Reader Mail
Warning: Low Battery
Volt’s charge account. Bunion care in New Zealand. Pulling grandma’s plug. End of life costs. Not mean enough. Plus more.
(Page 3 of 5)
It is a popular misconception that the phrase, “First, do no harm” is in the Hippocratic oath — it isn’t.
However, a much stronger, more specific phrase: “I will neither
prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient
even if asked nor council any such thing…” appears in the
modern form of the oath.
I guess solemn oaths are no longer worth the breath expended to
take them.
— Gretchen L. Chellson
Alexandria, Virginia
THAT’S RICO
Re: Matthew Vadum’s Money For
Nothing:
Beautiful disclosure on ACORN. If it is not a candidate for a
major RICO investigation, I’ve never seen one. Where’s the
FBI?
— George T. Bedway
RONALD (NOT WILSON) REAGAN
Re: G. Tracy Mehan, III.’s
What Would a New Era of Republican Governance Bring?:
“Clearly the Republican party has tilted towards some form of Wilsonian interventionism and an extremely aggressive approach to spreading democracy and nation-building.” Wrong. The Republican Party has not tilted towards a Wilsonian policy, but it is holding steady to ideals and principles of Ronald Reagan — the same Ronald Reagan who deficit spent to build up the military and transcend the Soviet Union.
Speaking to the British House of Commons in 1982, Reagan boldly set forth a vision of the US using democracy to defeat tyranny, “What I am describing now is a plan and a hope for the long term — the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.” It is this same march of freedom and democracy that offers the best answer to Islamic extremism, Chinese neo-fascism, Barack Obama, and the Democrats.
Even a Lapdog Democrat, Senator Mark Pryor, at the time of Reagan’s death understood the significance of his contribution to freedom and democracy in the world. “President Ronald Reagan … has left a legacy of leadership that will always be remembered. His commitment to freedom was instrumental in the fall of communism and spread of democracy in Eastern Europe. I pay tribute to President Reagan’s strength of character and the conviction of his beliefs.”
As for the economic downturn, it is in no small part a result of the fallout from the crackup/meltdown of the conservative movement in 2005 that reinvigorated and re-empowered the DemocRAT party. Only after DemocRATS secured majorities in both houses of Congress was the economic boom of the Bush/Republican economy thwarted. Let us not forget it took President Bush and Republicans only 8 months to turn around the Clinton recession (made worse by 9/11), because they practiced Reaganomics by cutting taxes and deficit spending (the weak link in Reagan’s armor). As Connie Hair illustrated in one of her columns and the Bureau of Labor quantifies nicely the growth of just jobs prior to DemocRATS ascendancy in 2007 was remarkable.
“Jobs created under President George W. Bush averaged 19,000 per month from January 2001 through January 2009. During the time Republicans held Congress during the Bush years, jobs grew from 132.469 million to 137.180 million. That’s an increase in 4.7 million jobs for an average of 65,000 per month for 72 months. That period includes the impact of the 2001 recession inherited from the Clinton administration as well as the 2001 terrorist attacks… Democrats took control of the House in January of 2007. Since that time, the U.S. has lost 5.488 million jobs, in 29 months. That’s an average of 189,000 jobs lost per month.”
The author is correct that Republicans must tread lightly as they foist the DemocRAT’s on their on petard. But he and we should take delight in seeing the arrogant and self-absorbed Obama and his toadies squirm and suffer. There is something rich in seeing the corrupt DemocRATS get their comeuppance.
Hopefully, when Republicans regain power they will be quick to
repudiate Obama and the Democrats’ several trillion-dollar
drunken spending spree, do what Reagan should have done by
cutting needless things like PBS, the SBA, legalaid, NASA,
foreign aid, the EPA, etc. (funds saved there can be used to
reduce the deficits in entitlements) and redo the tax system to
unleash capitalism with drastic reductions or elimination of
income, corporate and death taxes. Then we can return to the
positive element of Bush’s economic prosperity (low unemployment
and economic growth) with a more prudent eye towards spending and
deficits — thus, avoiding the “sin” of Reagan and Bush.
— Michael Tomlinson
Jacksonville, North Carolina
FISHING FOR TROUBLE
Re: Jay D. Homnick’s
Meanness-Tested Program:
I must be cruel only to be kind.
Thus bad begins and worse remains behind.
