Re: Megan Basham's Blogging With Bile:
I'd like to try to explain to Megan Basham why people like me and my family and friends react so emotionally to conservative Christians. The reason is that they are trying to force their religious views on my and my family and friends. I am not trying to force my views on them, but they want to force my daughters and granddaughters to continue pregnancies against their will -- my daughters who have brought me seven grandchildren quite vigorously agree with me on this issue. We don't care if they want to force their daughters, so why can't they leave my family alone?
Why do they want to force me to pledge allegiance to a god I don't believe in? I am a patriot and I have a desire to declare my allegiance, but they want to force me into a lie.
Why won't they allow my gay and lesbian friends to lead the same normal lives as everyone else? I'm not insisting that Christians admit them into their religious services, though I think it would be a great thing to do because my gay and lesbian friends are the most spiritual people I know. We're not asking Christians to honor gay and lesbian marriages in their churches, just let them form the same kind of state recognized relationships that my wife of 42 years and I have had.
Religion should be about family and home. Christians should leave their religion at home and not try to force it on me. Jews aren't forcing their religious views on me. If Christians would leave us alone and stop forcing their religious views on us, we would leave them alone.
-- Ron Schoenberg
I am writing to register my dismay at seeing The American Spectator publish blogs such as that of Megan Basham in her article.
She certainly has the right to be dismayed that someone disparages her beliefs. However, her dismay does not give her the right to deceitfully imply that the views of a single blogger, writing in a private blog unrelated to the Edwards campaign, are part of a vast conspiracy against view similar to hers. Amanda Marcotte made the statements that Ms. Basham dislikes in a private blog that she had been writing before being hired by the Edwards campaign. To claim in a public forum that such a private communication is evidence of a near conspiracy against Christianity is inane and dishonest.
Ms. Basham, connecting dots, leaps quickly from attacking Ms. Marcotte to attacking education and the entire secular culture. University professors (the "ivory tower elite on both the left and right," in her words) do not sponsor discussions about the Christ for the obvious reason that they are teaching classes in non-religious subjects. They also do not sponsor discussions of Allah or Buddha for the same reason, unless in theology classes. Her apparent objection is not just to satires of given beliefs but to the entire secular world. She is unambiguously arguing for a suppression of both satire of religion and speech that does not express religious views. (I am not interpreting, here. She is straightforwardly arguing for exactly that. Did you read her blog?)
On a more personal note, I also object to her fey tone. I don't really believe she is as unaware as she pretends that millions of people in the world do not share her beliefs. And she writes well enough to suggest that her leap from an attack on one person's personal blog to an attack on anyone who is not a Christian is not just the ranting of a televangelist, but instead a cynical, well-wrought attempt to rally troops around a flag she seems to think everyone supports -- the flag of imposing her religious views on the entire culture.
More worrisome is that The American Spectator publishes such hotheaded propaganda. Had this blog been on a religious website, I would not have been surprised. But for you to publish it suggests that you too want a specific set of religious beliefs to influence government policy, and support her view that secular institutions should promote religion. Let's please keep above this fray. The arguments and ill-feelings between people of a given faith and those who do not believe have gone on for centuries. When they are inflated, leading to inaccurate, sweeping claims about one's opponents and more ill-feelings, they cast the host of their forum into as dark a shadow as the intended target.
Ms. Basham is not a responsible voice of reason.
Megan is right on as to what liberals believe. They hate religion. They don't realize that liberalism is a religion. The Breck girl, Edwards, is a lefty who doesn't see anything wrong with the liberal bloggers that he fired and rehired and refired whom are man-hating, lesbian, God-hating, socialist women who have a very dark view of America. I am very aware of liberals who have a very dark view of everything. They are very depressed, 1960s control freaks.
I can't bear being around a liberal. They are so smug, so right, so entitled to what they believe. I won't let them tell me what is okay to say. If I want to say Third Worlders, I will say it. I will not be censored by liberals.
I love men and who men are.
Can we ask liberals to move to the Netherlands? They would fit in. Can we talk about socialism?
