Bonfire of more than the vanities. The war of revisionist aggression. Martin’s humor proves abortive. Plus more.
(Page 2 of 2)
KEEP IT CIVIL
Re: Matthew Kenefick’s Shades of Gray:
I found Mr. Kenefick’s review of Mr. Crocker’s Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War to be quite valuable: now I don’t have to read the book, and I certainly won’t buy it. I have read books like it before.
Mr. Crocker’s is just another extended whine by one who wishes the losing side had won: Lincoln was a Big-Government Maniac, the War was a Northern Aggression against the poor ole South, the war wasn’t fought over slavery, yada, yada yada. What is new in Mr. Crocker’s version is his claim that the Catholic Church supported the South because the Church’s natural law principles justify a regime which denied to millions the most basic natural law of all; viz., that every man has an unalienable right to freedom.
A couple of years ago you ran another essay by Mr. Crocker
extolling the manly virtues of the Southern leaders (especially
Saint Robert E. Lee). Therein Mr. Crocker advocated a
national holiday celebrating the birthdays of Lee and Jackson.
Sure, Mr. Crocker. Right after we have a holiday celebrating the
birthdays of Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs.
— James F. Csank
Seven Hills, Ohio
Re: Dan Martin’s satire (under “Satire…This Is Satire”) in Reader Mail’s Car Pools:
Regarding Dan Martin’s demand that we should never refer to
a child in utero as a “child” but a “fetus” is ignorant to
the max. He acknowledges that once out of the womb, the
child is in the image and likeness of God. Does he not know that
it takes almost nine months for a child to develop? He must
believe that a child in utero the day before delivery is
somehow less human than on the day of delivery. What hogwash. At
conception, a child has its own distinct DNA. As God tells us, He
knows us before we are ever in our mothers’ wombs. And
Dan, I believe fetus means “young one.”
— David Tomaselli
The Margaret Sanger Dan Martin relates is a sanitized version of Margaret Sanger. Like most progressives of her time, Sanger was a champion of eugenics. To say that she advocated contraception and abortion out of the goodness of her heart for the unfortunate women trapped in tragedies of life misunderstands history.
Sanger frankly advocated “more children from the fit, less from the unfit…that is the chief aim of birth control.” To put a not too fine point on it, she added that society should focus its attention toward “creat[ing] a race of thoroughbreds.” While today these words carry the stench of Nazism, during her time eugenics was regarded as a forward-looking, “progressive” concept. The cleansing of the “human stock” was thought as something any rational and fair-minded individual would be in favor of. (Indeed, today, you can easily find mild versions of eugenics bouncing around among family, friends, and strangers.)
However benign one tries to view eugenics, we cannot help but recognize the evil it spawns. In spite of whatever good intentions one may assign to it, eugenics is a malevolent drive.
But leave that all aside, no society; no government should have
that much power. No entity should ever have the mandate to
attempt to mold the future shape of humanity. Yet it was the very
progressives such as Margaret Sanger who believed that in the
right hands (i.e. theirs), government can and should be used to
fashion more rational arrangements in human associations.
— Mike Dooley
P.S. Mr. Martin: Whatever motives one might suppose for it, abortion remains a profound evil. Plus, to say: “But sometimes there is contraceptive failure, which leads to products of conception, which is also known as a fetus, but which should never be referred to as a child” is just plain tedious.
With Judd Gregg resigning from his Commerce position before it
started a rumor has been initiated that his resignation was a
result of pressure from Obama. Since this Republican has paid all
his taxes, he cannot in good conscience be said to “belong”
in an Obama administration!
Lemon Grove, California
WHERE IN THE WORLD IS HILLARY?
What has become of Ms. Hillary?
Have the mighty fallen so low?
Where is that voice heard round the world?
Is it now just a mere echo?
For so many years we listened
To a woman we thought of as shrill,
But the silence is becoming eerie.
We’re not even hearing from Bill.
At the forefront one day, full of strength and power,
But in an instant diminished like a twilight hour.
For years I couldn’t wait to dismiss her,
But believe it or not, I think I miss her!
— Mimi Evans Winship
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?