NO EXCUSE FOR SOCIALISTS
Re: Mark Tooley’s William Jennings Bryan Redux:
Mark Tooley’s exposition of Mr. Campolo’s politics is right on. I would only suggest that “the modern welfare state that Campolo acclaims” not only does not ensure human justice (perhaps not even mercy), it makes a mockery of human justice. Socialism, at its root, is immoral. Hence, humans caught in the vise of socialism or a welfare state are invariably, less free, materially impoverished (and not just the recipients), spiritually diminished, and shorn of self-respect (by design of the rulers). You could look it up.
— P.A. Melita
Tony Campolo can claim to be opposed to abortion all he wants but those are “words, just words,” and meaningless ones at that, when one examines his actions. He continuously actively campaigns to elect those who keep abortion legal, even to the point of supporting the candidate who voted against the Illinois Infant Born Alive Protection Act. The only person Tony Campolo is fooling is himself.
As for his recent OpEd on Darwinism, unless I’ve misunderstood Mr. Tooley’s presentation of Mr. Campolo position it seems to me that Campolo is only targeting the portions of Darwin’s views that are inconsistent with Campolo’s own liberal ones. Campolo is right that there is an “…infinite qualitative difference between the most highly developed ape and each…human being.” But Darwin’s theory is either correct or it is not and Campolo seems not to want its scientific basis challenged, but rather, only its “ethical implications.”
Thus, in the same way that Campolo picks and chooses which passages of the Bible to believe, it seems that he is applying the same methodology to Darwin’s tome. As he must, incidentally, given his beliefs. Or, to put it more bluntly, for someone of Campolo’s beliefs the Bible can’t be left alone if it is to be believed and Darwin’s theory can’t be left alone for it must be believed.
— R. Trotter
I like the recent Campolo article. Very good!
— David Bartlett
Re: J.T. Young’s The Search for Crisis Leadership:
The paradox of crisis leadership: the false leader seeks fame while the true leader seeks the proper answer and both are sought by the people, but few can tell the difference between the two. (“Give us Barabus.”)
True leaders don’t seek to take opportunity of crisis, as one of The One’s acolytes has preached. True leaders seek to do what is right and good based on core principles. They do not look for credit, reward or titles; the rewards may come to them because they are their due. False leaders are ostensibly all about the people and the causes, but appearances are chimera. The poseurs love to hear their names called and images adored. They are all about ego and self-gratification/ glorification. How can the people know a real leader when one is before them? Just as a tree is known by its fruits, so a leader can be known by his labors.
The Left has long said G.W. Bush will be judged harshly by history. In time, history will also have its say on his successor.
— Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York
HOPEFULLY IT WILL PERISH FROM THE EARTH
Re: Jeffrey Lord’s Obama’s LBJ Syndrome:
People of the government, by the government, and for the government.
— David Govett
Re: Eric Peters’s Safety Inefficiency:
Sorry guys, I owned a base-model, four-speed, 1981 Dodge Omni (actually the Plymouth version — the same car). My Omni/Horizon of sainted memory was a great little car but NEVER got more than 43 mpg on the highway before it finally expired of a blown head gasket and terminal case of the rattles at the age of seven with 150,000 miles on the odometer. In 1997 I purchased a basic, four-speed GM Saturn, which was a few hundred pounds heavier, had a two liter engine, a button on the dash to disconnect the AC compressor when it wasn’t in use and two air bags. At 184,000 the little beast still gets me 40 mpg on the road and is a much more solid, quieter, and safer car than the Omni ever was.
The reason that more people don’t buy a Yaris, the modern equivalent of the Saturn, is that today gas is cheaper than it was when I got the 1981 Omni/Horizon. My next buy will probably be a Yaris, or something like it.
If GM were still making the American-designed Saturns optimized for American driving conditions with a 2.0 liter engine (now up to 2.4 liters on what is basically a slightly larger Opel import), that got 41 mpg (now 34-5 mpg), with the usual “no hassle” pricing and friendliness of the Saturn dealers, I’d buy one now (and for me price is not the issue).
This time I’d get the automatic windows and door locks. And I’ll miss the 1997’s timing chain, which is a “forever” part, not a maintenance item. Oddly enough the only Libertarian, anti-nanny state Jihads I’m willing to join on the car front are the ones that 1) would permit me to shut off all the bells, buzzers, whistles and such that annoy me when I do things like, for example, put a package on the left seat, 2) will let me turn the dashboard-radio-heater lights almost completely off except for the high-beam indicator and oil warning light, and 3) will instruct me how to fry or destroy the uniquely-numbered RFID transmitter tag molded into the front bumper of each new car “for inventory control reasons” and also teach me how to disable or remove the uniquely numbered air-pressure transmitters about to be placed in each valve stem for “safety reasons” as of next year. I get nervous when the government mandates that all new cars can be continuously tracked from the side of the road.
I want a basic car, not an airport concourse with its incessant “guard your luggage” message (in case, I guess, my neighbor just snuck a bomb through the security check point and now wants to transfer it to my bag while I’m not looking to cover his tracks) and the cameras everywhere (tracking is ok in an airport… not in my car).
With the Saturn I just had to destroy one part to quiet the thing down and put in one switch to kill the interior lights. The primary reason I have not replaced the Saturn is that I’ll need to get the schematics (and maybe find the right “modifier” we site) to kill the unwanted “features.” This may be harder than debugging the U.S. embassy in Moscow was back in the bad-old-days. But then they only had to face the Russians.
— D.B. Miller
KEEP ON RANCHIN’
Heard “Beverly in East Texas” on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show on Tuesday afternoon. Thanks for your perspective, Mrs. Gunn. My best to you and your wonderful family (from another Vietnam veteran)!
— David Gonzalez
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.