-- Myrna, a recovering liberal
"What we are witnessing is a loathing of Christ and of his followers that has never before been expressed so openly from such a large segment of one of our major political parties," Ms. Basham declared.
It's more than just "a large segment." Because Democrat Party leaders appear to have done little, if anything, to acknowledge, confront and eliminate this hatred, they implicitly sanction this animosity. Until it's reversed, therefore, the open hostility to Christ Jesus and Christians that's reached new heights belongs to the entire Democrat Party.
But while such hostility provokes and belittles, it also clarifies. Doesn't it indicate the Democrats' shedding of any last pretense of being the so-called party of common folk, workers and the middle class? Doesn't it bolster the Democrat Party's image and/or reality as the anti-Christian Party? And doesn't it reinforce the party's bona fides as the morally relativistic, secularly humanistic partyâ€"and one that's clearly now socially and theologically racist?
Curiously, in the Democrats' efforts to be all things to all people -- thus, nothing to anyone -- the parade continues of their presidential-candidate wannabes such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama into churches where convenient photo ops occur. One wonders if they or anyone in their party may see the parallel with biblical Pharisees and their public displays of "religion."
Regardless, let's not fools ourselves: We've seen nothing yet in America regarding open unchecked hostility to the Christ and His followers. That hatred won't abate, but will intensify. Will the Democrat Party and its allies stop this disrespectful behavior, especially in the next 20-or-so vote-grabbing months? If so, when will they start?
-- C. Kenna Amos
Princeton, West Virginia
One cannot describe the vulgar and crude attacks by liberal bloggers against Christianity as profane, since they have no concept of the sacred. To their narrow viewpoints, attacking Christians and Christian faith is like attacking another political party interfering with their liberal perspective. The most telling part of these ugly postings by John Edwards's campaign workers lies in the complete lack of mainstream media interest in it.
The Associated Press and other outlets did not detail the content of the attacks and implied that while the content may have offended some, it did not rise to the level of intolerance. Bloggers Marcotte and McEwan typify the trailer park trash types that James Carville blathered about, and their schoolgirl adolescent rebellion show them to be one of the girls, having no sense of what it means to be women. They exemplify the liberal mind -- silly, immature, emotional and lacking in grace. The Democratic Party is full of children, but very few adults.
-- Caroline Miranda
North Hollywood, California
RACE TO THE BOTTOM
Re: Jeffrey Lord's Iraq and the Party of Race:
My goodness. Mr. Lord, though I find your premise amusing, the first thought I had after reading the subject of the article was, "Wow, this guy has a lot of guts".
Your observations about the Dems and race have much merit simply on the observed facts. However, though I agree with your assessment of the psychotic nature of the Dem party, imagining a cause of that psychosis as you do diminishes the power of your observations.
Fun read, though.
-- Bob McMillin
Thank you, Jeffrey Lord, for such a succinct essay. What Mr. Lord does not make clear, however, is how the self-inflicted trauma of racism (which is simply a minor offshoot of elitism) affecting the Democratic Party becomes so twisted as to then astonishingly serve as the umbrella of inclusiveness which now commands 80-85 percent of non-white voters. In other words, how can "racists" who have harmed so many "non-whites" for so long make others believe that they are the "non-whites'" only hope for salvation and fairness, given their history of being vehemently unfair? What is the basis of this lie becoming so powerful and convincing that its victims even believe in it?
Because the answer lies close enough to the question, it can be examined forthwith. The "neurosis" of the Democratic Party is one of self-importance, self-absorption and infantile narcissism that attract any of like ilk. The issue of racism is simply an extension of the neurotic perception that ones own self-indulgent tendencies should be extolled and protected from challenge. Namely, "Elitism" promises "superiority" and "eternal cleansing" of any perceived failings to any that wish to follow its mantra... no matter how personally defining and confining the failings of race, color, creed, or ethnicity are wrongly held to be. Indeed, Elitists preach that "all" can be cleansed, including the very ill-defined predilections and prejudicial predispositions of race, color, creed, or ethnicity. It's one of the biggest scams of "whitewashing" known to history, and the nefarious but necessary psychological leveraging factor belonging to groupthink.
