BAD HAIR WEEK
Re: Steve Hornbeck's In the Crossfire and Out of It:
I was fortunate enough to witness the Garofalo performances on two occasions last week. Ms. Garofalo must have interrupted her coiffurest as often as she did Mr. Carlson and the show's guests.
With Daily Amazement,
-- Marvin Hill
Re: The Washington Prowler's Remember the Merrimack!
In the "TOOMEY OR NOT TOOMEY" section of The Prowler today, some copy reads "The thinking with Toomey is that he will run well in pro-fun, pro-life and rural segments of the state" -- while I'm sure the writer meant "pro-gun," I sorta like the way the sentence reads now. You might have stumbled upon a great new phrase for us conservative Republicans.
-- Judy McDonough
REMEMBERING THE VICTIM
Re: Paul M. Weyrich's Bill Janklow's Sad End:
Fair disclosure: I'm a motorcyclist first (32 yrs. experience) and an American Spectator subscriber (2 yrs. experience) second.
Clue to Mr. Weyrich -- the dead motorcyclist had a name. His name was Randolph Scott, from Hardwick, MN.
By the way, I've forgotten the name of the Tennessee state senator creep who (while DUI) struck and killed one Terry Barnhard of Ohio while he was vacationing (on one of those pesky bikes again) in Tennessee about three or four years ago, but I have not forgotten Terry's name. Those evil swine in Tennessee actually named a road after the State Senator creep after the DUI murder. The AMA (American Motorcyclist Association) bought a billboard on the same road and put the real story up in big letters.
Sorry for the vent, but I just flat blew a gasket -- SSDD for us motorcyclists. Janklow will not get what he deserves. We'll hear lots of full of crap platitudes about his service, blah, blah, blah. We'll never hear about Mr. Scott again. Guess he just does not count.
I'll try to close on a positive note: The American Spectator is a wonderful magazine. You and all the staff do such a fine job. This is the first complaint I've ever had re the magazine or the website.
Good luck and keep up the (almost always) fantastic work.
-- Mike Lee, CSP, ALCM
Regional Loss Control Manager (for an obscure regional ins. carrier)
Regarding Paul Weyrich's article of Aug. 25th. Weyrich speaks at length about congressman Janklow's career, but gives short mention of his prior driving record.
Janklow was well known for multiple traffic violations while he was governor (and other times too) for which you can bet an ordinary citizen would have surely lost his license or worse. Now it appears his speeding and running a stop sign have resulted in the senseless death of motorcyclist Randolph Scott.
At long last, Janklow must be held accountable for his irresponsible actions like any of the rest of us would, notwithstanding his career in government. Anything less would be an outrage.
Those of us interested in justice will be watching this case very closely.
-- John Muir
AL FRANKENSTEIN AND THE BLOG
Re: Enemy Central's The Swing of Things:
My favorite sentence from the Sharon Davis Blog: "In a nutshell, Gray did take a number of actions to address some of the underlining problems."
I guess that has something to do with penmanship in elementary schools? A problem best addressed by someone with experience with "kids's" like Arnold. :-)
-- Mark Hessey
So, this is the way it works! A person writes a book about liars, trying to show the world that "lying is wrong."
While composing his book he resorts to sending letters on stolen stationery full of lies, trying to persuade a person of honesty and integrity to tell his story about abstinence. I, of course, have not read the book but a quick guess would have me think he is against abstinence, but how could we tell if he is telling the truth? After all, look at all his lies.
Now, people will rush out to buy the liar's book condemning the conservatives as liars. He will make a pile of money from his book of lies, because everyone loves a book full of lies, at least the liberals do or they would not have given it so much publicity. But hey, whatever works!
I am confused.
Re: Lawrence Henry's Ignorance Is This:
A great article, hitting squarely on one of the more serious problems of our society.
You write: "Brokerage sales incentives, mortgage interest payment schedules, and short selling do not rank with the really knotty concepts in the world of ideas. Anybody can understand them."
True, anyone "can understand them," yet many don't understand them. Two possible explanations come to mind:
1. They lie. Undoubtedly, there are those who simply lie (in print, in political speeches, in media interviews) to advance a particular viewpoint. Is there really such a thing as a "truth in advertising" law or standard? There couldn't possibly be, given the nonsense that fills the airwaves and newspapers these days.
2. Perhaps they are not as educated as they might appear when they don the mortar board and accept the J-school diploma. Maybe this is a result of the first possibility as well in that they lie (or otherwise cheat) their way through school.
