Reader Mail

School’s Out

Outsourced, that is. Also: Deliverance from the meatheads. Solzhenitsyn's warning. Side-saddling with McCain. Sock hopping. Plus much more.

8.6.08

Send to Kindle

TRADING PLACES
Re: RiShawn Biddle's Trade School:

It will never dawn on the anti-traders that now you are going to be paid based on what you know and what you can produce rather than just getting a high wage because you happen to live in the USA. They believe that it is a birthright to a high wage simply because you live here and have a heartbeat. Close trade and everyone will have a lower standard of living (except the very rich) since they will have to pay more for inefficient and costly manufacturing and services.
-- B. Peek

Although I agree with Mr. Biddle's assertion that the educational experience of today's students is woefully inadequate to the task of creating a knowledgeable work force, I think his arguments supporting "free trade" are not supported by the facts. We don't have anything like "free trade," regardless of whatever regional agreements with whomever signatory countries we've aligned ourselves with. Rather, we have "managed trade," which is a costly bureaucratic nightmare for any company that attempts to do business in today's international markets. In "managed trade," we see expensive inequities and disparities foisted on businesses by governments around the world that would not stand up in a competitive capitalistic system. The social requirements of the welfare state demanded of businesses by these governments have undermined the ability of their own national companies to be successful. These governments then negotiate preferred status with their "free trade" partners to protect whatever market sector within their borders needs foreign assistance to remain solvent.

For misguided political reasons, successive U.S. governments have played this game with such foolish alacrity that we have lost our pre-eminence in many industries, such as energy, steel, machine tools, shipbuilding, electronics, garments, and now automobiles. There is no rationale for any "free trade" agreement to be of such scope and scale that it would fill the National Archives. Such agreements distort the markets and result in lost opportunities to employers and employees alike, and are usually "one-way" in their outcomes, that is, for the benefit of countries other than the U.S. These attempts of the politically well-connected to game the system result in the inability of businesses to be profitable here, the lack of employment options for workers, whether white collar (the H1-B Visa fiasco) or blue-collar (construction and trades job loss), and runaway illegal immigration.

Perhaps it is time to take off the rose-colored glasses and objectively assess our position after over fifty years of "free trade" agreements, rather than blindly continuing this folly. We need to become advocates for truly open markets and demand that our trading partners do the same. If we don't do this, any educational improvements we enjoy won't be nearly enough to overcome these economic barriers to progress.
-- Harry Hill

Your Mr. Biddle argues for the benefits of world trade agreements, and I have no trouble with that opinion. What he fails to define is the role of our "strong" unions in the destruction of domestic industries. I propose the following economic law -- the strongest the union, the faster the destruction of their industry.

For example:

1) automobile industry -- a very strong union which obtained back in the 1970s 49 days of paid holidays, health benefits for extended family members, and the highest hourly rate for unskilled workers in the world (unskilled because they work on automated machines);

2) electronic industry -- also a very strong union, so strong that televisions, radios, computers, cameras, telephones, etc., etc. come now exclusively from abroad;

3) textile industry -- a very strong union that first chased that industry from New England to the South and then from the South to Mexico, Bangladesh, Turkey, Spain, Guatemala, etc., etc. I forgot to mention the shoes.

In all this one should not forget the unions of government employees, for example those who sent the visa extensions to the 9/11 terrorists 6 months after their attack. And then there is the teacher unions who destroyed the best schooling system in the world to the point where many of our doctors, nurses, professors, scientists, writers, etc., come here from abroad, and about half the population is functionally illiterate. In a recent "proficiency" exam of our 8-graders here in Las Vegas they were given mathematical questions with 4 possible answers; three of those four were utterly beyond any possibility, so that an idiot could guess right just by inspection. A blind chicken would have guessed 25%; our "students" guessed 53%! Imagine that!

So they are twice as smart as the blind chicken!

