The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Eminentoes
Print Email
Text Size

Eminentoes

Arnold Stars in Return of the Luddites

By on 5.11.10 @ 6:09AM

Decision to stop off-shore drilling because of risk betrays American Exceptionalism.

(Page 2 of 5)

Wilbur and Orville, as every American school child was once taught, finally manifested man’s centuries’ old dream to fly with the invention of the heavier-than-air flying machine — the airplane. A couple of bicycle mechanics from Dayton, Ohio they struggled, failed, persisted and finally got off the ground at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina in December of 1903. The era of manned flight had begun, obviously now a major part of everyday life not just in 21st century America but around the world.

But there was and is a problem. You might call it the oil spill problem of air travel. 

Planes, shocker that this may be, can in fact crash. Wilbur and Orville figured a way around gravity, but they couldn’t get rid of it. And try as they and their successors have to improve the flying machine product, planes made by the imperfect human being can be nothing other than imperfect. As a result, from 1903 to this moment there has always been an understanding of risk when one steps into a flying machine. People both on the plane and the ground can be hurt. Actually, they can be killed. In considerable numbers. Since Wilbur and Orville got us all airborne not a year has passed without death from air travel. Thousands of people have died doing this let’s-pretend-I’m-a-bird thing. To cite a tiny fraction of headline grabbing incidents through the decades: in 1945 it was the 13 people who died when an Army B-25 Bomber plowed into the Empire State Building; the 128 who perished in the fiery crash of TWA and United passenger jets over the Grand Canyon in 1956; the All-Nippon airline that went down in Tokyo Bay in 1966 with 133 fatalities; the Air Canada plane that crashed during a landing approach in Toronto killing 109 in 1970; the United Airlines DC-10 in Sioux City, Iowa, that lost 111 during an emergency landing in 1989; Flight 800 of TWA that exploded in 1996 off the coast of Long Island killing all 230 aboard or…well, you get the picture. Lots and lots and lots of people have been killed. Perhaps the most spectacular in terms of sheer carnage before the 9/11 terrorist attacks involving four jetliners was the 1977 crash on a fog bound runway on Tenerife, part of the Canary Islands. In a tragic mix-up, Pan Am and KLM jetliners collided on the runway, killing almost 600 people.

All of these incidents are a mere snapshot of what has gone on up there in the not-so-friendly skies, where everybody from average Americans to famous rock stars and politicians have met very public and horrific fates. Only weeks ago the President and First Lady of Poland, along with a chunk of the Polish government, died in an especially tragic airborne accident. Not a decade has gone by since the invention of air travel — not one — when people haven’t died by the hundreds if not thousands while using Wilbur and Orville’s invention.

So if you’re a Luddite, what?

Obviously, not flying is safer then going aloft. So after you take the hammer to every airplane in America (and the world) you could venture forth and take a chance on a car. Henry Ford’s baby — the mass produced automobile. Uh-oh. Think again. In 2009, the U.S. Department of Transportation tells us that 33, 963 Americans died in car crashes — averaging out at 93 dead Americans every single day of 2009. That’s 10,000 more people dead in a year then are living and breathing in all of the Washington, D.C. suburb of Fairfax, Virginia! Quick, get that Luddite hammer and get busy in Detroit! What in the world was Henry thinking inventing something as death driven as an automobile? Smash the factories, disband the unions. It’s over!

The point, of course, is that if you want to eliminate the inventions that kill people (the BP oil spill killed 11) and ruins lives, you will need a lot of hammers. Do cell phones cause brain tumors? Car crashes with inattentive drivers? Get the hammer. Eat some bad hamburger? Kill the cows. Lead paint? Get that lawyer’s legal hammer. How about the errant baby carriages, badly wired houses (no house fires if you live outdoors), boats that sink, tractors that tip, bridges that cave, knives that end up inside people instead of steaks, glass that cuts, coal mines that explode and…well, again. You get the picture. 

From the moment you popped out of the womb — assuming, of course, you successfully avoided the abortion doctor — you have emerged into a totally unsafe environment.

