The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Family Traditions

8.11.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 4 of 4)

I understand that you are trying to run a website/publication. However as a fellow American providing the population with information that will help them make the best choice in November I urge you to publish articles that are honest and attempt to not only fully explain the details, but to fully argue each assertion made. This poor attempt by Mr. Stein to write commentary on the current ad bickering by the candidates was insulting to my and other's intelligence.

Thank you for listening,
-- Neil N. Puckett
Virginia City, Nevada

Please tell Mr. Stein to write his porn reviews in a more appropriate forum. Thanks to his most recent review re: Paris Hilton poli ad, readers are now faced with the image of Ben sitting in a darkened room, remote in hand, replaying Paris's debut video ad infinitum.
-- Harland Harris

DOOLEY'S OK
Re: Mike Dooley's letter (under "Lost Cause") in Reader Mail's Where's the Love?:

I must confess that I found Mike Dooley's letter to be most interesting. While the end result of his surfing was to uncover a political code phrase for abortion and euthanasia, I suspect Mr. Dooley knows in his heart of hearts that those two fine lads, Robertson
and Dobson, would pull the plug on "Stacked and Topless" if they could. In trying to protect Mr. Dooley and Ben Stein from themselves, they would deny Mr. Dooley two hours of "lush depravity" and Mr. Stein the ability to research Paris Hilton for his critique of her abilities as an adult film actress. Concerning Ben Stein letter, Alan Kennedy could not have been more on target. While I suspect Mr. Dooley's letter is a sly send up, if not, surf on, dude, secure in the knowledge that the First Amendment protects your interest from the pious.
-- Mike Roush
P.S. Whatever skepticism I had about the situation improving in Iraq evaporated when I read three fairly lengthy letters from Mike Tomlinson who is currently stationed in Habbaniyah, Iraq.

GIVE HIM THE LAST WORD
Re: Craig Sarver's letter (under "Somebody's Got it Right") in Reader Mail's Where's the Love?:

Mr. Sarver writes: "We could discuss Halliburton as well, you know Clinton's favorite non-bid contractor but why bother..." What the heck, Craig. Let's bother. If you think awarding no-bid contracts constitutes bad public administration, then you have to agree that the Clinton and the Bush administrations failed on this count. If you think there is nothing wrong with awarding no-bid contracts, then you would have to agree that neither administration acted improperly on this count. No rocket science here. However, if you are of the opinion (and I have no reason to think that you are, but I have my suspicions about others who write to this forum) that Clinton never did anything right and Bush never did anything wrong, then you have a bit of a problem. But there is a way out of this dilemma. All one has to do is presuppose, as an article of faith, that any action by the man one supports is motivated by the purest of intentions. Conversely, of course, the same actions taken by the other guy are assumed, ipso facto, to be nefariously motivated. Poof! Messy facts and the potential for the cognitive dissonance they create disappear.

I'm left to wonder: Do we agree that both administrations engaged in bad public administration? Do we disagree because I think no-bid contacts are bad and you don't (no problem here -- men of good will can disagree) or...well, let's not go there.
-- Mike Roush

Letter to the Editor

topics:
John McCain, Barack Obama, Abortion, Hollywood, Movies, Law, Iraq, NATO, Energy, Oil