Only by joining the elitist club, they would have us imagine, can one be cleansed from their sin of being different, of having different colored skin, of being a different race and ethnicity, etc. The lie so skillfully and surreptitiously spread is the notion that only by becoming an "Elitist" can one then rid oneself of their own socially inconvenient differences and definitions to non-meaningful trivia, allowing one to finally rise above those perceived limitations. Although escapism at heart, "Elitism" is purported to be the magic elixir that so many crave in order to finally overcome the injustices of inequality, by promising to make one not equal (heaven forbid!) but "superior" to others... it brings parity to the very ones that did the discriminating, the very same ones who so wrongly prejudicially predefined and hurt others in the past.
This is gang psychology stripped raw for all to see....
-- Dr. Gregory C.D. Young
Neuroscientist and Physicist
Asheville, North Carolina
Although Jeffrey Lord's piece reminds us that the Democrat Party was the party that DEFENDED SLAVERY, I believe it is still the party of division and intolerance. One recent example, the Director of the Young Democrat Party was on Bill O'Reilly's "The Factor." When O'Reilly pressed her on whether John Edwards should have fired the two ANTI-Catholic bloggers, this woman said with fervor "NO." When pushed further whether she would have fired them, again "NO." However, when he asked her if these same two bloggers wrote anti homosexual, anti-black, or anti-Muslim comments, would she push for their dismissal, her rapid response was "YES!" When O'Reilly pointed out her hypocrisy, her only response was, "That's different." How so, she never answered. So although the Democrat Party believes (self-righteously) that it is the defender of homosexual or black rights, Catholics or Christians, well, just read the liberal papers or watch the liberal news and you'll know where we stand with the intolerable Democrat Party.
-- Joellen M. Rarebit
Point Pleasant Beach, New Jersey
Jeffrey Lord wrote, "What political party fought ferociously to defend and keep slavery, to build and insist on a social system of segregation, with both slavery and segregation giving a social, moral and legal thumbs up or wink-and-a-nod to 'a few white boys' sexually assaulting black women? The Democratic Party," and "Is it any wonder that a political party that has such sentiments as its founding principles moved seamlessly from slavery to segregation to racial quotas..." Just so.
I'm just old enough to remember the truly segregated beaches, de facto if no longer enforceable under the then recently defunct Jim Crow laws, of the early '60s S. Florida. I also remember many "yellow dog" Democrats (a Southerner who'd rather vote for a "yella dog" than for a Republican) I knew, a term you don't hear much anymore. In particular was a nice little matronly South Carolinian lady with the most beautiful blue-blood Southern accent spouting the most vicious hatred of all things Republican.
The apparent dissonance notwithstanding, that her place in the party of race was eternally secure was easily understandable on the basis of its basic history as Mr. Lord succinctly points out. She made no bones of retelling all the Lost Causers' reasons why she hated the Republicans -- because they successfully prosecuted the Civil War, Sherman burned Columbia out of cruel spite, Lincoln ended slavery after promising not to and a victorious Union otherwise semi-successfully imposed its will on the South for decades to come. But, it wouldn't take long once she got to talking for her not so subtle disdain for other races to surface and how she held Republicans responsible for all that unpleasantness, too. And about her support for the modern Dems given their seemingly contradictory and antithetical racial policies? Well, Mr. Lord nails it again. She understood their true motivation and it's all of a piece to one, like her, obsessed with race and power. Better to be in a position to dictate and direct the racial spoils system, much as in the old south, than not, especially under the new rules. She was perfectly comfortable with the self-regarding antebellum tradition whereby so-called enlightened white Southern masters understood that using sticks alone was a poor way to keep the help in line not to mention the prospect of damaging their "property." For effective influence over their assets carrots were wanted, too. The modern Democrats, now comprised of mostly self-regarding northerners, who also had no great love of different races, have simply modified their methods over time as the law, social custom and evolving morality on matters of race have taken away more and more of their sticks. Carrots rule now. And as in the days of segregated buses, it's government that doles out the carrots just as it was Montgomery's city code that wielded the sticks and so Dems mean to stay in control of that system.