CURIOUSLY, IN ALL THE MEDIA coverage of this accident there is one large fact being left out. All those good people with boats? The people who run the restaurants? The tourist industry? Every single one of them is dependent on the existence of that black crude bubbling up from the bottom of the sea. Without it there is no commercial fishing, no driving to and from the docks where the boats are stored. Tourists? None — not, at least, if tourists to the Gulf Coast get to that Gulf Coast by plane, train or automobile.

But if Governor Schwarzenegger’s new Luddite sensibilities and those lurking barely beneath the surface of the Obama Administration hold sway (over the weekend the President let loose with a blast at technology and those evil geniuses at places like Apple and Microsoft), the Luddite philosophy will begin tightening the screws on everyday Americans — even as Obamanomics has set the deadly course for Greek-style economic bankruptcy.

Consider the Luddites at work in America today in the energy sector alone:

• Opposition to mountaintop coal mining as seen here.

• Opposition to nuclear power as seen here.

• Opposition to natural gas drilling here.

• Opposition to off-shore oil drilling here.

Page:   12 3 4   Last ›

About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (78) |

Pingback| 5.11.10 @ 6:32AM

Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Arnold Stars in Return of the Luddit links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…create email alert for spectator.org Topsy Retweet Button Add Topsy Retweet Button to your Blog or Web Site. WordPress  Web Sites 3 tweets tweet 3 All 1 Influential The American Spectator : Arnold Stars in Return of the Luddites spectator.org/archives/2010/05/11/arnold-stars-in-return-of-the – view page – cached "Technology is … a queer thing. It brings you gifts with one hand, and stabs…

Roger| 5.11.10 @ 7:33AM

Excellent Mr. Lord.

Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 8:42AM

Ahnold hears 'Hail To the Chief' playing in his mind.
Only Americans as power-hungry as the Bushes are the Kennedys; guess what (who) Ahnold is married to?
All is not vanity-- all is power.

Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 8:44AM

... (and, yes, I know she is not blood-related to the Kennedys). But still, she IS one.

Doorgunner| 5.11.10 @ 10:42AM

Yes, she is "blood-related", you dolt.

Gr0w1er| 5.11.10 @ 2:27PM

Maria is Eunice (Kennedy) Shriver's daughter. Doesn't get much closer than that. (I'm SO embarrassed I actually know this!)

Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 9:47PM

"Doesn't get much closer than that."

If one can't be Caesar, being Caesar's brother isn't a bad deal.

Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 10:06PM

"Yes, she is "blood-related", you dolt."

I meant she is also a SHRIVER, you twat. In royal Kennedy circles Maria is a half-breed; you know how New England bluebloods are conscious of their pedigrees. Sargent Shriver is no more a Kennedy than Peter Lorrey (or was it "Lorry"?) was, from the get-go. These people ARE royalty. Pedigrees DO matter to them-- even more so than pedigrees matter in breeding cats & dogs. Caroline Kennedy, being a pure-Kennedy, had a bit of a shot at Hillary's vacated senate seat, but Maria would never have had a chance in something like that.

Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 10:09PM

PS,
Again, so even YOU can comprehend: all is not vanity; all is power.

Eric Cartman| 5.11.10 @ 9:13AM

Ditto. Arnold has been one of the biggest disappointments. As you state, he came in with a true American spirit and little by little morphed into Teddy Kennedy, West coast. I'm not sure he could have done what was necessary, but he could have gone down doing what was right.

He won't be back.

Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 9:41AM

"The futures of shrimpers and fishermen and resort owners and restaurants and waiters and waitresses and a very, very long list of others (not counting birds and sea life itself) are being both tread on as well as stamped on."

Translation: help these victims with govt funds, they are God fearing redstaters, and they vote.

Gr0w1er| 5.11.10 @ 2:30PM

A classic 'RINO' in every sense.

Eric Cartman| 5.11.10 @ 9:45AM

And while we're on the subject, you know whats really bad for health and environment and offers no real returns? Movies! Look at all the energy wasted making movies: Car chases, flying here and there to get from one set to another, silver mining to make film, feeding the crews (all the land usage for livestock and veggies and agave for Tequila) and the porta-potties for hauling away their poop (and even for One-square-Sheryl you have to haul the poop away), paper for scripts and advertising, the environmental damage caused to exotic location shots, the damage caused by illegal aliens smuggling the actors cocaine over the boarder, the gas for the Border Patrols cars to try to stop them, the building of rehab centers in quiet out-of-the-way places. And that's just the beginning.

