The American Spectator

Reader Mail

One Reason Alone

8.29.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 3 of 3)

As an aside, I found the statement concerning John Paul II's condemnation of "excessive individualism" refreshing. I certainly don't agree that such a thing is a problem (I believe we have quite the opposite problem in America these days). The popes have openly hated American "liberty of conscience," "freedom of religion," and "excessive individualism" (and their decrees have stated so)... I just haven't seen too many people willing to admit it!

Take away marriage and abortion and the RCC is a leftist organization (living wage, Israel, death penalty, open borders, redistribution of wealth, property rights, Iraq, etc.). John Adams was right to warn us of her tyranny. She's older than the USA and plans to outlive us.
-- Michael Scotto
Greensboro, North Carolina

Germany has a lower abortion rate than the United States because they require that before an abortion can be performed a woman receives mandatory counseling, and a waiting period. They also make available enhanced ultrasound to show that what is inside the woman is a baby....not a fetus.
-- Fred Edwards
Tucson, Arizona

ALTERNATIVE TYRRELL
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s The Mainstream Moron Media:

I am having an epiphany here of a new classic AmSpec button to join the revered "Drop It" one from 1967 -- a simple white button with a hackneyed Euro "No" Sign of zero and bar with "M cubed" inscribed on it.

Now MY leg is tingling.
-- Cookie Sewell
Socialist Republic of Maryland

I followed RET's lead by boycotting television coverage of the Peking Olympics. That was tough. Boycotting the Democratic National Convention has been a breeze. So thank you, RET, for the update on the Denver proceedings.

The Clintons may not be political geniuses, unless, of course, they had a hand in the selection of Joe Biden. What better way to advance Hillary in 2012?
-- Dan Martin
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Memo to Emmett Tyrrell: "Clintons in retirement" is an oxymoron.
-- Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida

Dear Ed: Congratos. Today's columns comprise an interesting panopoly of a major party's boundless toxicity. Each and every effort illustrates in a unique way, the comprehensive and mindnumbing consistency of the Donkey-party's pathology. I remember the thrilling days of yesteryear when I covered my room windows with JFK stickers. Thrilled to think this wonderful man, this papist, this wunderkind, would take the helm of our beloved ship of state. Sure I was a mere lad of 14 but my heart brimmed with confidence and hope and certainty that his election was inevitable and wisely so. Later, I actually ran as a Democrat... Three times I carried the banner of Jefferson, and Jackson ...and Adlai. And won three times too. The bloom came off the rose, though.

In later years I gave speeches to district conventions saying that the country and its public treasury owed more to honorably discharged vets than unproductive drones born to the world with no more entitlement than an extended hand. And I recall the resounding silence those speeches engendered. I remember the party meetings with teacher union honchos yakking about the breathtaking efforts to form the melons of America's incipient "great minds." By that time, it had occurred to me that the only thing that kept public schools honest were the private schools, not the teachers or their unions. Anyway, after I called the union factotum on the point, a retreaded Socialist party vet opined that years before, when she attended school, everyone laughed at the Catholic kids because "they were so stupid." I know now, and knew then that the termagant's opinion was not one widely shared, but no one in the room expressed disagreement. My epiphany was complete. There was no room at the Democratic Inn for me.

This is not to say I am a Republican. The Canons of Judicial ethics prohibit membership in a partisan organization, but the Republicans are too often not conservative so there is no angst about not carrying their card either.

Today's columns encapsulated many of the contemporary pathologies of the Democratic Party, 2008 edition. Nora "Abortion, first last and always " Ephron. John "the late and unlamented" Edwards. John Kerry, still bitter, still complaining, still clueless. The Mainstream Media: venal, duplicitous, banal. Pro-life Democrats: isolated, scorned, marginalized to the max. And finally, Obama himself. The candidate without humor, without much grace. Without credential, without heft, without reality. Yes Ed, you put together a selection of memory lane vignettes that warmed the cockles of my old, conservative, surgically repaired heart. Thanks I guess.
-- J.C. Eaton
Wisconsin

FEARLESS PREDICTIONS
Re: Quin Hillyer's Dream Ticket Memories:

Thanks for that article. I was 18 in 1980, and saw Ronald Wilson Reagan as the only man capable of pulling the US out of the "Carter Fog." I was proud to register and vote for this great American. (I wanted, for the first time in my life, to be able to be proud of my country...have I heard that somewhere before?)

I wasn't aware of the VP fight, and I want to thank you for sharing that, and also for reminding everyone that the VP needs to be the next great leader, just in case.