It is unfortunate that such government "services" cannot physically be outsourced. It is also against the spirit and soul of this unique country to allow the government unions to act against their employees and to steal us blind -- us, the people of this free country!
-- Marc Jeric
Las Vegas, Nevada

"Many of these students will struggle to enter and then graduate from college or get into programs for high-skilled industrial positions such as machine tool manufacturing, one of the sectors benefiting from globalization. And ultimately, they will be left behind by a booming world economy."

You really can't be serious with this statement. Did you read what you wrote? Benefiting? There has been no sector harder hit than molds and machine tools. This ridiculous statement makes the rest of this article complete drivel.
-- Joe Kotvan, Pres.
Dragon Die Mold, Inc.
Warrenville, Illinois

GRAVEN IMAGE
Re: Christopher Orlet's False Messiah:

Lets call a spade a spade. Oh my, that is SO incorrect. Allow me to apologize in advance.

There is an old southern term applied to those who posture, preen and generally conduct themselves as Obama does. It's the "fool."

As Kings and Queens of old, allowed "fools" to entertain themselves and the Court, so do Democrats and the MSM.

At least he doesn't wear a funny hat.
-- Jim Woodward
Midvale, Utah

If only David Aaronovitch were correct and Barack Obama were a typical American then we'd be safe even in his failed administration of higher taxes, economic depression, social decay and insipid narcissism. Unfortunately, like his huge ego Barack Obama is anything but a typical American. Obama is more interested in cultivating his messianic image as "world healer" than being President of the United States. The Presidency is but a pulpit to preach his gospel of Obamanation. Fortunately, if one is to believe the consistently Democrat leaning polls the false messiah is in trouble, being merely tied with McCain in August when his predecessors (Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry) looked destined to sweep to power on the ballots of young voters and election stealing Democrats in the summer. The one hope he has of winning is that paleoconservatives, Obamacons and libertarians can hand him the victory.
-- Michael Tomlinson

Ah, yes. I can just hear it now -- the Obamessiah's new campaign song:

Hallelujah! Hallelujah! For the O-ba-ma omnipotent reigneth! Hallelujah! The kingdom of this world is become the kingdom of Barrack, the O-ba-ma, the O-ba-ma! And he shall reign for ever and ever! King of kings, the O-ba-ma!

To be sung, with many more "Hallelujahs," to the tune of "The Hallelujah Chorus" from Handel's oratorio The Messiah.
-- Gretchen L. Chellson
Alexandria, Virginia

Isn't the nickname "Meathead" a sufficient summation of the intellectual "prowess" of Rob Reiner?
-- Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida

SENATORIAL SOFTBALL
Re: Jeffrey Lord's Sen. Chris Matthews (D-Pa.):

How many people actually watch MSNBC, much less Chris Matthew's liberal "Softball"? God forbid this odious creature gets a bigger ego, then he'd merely be the white version of Barack Obama. Oops is that a racist comment? Never can tell these days what spindly Obama and Democrats consider "racist." Of course, being a hate monger like Obama, Reverend Wright, and Chris Matthews is hunky dory.
-- Michael Tomlinson

From a fellow life-long Pennsylvanian to Jeffrey Lord (No wonder I always appreciate your essays):

I think your analysis of the political thinking of Pennsylvanians is correct in every detail.

Let's hope it still holds true when wet-legged Matthews runs for the Senate.
-- A. C. Santore

WITNESS
Re: Quin Hillyer's The West Should Heed Solzhenitsyn:

I wonder if any of your other readers was struck by the juxtaposition of the Hillyer piece on Solzhenitsyn and his passing, and Jeffrey Lord's piece on Matthews and his purported "rising" as was I? In Roman times, the Senate was a place where greatness was an everyday occurrence, not an occasional phenomenon. Cicero, Cato, even the mischievous Cataline on a good day were wont to utter something that would transcend the ages. America's Senate sheltered and produced greatness once upon a time. By my lights as recently as Jesse Helms' tenure (make of that what you will). But today's articles make a comparative point and mockery of the term: greatness.