Then there is the gas to get to the theaters and electricity to show the movie and make popcorn - which, BTW, is bad for you along with that $5.00, 44 oz Coke and $4.00 Butterfinger bar that ads to the nations diabetes and runs up health care costs. And the fact that you are sitting on your fat butt in an over air-conditioned theater watching a stupid movie staring some drug addled twit who loves Che and Hugo Chavez and spouts nonsense every chance they get. And the cost of reprogramming your kids after they hear these aholes speak on subjects they know nothing about.

And what about the awards shows that go along with these people. Don't even get me started on those!

So, I say lets save the planet and our health and tax the movie industry to recoup the damage they do.

Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 9:50PM

"So, I say lets save the planet and our health and tax the movie industry to recoup the damage they do."

But by the time the attorney's get their cut, the public gets perhaps 30 cents on the dollar.

R Martin| 5.11.10 @ 7:59AM

There is a certain hysteria in this country which seems more effervescent these days. It is manifested in a herd mentalitly that jumps on ideas without thinking them through. One good example apropos to this piece followed the election of Gov. Schwarzenegger. Remember the ebullience among Republicans? Talk turned almost immediately to amending the U.S. Constitution so Arnold could run for president. Amend the Constitution? President? That was pure dopey hysteria. What do we think of Schwarzenegger now? Other examples abound: the election of Obama and "change", global warming and the vilification of Wall Street. This attitude, stoked by demagoguery, is a great concern to those of us who still believe in American exceptionalism.

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.11.10 @ 9:02AM

Well, folks,
We Texans are imperfect and goofy at times too.

Nevertheless, we have managed to muddle through. Flying a light plane over Texas, or along the Texas Gulf coast is the only way to truly grasp the number of oil wells drilled here. Remarkably, many of them are still producing with the improved technologies developed by dreamers.

In 1973, some idiots predicted "peak oil" and a dismal future of diminishing reserves. In NINE years, we in the oil/gas production industry worked ourselves out of a job, proving them wrong.

We dropped oil/gas prices so low from an overabundance of supply, (sup-ply and demand, communists), that we could no longer make a living producing more domestically due to the greenies and the government limitations imposed.

We had to move our efforts over seas. OOPS!

...and we in the oil industry took it fairly philosophically. After all, we thought, "burn other countrys' oil first, and save ours for last".

I still get a tickle when I recall the idiot children screaming "no war for oil". My reply was always "without oil and gas, you idiots freeze in the dark...in a hut...with mommie's car up on blocks...and no fertilizer to grow your twinkies."

That is still the case, idiots!

Bill| 5.11.10 @ 9:07AM

very well stated my friend.

Margie| 5.11.10 @ 2:21PM

As usual.

Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 10:15PM

"That is still the case, idiots!"

Sure, Old TexMex,
But tell that to the gulf State businessmen when they come to Uncle Sam and state and local govts with their hands out.

Why is it you Southerners think everyone but you is a chump?

Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 10:21PM

PS,

Here's a valid prediction: the Gulf States people WILL get the dough, not only from BP but also guvmint-- and even if Coolidge were prez they would get the funds.

You people think because the schools system is bad that even kids don't know how things are? Everyone today knows what is going on and you fool no one anymore.
Geez Louise! Ultimately, YOU are the chumps!

Dan Hirsch| 5.11.10 @ 9:11AM

Mr. Lord;

Very nice work,but a couple of additive points:

The leak was caused by the explosion that killed 11 souls and sank a drilling rig. The drilling was a necessary precedent to both the accident and the subsequent leak, but it alone was not sufficient as a cause for either the explosion or the leak. Offshore drilling SOMEWHERE is necessary for the modern convenience of petroleum at current prices.

