THE DUMBING OF AMERICA
Re: George H. Wittman’s Benign Neglect as Immigration Policy:
Ms. Napolitano is just one more incompetent in a long line of them in our government. It seems mediocrity is too much to hope for in a bureaucrat. We expect absolute incompetence in our Congress and we get it in spades, but somewhere in government there ought to be someone who can actually accomplish something — something for the good of the people on whose backs the rest of government rests.
But Democrats love poor, uneducated immigrants. They provide an ever-growing pool of Democrat voters. Democrats no longer even care whether they are citizens. “Just let everyone vote,” they say. So what if they just swam across the border?
Many people from other countries have long thought America was among the dumbest of nations. This last election proved beyond a shadow of doubt they were correct.
— Jay Molyneaux
THE OCEANS ARE RISING, THE OCEANS ARE RISING!
Re: Paul Chesser’s Commandeered by Climate Alarmists:
Global warming alarmists and the dreaded Rising Ocean Level are making me increasingly irritated, especially when their mock arguments are joyfully repeated by their media brother-alarmists.
Recently, I heard yet again the tired old “old wives’ tale” that the ocean level on the planet has risen 3 centimeters in the last hundred years. Now that is amazing!
Three centimeters is slightly more than one inch!
Who measured the ocean level most recently? Using what instrument that can measure that small a measurement on a vast, eternally moving, moon-gravity slave of an ocean?
And now the far more piercing question: Who measured the ocean level a hundred years ago? Using what hundred-year old scientific instrument that could measure that small a measurement on that same vast, eternally moving, moon-gravity slave of an ocean?
Wasn’t Nineteenth Century science amazing?
And all this time I thought that political science was “the science of politics” — and not “science that advances a political agenda.”
With apologies to Shakespeare, it is apparent that here are some things in heaven and earth, Horatio, that are dreamt up in your “political” science.
Three centimeters in a hundred years! Expletive!
— A. C. Santore
TRY ONE FOR THE GIPPER
Re: Jeffrey Lord’s Obama is No Reagan: The Polish Lesson Ignored in Iran:
America is a great nation for reasons beyond counting, and its proper use of power may have the strongest claim to America’s central reason for greatness. America has acted as the world’s “beat cop” for over a century. We have projected our power and protected millions and millions of people who were defenseless and oppressed. Some people, isolationists and proto-conservative, advocate for withdrawal from the world at large, but they are in the minority and they are wrong. Our republic, established under God, has understood that when one is blessed, one is obliged to share those blessings.
None but the blindly patriotic or the terminally naïve would suggest that America’s intervention in foreign affairs is without fault or blemish, but few can make a salient, sustained and supportable argument that, when American has intervened (or interfered) with the internal working of foreign governments, the people, if not the government themselves, were left better off in the long run. (Even Vietnam , which went through a prolonged and painful period of destruction because the Democratic congress immorally and cowardly forced America to withdraw all its influence from the region and to abandon its allies, has emerged into a freer and safer society.) The cynical will, of course, point out that America ’s adventures overseas were undertaken with self-interest as their focal point. To that, the voice of reason would ask, “And what is wrong with pursuing self-interest?” Many will point to Iraq as a misuse of American influence and power. Again, history is a patient judge. The time to evaluate a surgeon is not while one is under his knife, but when one has had a chance to heal. Iraq and Afghanistan are still very much on ongoing operations. With time to heal and gain perspective, America, as is her wont, will have time to judge itself and her actions.
America has pursued a moral course by projecting its power in the pursuit of its own interests and the interests of others. As pointed out by Mr. Lord, President Ronald Reagan stood up to the Soviets; through him, “The Evil Empire” heard our voice, and more importantly, so did the people of Poland. President Obama can find wise council in the words of Martin Niemöller, if I may paraphrase: I stood up for no one when they were threatened, and in the end, no one was there to stand up for me. Simply stated, it is in the self-interest of America to stand up for what is right morally, ethically and pragmatically.
Currently Amir Fakhravar and the Confederation of Iranian Students have neither power nor international recognition, but nearly 30 years ago neither did Lech Walesa or Solidarity. In less than 10 years, Walesa was elected President of Poland. Without President Reagan standing strong against General Secretary Brezhnev, Walesa would not have ever had the chance to be democratically elected; chances are that without American intervention (or in Obama speak, meddling) Walesa would not have lived to see anything but the interior of a prison or gulag before his premature death. By giving moral reassurance to a small band of men and women, the world was transformed: the U.S.S.R. began to crumble. No man can say what the repercussions of supporting, or withholding support, as is the current choice of Our Dear Leader, of the Confederation of Iranian Students will bring.
Being a moral country means continually examining our positions, philosophies and actions. So far President Obama has been consistently wrong in his Middle East policy, on both practical and moral grounds, but that does not mean he cannot reexamine his administration’s policies and actions. The Iranian people, mostly the young, are giving birth to freedom. Obama, once again, has a choice to either be a midwife who sees all involved to safety and joy or he can stand aside and watch a stillborn birth. Sadly, The One’s record on this speaks for itself. Even worse, it seems that the people of Iran will have to do the same.
— I.M. Kessel
The average weak-kneed liberal sees legitimacy in an iron-fisted Mullahcracy as a government that lacks the “restrictions” imposed upon the big ‘O’ by our Constitution.
News flash to the American Spectator: Republicans, equally weak-kneed, have told us to forget Reagan!
Thus we conservatives forget to donate to Republican causes, we forget to notice ‘Republicans,’ we never forget being dissed by party lightweights who amass control of the party by our neglect of it.
Purge the party with pride, I say!