I was touched by Hillyer's bit on Mr. Solzhenitsyn. His combination of insight, fervor, and keen religious emphasis was literally heartwarming and reaffirming. A former prisoner takes his rightful place in a pantheon of the giants of ordered liberty. On the other side of the coin we have Lord's subject: a "sputtering" huckster who would presume to possess the qualities to sit in a chamber formerly inhabited by the likes of Daniel Webster. This is breathtaking in its illustration of how far this Republic has plummeted in terms of what passes for manly heft. On the other hand, look who he'd beg to replace. Pipe in the clowns.
-- J.C. Eaton
Chetek, Wisconsin

Solzhenitsyn was literally a voice in the wilderness. His attacks on Socialism are ignored at our own peril, but equally so his critique of capitalism. Ayn Rand's Objectivism does not directly call for, or even allow for, a higher morality than self-interest; she was a major proponent of capitalism but a denier of higher morality (i.e. theology or spirituality). By purely following her ideals, one is led to a spiritual desert, but Rand's writings are not without influence of believers of a higher order. Howard Roark, the protagonist of The Fountainhead, finds his happiness through brilliantly executing his craft. (That Rand had Roark work in such concrete matters reflects on her craft as a writer more than a philosopher.) Roark's approach to egotism, finding the thing at which one can excel, can be traced directly to Aristotle's prescription for "the good life." (Aristotle arrived at the belief in God [i.e., The Prime Mover] through purely rational and logical means.) Rand's belief that capitalism is the only system that allows for the fulfillment of this pursuit of life is a sound one, but she ignores that Adam Smith, the very father of capitalism wrote extensively on higher matters, works, such as The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Where a strict materialist, Rand, differs from Solzhenitsyn is that he understands capitalism's role in the pursuit of happiness, but also sees that a life that is completely dominated by material matters is one that can be numbing, if not fatal, to the life of the soul.

Ronald Reagan's words of support and Senator Graham's invitation to speak at U.S. Senate extended to Solzhenitsyn demonstrated that sometimes ideals must (in the sense of categorical imperative) trump Realpolitik. To acquiesce to "the evil empire," as Ford and Kissinger did, rewards the very evil against which men must take a stand. One can argue that the decision was purely political, but a wise use of power takes into consideration more than just the retention of power itself. (Sir Thomas Moore could have easily been one of the most powerful men in Henry VIII's England, but he chose to serve the truth over the monarchy. A poor choice if one believes only in the material world, but a sagacious one if one believes in a reward everlasting, as Moore did.)

The use of power is why I am a Libertarian instead of a Republican; the GOP/Conservatives seek to legislate morality, just as the Democrats do. That I find myself in agreement with the morality espoused (if not always followed) by the Republican Party more often than I do the Democrats' morality of false freedom is irrelevant; the party still seeks to enforce their morality on an unwilling people. Morality cannot be forced. The Bible is replete with good shepherd taking care of their herds, but they do usurp the right to make choices. God gave man the ability to choose; for a shepherd to use force to deny this right of choice is ungodly. The good shepherd, as God himself does, can only guide the flock. Solzhenitsyn correctly states, "Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space." Mr. Hillyer echoes this sentiment and the all the natural entailments that follow from Solzhenitsyn's full quote. What is left open to question, does Mr. Hillyer believe that man is inherently good? The Republicans' legislative history reflects what many religionists believe: man is born from sin and it is his nature to sin. Contrariwise, traditional Jewish belief states, and on this I am in full agreement, man is inherently good. To paraphrase Erich Fromm, a plant naturally grows towards sunlight unless obstructed. People often make choices on short-term gain and overlook the long-term cost, but making stupidity illegal is not in the realm of the possible; who would close the gate on the last prisoner? The GOP is overreaching and ineffective when it legislates against "destructive and irresponsible freedom." The people must find (create?) their paths to transcendence; the path cannot be legislated; surely that is the blind leading the blind. The government that leaves its alone is the one that will allow the people to find its right footing.