At Three Mile Island, 50% of the reactor core fuel and structure did in fact melt into a big puddle in the bottom of the reactor vessel and was contained there. I worked at a company that worked on the clean up. Looking back, it is actually a shame that the industry did not come clean at the time and say, 'Yup, she melted down all right, but our primary containment held, just as we designed it to.'

Chernobyl was caused by political intereference from politically appointed managers trying to prove foolishly, how safe nuclear power was. It was made several orders of magnitude worse by poor design choices (inflammables in the core support structures and only a single containment structure, to name a few.) The US had an operating reactor in Colorado with a similar singular containment structure at the time. It was shortly thereafter shut down and then de-commissioned.

Let the engineers manage risk; let the financiers fail, let the bad ones fail so that we can weed out the bad, and the good prosper and spread.
Wow, isn't that Darwin's concept?

Trading safety for freedom yields neither...

T Furlong| 5.11.10 @ 9:18AM

Perhaps the author would be more persuasive if there weren't obvious factual errors in the article. For instance, California is not the largest state; it is the third largest beat out by both Alaska and Texas. It is, however, the most populous. Better luck next time.

Matt Morehouse| 5.11.10 @ 10:21AM

California is the "largest state". Acres don't vote, people do.

T Furlong| 5.11.10 @ 2:37PM

Again, "most populous" is correct; "largest state" is wrong. Get over it.

blarset | 5.11.10 @ 9:42AM

Grow your twinkies. Thats funny I like that.
When is he out of office soon he'll be gone and it looks like ARIZONA is going to become the 1st
american state of the new millenium. Bye McCain
Mr. Across the aisle.

George S| 5.11.10 @ 11:11AM

I find it amusing that when liberal policies experience a gas bubble and explode, causing a political and cultural oil spill that washes over every American in terms of crime, confiscated income, dysfunctional schools, urban blight, control over private property, and a never-ending entitlement mentality, they are quick to point out that the benefits of Liberalism far outweigh everything else. I guess that's the only acceptable form of exceptionalism that exists for the left -- if something never worked in the past, the next time it will so keep at it. And of course, what has worked in the past are failures... just like those oil wells. Can't win with these people.

Nate| 5.11.10 @ 1:02PM

This is a really interesting article.

However, one needs to ask, is oil drilling really the exceptionalist dream Lord claims it is?

How is using a nineteenth century technology and threatening the livelihoods of shoreline communities a daring ambitious dream for the future?

It seems rather to be a rut from which where having a terrible time escaping.

As for "exceptionalism" -- this is a much touted idea on the right, but few want to define it.

What exactly are the rules, mores, customs, beliefs, or laws from which exceptionalists feel excepted?

Is this concept descriptive or prescriptive?

Are we good insofar as we're exceptional?

I like JFK's dictum: We don't go to the moon because it's easy. We go because it is hard. That seems a great spirit to animate public works and great national projects.

I'm just not sure that spirit necessitates that we consider BP's bottom line as somehow sacrosanct, nor that we disregard the consequences of our actions on the world that we do all in fact have to live in.

David Williams| 5.11.10 @ 2:05PM

You miss Mr. Lord's point with you little journey into sophistry. It's not the drilling that's exceptional, although some might argue that drilling an 8,000' well below a mile of water might meet that definition, and it's certainly not 19th century technology. No, the exceptionalism comes from dealing with the adversity of a misstep and finding ways to overcome it. You want a definition that's not too hard to understand? It's American's can-do attitude. It's how in four years we went from virtually no military footprint to a world power with millions of men under arms, thousands of airplanes and ships and a victory over tyranny in WWII. It's how we do stuff. It has nothing to do with BP's bottom line or disregarding the world in which we live. Your post was one of the more offensive I've read here in some time.

Nate| 5.11.10 @ 2:53PM

David --

But why doesn't this "can do" attitude extend towards new technology, technology the Germans and Chinese have moved ahead of us in producing?

Why does the "can do" attitude extend only to a kind of world-class denial of reality when it comes to crude oil?

LOOK at the pictures from this oil spill. This is the bright future you dream for your country?

And it's all very well for people who are not fishermen in the Gulf to poo poo this as just a little misstep.

It's not. It's catastrophic to an ocean ecology that supplies this country with some 40% of its seafood.