Knowing this I've used a debating tactic for many years on the perplexing question of how it is the Dems have managed to cast themselves as the party of racial reconciliation when it's us Republicans who bled to end slavery and supported ending Jim Crow in much larger percentages then Dems ever did. This tactic works particularly well with younger folks. I point out that in all of those old B&W photos and newsreels from the Civil Rights era of diners being assaulted, marchers being set on by police dogs and fire hoses, taunting political figures standing in school room doors, masses of white hooded men around burning crosses, etc., etc. every single angry looking white man and woman is almost certainly a Democrat. And it's only slightly different today. Sure they've changed their political tactics but the goals remain the same. They always were and still are the party that seeks to impose its will in social and racial matters to its benefit and at the cost of dependency of their so-called beneficiaries. Their view of their charges is unchanged and is reflected in the condescending and cynical assumptions behind all of their ideas and policies. And so today, just as in my news of yore analysis, in every news clip and photo where there are angry people stirring the pot of racial spoils and seasoning it with the bitter divisiveness of victimhood they are all almost certainly likely to be, Democrats.
-- Mark Shepler
I take no position on anything Lord says in this article save one. Iraqis are not "people of color" for God's sake! They are Caucasian, period. Why is it that so many people assume, apparently, that only blond, blue eyed Northern Europeans are Caucasian? It's ridiculous. To think of anyone in terms of facial features or skin color is stupid, anyway.
Can we not have done with this business of saying "people of color?" I am of Northern European extraction. What does that make me, transparent? Does my skin not have a color? I am certainly not white, which is the color of the screen on which you are probably reading these words. I am Caucasian. I am neither proud nor ashamed on that fact. It is just that, a fact, and one as inconsequential as the fact that I am of a certain age or the fact that I live in a certain state. Big deal!
Lord sabotages his own argument, in part at least, by making this basic mistake. Again, at the risk of being repetitious, Iraqis are not Asian, they are not African, they are Caucasian. Perhaps Lord should have said that Iraqis are considered by some to be incapable of embracing democracy because they are not European. I don't agree with that thesis, but at least it would have made more sense than referring to the color of their skin.
-- William Rupp
NEW IRAQ INTELLIGENCE
Re: Philip Klein's Crying Nuke:
While Philip Klein makes some interesting points in his most recent article, an insinuation that he puts forth about halfway through has given me pause and makes me wonder why there seems to be an ongoing parade of conservative writers and pundits that seem to be parroting the Left's constant droning on about how Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs. Klein indicates that U.S. military officials "showed reporters mortar shells, rocket-propelled grenades and powerful bombs" being used by insurgents that were "being supplied by Iran," but he warns that this would "echo a similarly convincing address" by Colin Powell to the U.N. about Iraq's WMDs "which turned out to be based on flawed intelligence." Again, the intelligence on Iraq's WMDs was wrong and Saddam didn't have any. Just the other week, another noted conservative writer, Charles Krauthammer (of all people), echoed the same sentiment during the panel discussion on Fox News' "Special Report" news program -- that Saddam had no WMDs.
What have I missed? As I've written before in this letters page, information has come forth for a number of years now that Iraqi WMDs were hauled off to Syria and were hidden in the Beckaa Valley. John Loftus, former Justice Department prosecutor, has pointed out in print and also on radio (Larry Elder's show in 2004) the four sites in Syria where Iraqi chemical weapons and other items have been stored, based on information he had received from very high levels in the government. The radio show interview came right after a couple of Al-Qaeda members were stopped from transporting 20 tons of chemicals (including VX and sarin nerve agents) into Jordan for an attack in the Jordanian capital. What made it even more interesting was the fact that Syria has no capability to produce such material, so where did it come from? Three guesses and two don't count. In his book "Saddam's Secrets", former Iraqi air force general Georges Sada clearly states in Chapter 10 that he was THERE when gutted Iraqi Airlines Boeing 727s and a 747 were used to transport WMDs into Syria, under the guise of disaster relief for the victims of an irrigation dam collapse in the northwestern district of Zeyzoun in the summer of 2002.