The parting wisdom of the Russian sage is that materialism is dead end, be it Rand's pure Objectivism or Marx's dialectical materialism; human beings are spiritual beings. No form of materialism can explain conciseness. That human beings are sentient beings is beyond scientific understanding. If human beings pursue only that which is material, they invite their own deaths. That Americans have become a nation of whiners is clearly true; we have lost our way because our eyes are too often on the wrong prize. We were once a city on the hill, but our lights have dimmed. Yet we are not beyond redemption. If we, as Solzhenitsyn advised, shift our focus from the dead (i.e., material world) to the living, we can truly enjoy the gifts of this world (and hopefully the world to come). Yes, Mr. Solzhenitsyn, up is the only way to go. Or if I may borrow the words of Baruch Spinoza, "A free man thinks of death least of all things; and his wisdom is a meditation not of death but of life."

For your message of hope, Mr. Solzhenitsyn, I thank you.
-- Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York

Sadly, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the overwhelming number of publicly schooled, younger Americans' answer to the question, "What do you think of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn?" would be, "Aleksandr who?"

And I'd double-down on the first bet that none them have a clue what those who spout phrases like "social justice" and "income re-distribution" are really up to.
-- Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida

SADDLE UP
Re: Bruce Herschensohn's The McCain Candidacy:

Let me tell you how the Republican Party was "saddled" with John McCain when more Republicans voted for him than for anyone else running in the Republican primaries and caucuses: John McCain got a fast start in the eastern liberal states that allowed crossover voting by Democrats and independents. By the time he got to the more conservative parts of the United States, he was on a roll with the help of Mike Huckabee to siphon off the evangelical vote from the real conservatives. Fred, Mitt and Duncan never had a chance. John McCain is the candidate of the liberal wing of the Republican party and the RNC who decided it was "his turn." He is not the candidate of the conservative center of the United States.

I am thrilled that you are happy with the candidate, but coming from liberal California I doubt you remember what a strong conservative candidate sounds like. As for myself, I don't want to vote for the lesser of two bad candidates. I want to vote for a strong conservative who is in favor of stopping illegal immigration with no amnesty provisions; in favor of drilling in the ANWR; and who does not enthusiastically and blindly support all Global Warming initiatives put on his desk.

Let's wait and see who his VP is; want to take my bet it will be that great conservative, Joe Lieberman?
-- Judy Beumler
Kentucky

Bruce Herschensohn's article on John McCain, commander-in-chief, was interesting, but still does not address McCain's failings in the eyes of most Conservatives. He states that citizens believe Presidents establish foreign and domestic policies, but that in reality Congress is the body that decides them. This is only partially correct. Either the Congress or the President can kill a program; one through lack of funding and the other through the veto. In fact, he mentions an instance where the President was unable to utilize his war powers because of an opposing Congress. President Ford was mentioned by Mr. Herschensohn. Strangely absent from his list of Presidents who failed to sway Congress to fund foreign military programs was Ronald Reagan. Here was a President who had the solid support of not only Conservatives but 70% of the electorate. And he had to fund the Contras extralegally. The same can be said for domestic policies. It is virtually impossible for the Congress to impose an unpopular domestic policy upon the nation without the acquiescence of the President. To use the author's own example, the Congress was not opposed to President Bush's immigration amnesty plan, except to say that they thought it was far too conservative for their tastes. What stopped the passage of that legislation were the American people and specifically Conservatives, not the personal opinions of either the President or Congress.