This is to say nothing of the tourism it generates, or -- perish the thought! -- the simple good of a thriving, healthy ocean ecological system.

Stewards of the earth! Hah! What a joke.

Nick| 5.11.10 @ 4:17PM

More lies and propaganda from bleeding heart, tree-hugger Nate.

Has this tragic explosion, which killed 11 men by the way, even aproached 10 million gallons of oil spilled, yet?

How about 38 million gallons? Or 140 million gallons? Or 300 million gallons? What about 36 BILLION?
Not even close.

Try educating yourself, Nate:

http://webcache.googleusercont.....&gl=us

And if you won't read something from RedState, what about an article from your precious New York Slimes?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/us/04enviro.html

Nate| 5.11.10 @ 4:45PM

Are you actually arguing that this oil spill is not an environmental calamity?

You're an idiot, Nick, and simply to write off someone who is appalled by the ecological damage this oil spill is causing as a "tree hugger" is idiocy.

Nick| 5.11.10 @ 5:10PM

Nate,

Is it an "environmental calamity" or is it "catastrophic to an ocean ecology?"

If you read the links, you will find out that the Gulf will rebound, as it has in the past. Like all the worlds oceans and seas have in the past. Oil is natural, after all.

Does abortion appall you, Nate?

Nate| 5.11.10 @ 5:15PM

You're a fuck nut.

Of course the Gulf will recover. That doesn't help the thousands of fishermen who cannot harvest fish this year -- or maybe for the next few years.

That doesn't change the fact that this puts enormous stress on an already challenged and threatened ecosystems.

Are you as stupid as you sound?

The ocean ecosystems -- particularly when it comes to fish populations that are consumed by human beings -- are in threatened all over the world by unsustainable fishing practices and pollution.

You can say I'm just a "tree hugger," but at least I'm not a stupid douche bag, and at least I know something about the topic I write comments on.

Nick| 5.11.10 @ 5:27PM

Gee, how tolerant of you, bleeding heart, tree-hugger Nate!

You stinking libs are so easy.

I write you off because you are a dope, who DOES NOT know what he is talking about. As I've shown multiple times.

Nate| 5.11.10 @ 5:30PM

I'm intolerant of stupidity and ignorance. And yes, that means you.

Nick| 5.11.10 @ 5:40PM

Oooo! You really zinged me with that one, twit.

Why don't you go back to defending Hasan as just another workplace shooter, tree-hugger?

Try using more profanities. That always makes one look smarter than they really are.
What a bonehead!

Anthony| 5.11.10 @ 1:11PM

As Mark Levin so eloquently puts it about the Austrian dumb bell, "he's illiterate in two languages". Add to the fact that Arnold, and the morons who control the state house, are also economic illiterates, and PRESTO, you get Callyfornia.
Welcome to America's 3rd world status.

Nate| 5.11.10 @ 1:52PM

I would agree. I don't care what your political philosophy: California just doesn't seem to be able to govern itself from the perspective of liberals OR conservatives.

California -- I think this much is clear -- demonstrates why the founders did not have much truck with the idea of the referendum as a way of making public policy.

If you're going to spend, you have either to TAX or CUT ELSEWHERE. There's just no two ways about it. Spending, taxing, cutting -- none of these things are bad in themselves, and I'm frequently confused why conservatives think that taxation is somehow metaphysically evil.

But you must choose. If the government is going to spend, it has to get the money to spend from somewhere at sometime. CA doesn't seem to want to do this.

Nick| 5.11.10 @ 2:48PM

Nate,

Where have you been hiding?
Do you always run away from a debate when you are losing?

Or, did you finally realize how stupid it was to compare terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan's killing of 14 people, and wounding of 30 others, to a"workplace shooting?"

Nate| 5.11.10 @ 3:08PM

Nick --

I'm a little bored by you and your question. But I'll put up with it just this once.