Based on information the Washington Times' Bill Gets got from retired Air Force Lt. General James Clapper of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, satellite intelligence photos were reported as showing heavy cargo vehicles and trucks moving into and out of Syria constantly in the time period up to the invasion of Iraq, suggesting materials that we weren't supposed to find in Iraq would not be found there. Richard Minister touches on the myth of no Iraqi Wads in his book "Disinformation" (Myth #11).
Numerous other writers such as Mensnewsdaily.com's Joe Mariani, Washington Times' Rowan Scarborough, the Spectator's own (at the time) Jed Babbin, WorldThreats.com's Ryan Mauro and NRO's Jim Geraghty, have also given evidence that Syria is the resting place for Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons and other methods of mass murder. Ken Timmerman of Newsmax.com wrote a piece early last year, based on information received from the Pentagon, that even Russian Spetsnaz (Special Forces) troopers were involved in moving the stockpiles out of Iraq. Heck, given the one and one-half years or so that led up to the war and the advanced warning that was given Saddam, I could have driven the bloody things out of Iraq and into Syria all by myself.
Please, somebody correct me if I have been out of it all this time and tell me that these reports have been nothing but hallucinations. And if they aren't hallucinations after all, why are all too many of my fellow conservatives buying into the Left's longtime lies, fabrications and smokescreens?
-- Jim Bjaloncik
Mr. Klein, as a way of saying that I sorta, kinda, pretty much agree with you, may I suggest a parallel idea. In my humble opinion, it would be disastrous for Bush to decide to commit our military to solving the Iranian nightmare.
I say this because I think that Bush has made a complete hash of the job in Iraq. He has taken our fine, highly skilled, highly motivated, highly efficient, highly violent and lethal military and hamstrung them with PC rules meant to not be too harsh on our opponents. He worries about collateral damage so much that he endangers our warriors to an unnecessary degree. His refusal to bring the JAGs home and release our trigger pullers to get the job done and come home has prolonged the conflict and increased our KIA and WIA beyond the point that was necessary.
Sir, I would suggest that I personally do not want our military committed in battle against Iran until we get a President that will wage war in a proper manner. We have not had such a president since Harry Truman, and even he flinched when it came to Korea. He refused to do what was necessary to drive the Red Chinese Army back out of Korea and finish the job in Korea once and for all.
Sir, you are absolutely correct in tracing the genesis of our problems with Iran to at least 1979. I would humbly suggest that it more properly is a dispute between America and the world of Islam that traces to our support for the establishment of the Israeli state in the late 1940s, at the conclusion of WWII. Until we have a POTUS that will publicly admit that the civilizational conflict between Islam and Western civilization is the real conflict, and that will properly prepare our public and properly put our citizens on a war footing, and then fight the war to defeat, demoralize, and cower our enemies, we should not commit our fine warriors to battle. Never should our military ever be committed to battles that we are not prepared to win outright.
-- Ken Shreve
A prevent defense usually prevents you from winning.
Well it looks like your boy Klein has taken to drinking the liberal Kool-Aid...
Note the second paragraph of Klein's whine: "Although it was not the only argument offered at the time of the invasion, the most compelling reason for regime change in Iraq was to eliminate the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction in the hands of an irrational actor with links to terrorist groups and hostility toward the United States"...
What utter drivel! That wasn't the only reason unless Klein forgot about those UN Resolutions...
Did Klein also forget that Iraq was shopping around for yellowcake or is he now taking the New York Times/Joe Wilson crapola as fact writ in stone?
The real problem that most everyone seems to want to forget that Saddam did have WMDs even though we had liberal fools far and wide claiming otherwise...
The other thing people forget is that Bush used the, "light footprint" method in attempting to squelch the murderous ways of the terrorist towel heads...
Bad move trying to use 21st century mindsets on people who only understand 11th century ways of war...
