Reader Mail

Goodbye, Ohio State

In Columbus winning is no laughing matter. Plus much more.

1.7.03

Send to Kindle

SORE WINNERS
Re: Editor's Note A Football Hero:

"Miami defeated Ohio State, a referee's personal foul notwithstanding." By definition, sour grapes. If you play the game so that a referee's call makes any difference you have no more legitimate claim to have won than crying that the coin toss was unfair.

A conservative e-publication, heir to fifty years in the cultural wilderness, should know better.
-- Steve Malynn

Who wrote this "Miami defeated Ohio State, a referee's personal foul notwithstanding"? A myopic Miami Hurricanes fan or a blind man, er, person?

The game should have never gone to overtime thanks to the incompetent referees. Watch it again this weekend on ESPN if you can recover from your denial by then and specifically check out the last OSU drive prior to overtime with the incomplete pass call on 3rd down. This was, in fact, a complete pass made in bounds by the talented Mr. Chris Gamble. And, oh yeah, he was interfered with too -- which was not called either.

With that first down Miami's punt return and the game-tying field goal would have never happened.
-- Michelle Heisler
Proud OSU Buckeye
Champion by proxy

Wow, talk about perpetrating a myth. Miami never even would have had the opportunity to get to overtime had the refs not botched the call on Gamble on third down in the last minute of regulation. Not only was there holding on the play, but Gamble caught the ball in bounds nonetheless. There are plenty of bad calls to go around -- why focus only on the one that hurt Miami? Finally, the official himself has said that the PI flag was for the holding before the ball got to the receiver, something the replays never even show -- it was not thrown for the tussle between Sharpe and Gamble when the ball arrived. Ohio State pounded the crap out of Miami, how can you say Miami beat Ohio State -- call or no call????? I'm disappointed. American Prowler usually doesn't give credence to whiners.
-- Yvonne Lundwall Twiss, Esq.
Columbus, Ohio

Your statement, "Miami defeated Ohio State, a referee's personal foul notwithstanding" was a stupid remark, for several reasons. First, Ohio State won the game. Second, no one would have questioned the call by the referee if he had thrown the flag more quickly. If you had done your homework, you would have known that the reason he threw the flag late is because he was trying to decide whether the call should be defensive holding or pass interference, not whether a foul had been committed or not. Third, and probably the stupidest thing about the remark, is that you are insulting the 2nd largest university in the country, which not only happens to have more alumni than any other university, but is also one of the most conservative colleges in America. You are alienating a large part of your audience, including myself. Unlike liberals, conservatives do not believe in rewarding stupidity. You may have eliminated a substantial part of your audience with one stupid remark.
-- Louis Burwell

IN COMMUNICADO
Re: "Long Time No Hear" letter in Reader Mail's Dividend Divisions:

"Unsigned" asserts: "There has been no communication between Pyongyang and Baghdad for the past 22 years. Period."

Except, I suppose, for the visits by Saddam Hussein's son to Pyongyang for the purpose of buying WMD technology.

There is a difference between formal diplomatic relations and "communication" -- as anyone less naive than "Unsigned" would know from the persistent back-and-forth between the United States and Cuba over various issues.
-- Kevin McGehee
Coweta County, GA

LOTT RULES
Re: The Washington Prowler's Santorum's Sacrifice and Peter Hannaford's Slipping Into Minorityhood:

To Trent Lott: Please remember that despite the traditional manner of Senatorial address, Daschle, Leahy, Kennedy, Jeffords and the others are not really your "friends". Soviet style discipline dictates that all personal loyalties must be suppressed in the Party's pursuit of power and attainment of ends--and the ends justify all means. All of these "friends" are ready to line up and stab you in the back; as they, of course, already have many
times.
-- J. R. Wheatley

Peter Hannaford's "Slipping Into Minorityhood" was a good article and I liked his optimism.

But, unfortunately, I read it after reading the Washington Prowler piece on the possible future of the Senate Republicans with Trent Lott as chairman of the Rules Committee and I came away a pessimist.

The Democrats don't need to come up with something to counter Republican ideas. Whining and going negative is the surest way to get Republicans like Sen. Lott, the Nancy Drew Senators in Maine, Sen. Chafee, et al to cave and water down their proposals or throw in bad policy bones like increasing unemployment benefits (a business tax increase raising the cost of hiring new employees).