My point was merely that "terrorism" is not so easily defined as people think. The school shootings at Columbine killed 12 or 13 people, but no one called them "terrorism." Hasan was actually not very like most terrorists in terms of his personal attributes, and his crime -- going to work and shooting people -- not very unlike other workplace shootings. The fact that he emailed a radical cleric or shouted some jihadist slogan is not all that important, really. There is a difference in kind and not just degree between Hasan's shooting and -- say -- the highly sophisticated, well funded, coordinated, and organized terrorist attacks of 9.11 or some of the other attacks that have occurred in Europe (yes, there is such a place) during the past decade.

Nick| 5.11.10 @ 3:34PM

Nate,

Your point is moronic.

You seem not to recall that your original beef was with my view that terrorists have no fear of President Dither, because if they are caught, O'Bama will give them lawyers.

You then tried to change the subject with your asinine comparison of the Ft. Hood shooting with a "workplace shooting." This was after I listed the FOUR terrorist attacks that have occured since President Dither took the oath of office.

You then ran away, like a coward, because you were losing the debate. This a common trait among you bleeding heart liberals, isn't it Nate?

Nate| 5.11.10 @ 3:52PM

Nick,

You don't know how to have a debate. You are drab, anti-intellectual, and not very knowledgeable.

This thread is not about these topics. YOU are changing the subject and evading the current topic. You misrepresent what I wrote, and thus you are not intellectually honest. You're arguing, as we say, in bad faith.

Any questions?

Nick| 5.11.10 @ 4:23PM

Nate,

Ah yes, the old "you misrpesent what I wrote", ploy. The favorite dodge of liberals/progressives/marxists.

How about some examples, Nate? Don't you know how to copy-n-paste?

Margie| 5.11.10 @ 6:05PM

"The fact that he emailed a radical cleric or shouted some jihadist slogan is not all that important, really."

Typical lying troll. Liberal Reader~ how many names will you choose today?

Typical terrorist sympathizer. "It doesn't matter." It doesn't matter to this Obama boot licking communist. It matters to us though.

November will be here soon enough. And then come 2012, your Master will be kicked out of office by those who say~ IT MATTERS!

MoeBlotz| 5.11.10 @ 1:13PM

Ransom E. Olds was first to mass produce automobiles circa 1899. Henry Ford built his Model T with the introduction of the assembly line. Entenda via Est.

wxcynic| 5.11.10 @ 2:05PM

Nice article Mr Lord. I add that it is simply easier to be against something. Being for something means hard work and paying attention to details. Elbert Hubbard comes to mind. The winds are starting to blow.

Pingback| 5.11.10 @ 5:44PM

Where the Deals Are: Your Local Subaru Dealership | Subaru in the News | Manufacturer links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…the Deals Are: Your Local Subaru Dealership | Subaru in the News Related Blogs on A Great Return 10 Jobs That Provide a Great Return on Investment at Curious Cat … The American Spectator : Arnold Stars in Return of the Luddites Related Posts Subaru Legacy Named One of the 'Best Family Cars for 2010 … Local firm seals deals to charge electric cars | Nissan Car News … Paul Moak Subaru…

Nick| 5.11.10 @ 5:48PM

Nate,

This is for you, so that you may know what you believe.
PurpleJackass really liked it, the other day, when I posted it from another thread, so you should also:

***THE TENETS OF THE MODERN LIBERAL MOVEMENT***

Pro-abortion/Anti-family
Pro-euthanasia/Anti-living
Pro-death/Anti-life
Pro-homosexuality/Anti-marriage
Pro-sodomy/Anti-chastity
Pro-pornography/Anti-modesty
Pro-perversion/Anti-virtue
Pro-criminal/Anti-gun
Pro-crime/Anti-law enforcement
Pro-perjury/Anti-truth
Pro-socialism/Anti-commerce
Pro-despotism/Anti-freedom
Pro-Arab/Anti-Israel
Pro-Islam/Anti-Christian
Pro-pagan/Anti-God
Pro-Satan/Anti-Christ

The main reason people are "liberal", is because of licentiousness. Most of these sexual libertines just want to cheat on their spouse or engage in extra-marital relations.

But, a significant number are practitioners of a multitude of vile and disgusting sexual perversions. To justify their own immorality, they embrace others. This way, they can escape the charge of "hypocrite."