-- Russ Harris
Re: William Tucker's Tilting at Wind Energy:
To clarify a few of the points in Mr. Tucker's recent column on wind energy, wind advocates have never suggested that wind power can solve all of our energy problems. Wind advocates have consistently argued that in addition to energy conservation and efficiency, solar and hydropower, wind power can and should play a role in diversifying our energy mix and stabilizing our energy future.
Current methods of generating power are becoming increasingly more expensive, unstable, and unhealthy, with devastating effects on the environment that are seldom mentioned in conversations about wind power. At the end of the day we have choices to make about how we generate our power, and simply dismissing wind doesn't move us any closer to a solution.
-- Larisa W. Romanowski
Environmental Advocates of NY
Albany, New York
William Tucker captures several excellent points about the limitations of wind technology. But because no one knows when the wind will blow, wind energy can't be part of the arsenal of spinning reserves, since the purpose of those reserves is to be available when needed. Wind can only provide sporadic energy, not dispatchable capacity, to meet the vicissitudes of demand. It therefore is not an alternative energy source, since it can't replace reliable conventional generating units. Wind energy cannot even avoid meaningful levels of carbon emissions on electricity grid systems, given the inefficient way fossil fueled power must balance wind's unpredictable variability. Building more wind plants is akin to making larger closets for the emperor with no clothes.
-- Jon Boone
Re: Jennifer Rubin's Rudy's New Social Conservatism:
Although this letter will probably never be read or seriously analyzed, I find that I have to refute how your magazine and web page continually promote the presidential bid of Giuliani. The article "Rudy's New Social Conservatism" is an attempt to spin the true positions of Giuliani. I don't believe I have ever witnessed such blatant disregard and Gerrymandering from your magazine. The author can say that Giuliani is a social conservative since he cleaned up the mob and fought with the ACLU if she wants. But is this not what he was expected to do as mayor and Associate Attorney General/US Attorney? Am I to be surprised and astounded that this man cut crime and kicked people off of welfare as mayor? If that was the goal then Jennifer failed.
What does surprise me is that The American Spectator has chosen Giuliani as their favorite man out of the shoots. The February edition of your magazine does a hit-and-miss on the true beliefs of Giuliani. Your readers need to know that this man who is running as a Republican, not a conservative, agrees with the practice of murdering the unborn in the womb. Being a very Catholic-leaning magazine I am amazed that this publication continues to support this man. There must be something magical about Giuliani that has your writers, Rush Limbaugh, and other conservative pundits fooled. This man agrees with killing babies! How can it can anymore evident than that? I understand that Giuliani has children. There is nothing honorable about a man who holds his own child in his hands while promoting the legalized option of abortion.
Any man that has held any infant, much less his own child, and still promotes the murder of innocence is evil. Not to mention he wants to promote homosexuals and abolish the Second Amendment. Such beliefs do not make him evil, but the promotion of killing children will always be evil.
You'll have to excuse any spelling and grammar issues I may have published here. I wrote this in a hurry to make sure I got everything out that needed to be said. I am a true conservative and I refuse to be fooled again by pundits promoting a neo-con to advance their own ideologies. Capturing the White House at the expense of the unborn would be the most dishonorable thing that the Republican Party could ever do. That is why the conservative wing must keep the GOP on its moral compass.
-- Gary Martin
BLAME THE KURDS...AND THE BUSH GANG
Re: Doug Bandow's Irritating Allies:
Mr. Bandow either has a faulty memory or he did not follow the events as closely as he thinks he did. The vote in the Turkish parliament was actually in favor of allowing U.S. troops passage through Turkey on their way to invade Iraq. But a quirk in the parliamentary rules resulted in the failure of the measure. However, shortly after the invasion and in response to a U.S. request, the Turkish government offered ten thousand troops to help us out in Iraq (that's more troops than what the Brits sent). While the U.S. was elated with Turkey's offer of help, the Kurd tribal chieftains and warlords of Iraq objected strenuously to the coming of the Turkish troops. So the U.S. decided to make our fickle Kurd "allies" happy and withdrew its request of troops from Turkey.