Now being a Conservative myself, I will not vote for John McCain, I will vote against Barack Obama and a vote for anyone other than McCain is, unfortunately, a vote for Obama. Personally, I have seen nothing in John McCain's background that leads me to believe that he can be relied upon to stand up to a Democratic Congress. And I have seen nothing that would give me any hope that he would champion Conservative principles. However, given Barack Obama's past stands and statements, I can only conclude the he would lead us into a Marxist future if not stopped by the Congress. And with the present Congress, that is highly unlikely.

One thing that must not be forgotten, when discussing TWOT in general and the Iraq Campaign in particular, is that we would not be there at all if the Congress, including a significant number of Democrats, had not voted for our involvement and voted to continue funding that involvement. So President Bush is hardly going it alone, the people are behind him.

I realize that many of your readers are Conservatives. And I realize that those contributors to your publication who wish to further Republican aims and/or stymie Democratic, liberal and socialist agendas realize that the defeat of Barack Obama can only be accomplished by the election of John McCain. But, you will never be able to sell John McCain to the bulk of Conservatives on the basis of his past stands. His actions and positions are largely anathema to them. They view him as what he has demonstrated himself to be, a conservative liberal [left of center] and not someone whom the Republican Party should trust.

Remember this, the 2008 Presidential election is between Barack Obama and the other guy. John McCain is, for all intents and purposes, a non-entity in this election. It is a referendum on Obama, thanks largely to the MSM. What has to be done is to continually remind Conservatives and others that the only way to vote against Obama is to vote for the other guy, John McCain. A vote for Barr or Nader or even Mickey Mouse is simply a vote for Obama. And Conservatives can not afford to stay home either. A vote is necessary in this contest. Bill Clinton won two elections on a plurality, not a majority, because voters simply stayed home. Worth thinking about, wouldn't you say?
-- Michael Tobias

With due respect to Mr. Herschensohn's concerns, this conservative has concluded that the "War on Terror" is irrelevant via-a-vis this election. Senator McCain, the current President and the Democrats have all adamantly refused to secure our southern border, and fully intend to continue leaving it unsecured. So al Qaeda operatives will remain free to stroll into the United States at their leisure, toting WMD components in their backpacks if it strikes their fancy. This being the case, the "War on Terror" being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq is rendered moot, and the efforts (and sometimes lives) of our brave men and women in uniform wasted -- sacrificed on the altar of bipartisan pandering for the Hispanic vote.
-- Thomas C. Wigand
Middletown, Rhode Island

ROCK OF AGES
Re: Mark Gauvreau Judge's The Rap on Hip-Hop:

Stevie Wonder's "My Cherie Amour" or Minne Ripperton's "Lovin' You" will always be more popular than any Hip-Hop. Why? Because they express a joy of existence that Rap complains of. In a similar vein, the EMO scourge of modern rock is all about life being unfair. Gee, when did these teens become so wise? Rock of this sort is so much more enjoyable when the audience is included. Recall the self-deprecating ways the Ramones and The Sex Pistols made as much fun of themselves as they did others. In the end, the most successful pop songs are all about liberty, life, freedom, and having a good time.

As much as rappers preach anarchy, they need their discs to flow through the same uninterrupted supply chain to be sold in music stores. Folks tuning in to the radio on the way to or from work want a reason to feel good. The last thing folks need to hear is more complaining. Especially from junior who's got a recording contract, videos, and is on TV 4 times a week. The consistent whining, sex-laden juvenile lyrics tell serious listeners all they need to know: Look at me! Look at me! Why does Rush Limbaugh work? It gives us pleasure. So does the best pop music.

Most Americans can appreciate the frivolity of Eddie Cochran's Summertime Blues or C'mon Everybody because we're included in the fun. Rappers and EMO clowns preach from the outside looking in. Not only do these Rappers and EMO types need some serious parenting, their producers also need some serious psycho-analysis.

