The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 2 of 2)

In my opinion, it did not matter what Shockley's subject matter was. He was an academic and a noted scholar albeit not in genetics, his views were entitled to the same respect accorded any idea expressed openly in the public forum. That is, if anyone disagreed with Shockley, prove him wrong by refuting his ideas. Don't make a solid argument for his case by behaving like wild monkeys let loose on the banana boat, which is what his "audience" did that day. Not only the sanctity of scholarly debate, which the loony liberal academics trot out every time they are forced to defend that jackasses such as Bill Ayers belong to their College of Cardinals, but a minor detail known as the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution suggests that no matter his subject, Dr. Shockley had every right to speak his mind. People in disagreement with his views were free to boycott the event or engage him in scholarly debate after his presentation. But to shut down the speech simply goes against the core of my being. When I attempted to defend my point in class, the "professor" stated that free speech did not apply in this instance because of the subject matter.

This is the same tactic employed by the Obamatized (Obama + lobotomized) when they attempt to silence dissenting view points. Obama already proved he is no constitutional scholar when he voted to deny born alive infants routine medical care. Evidently, not only the First and Second Amendments are incorrect, but so is the Fourteenth which states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." So by voting to allow these most helpless of us to die, Obama espoused the concept of the inconvenient life. And this is the communist dunderhead the Obamatized want to put in charge of a national health care plan? Imagine the thrill my 80+ in-laws will get when they are denied routine treatment by a medical program that is bankrupt financially and morally because all octogenarians are no longer convenient. But I live in Missouri where the Prosecuting Attorneys have become the Persecuting Attorneys for Obama.
-- George Thompson

Obama's commitment to "spread the wealth" is a promise to low wage earners (who pay no taxes) that they will receive a larger subsidy in the form of increases in the so-called "Earned Income Tax Credit" or some other so-called benefit. This "tax cut" is really an increased subsidy, paid for by those who gross more than a certain amount (an amount which appears to be shifting down from $250k per year to $150k per year, according to recent comments by Biden).

The real question -- always avoided by the social engineers advocating such increased subsidies -- is whether the policy actually improves the lives of those receiving such subsidies? The answer, unequivocally, is "No." Any analysis of census data reveals the following for those populations receiving the highest subsidies per capita: higher death rates, lower life expectancies, higher rates of out of wedlock births, higher incidence of crime, drug abuse, and abortions. Obama's promise of a "tax cut" for lower income wage earners is really a promise to deliver more dependence and more misery. Such policies have been tried, and failed, repeatedly, most recently, in the U.K. and France, where the majority of births are now out of wedlock. Why any thinking person would want the same for America is beyond understanding.
-- Peter R. McGrath
Orlando, Florida

ASK THE AUSTRIANS
Re: J.T. Young's It's Best Keynes Remain Forgotten:

Mr. Young wrote "Skidelsky is grudgingly forced to acknowledge this success (the "formula seemed to work") but then tries to shift focus to say stable prices did not equate to stable markets. Yet there is no reason or monetarist claim the two should equate. Removing inflation certainly takes away a major source of instability, but hardly all."

Friedman's monetarism was a great improvement over Keynesian economics and Friedman was a great promoter of liberty, but he didn't go quite far enough. Yes, increases in the money supply lead to price inflation and the Fed has tamed inflation over the past two decades. However, Friedman saw only the price effects of goosing the money supply and not the business cycle effects. As a result, he never had a sound theory of the business cycle.

The business cycle remains a mystery to Keynesian and Monetarist economists, for whom mysterious shocks appear suddenly from nowhere, wreak carnage and disappear like tornados on the plains. The Fed's only job is to repair the damage afterwards by pumping money.

Anyone really interested in business cycles should read anything they can find on the Austrian Business Cycle Theory. The ABCT encompasses all of the insights and none of the errors of the Keynesian and Monetarist schools while adding a theory of capital. What Keynesians and Monetarists missed, because they lack a theory of capital, is the destructive effect of monetary pumping on the structure of capital. In simplest form, we can divide capital into producer goods and consumer goods. Each depends upon the other existing in proper proportion. Monetary pumping destroys that relationship and results in business failures and recessions.

With their emphasis on price stability, Monetarists can't see the destructive results because price stability can hide a great deal of monetary pumping if productivity increases keep prices down when money supply growth would have caused them to rise. This happened in the 1920's and in the 1990's.
-- Roger D. McKinney
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma

SABOTAGE
Re: The Prowler's Post-Defeat Planners:

I hope this article is not true about the Romney supporters! I was a big Romney fan during the primary and thought he should have been the VP pick. However, sabotaging Gov. Sarah Palin by Romney insiders in McCain's campaign would totally turn me off and would cost Mitt Romney his Republican support if ever found out. We need McCain-Palin to win this election - period.

Gov. Romney needs to be in Michigan campaigning with Gov. Palin to show his support for defeating Sen. Obama. He should have been there already trying to keep Michigan in the "red." Where is he? If we lose the White House, it will not look good for Romney if he was not doing everything he could to help us win and save this country.

Please pass this message along to the Romney people and see if they can get the message to Mitt Romney. I know he was not treated fairly during the primary or over the VP pick, but it's time for him to stand tough and fight for the American values we believe in and help us win this election!  Maybe it just wasn't his time in 2008. Forget 2012, if Obama, Pelosi, and Reid get total power you won't be able to get the country back in 2012! All Republicans, conservatives, Reagan Democrats, independents, and we the Christians of this great nation, have got to stand up against this take over.

The rumor that Romney insiders could be stirring up the Palin negative stories is sooo disturbing.
-- Karen Bates
Nashville, Tennessee

EVEN McCAIN DOESN'T PUT UP WITH THIS KIND OF MEDIA BIAS
Re: Eric Peters's The Camaro's Last Ride:

I'm not saying you should fire this guy but don't ever let him write a car review again unless you truly feel he is indicative of your readership. I was routed here by an auto enthusiast's site full of people ready to lynch this guy. His opinion is one-sided, uninformed and dangerous to people who don't know any better. Until he's driven them both he should merely state the facts and keep his overbearingly one-sided opinion to himself.
-- Teddy Watkins