuous predictions are breezily ignored; after all, with liberalism, one is supposed to marvel at its compassion. It's considered bad form to dwell on its consequences. Ironically, it took Christopher Hitchens, doing his best William F. Buckley imitation, to eloquently, yet savagely, expose the depravity of Schlesinger's elitism. Schlesinger had taken to one of the nightly cable shows in defense of Bill Clinton, at the height of Monica-gate. Schlesinger, solemnly lectured us, in haughty moral calculus, that "gentlemen do not speak publicly of their discreet affairs," hence, granting dispensation and approbation for Clinton's sordid acts in the Oval Office. To Schlesinger, it was a given that enlightened Europeans and the Kennedy's, did these things all the time. What's the big deal? A livid Hitchens, in response, called Schlesinger a "bowed-tied Popinjay." Way to go Chris, moral clarity with a touch of the Audubon Society thrown in.
-- A. DiPentima

"V" FOR VENDETTA
Re: Rich V.'s letter (under "His to Lose") in Reader Mail's Waiting for Obama:

I would like to correct one Rich V. (if in fact that is his "name") who wrote: "Problem is the right is SOOO far right nowadays that ANY Democrat to them is "far left."" The problem with his statement is that it gets it all backwards. The "right" (if by that you refer to the American conservative movement) has changed in that it has become almost uniformly champions of the free market and now makes far more use of empirical evidence to makes its points that in the past. In addition, enter a room with full of conservatives and you will find a wide variety of opinions on just about anything. No such thing can be said about the left -- and this is just the problem.

It isn't that the right has moved further "right"; it is that the left is not the same liberalism of the 1950's and 1960's. The left keeps moving into new territory -- embracing positions that had been thought to be unthinkable mere years before. In fact, stake out a contemporary liberal constellation of positions in which you say to yourself "these are my beliefs and I go no further" and tomorrow you will be left behind. There is nothing so "out of date" and boring as yesterday's liberal. Given a sufficient length of time and your leftist brothers and sisters will regard you as a conservative and perhaps even a "traitor." This is precisely what happened to a great many of us former liberals. That the left moves further "left" is one thing. In addition, the left has become intolerant of deviations from the party line. Find yourself hesitant to continue in the leftist cutting edge (or at least "growing" and on the way) and you will soon be squeezed out. On the other hand, today's liberals are driven by the need to be conspicuously progressive among their brethren.

Given the content of Rich V.'s letter, one has to doubt if he had ever actually voted Republican. It uses many of the catch phrases one commonly hears from the left. Either "Rich V." is a fake or he himself has taken the magic carpet ride further left unawares.

By the by, issues are issues. No one knows what will be the hot button questions six months from now. The trouble is the left doesn't like dealing with issues close to the hearts of conservatives. It wants to talk about what it thinks is on its home field about issues it decides are "fit." Hence the self-serving belief that the "issues are on their side" with the American people. Nevertheless, there is no pressing reason anyone else should be playing by the left's rules.

More to the point, liberals rarely believe that others have real issues unless those issues originate from the leftwing radar. Only the left has the legitimate ones. The left is so selfcentered that it deludes itself into thinking no conservative cares about "God, guns, gay marriage abortion..." short of their use as battleaxes. When it comes to the raw division among the American people, the left blames the right. The left doesn't seriously think conservatives care about limited government or secure borders. Heaven knows the left surely doesn't. Ergo: it has to be that conservatives merely lust for power. However, blame conservatives all you wish. The polarization of the American people has existed for a long time. If you want to blame another for America's discord, look in the mirror.
-- Mike Dooley

ORWELL IN CATALONIA
Re: Eric Heroux's letter (under "Port Holes") in Reader Mail's Waiting for Obama:

"One symptom of this article's propaganda function is how it describes Orwell's having been shot in the neck while fighting for the Spanish Republicans, followed immediately by an unexplained reference to Communist firing squads -- thus associating his bullet wound with a Communist rifle."

Let me explain the reference: Orwell, a socialist, joined a Marxist organization, POUM. In combat, Orwell, on being shot in the neck on the front lines by a Fascist, spent his recuperation in Barcelona dodging Communists, bent on purging POUM, socialists, and Anarchists from the Spanish Republican forces. He and his wife finally had to flee Spain to escape the Communist firing squads of his allies. Mr. Heroux should read Orwell, not read into Orwell. Cf. Homage to Catalonia.
-- Hugh Dempsey

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Foreign Policy, Education, John McCain, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Abortion, Environment, Books, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Military, Iraq, NATO, Conservatism, Oil