Like any consumer, I need a compelling reason to buy something. When a song comes on the radio that I like, I will buy it. If the industry wants to complain about lower earnings statements, don't blame some invisible downloading conspiracy, blame the product.
-- P. Aaron Jones
Huntington Woods, Michigan

I try to be understanding. Born in the 1950s and coming of age at the end of the 1960s. Everyone over 25 hated...HATED...our music -- which was fair. I hated Lawrence Welk and Mitch Miller. I wasn't aware of Elvis or Chuck Berry. I may have liked Rick Nelson. But the first song I really liked was "Walk Right In" by the Rooftop Singers. When they sang the verse "everybody's talkin' 'bout a new way a walkin,'" little did we see what was coming.

When The Beatles appeared on Ed Sullivan, my Dad said "#&!!%! You don't want to watch anything like that, do ya?" as he already changed the channel. I said "no" -- which was a bald faced lie. I was riveted. I had never seen anything so electrifying. Three years later, when I actually earned my own money, the very first record I bought was Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. All I knew was that it was by The Beatles -- little knowing what it turned out to be.

Since then, I bought records by Hendrix, the Stones, Cream, the Byrds, Traffic and others to numerous to list here. And I loved it. I really loved it. After finishing graduate school, it wasn't quite the same; but I continued to buy what I liked.

I thought it was quite improbable that my children and their generation would like "my" music. I thought every generation was entitled to its own music; but I was shocked to find out they liked it too. Then Rap reared its ugly head.

I try to keep my thoughts to myself. Life's too short and they seem to enjoy it. Yet, I can't help thinking they're being cheated.

Then one day my son heard AC/DC and ran to pick a guitar. Glory Halleluiah! He actually played songs! His father couldn't get his hands to do two different things at the same time; but he played extremely well. He plays some of his father's music and quite a bit of the contemporary rockers -- most I've never heard of but...hey...what do you expect?

One day recently, my son took a break from practicing, cradled his Strat, and asked who was my favorite rock band when I was growing up. I replied immediately "The Beatles." A sneer developed on his face and he said scornfully: "The Beatles! The Beatles weren't rock & roll. They were pop -- not rock & roll."

Well, you can't have everything.
-- Mike Dooley

IT'S ALL RELATIVE
Re: James Antley's letter (under "Stairway to Hip-Hop") in Reader Mail's Card Shark:

Mr. Antley, just because you don't like hip hop music doesn't mean that Mr. McWhorter is lying about his fondness for the music. It is obvious that you have probably never taken the time to listen to hip hop and have done what so many other conservatives tend to do, i.e. comment on what others have to say instead of listening to the music for yourself. If Rush, Hannity, or Laura Ingraham tells you that the music is all about misogyny, mayhem, and murder...then it must be so.

As a black man of a certain age, I grew up listening to hip hop and have seen it change from what it once was into what it is now. But even with those changes there are still artists that I listen to and enjoy; people like Erick Sermon, Jay-Z, Common, and The Roots to name a few. All of hip hop is not one thing or all of another; there is good and bad in that music just as there is in any other musical genre. Take rock and roll; there are artists who do good work and make songs that have some meaning to them, and there are still those whose music is essentially nihilistic. Are we supposed to judge all of rock music on the nihilistic messages of some of the artists?

And contrary to what you seem to believe, one can be both a conservative and a fan of hip hop music...they are not mutually exclusive. I have been a conservative since I started seriously paying attention to politics, but that has not made me change my tastes in entertainment. I was loving hip hop before I was politically aware and nothing about the music is going to change my political opinions, so I am going to continue to listen to the music that I have loved for so long.

You keep listening to your Skynyrd, I'll keep listening to my Erick Sermon, and we can leave one another alone to indulge our particular tastes...without insulting one another. Deal?
-- Eric Edwards
Walnut Cove, North Carolina

FLY IN THE OINTMENT
Re: Mike Roush's letter (under "Strength in Numbers") in Reader Mail's Card Shark:

Oh, goodie, Mr. Roush is back. I was afraid that we had lost him permanently to the DailyKos, or Arianna Huffington. I mean what would it be like to have just the normal rational debate of policy issues among sane adults without the invective that is the substitute for reason by those on the Left? I mean, how dull, with congenial folks debating the issues of the day with actual, real facts, instead of emoting from their homes in Camelot? The trouble is that the denizens of the Left are coming out more often than every fortnight.