— P. Aaron Jones
HEALTH CARE MUST BE SPECIAL
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s Obama’s Senior Moment:
I remember reading all about this health plan a couple of years ago in an article written by a special needs advocate. I was interested in the article because I have a child with Down Syndrome. The writer wrote about how medical care would be dispersed. The very last to receive care would be those with special needs. My heart broke as I read this and have been trying to get the word out to all my friends who have children with special needs. But nobody seems to listen. After all the ground we have covered to get our children to be accepted in society, this is such a huge step backwards, beside the fact that I feel like it is way for government to rid our society of our children and family members that are not “perfect.” Many countries already get “rid” of these children and I have met families from England, Africa and Mexico who have moved to this beautiful country to save their children.
I wish more people truly understood where this administration is coming from and how, in a blink of an eye, they too could be in that category labeled “non-person.”
— Sandi Holmgren
Marine on St. Croix, Minnesota
COUNTING THE HEALTH CARE COSTS
Re: Suzanne Shobe and Paul Tarai’s letters (under “Ration This”) in Reader Mail’s A Pence for Your Thoughts:
Ms. Shobe says she will continue to vote for any candidate of the Democratic Party because she can’t get health insurance. That seems to me to be an issue between you, a lawyer and blue cross — not you and us taxpayers.
I have always provided health care for myself and my family. Where is it written that I am also obligated to pay for my neighbor’s health care as well? Let my neighbor pay for her own health insurance. If no company offers it, then hire a lawyer (out of your own pocket, please). Lord knows we have enough lawyers around.
— Garry Greenwood
Mr. Tarai says (believes?) “that perhaps government is more effective at limiting costs and improving results in the health care field than is the vaunted private sector.” I have only two brief questions for you sir:
1. Can you spell Medicare? (That addresses the “improved results” point.)
2. Are you aware that Medicare goes broke in the very near future? (That addresses the “limiting costs” point.)
Open and honest debate requires all of the facts be presented, not just the ones we find convenient.
— Patti Knuth
Paul Tarai demands and “open and honest debate…not lies” regarding the health care debate. Well, I welcome that, but I think Paul’s case would be better served if he practiced what he demands a bit more. Given the copious amount of detailed “data” the U.S. government keeps on various statistics regarding our humanity in this nation, a shallow look at various demographic differences between this nation and, say, the U.K., Canada, or New Zealand would raise numerous red flags for a junior level statistician. I work for a living so I don’t have time to dig up all the important details left out of Paul’s summary statistics but I will hit the high points and leave the “devil in the details” to the professional statisticians in the group.
First, the “per capita health care spending” figures are worthless unless they are adjusted for the per capita standard of wage and living in each country. Are they? If not then all they represent is the higher per capita standard of living in each country which is consistent with the per capita income levels in each country, nothing more. If Paul seeks the lowest per capita spending as a measure of the cost effectiveness of health care in any country then Rwanda would be a better place to start his search for a better health care provider.
Second, the “total health care spending as a percent of GDP” suffers the same core problem as no. 1, plus it completely overlooks that millions, if not tens of millions, of non citizens who come to this country for our health care technology each year — while not a fraction of that can be said for all three socialist countries you compare us to combined. It is also worth noting that the higher the standard of living (per capita wages, etc.), the higher the per capita spending and percentage of GDP. That’s what your per capita expenditures reflect, nothing more. See where Rwanda is on this chart for per cent GDP.
Third, your infant mortality rates and life expectancy comparisons both suffer the same flaw. They make one rather large assumption that the demographics of all four countries are comparable. They are not by a long shot. If you compare the “white” demographics of all four countries you will find similarities. Since the U.K., Canada, and New Zealand have the non white demographics of, say, Maine, one might expect if one actually looked at the different vital statistics between various ethnic groups you would find our demographics a bit more impacted by that portion of our population that can be ethnically identified and measured as being significantly more challenged to live a long and prosperous life. Put politely, my “poor” white Appalachian relatives live a lot longer and healthier lives than similar “poor” non whites in inner cities because they have a different cultural value system that puts a premium on making the right life style choices over living the motto, “live fast, die young and have a good looking corpse.” The government and insurance industry has buildings full of details on how life style choices impact one’s chances of reaching 65.
Fourth, you apparently haven’t had many dealings with our own government health care programs (Medicare/Medicaid, VA, Tri-Care, etc). The horror stories are boundless. I’m sure the blog can be filled with anecdotal examples to back up the generally poor review these “free” systems get from their captive “customers.”
And finally, Paul, if the stats you’ve presented convince you that the U.K., Canada, and New Zealand, are superior I would hope you are already living there.
If you don’t want “lies,” Paul, please don’t present them in return.
— Thom Bateman
Newport News, Virginia
AND SO IT BEGINS
Bob Tyrrell has long been a favorite of mine, and he hasn’t been afraid to incur fire from the left. But I don’t understand why neither he nor anyone at The American Spectator has been willing to take on the case for impeaching and removing Obama. The case is there to be made; it is begging to be made. It’s about fraud in an election campaign. Sure, the left will bust several gaskets at the mere mention of the word “impeachment.” So be it. The shoe fits.
We would hear screams of fear for the country if the beloved first black president were even to be the subject of an impeachment discussion. And many if not, most conservative pundits would run for the exits. But what we’re ignoring are the screams of fear for the country that are growing every day if this radical agenda is not stopped, cold. And they are angry screams, for the simple reason that Americans know they have been defrauded. Nobody voted for this agenda; nobody knew it was coming. Contrived Pravda popularity polls cannot be allowed to obscure this fact.
The case for impeachment is right in front of all of us. Let Pravda go hysterical; let them trot out another ‘blame Bush’ thesis; let them do anything they want. We elected Bernie Madoff, and now we need to unelect him.
— Paul Gable