It is illustrative that a number of business schools quickly added a "business ethics" class to their curriculum when the Enron story became public. (It's like Kobe buying his wife a $4,000,000 ring after his philandering is made public.)
Maybe more university curriculums need to strengthen the "ethics" classes, not just in business schools. (Not just in J-schools, either.)
Our society has a serious problem with ethics, as demonstrated by the incidents that you cite in the media, but also by Enron, Kobe, Jayson, virtually every advertisement, especially political ads, "spam" emails. (Does anyone really believe you can "earn" $5000 per week working in your spare time out of your home?)
I believe the decline of ethics is in fact "one of the really knotty problems" in our society, and that decline needs to be reversed. Start with J-schools if you want, but don't stop there.
-- Richard Renken
Re: Mark Goldblatt's Graying the Issues:
Regarding the latest Campaign Crawlers article about the Democrat's claim that Republican's are trying to steal elections the author left out some important points.
1. Regarding Clinton's impeachment. After President Clinton was impeached by the House had the Senate voted to remove him from office, succession would have followed according to the constitution. As a result Al Gore (D) would have been President and picked a Democrat as VP. Unless Republicans found a way to re-write the constitution, this would amount to stealing an election for your enemy. The irony is if the Democrats voted to remove Clinton Al Gore would probably be President today.
2. Regarding the Florida election. The Republicans were the ones that followed the law. A Democrat Judge resigned when the Florida Supreme Court voted to ignore the law. Furthermore virtually all the recounts performed by the media after the election resulted in a Bush win. The early calling of the state of Florida also cost Bush votes on the Panhandle where polls had not closed yet.
3. California. From what I've read an attempt has been made to recall every person who served as California Governor going back at least until when President Reagan served as Governor. Davis has mismanaged the state so badly that his was the first to succeed.
I don't think the recall is best for the Republican party in California,
but the people have spoken.
-- Sergio Santomauro
Re: George Neumayr's The Invigorator:
The problem with Republicans in California is that our national party has never supported conservatives. California not too long ago was on the verge of Republican control. Props 187 and 209 passed and the assembly had a majority of Republicans. The Democrats went into full spin mode characterizing the Republicans as racists and anti-Hispanic. Bob Dole also agreed with the Democrats and told all those supposedly hidden racist in the party to leave during the National Convention in San Diego. After that it was all downhill for Republicans in California. The passage of Props 209 and 187 showed that conservative principles can win in California. Those measures would be hard pressed to pass in a supposedly conservative state such as Texas. All we need to do now is stand up and support conservatives instead of backing down when the Democrats start name calling.
-- Sean Conness
The Colony, TX
So, who is Neumayr speaking for? Certainly not the California Republican Party, as he mentions no affiliation of his own, the Spectator obviously which, to my thinking, is fairly far right. He says California Republicans can't win on their own, but what he means is the CRA (California Republican Army), the far right segment of the Party, can't win on their own, so with Simon's pull-out today, which should enable both McClintock and Arnold, they're losing an alternative, and CRA are the ones who've brought us losers like Simon in the first place. Riordan could have won, but he and Arnold had a pact in which Schwarzenegger took the lead and Dick is backing him. The far right wing of the Republican Party just can't carry California -- period. Neumayr's snide characterizations to the contrary, Arnold's not quite the novice the author makes him out to be. As to the lack of bumper stickers, I've yet to see one myself or any for Bustamante either for that matter -- it's still early days in a, gratefully, short election cycle. The H'wood "elites" know Arnold and basically like him, whatever his politics, know that he has substance.
-- Peter Schuck
The American Prowler has written critically about Arnold Schwarzenegger's candidacy. However, Schwarzenegger is not as liberal as some think.
Arnold seems moderate, if not conservative, on socially conservative issues. According to the Wall Street Journal: "Bill Saracino, a former head of Gun Owners of California, believes that when it comes to conservatives evaluating Mr. Schwarzenegger, 'the glass is half full or way more.' He notes that Mr. Schwarzenegger has opposed strict gun controls." In a magazine interview, Arnold said, "Outlawing guns is not the right method of eliminating the problem. If you outlaw guns, people will still have them illegally." According to NewsMax: "Arnold has given private assurances to congressmen and Republican Party leaders that he will come out against partial-birth abortion, pederasts in the Boy Scouts, and welfare for illegal aliens. Couple that with a knowledgeable defense of free market economics gained through study of Milton Friedman and years of attending Reason Foundation seminars, and Arnold takes the wind out of his Republican opponents Bill Simon and Tom McClintock." Arnold supported Proposition 187 to deny taxpayer-funded services for illegal immigrants. When criticized for it by the media, he did not backpedal and instead conveyed the importance of rule-of-law. On family values, Arnold understands the importance of two-parent households. In Salon.com, he called the phenomenon of broken homes one of the most pressing problems in society today.