— Hamlet Act 3, scene 4
Which is less cruel: giving a man a fish for dinner or teaching him how to fish? The answer depends heavily on one’s basic beliefs. Conservatives answer that teaching the man to fish is the ethical answer. The Left hears this answer and demagogues Conservatives: the “haves” are about to let the “have nots” starve to death. What the Left cannot conceive is that while the man learns to fish, the church, synagogue, temple, mosque will voluntarily provide temporary food and housing, not because they are compelled to do so by the government but because it is the right thing to do. In the end, the man has learned to be an independent and contributing member of society. The fish he consumed is minimal compared to the fish he will contribute later. Contra wise, the Left’s history demonstrates it truly believes that giving a man a fish is the only way to be kind (or more cynically stated, stay in power). It ignores the natural entailments that other people must produce the fish, and then someone (usually a bureaucrat) has to decide what kind of fish and of what size is to be consumed. In the end, the man has eaten a meal, but he is still dependent on the government. When the man goes for wanting, the mass of people again feel sorry for the man and demand someone (usually the government) provide for this poor man. While the people’s hearts may be deeply engaged, their minds are not. Conservatism is the naturally more compassionate and efficient than Socialism. Conservatives cannot be afraid to state this loudly and clearly if they wish to defeat the growing threat of tyranny coming from the current administration and Congress.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (22) | Leave a comment
More Articles From Reader Mail
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/19/the-last-ninety-days
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
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.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
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?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
frost| 8.19.09 @ 7:01AM
That Groucho Marx comment has also been attributed to a gentleman named Ernest Benn.
How appropriate!
Michael L. Hauschild| 8.19.09 @ 8:41AM
Until fuel cells are perfected and the distribution and storage issues of separating and storing hydrogen and oxygen are resolved all this hoopla about “green” transportation is unrealistic. Fossil hydrocarbon fuels are incredibly efficient within the context of some established frameworks (the efficiency of trains and barges for instance will boggle your mind). Progress does not flourish under the government stipulation to politically correct scenarios.
Wars, depressions, and recessions are the motivators for innovative solutions. Scientists and freedom loving individuals do best in times of stress and you will soon witness the vehement rejection of the socialist principal of “abandonment,” be it proven technologies, proven economic principles, or proven democratic political systems.
The Red Editor| 8.19.09 @ 9:58AM
To the wonderfully confused Loretta Austin of New Zealand: Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the US population exceeds that of your native country by a mere 300,000,000 people. Or maybe it has to do with the belief in individual liberties this country was founded upon, as opposed to individual entitlements. This is not a Socialist nation, nor is it a Democracy...it's a Representative Republic. You also mentioned the ol' cliche about "a mark of a civilised country shows in how we treat the underprivileged." Needless to say, US citizens donate more to charity and social causes around the world than any other country, and most if not all combined. FORCED CHARITY IS NOT CHARITY. No US citizen wants to see their fellow man/woman without adequate services, some of us are just smart enough to recognize when those services are administered improperly or to the fault of those receiving said aid. Please, you can come here and get an education, but stay out of political arenas you admittedly don't understand.
2Anglico| 8.19.09 @ 10:18AM
Loretta: People who cannot afford/choose not to buy insurance, GET CARE IF THEY NEED IT. There is a little law duly passed by our congress that makes it so.
As to "violently" opposing .... obviously you know NOTHING about violence.
The house bill being discussed DOES NOT ALLOW a dual plan as in NZ. We are opposed to our government trying to GRAB POWER they are not allowed to have!
Ned| 8.19.09 @ 10:21AM
In reply to Loretta Austin's letter, "CAN"T FIGURE US OUT", from Red Beach, NZ:
The health care reforms Mr. Obama is tossing about are no more about health care than the global warming scam (Cap & Trade) is about the environment. Both are naked attempts to seize power in the US government in a manner that their supporters believe will be irreversible, and remake the country in ways most Americans oppose.
If there was even the least bit of honesty in these two packages of corruption, Americans - the most generous people on the planet - would not be so outspoken against them. If "health care reform" were the real objective there are a myriad of changes and solutions to issues that heavily effect the overall health care outcome in the country. Tellingly, not one of those changes or solutions is even under discussion in the most dishonest, calculating, manipulative White House in American history.
And, by the way, none of those changes or solutions require 1000 pages of impenetrable jargon to enact.