Tell you what, Mr. Roush, how about you promising to attack my submissions whenever I have one posted. It makes me feel so much more intelligent. It does wonders for my sense of self and my right versus wrong average, as it truly validates my opinions. Do keep attacking me. I do so love it, and get so much more satisfaction when you attack me. It makes me feel like I have done my job, efficiently, and with aplomb.

I look forward to seeing what you find offensive in my defense of Tom Delay, and I wait with bated breath to see what you find offensive in my comment on racism within the Democrat/Socialist party constituency.
-- Ken Shreve

I can't speak for others, but my letter was meant to suggest that occasionally there is no hidden meaning in one's choice of words. They mean what they say and that is all they mean.

I defend no one, not even myself. When I say of Obama, "The mediocre man is always at his best," I mean mediocre. I don't mean medium ochre. So don't look for any code words, because, Mr. Roush, your decoder ring needs a tune-up.
-- Diane Smith

ATTACK!
Re: Caroline Miranda's letter (under "Tommy") in Reader Mail's Card Shark:

The total and complete ignorance of poor Ms. Miranda is appalling -- or, perhaps she's a hoot. Depends on how you look at her Tuesday morning offering, I guess. Maybe it's terminal myopia...

First, I'm no apologist for DeLay, Hastert, Blunt, or any of those stupid Republican dingdongs. Not even my old friend Don Young, or (God Forbid) Ted Stevens, the consummate cold fish.

Yet, I find it interesting that CNN ran four consecutive stories on the Stevens fiasco last week, utilizing the "Republican" label at every opportunity; don't recall they're ever citing Dan Rostenkowski as a Democrat... ever. And, that congressman from Louisiana with 90-grand in cold cash -- to which party did he belong?

No, I'm just an independent Independent -- never a GOP apologist. And I recall that one guy squeaked into congress and the Senate with something like $47 in his bank account. Then, just a few decades later, this supposed Public Servant was worth how many millions? Owned a couple TV stations too (under his wife's name, of course), and the FCC wouldn't allow a competing broadcast license in Austin TX for how many years? Decades?

Oooh, those Republicans may be inept, opportunistic creeps, but Lyndon B. Johnson was absolute slime, nothing less.

Most of your responding readers are terrific. But we do need those occasional letters of a humorous nature, even if the humor was unintended or semi-accidental. Thanks Caroline.
-- frost

ONE MORE VOTE
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell's Captain McCain:

What a lovely and wonderful article on McCain-things I never knew. As always you go off the beaten track to educate your viewers on what is most important. Your comments on Obama were also very informative.

I believe this guy is a shill for more socialist (i.e. communist) players behind him. I believe this election will be decisive in determining whether America survives as somewhat of a republic or sinks further into the mire of socialism. I also believe that Obama is the most dangerous and ruinous candidate we have experienced since LBJ and FDR.

As always I enjoy your articles so much, your sense of humor and intelligence are a real treat and escape from the vacuous talking heads of MSM.
-- Marlene Buchhalter
Southampton, Bucks County, PA

SMOOTH JEREMY
Re: Jeremy Lott's response to Charles Jackson's letter (under "Tommy") in Reader Mail's Card Shark:

Touche, Mr. Lott, in your response to Charles R. Jackson. It's too bad Democrats bent on wasting paper and ink on higher taxes and regulations to undermine the economy and zap individual freedom aren't as environmentally sensitive as The American Spectator. As with so many issues, Democrats would do well to emulate conservatives.
-- Michael Tomlinson

Like this Article

Print this Article

Print Article