Regarding his fiscal inclinations, Schwarzenegger told the Financial Times, "I am more comfortable with an Adam Smith philosophy than with Keynesian theory." He has also said, "I still believe in lower taxes -- and the power of the free market. I still believe in controlling government spending. If it's a bad program, let's get rid of it." According to a San Jose Mercury News report, Schwarzenegger is a "fan of the University of Chicago Economics Department, which had provided President Reagan's economic advisers".
There are some who call Schwarzenegger a "compromise candidate". But given his past actions and statements, it's clear that a strong streak of conservatism runs through him. At very least, he is no "liberal."
If the Republicans had any slightest modicum of the low cunning, rapacity and conspiratorial genius they are credited with, the McClintock and Schwarzenegger camps would immediately broker a deal to have McClintock accept a slot as Lieutenant Governor or Treasurer.
This would unify the Republican Party, give the administration the perfect chance to play good cop/bad cop with the state's creditors and special interests, and positions McClintock to run for Governor post Arnold.
-- Richard McEnroe
Re: David Hogberg's Regulatory Massage:
David Hogberg seems more incensed by the idea of legislating than he is by the specifics of what's being legislated. He seems equally upset by the notion of deregulating massage therapists (although an unqualified masseur/euse can cause or aggravate physical injury) and overregulating interior decorators. And he doesn't seem at all upset that there is an Iowa legislator who will actually use a junk word such as "modalities" in public.
Likewise, unqualified athletic trainers can cripple you, incompetent accountants can cost you your home and send you to jail, inept landscape artists can literally bury you, unskilled hearing aid dealers can cost people their hearing, and so on. Insisting that people who trade in these professions meet a certain minimal standard of competence and accountability is not, I would think, unreasonable. And while it may be entertaining to rail at the over-regulation of barbers and cosmetologists (the history of barbering suggests that, were we to take it back to first causes, we should explore the controversial Big Bangs theory), these are people who are flailing about your head with sharp blades, heated metal rods, and caustic chemicals. Silly as it seems at first glance, it is probably worthwhile to cock the occasional eye at their doings.
I will grant that both the idea of the state theater and licensing interior decorators leap gracefully onto the floodlit stage of folly, since they mandate, as all such programs do, the attempted legislation of subjective taste (is Amiri Baraka even available?). But the idea that licensing causes higher prices for consumers is too much of a stretch for me. Mr. Hogberg is always at liberty to rewire his house with the assistance of an unlicensed electrician or local handyman, find some college freshman with a copy of Quicken to do his taxes for pizza money, or trust his person and his family to the professionalism of a gypsy cabdriver. I should be surprised to find out he does so.
-- Richard McEnroe
DOOM AND GLOOM
Re: Jenny Woodward's letter ("Point of Privilege") in Reader Mail'sWhy Not McClintock?:
Ms. Woodward seems to have taken umbrage with my characterization of living in Indiana as "doom." Nothing could be further from the truth nor from my intent. I was born in Washington, have lived in Ohio and now in Texas, but most of my years were spent in California. I have nothing against living in any state per se. But given a choice -- removed from me by the politicos in the Golden State -- I would return there in a heartbeat. Therefore I am "doomed to live in another state." I don't know Larry Eubank from Adam, but based on his Reader Mail I deduced that he felt similarly "doomed." Any transplanted Californian would feel the same.
Perhaps Ms. Woodward should consider that all the hyphenated Americans she mentions might also have preferred to remain in the country of their birth except for "inhospitable conditions" there? My grandfather emigrated from Norway because of "inhospitable conditions" but he and all his descendants have retained a certain pride in our heritage. However, we don't call ourselves "Norwegian-Americans" because we are committed to our new country. Therefore, although Texas is not my first choice for residence, it is still part of America, and in that respect I do feel "privileged" to live here.
California was once "The Land of Opportunity" just as America was The Land Of Opportunity to all of our immigrants who are the ancestors of all of us except for the "Native-Americans." Let us pray that our national government does not make the same mistakes that California's government has. In that event we might have to become American-Italians or American-Germans and the like.
-- Bob Johnson
Bedford, TX, formerly of Antioch, CA
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article