At least when Rocky Balboa takes a beating for 14 rounds, we know he's going to win in the end. I'm not so sure the Republican Senators will. This could also apply to President Bush in that he also should be bolder with his economic proposals.
-- Greg Barnard
Franklin, TN

THINK AGAIN
Re: George Neumayr's The Press Gets Rael:

I typically agree with all the positions in your pointed and well argued essays and especially applaud your stalwart defense of orthodox catholic Christianity. Your piece on cloning (January 7), however, was not up to your standard.

As regards grammar, "media" is a plural not singular noun. This is a common error but one I would not expect from a writer of your skills.

With respect to the content, I believe that your mind has closed too quickly on the subject. Indeed, even among us "orthodox" Roman Catholics a discussion of first principles is required on the subject of advances in reproductive technologies before it can be condemned in its entirety.

The subject of "therapeutic" human cloning is a good case on point. I agree that the harvesting of fertilized human embryos for research purposes is an abomination, clearly the exploitation of a unique human being. But, what of the case of genetic material being inserted into an unfertilized egg? By my way of thinking, an unfertilized egg is not a unique human being, not an embryo at all, not different in any material or metaphysical respect from any group of human cells.

So why do some on our side of the fence argue that this practice must be banned? Perhaps they are right. But good arguments need to be put forth defending that position. So far, I have heard none and the one that you seem to put forth in the essay -- let's call it the Pandora's Box approach -- seems less than Aristotelian.

Clearly, we sit at the precipice of a Brave New World. As apologists for Christianity we are called to defend the faith bravely, especially in trying times as these. Let us do so as Aquinas and Augustine would have, with reason so powerful that it cannot be denied.

Best wishes,
-- Daniel J. Hogan

I would like to congratulate George Neumayr for his excellent article, "The Press Gets Rael." I've read several articles on the same topic, but Neumayr's has been the best so far.
-- Nadir Martello

BAMBI-PAMBY
Re: Bill Croke's Wild Horses:

The problem of the abundance of wild horses in the west is mirrored in the similar problem of deer living off residential landscaping in the east. Again, this is part of what I call the Bambi Menace. The Walt Disney Company led the way in giving anthropomorphic qualities to animals. Walt's cartoons had these animals speaking, thinking, reasoning, planning and forever being cute and cuddly. Thank you, but my considered reasoning leads me away from snuggling down with an adult male African lion (The Lion King), being counseled by a cricket named Jiminy or finding a warthog the least little bit attractive (The Lion King) again. The granddaddy of this nonsense began with the feature film Bambi where men were the evil ones who shot and burned the forest critters like Thumper, Flower, et al.

This is the basis of the terrorist group PETA that works to wipe out the ranching industry, hamburger fast food places and having turkey for Thanksgiving. They would, if able to work their will, turn all the domestic animals loose to fend for themselves. Can you imagine a pampered and trimmed poodle living off the land? Cattle must be tended for. Sheep would disappear overnight and chickens would hardly survive. We need these animal resources for our existence as well. There is no way we could survive on a hunter/gatherer system. Of course, that is the goal of PETA and similar organizations -- eliminating human beings and let nature take its course.

From this we get the banning of culling wild horse herds, restrictions on deer hunting and the like which has caused the animal populations to explode and outstrip the available food. Instead of being killed for the service of man, they are allowed to slowly starve to death and truly become one with the earth -- a total waste. To their dismay the PETA types become brunch for the growing cougar and bear populations which are moving into the outer residential developments. Nothing like a fresh jogger on the hoof to satisfy a hungry mountain lion.

The socialists will never learn the law of unintended consequences. "Yum, yum," said the big bear.
-- Al Martin
Portland, OR

GONE TO THE DOGS
Re: John Corry's The Bloom Is Off Bloomberg:

Amen to your Bloomberg article.

Please write more on Bloomberg; he's turning out to be a major
disappointment.
-- unsigned

Dog Doo in Carl Schurz Park. This was a memorable book by Orson Bean, many summers ago. Plus ça change ...
-- unsigned

Like this Article

Print this Article

Print Article