While refreshing our memories of events leading up to our invasion of Iraq, let's not succumb to convenient, selective amnesia. It would behoove Mr. Bandow to remember as well that our Turkish allies advised us strongly not to invade Iraq in the first place. We should have listened. So at least let's have the decency not to blame others. We all know where the blame lies for this monumental fiasco that is the invasion of Iraq. We, the American people, are to blame. We allowed a group of gangsters to take over our government in Washington -- not once, but twice.
-- Ilyas Botas
Paterson, New Jersey
BLAMING BUSH FIRST
Re: Ben Stein's The Lynching of the President:
I agree with you. Each day I watch the news with dread. No one is perfect, not even President Bush. But the war was voted on by Congress and they had the same information as the President did. He didn't just wake up one morning and say, "Saddle up boys, we're going to war." Mistakes were made and information was wrong, but instead of Congress rallying around and being united in doing something about it, they are pointing fingers and saying, "Off with his head".
We are acting just the way our enemies want us to. I've spoken to men that have come back from the war and the same is said. It is believed that we should be there and they are very unhappy with the way the media is treating the Boss (President Bush). I was told that the media have lied and mislead the American public, and several incidences were recited. I am very scared for the future.
I feel we are laying ourselves wide open and one day we won't be the free nation the Founding Fathers wanted us to be. United we stand and divided we will most certainly fall. I don't like any of the people running for president, most definitely Hillary and Obama. The Clintons were the worst thing to happen to America and we wouldn't have the trouble we do now with terrorism if he had done his job for eight years instead of lying, selling us out to Korea and China, and making all those trips on our dime. At least Bush has the country's best interest at heart and truly cares for the people of this nation.
Cape Canaveral, Florida
I thank you for defending our President. I believe it is our duty to stand behind the man in charge. I did not vote for or agree with Clinton, but I respected the position he held. The thing we need to worry about is imploding. We will destroy ourselves from within IF we do not unite!
God Bless America!!!
RET's "Global Warming Is Our Friend" has inspired Michael Tomlinson to declare that "When Greenland is green again and British vineyards are producing wine of a higher quality than France people will appreciate global warming."
Well, as a matter of fact Greenland just had its first grain harvest in 600 years, and Britain's burgeoning wine industry has already won medals in head to head competition against the French.
With nine feet of snow in Oswego, RET didn't have to work up a sweat inveighing against the Warmistas -- I have. Blogging from the Caribbean is warm work, and I think I will have to pause and refresh myself with a glass of the rather good bubbling chardonnay to hand -- it cannot be called champagne because it hails from the wine country of Westport, Massachusetts. I must ask them to lie in some New Hampshire reds here (the '75 Laconia Vineyards is ready and waiting) in time to celebrate next year's Republican primary victories.
What happens the following November alas, will in part depend on Bob's corkscrewing his head back on in time to prevent a rout arising from his descent into the cellars of scientific credibility. Of course the climate wars are a joke, but sticking to the wrong side is not exactly funny.
Neither is the prospect of Burgundy switching to muscatel production as degree day inflation renders real champagne a thing of the past. Man does not live by Madeira alone.
-- Russell Seitz
Re: Jay D. Homnick's Man Bites Dog:
I enjoyed your article Man bites dog. However, there's another funny thing about what you wrote -- your comment that Klaus is a "Mini-Vac" because he lives in the shadow of Havel.
For a Czech observer like me, this is very amusing -- it's like saying that Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity live in the shadow of Colmes.
I like both Havel and Klaus and they're very different, but Klaus was undoubtedly more visible already when Havel was a president -- Klaus was always the ultimate example of a leader with strong opinions and fists while Havel was an abstract intellectual.
Havel is great but still, his divine image has been constructed by the U.S. media to a large extent. Klaus has created his influence himself.
Have a nice day
-- Lubos Motl
Prime mates? Dissenter Klaus? Pun jab? Prolong...ping pong...Pyongyang...ring gong...strong?
I don't know how Mr. Homnick does it. Not only does he come up with those things, which is remarkable in and of itself, but he does so while making relevant and insightful points to the topic at hand. It's impressive and hilarious stuff.
-- R. Trotter
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article