The American Spectator

A TURNING POINT
Re: Eric Peters’s Wasting General Motors:

In several years of reading Eric Peters’ articles I finally read one that I can agree with. It is both sane and a fair assessment of what has been happening to the auto industry for the past decade.

Obama has no more clue as to what will cure GM than its former CEO did. You can test that by the following. Obama was so smart to fire him that now his $20+ million retirement package kicks in which is a further drain on GM’s coffers. Plus, snicker, unemployment benefits. The much smarter move would have been to demote the CEO and ship him off to China operations.
— John McGinnis
Arlington, Texas

If it is rational to oust Wagoner for “ruining” GM, what is the rational punishment for ruining the entire U.S. economy for decades to come? The iron maiden? The catapult? Forced watching of Oprah every day?
— David Govett
Davis, California

Mr. Peters’ article is right on. No one I know of is going out and just spending money unless it is necessary.
— Bill Coulter

WAR IS PEACE
Re: Jeffrey Lord’s Jimmy Carter’s Spirit of Notre Dame:

I was struck by the Gallup poll numbers for Presidents Carter and Obama because they are so similiar. I thought that you might be struck by my experience a Gallup poll member. I have been a member of the Gallup poll for about two years. During those two years I tried to fill in each poll (about twice a month) because I believed that it was important to be heard. Although I wavered in my approval of President Bush, I always answered the poll question “Do you approve of the way President Bush is doing his job?” in the affirmative—a decided minority. Since Obama assumed the office I have received one poll and I answered negatively about the President’s performance. I have not received another poll since. Just food for thought.
— Russell W. Koch

“Overseas Contingency Operation”??? “[M]an-caused disaster”????!!!! Shades of Newspeak!

 Mr. Orwell, contact your office — stat!
— Gretchen L. Chellson
Alexandria, Virginia

IT’S AT LEAST 60% ACCURATE
Re: William Tucker’s Three Mile Island — Thirty Years After:

I generally have no disagreement with your article on the nuclear industry. I think that a miscalculation must have occurred though with respect to the claim of the relative importance of Oyster Creek.

“Oyster Creek provides New Jersey with 60 percent of its electricity.”

This reliable, if somewhat dated, source indicates that the nuclear share of electrical production in NJ was hovering around 50% of the total as of five years ago. There are four nuclear power units in NJ, and Oyster Creek is the smallest of them, and it is responsible for about 16% of nuclear energy in NJ according to this source.

This would tend to indicate that Oyster Creek is responsible for about 8% of the electricity generated in NJ. If it ceased to operate without being replaced, it would strike a massive blow to the state’s economy. If 60% of the state’s capacity went away, it would be a true disaster.
— Mike

THE ROYAL WE
Re: Ralph R. Reiland’s Hopelessly Naive: