OTHER CHEEK, NOT TURNED
Re: George Neumayr’s The Mean Streets of Los Angeles:
It has already been established that Neumeyer has a huge axe to grind against those within the church he perceives to be “liberal.” But his ill-fitting political goggles don’t serve him well — not that he cares much — when attacking his favorite church targets, like Cardinal Roger Mahony.
Neumeyer is the master of regurgitating past stories that have been debunked. And there is more of it in his most recent column.
For the record — again — Cardinal Mahony was never close with Michael Baker. Baker never visited the cardinal in Yosemite. Ron Russell wrote that for a weekly throw-away, in an article that had more holes and mistakes in it than a George Neumeyer column.
Also, it has been established that the now-convicted child molester, Baker, lied to his victims, their families, his superiors and the public. He said he told the cardinal specifically about calling the police. (He also vehemently denied molesting children since receiving therapy, until cutting a deal with prosecutors a few weeks ago.) Another self-serving manipulation in a long series of manipulations. It speaks volumes about Neumeyer’s own biases that he eagerly believes Baker or any child molester, for that matter.
— Tod M. Tamberg
Director of Media Relations,
Archdiocese of Los Angeles
George Neumayr replies:
Thanks for the lecture on sloppiness, Mr. Tamberg, while butchering my name. It is Neumayr, not Neumeyer. Feeble name-calling is not “debunking.” The fact is Cardinal Mahony reassigned Baker to parishes near children for 14 years after he knew of his pedophilia. If anyone “eagerly believes” molesters, it is the cardinal you spin for.
Re: Timothy P. Carney’s Why Hillary Will Lose Iowa:
I read with interest Tim Carney’s observations about Hillary. However, as a life-long and proud Midwesterner (and yes, I am nice), I take exception the characterization that I “consider ‘casserole’ a delicacy.”
Sure I like casserole. I mean, what kind of person wouldn’t? But delicacy…come on.
What does this Midwesterner consider a delicacy? Meatloaf. Now that’s what I call special!
— L. Bryan Williams
Re: Lisa Fabrizio’s Hillary and Obama:
Since 1960, those Democratic Party presidential nominees who were not incumbents or the vice presidents from the previous administration had one thing in common: They had never sought the presidency before.
Kennedy, McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Clinton and Kerry had never run for president before the election cycles in which they got the nomination. In every case, the Democrats sought out a new face to present old ideas.
I believe that Obama will win the Democratic nomination. He fits that model, while Hillary does not (her having been “co-president” with her husband makes her seem like yesterday’s candidate). Thus, having Hillary Clinton talk about healthcare isn’t novel (and evokes one of the greatest failures of the Clinton administration), while having Barack Obama present it makes it seem novel, and a party which seeks the appearance of innovation without actually offering any must present novelty in lieu of substance.
— Mike Harris
The Iowa caucus is much ado about nothing. If the people of Iowa were serious they’d have a real primary and not tea parties and house meetings to make such an important decision as to who will represent their respective parties. Since 1972 when the caucuses began winning Iowa (Muskie, none of the above, George H. W. Bush and Tom Harkin) seems to be a harbinger of defeat for the candidate “lucky” enough to garner a “win” so I hope RINO Mike Huckabee does extremely well and this Bill Clinton wannabe’s hopes are dashed in plucky little New Hampshire and points South.
As for the Democrats I don’t give tinkers damn who they nominate. They’re all hateful, Islamic imperialist fellow travelers and not overly bright, honest or as competent as they boast. Hillary Clinton is the best of a bad lot with emphasis on bad. As long as we nominate one of our top 4 candidates (Giuliani, McCain, Romney or Thompson) we are likely to win the 2008 Presidential election (this from someone who after the self-imposed conservative melt down in 2006 saw Hillary in the White House).
Of course, conservatives who jumped on the liberal bandwagon of Bush and Republican bashing in 2005 and 2006 can upset the apple cart again and hand the election to Democrats by electing a super RINO like Mike Huckabee, but hopefully better judgment will prevail in our ranks in 2008. If not we will only have ourselves to blame for four years of catastrophic Democrat rule. Hopefully, “conservatives” who flippantly think we can “throw away an election or two” have finally heeded the call of Barry Goldwater and “grown up.”
— Michael Tomlinson
Jacksonville, North Carolina
I doubt the Iowa Democrats will switch to the slimy, Southern lawyer once they get a load of Hillary’s latest dirty trick: I speak here of Edwards’ love child as reported tonight (12-18) in the National Enquirer. Even Democrats have to get a sick feeling when they recall this preening, prancing lawyer has a wife dying of cancer.
Before you say it’s not true, remember the National Enquirer is owned by one of the Clinton’s BIG supporters and this paper in the habit of breaking these scandalous stories that turn out to be true. This has Hillary Clinton’s fingerprints all over it. Good one, Hillary!
But Lisa Fabrizio might be right in that Hillary could lose this state in a really big way. Stuff like this makes Midwesterners’ skin crawl.
— Judy Beumler
Re: Tom Bethell’s The Socialist Bacillus and the Investor Class:
I am 69 and living on SS and stock market investments and would LOVE for my capitol gains and interest not being taxed, but I won’t hold my breath. Most of the rich don’t pay taxes anyway as they can afford to send their money into tax shelters and off shore accounts.
Clinton is always talking about how much money she has and needs her taxes to go up, why doesn’t she just write a check to the government or stop taking her paycheck or both.