Were there even a hint of honesty in Obama's schemes, there would be at least grudging admission that most of the problems in American health care costs are caused by the very government that now pretends it can "fix" them. If there were a shadow of truth in the room, proponents would not feel obliged to falsely inflate the numbers of uninsured to the commonly quoted 47 or 50 million, but would address the 9 or so million 'core' uninsured.
But to do that they would also have to admit that even that core group actually gets health care when they need it. It may be inconveniently delivered, but health care is available, even to the millions upon millions of illegal aliens here that you, Loretta, don't have to worry about. And to admit that there are actually fewer uninsured than there are illegal aliens in the system, and they all get care, reduces the scope of the problem to something manageable without a complete make over of the American economy - but then, that's the actual goal, isn't it.
One thing that Americans really do not like is being taken for chumps.
2Anglico| 8.19.09 @ 10:23AM
Also Loretta, millions of Americans have died so that others would not have to live in tyranny. DO NOT PREACH to us about caring for the "underprivleged".
Ned| 8.19.09 @ 10:31AM
And, as the Red Editor points out above, Loretta, having a perfect health care system in an isolated country of 4M is an altogether different question than providing for more than 300M. Hell, we have at least three times as many illegals here than you have citizens!
Appleby| 8.19.09 @ 10:47AM
Loretta, I was in your country in 1991 when it declared bankruptcy. I have a good friend in Wellington who lost his job with Air New Zealand when it was privatized, who has kept me posted over the years on how that worked out. I understand that since the cold shower bath taken by the people of your country (and I heard the public service announcements instructing all the Needy and Underprivileged that the gravy train had ground to a halt and they should report to their Nannies to find out what happens next) and the injection of market capitalism into many areas previously socialized, that things have dramatically improved, to the point where your post office gives everybody one day of free mail per year. I also understand your dollar is now 67 cents to the US Dollar as opposed to 50 cents in 1991.
I very much enjoyed the three weeks I spent in New Zealand and I recommend it to any sports tourist in the world except race car drivers not involved in rally. H owever, living there would give me the creeps because your population is so small and isolated that you pretty much all have the same face.
Ray| 8.19.09 @ 11:57AM
"Can you please explain exactly why Americans are so violently and maliciously against providing care for those who can't afford insurance?"
Loretta. no one is being denied health care in America. Let me repeat that, NO ONE is being denied health care in America. Not even the people who are just visiting America and have no insurance can be denied health care. I don't know where you get your information, but it's false.
David Govett| 8.19.09 @ 12:38PM
Not only does New Zealand pay nothing for the international security system paid for by the overburdened American taxpayer, it won't even let American Navy ships drop anchor there. Freeloaders like NZ often have disposable money to spend on health care, etc., and are particularly happy to proffer advice to the U.S., as long as they don't need to contribute. My disgust with NZ is boundless.
JerseyJ| 8.19.09 @ 1:09PM
A splendid rant by C.D. Lueders. I heartily agree.
PolishKnight| 8.19.09 @ 2:31PM
Has anyone noticed that socialist paradises always seem to work (somewhat) when there's a small population in a large resource area, isolated (on an island or far north), and usually almost entirely lily white?
Crack open your borders, Loretta, and let all the illiterate people with health problems in from near you and then give us a call and see how it's working out for ya.
Smithy| 8.20.09 @ 5:31AM
As an immigrant from Britain to New Zealand of 52 years I can understand some replies to Loretta's letter. PolishKnight touches a good point since large numbers of Pacific Islanders have flooded into NZ causing a blip in health, education, and policing services in some parts. NZ officials would of course deny any problems, but we older types can see the negative differences. David Govet is both right and wrong. NZ has supplied men and material to both world wars, exceptional in relation to it's population. Helped out the US in Vietnam and has an SIS detachment in Afghanistan. Yes, some of us don't like the big anti-nuclear lobby that exists here and so the refusal to have US nuclear ships in NZ ports. It is sad there is an undercurrent of anti-Americanism among many Kiwis. Personally I have helped host American farm visitors to this country and would say they are the best. It is my concern at the moment the way western democratic nations are being undercut by the left, and old tried and true systems are coming under fire, a propaganda war is in progress to force our western cultural inheritance into submission to a foreign miasma.
Pat| 8.20.09 @ 11:07AM
Loretta Austin,
If you were indeed a student in the United States, you would have an adequate understanding of why most Americans are so “violently and maliciously against providing care for those who can't afford insurance”. You are a shill and a fraud…