This week’s Reader Mail, Commenters of the Week, and The American Spectator’s favorite Facebook friend.
Spectator.org Commenters of the Week
From the Wild West of our comments section, it seems a rivalry has emerged between grizzled veterans “JA” and “Bob K.” — and there’s not room enough on the site for both of them. Their spirited debate below Aram Bakshian’s Thursday review Taking A Look At WWII on the definition of National Socialism provided some of the best highlights from this week’s commenter matches. It’d be interesting to see one of them square off in European history against sharp-tongued bloke “Moe Blotz.”
But while some in politics resort to eye-gouging, a select few rise above. Dignified “Alan Brooks” is an economic cynic who does his best to intellectually police Comment Town. In a comments section where lawlessness (and spam) reigns supreme, sometimes it takes a sheriff like Brooks to differentiate between stimulating economic activity and actually reducing the size of government, as he did below the Green Lantern’s piece Obama Can’t Trade Places. Well played, Mr. Brooks.
Facebook Friend of the Week
On the Facebook front, few fans have been as enthusiastic for the Spectator’s daily updates as Paul Richard Decker Sr. of Springfield, Missouri. Mr. Decker’s consistent “Liking” of Spectator articles is commendable, and, with a Democrat in the White House, also makes him eight times more likely to be audited. Keep up the good work, Paul. We appreciate it.
And now for some of this week’s Reader Mail…
HOT AND COLD
Re: Ross Kaminsky’s Welcome to the Carbon Cult:
The Global Weirding we actually are experiencing has a
name — Normal Holocene Weather. Back at least by the mid-'70s when
I was Science Editor at the University of Texas Press, it was well
understood that since roughly 1920 we had been experiencing a
stretch of unprecedentedly ideal weather (thanks to favorable solar
cycles overlapping with beneficial ocean currents), the
most ideal weather since the last glacial and that
beginning in the 80s we would slowly return to more normal
patterns. This is not controversial… you can see it on a
sufficiently detailed temperature chart, particularly one that
shows annual highs and lows. From 1920 to 1980 there were only four
swings of great amplitude, all to the hot side (one coincided with
the Dust Bowl). Now we are experiencing summers that are both
hotter and milder and winters both colder and milder along with
more extremes in wet and dry. Look back into the 1800s and what do
you see? The same patterns. I believe this phenomenon may have been
a feature article in the Smithsonian (?) in ‘74 or
— Charlie Tips Flower
I appreciate the data on concentrations of CO2. But the
article fails to discuss the effect of methane; many scientists
believe that methane is also a major contributor to global warming.
But there is good methane and bad methane, and we all know that
methane produced by Democrats is considered good
— Doug Finlay
Re: Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi’s Leon Panetta Is Right:
I disagree with Aymenn Tamimi’s conclusion. Just to mention two issues: in the north, tense status quo is better than a roaring confrontation, as it gives more time for the needed compromise. How much time? A few more years, with the knowledge that this is not an indefinite arrangement.
In the center: when the U.S. armored brigade leaves Camp Victory Maliki will be 100% living at the mercy of Muqtada = Iran. The Iraqi army? I don’t think they are a match to JAM — which still exists, and can be re-activated in one month. Without U.S.-British massive support they wouldn’t have been able to defeat Muqtada in Basra, later Baghdad, in 2008.
However, if I drive Tamimi’s argument to its logical
conclusion there is no reason to leave in Iraq 4,000 U.S. soldiers.
They will be completely exposed and also their very presence will
still serve as a political lightning rod for Muqtada and Iran. They
may be moved to Jordan and train the Iraqi troops, unit by unit,
there. More awkward, indeed, but possible. Much of the Iraqi police
was trained this way.
— Dr. Amatzia Baram
University of Haifa
A PROBLEM WITH COULTER
Re: Patrick O’Hannigan’s Blonde Ambition:
Here is my problem with Coulter. I agree with what she says most of the time and I admire her courage and most of all I revere her intellect. But she detracts from her message because she too often comes across as snide and acerbic and seems to push people’s buttons for the sake of pushing their buttons. She doesn’t need to be like Bill Maher. She should take a page from the playbook of Bill Buckley who was funny, charming and yet very deadly. She could in fact reach a much larger audience if she would worry less about winning the battle and more about winning the war. After all, you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.
— Fran McKinney
Re: Hal G.P. Colebatch’s Evolution Needs to Evolve:
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.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online