Since we're on the subject, it'll be Cantor. McCain has events on Friday and Sunday with the VP candidate, but not Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. My take, anyway. We'll know tomorrow.
-- Vic Austin
Brighton, Tennessee

WHAT IN SAM HILL?!
Re: Samuel A. Hill's letter (under "Psyched") in Reader Mail's A Touch of Evil:

Quoth Samuel A. Hill, on Dubya:

"Declared two unconstitutional wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq."

Memo to Sam: Perhaps you've forgotten, but POTUS cannot declare war -- only Congress can do that -- but, unlike the oath of office (Article II, Section 1) -- there is no constitutionally-mandated language for such a declaration. In H.J. Res 114 (2002), Congress authorized the C-in-C to use military force against whichever entities he determined to have been complicit in the attacks of September 11th, 2001. What more, sir, do you desire?
-- David Gonzalez
Wheeling, Illinois

NO APOLOGIES
Re: Kate Shaw's letter (under "Kent State Adults") in Reader Mail's A Touch of Evil:

Okay, this time there will be no apologies. I must once again defend myself against baseless ad hominem attacks, rather than simply argue the point. First, as to my education. I went to college for the hard sciences, not the liberal arts. My professors spent their time teaching me about evaluation of data, experimental procedures, higher mathematics, and statistical analysis. Though I was of course required to spend at least some time taking those core classes, once out of them I avoided the liberal arts departments because of the very vial of which Kate speaks.

Are my arguments sophomoric and condescending? Well, they were certainly sardonic and I figured with all the mentions of coffee and the pokes at my own rhetoric someone would realize that I was trying really hard not to take myself too seriously. I'll accept condescending, it's a general problem with me that I tend to appear to be so. But, sophomoric? Only if you consider belief in absolute morality to be sophomoric. See, I don't accept the validity of situational ethics, or the use of the ends to justify the means. I also don't care much for sophistry. If you're going to call my argument sophomoric, please at least show me that you heard what my argument was. I was not creating a equation of the Kent State protestors to those in Tiananmen Square. I was equating the response of the government. For you see, a Tyrant is not such because others call him so. A Tyrant is such because of his actions. And the use of military against civilian protestors, that is tyranny. It was in 1775 when it was the British. Or would you also argue that the American colonists should not have protested the actions of the British government because they were the freest people of their time?

Again, I say, the use of military against civilian protests is tyrannical, and that is true regardless of the situation. Just because it was the American government doing this doesn't make it right, or even acceptable. In fact, it might even make it worse as not only was it tyrannical it was also a violation the principles of this country, and demonstrates an inherent weakness in the government in question. Are we such a weak country that we cannot allow for some to protest the actions of this country? Which is the stronger, the man who accepts ridicule and responses in kind or not at all, or the one who punches the ridiculer in the mouth?

And so I must ask this question. What, exactly, protects Americans from tyrannical action of the government? Supposedly our constitution is one such protection, but paper shields are poor ones. Our democratic institutions? I'll not bother listing all the times in history that a democracy ended up in tyranny, but I will point out that the inherent danger of democracy is that it allows the many to override the few. And if you think this is okay, you should realize that you are almost certainly in the minority on at least one issue, and it might just be an issue that is important to you. There is but one thing that can protect Americans from tyrannical government; constant vigilance. And part of that is recognizing that our government is capable of taking incorrect, even tyrannical, action. Our government has engaged in tyrannical action in the past, and if we wish to avoid such action in the future, we must start by recognizing those times in our past and ensure that we, the people, keep our government from engaging in such again.

And finally, let us do try and to remember something. Any society, and idea, any movement must be constantly refreshed with the new generation, or it will die away. The conservative movement should be doing its best to reach out to the next generation (yes, I mean 'my' generation [that's a statement of inclusion, not ownership]). This might mean that instead of insulting those who argue against you, you might try providing an actual argument and keep it on point. Making groundless assumptions, heaping scorn, and refusing to even acknowledge the point of those who disagree with us are the tools of the sophist. Or as we call them today, liberals.
-- Charles Campbell
Austin, Texas

BANDWAGONEERS
Re: Ira Kessel's letter (under "In All Seriousness") in Reader Mail's A Touch of Evil:

Ira, I grok.

Smith in '08.
-- Charles Campbell
Austin, Texas

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Education, Health Care, John McCain, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Mainstream Media, Television, Economics, Business, Religion, Abortion, Global Warming, Constitution, Military, Iraq, Israel, Unions