Liberals think they can spend my money better than I can, but I don’t happen to care for that plan.
— Elaine Kyle
Mr. Bethell’s essay misses one very important motivation in gauging Democrat action plans. The Democrats need an ever increasing peasant class.
Democrats do not want to make savings a means to build wealth. If that were to occur, in a couple of generations Americans would be able to provide for themselves. Who would be the “victims” that comprise their constituents?
Without their “victims” the Democrat party ceases to exist. That’s why they favor open borders with countries with both poor and uneducated populations. That’s why they favor ever higher taxes. That’s why they tax savings.
These increased tax revenues are used to solve the nation’s problems. There were 9,000,000 people allegedly living in poverty when LBJ launched his great society. Democrats talk about 40,000,000 today. We sure fixed that!
I could wander through education, infrastructure, the military and medicine, but you know the answers. We just have to gave more and ever broader and increasing taxes.
— Jay Molyneaux
Denver, North Carolina
For an article so focused on taxes and the damage that even taxing the rich will cause pains amongst the middle class, you didn’t even once talk about the Fair Tax. Maybe it’s because you haven’t looked into it too deeply. Or like many pundits, maybe you are still listening to the wrong people.
The Fair Tax is one of the best pieces of legislation currently available to be passed. It eliminates all major Federal taxes and replaces them with a simple sales tax. It would turn the United States into the biggest tax haven in the world. We would see our economy skyrocket due to the loss of capital gain and interest taxes. People would have more money to spend and to invest thanks to the loss of our burdensome income taxes. Social Security would be funded indefinitely. And, of course, the people would have more power at the cost of the government’s power.
Accounts would have temporary trouble. Tax lawyers would be more or less permanently out of work. But other than that, everyone from the lowest income earners to the highest paid CEOs would benefit. And there would no longer be all this crap of trying to change our behavior through taxes. And wouldn’t that be nice?
— Charles Campbell
Re: James Bowman’s Nanking:
I hesitate to recommend the book to you, partly because I’m not suggesting a comparison with the motion picture [which I haven’t seen yet], but mostly because the book will arouse some very strong emotions in you, not the least disturbing of which are revulsion, heartbreak, and raw anger.
The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II, by Iris Chang, is a superb book.
If this book doesn’t bring tears to your eyes, you’re hard, indeed.
You will also experience the awe, reflected pride, and admiration for the heroes who stood up to the most brutal army of modern times — heroes armed only with love for humanity.
Tears for them, too.
Oh, and when you finish this book, read one about the rape of Manila. If you dare.
— A. C. Santore
Speaking as one who has spent a lifetime in American high schools (more than 40 years), I need to respond to some of the criticism of the American educational experience.
Certainly the unions come in for their share of blame in the deterioration (it’s real, not imaginary), however, the lion’s share of the fault lies with America itself. Look around you and count the traditional ideas lying in the gutter, thrown there by the worshippers at the church of “diversity, tolerance, and free expression.” Watch as parents lose control of their children because they have elected secularists who oppose any traditional idea that would interfere with their personal pleasures and preferences. Enjoy the spectacle of the liberal elite seeking to tell the rest of the country how and how not to live. Ours is a world that has surrendered to the easy, the comfortable, the pleasurable. It is virtually impossible to go back from here without the occurrence of a cataclysm, a life changing perfect storm that the Muslim faith might just be initiating.
The question that even the teachers unions need to answer is: How long can our society last sliding downhill as it is doing now? If it cannot be fixed, and I believe that it cannot, we may not have much longer to carp about it.
I have often wondered these past four or five years about how we got to the place at which we now are. I think that it must be the 1960s, and the refusal of the parents of the present generation of leaders who relaxed the rules and regulations which made them such a formidable generation, and allowed us to “feel good” about ourselves. They were the college administrators who surrendered to the campus radicals. Those seizers of Ad buildings and destroyers of bulletin boards should have been disciplined according to the way that they acted. Instead, they were given “amnesty, became legend.
So. Where do we go from here. Well, if we cannot stay in the same spot on this slippery slope, and we cannot go back, even the poorest of math students, you know, the ones who cannot do math, but feel oh so good about themselves, can figure out where we are headed.
— Joseph Baum
Re: Kate Shaw’s letter (under “Spoiled Rotten”) in Reader Mail’s Behaving Like This:
There are enough things wrong with present day America to make me genuinely fear for its future, but Kate Shaw sure nailed one of them in her letter on Wednesday. The pervasive and unprincipled emotion-driven squishiness that we now apply in the rearing and training of our young is going to have huge implications in our nation’s survival. Numerous studies have shown that we’re producing ignorant yet self satisfied, emotionally coddled kids who compare poorly to the rest of the world. They think the world owes them a living. It’s a harsh world out there!
I’m beginning to wonder about our presidents and the present crop of candidates, too many of whom seem to suffer from the affliction of lip quiver. I may be insensitive, but where the hell is John Wayne?
— John T. O’Connor
Re: Shawn Macomber’s Dr. No On Ice:
I’m keeping my eye out for Shawn Macomber. It is truly enjoyable to read an author who can convincingly describe in prosaic terms what the revolution around Ron Paul is all about. It runs deeper than many in the mainstream give it credit for, and if ten percent of them knew the passion and dedication involved in the grass-roots effort for Ron Paul’s campaign, more of America would be truly inspired. Bravo to The American Spectator.
— Dominic Inferrera
Queens, New York