Reader Mail

Rude Awakenings

Latest reactions from TAP readers to TAP copy.

3.12.02

Send to Kindle

FOOL ME ONCE
Re: Ryan H. Sager's Case Closed:
Good one, Ryan. Had me going there at first!
-- David Davies

BY GEORGE
Re: George Neumayr's The Mourning After:
Bravo. This column should be read by every Republican in the State of California.
-- Mark Pulliam

KERRY PRIDE
Re: Wlady Pleszczynski's Tom DeLay and the Bull Moose Bully:
Please file this statement by the war hero, John Kerry, so that if and when Mr. Kerry decides to run for President, we can let the American public know exactly what Kerry is all about. Jane Fonda will be proud!
-- L. Cusick

PROUD TOWERS
Re: Lawrence Henry's Towering Ignoramuses:
Don't confuse our elected officials with the facts (the video), Mr. Henry, they're too busy conducting the important business of the people who sent them to Washington. Based on the little comment I hear from out here in fly-over country, no one who has a real life is questioning why the towers fell. It is time to move on, and work on avoiding anything similar in the future if we can.
-- Roger Ross
Tomahawk, WI

Did The Learning Channel explore the fact that the banning of asbestos may have contributed mightily to the timing of the collapse of the buildings? To wit, had the original plans been followed, contrary to some latter-day regulation, would the towers likely have stood somewhat longer, thereby having fewer lives lost?

Once again, point well taken about our erstwhile "representatives" showing themselves for the fools they are and, by inference, the fools they think we are.
-- P. A. Melita
Charlottesville, VA

Your article ignores the asbestos factor in the collapse. New York City banned asbestos after about 70 floors were built, so the top floors had no asbestos while the bottom floors did.
-- Hareendra Yalamanchili
hyalaman@mit.edu

Lawrence Henry replies: As I remember the show, TLC did not spend much time on asbestos, and I think I would have remembered that, since I had seen a good deal of discussion of that subject in the weeks before the broadcast.

SCRATCHING THE SURFACE
Re: George Neumayr's Mahony Exposed:
I hope you guys keep the heat on -- this whole scenario goes much deeper than most Catholics realize. There really is a sexual underground within the homosexual clergy in the Church as is evidenced by the latest "resignation" of the Bishop of Palm Beach. Those within the pink triangle get to move into positions of authority and then get to appoint their "friends" who in turn cover for others. As a number of bishops are also involved, to whom can the laity in the U.S. turn?

It is beyond disgrace, and those of us with young adult children --already shaky Church wise -- are frantic at the scandal already here and the one looming on the horizon. But the truth must come out so it is up to journalists to ferret it up to the surface. The hierarchy cannot be trusted to do it as has been amply demonstrated. The nation's clergy -- who a few years ago would demonstrate at the drop of a hat against the electric company or the telephone company or assorted government agencies -- are silent when it comes to their own necks.

Perhaps the Church's refusal to even consider women priests has a lot more to do with this issue than "the first apostles" one. No strong woman would put up with these shenanigans for a minute without blowing the whistle.
-- Ginny Yanyar

Finally! Mr. Neumayr's partial exposé of Cardinal Mahony was long overdue. I only wish he had not used the wrong word through out the article: "pedophile." Pedophiles in the Catholic Church in America get all the ink (e.g., John Geoghan, Boston), but are not the MAJOR problem. They are no more prevalent in the Church than in society at large. They are almost always heterosexuals, I understand, and cannot be cured. You will note that the vast majority of victims in religious settings are not prepubescent, they are teenagers or older. Practicing homosexuals prey on that age group, not pedophiles. Mahony does not openly support pedophiles -- he supports practicing homosexuals, so why give him an out with respect to the real problem?
-- Bob Skall
Keller, TX

IN THE NUDE
Re: Dave Shiflett's Willie Was His Waterloo:
It seems to me that both David Brock and Paula Jones have shown themselves to be nothing but opportunists and liars. Brock is now prostituting himself to the very same people he once condemned. And there is no "honor" to what Paula Jones is doing. Mr. Shiflett mentions her participation in Fox's cheesy "celebrity boxing" match but forgets her spread in Penthouse magazine. That sure isn't my idea of a second act. Paula clearly was nothing but a trailer-park version of Anita Hill. She now joins the club of nude "celebrities" that includes Gennifer Flowers, Jessica Hahn, Darva Conger, and of course her sparring partner Tonya Harding.
-- unsigned

Please forgive me. I know I shouldn't comment, but I can't help myself. Please tell Mr. Shiflett I got a kick out of his line, "Now, he wishes to put that all behind him ..."

I'm still chuckling.
-- William M. Macfadyen
Santa Barbara, CA

G.I. GENTS
Re: Jed Babbin's Digging Into Hard Ground:
I read your article in the March 6 edition of the AmericanProwler.org. I agree women don't belong in combat arms branches of the military, though for a very different reason.

I served in the U.S. Army for four years. I maxed my PT tests, bettered most of the men in the monthly Brigade runs while carrying the guidon festooned with dozens of colors. I even went through basic training with 260 men and just myself (though that's another story.) A fellow squad member tried out for Delta team and missed. But while practicing with him, I would have passed the initial tryout. I know I was capable of performing physically.

The problem with women serving in combat is how we all were brought up. Look after your Mother. Take care of your sister. Provide and protect your family. I wasn't those things directly to my fellow soldiers, but whenever we'd head out to the field with our MILES equipment on, they took on a new persona. I was something to be watched out for and protected. The call of "Jonsey" would go out if an "enemy" Cobra appeared on the horizon. Or the rumblings of an M1 could be heard over the hill.

I was fine. I was handling myself as expected of every soldier. Low-crawling through the German mud or setting up a Jump Tactical Operations Center. Men instinctively felt the need to protect me. I didn't need protecting any more than any other soldier did, but their sentiments were the same from my Brigade Commander, Colonel Adams, down to the radio operator, PFC Bergeron. They weren't being patronizing or doubting my abilities, they just watched over me. Sometimes to their own detriment.

I remember one exercise with some Brits. They were flying a two-seater training version of a Harrier. I answered their call as they were having some minor engine trouble and wanted to know where the Depot level repair airfield was for their plane. They were so astounded to hear a woman's voice on the radio, they landed in the middle of a "battlefield" and came to find me. The entire "battle" was put on hold, while these two men landed on a pad and made their way to the JTOC. I was a novelty. And something to be shown-off and shielded rather than utilized as trained.

Women do not belong in the combat arms. Most women can't handle it physically and most men can't handle it emotionally. For the health and welfare of us all, leave the women to serve in combat support and the men to serve in combat.
-- Leighsah Jones
Longwood, FL

NEW DEMANDS
Thank goodness you guys came along now. I had been a subscriber to the American Spectator since about 1991.... Keep up your great work!
-- Paul Mathers
Mesquite, TX

Great to have you back. Now how about a redesign? Cordially,
-- Michael Moynihan
Editor, www.thepolitburo.com

Like this Article

Print this Article

Print Article