This is why the democrat party is a coalition.
Race-baiters ally themselves with homos, who ally themselves with tree-huggers, who ally themselves with atheists, etcetera, etcetera.

Nate| 5.11.10 @ 6:47PM

Ever consider the dangers of "black and white thinking"?

They're signs of immaturity, but also bigotry.

Are you incapable of questioning anything?

Is it really anti-Christian to be pro-Islamic? Must you hate Arabs in order to love Jews?

I think you should find yourself a) a LIBRARY; and b) a CHURCH; and c) a PSYCHIATRIST.

Who knows. Maybe something will take hold.

Nick| 5.11.10 @ 6:57PM

Nate,

No more profanities?

I'm a Roman Catholic, I hate NO ONE.

I know the truth hurts, but it has to be stated.

JmsA| 5.11.10 @ 9:42PM

I'd say that's pretty definitive, but unfortunately for some, not very nuanced, even though by definition it is a very broad-based coalition working for the same goal: Destroy the U.S.A. as we know it. Well done!

Nick| 5.11.10 @ 11:29PM

Thanks, JmsA, appreciate that!

Richard Baker| 5.11.10 @ 8:37PM

Poor Arnold. Now he looks like a pencil-necked geek physically and his fame is disappearing as a politician. What a joke. Maybe he should see if Joe Weider needs a pool boy.

Nick| 5.12.10 @ 1:00AM

I just realized there is a glaring omission in my list of liberal tenets:

Pro-terrorist/Anti-American

I apologize for this obvious failure.

Dai Alanye | 5.12.10 @ 5:40AM

Quite right. Americans are a new people, exceptional in many ways, and the girly-man Schwartzenegger simply fails to fit the mold.

But "…trodding God's earth" Mr Lord? How about "treading?"

Pingback| 5.12.10 @ 11:24PM

Daytona and the History of Auto Racing | | Racing Automotive Wisdom links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Beach. See the original post here: Daytona and the History of Auto Racing | Related Blogs on Ransom Olds Racin' Today » Origins, Part 3 – Whiskey Trippers And Flatheads The American Spectator : Arnold Stars in Return of the Luddites sports cars 2007,sports cars wallpapers,used sports cars … Related Posts History of Auto Racing in Daytona Beach Kia Motors to Make U.S. Auto Racing Debut at Daytona…

Pingback| 5.13.10 @ 7:31AM

Arnold Stars in Return of the Luddites – American Spectator « SB Blog Test links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…were the next step up the line in the industrial revolution from the knitting once done exclusively by your mother’s two hands, … Read the complete article: Arnold Stars in Return of the Luddites – American Spectator This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 11th, 2010 at 5:27 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can…

Yosemeti Sam| 5.13.10 @ 11:33AM

" Arnold Stars in Return of the Luddites ...."

Pity the poor Kennedy-ite-indoctrinated-muscle-bound klutz!

LOL.

Pingback| 5.15.10 @ 9:17AM

Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Arnold Stars in Return of the Luddit links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…create email alert for spectator.org Topsy Retweet Button Add Topsy Retweet Button to your Blog or Web Site. WordPress  Web Sites 1 tweet tweet 1 All 0 Influential The American Spectator : Arnold Stars in Return of the Luddites spectator.org/archives/2010/05/11/arnold-stars-in-return-of-the – view page – cached "Technology is … a queer thing. It brings you gifts with one hand, and stabs…

fjdk| 7.1.10 @ 3:08AM

beijing massage

More Articles by Jeffrey Lord

More Articles From Eminentoes

Trudeaus and Terrorism

April 22, 2013 | Aaron Goldstein

The Thatcher Haters

April 12, 2013 | Daniel J. Flynn

Goodbye, Mr. B.

April 5, 2013 | George H. Wittman

Venerating Saint Hugo

March 12, 2013 | Paul Kengor

Intergender Cagefighting Champion of the Brave New World

March 8, 2013 | Daniel J. Flynn

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/11/arnold-stars-in-return-of-the

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|129 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|75 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|12 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|29 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|23 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

State Department: Iran Has Soldiers in Syria

Kaylin Bugos | 3:12PM

Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong

Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.