Baldwin's Brain - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
Baldwin’s Brain

Re: Robert Stacy McCain’s Alec Baldwin’s Disorderly Mind:

A few observations about Robert Stacy McCain’s article concerning Alec Baldwin:

1. Prurient interest in the sex lives of other people is alive and well in both parties.

2. Since I doubt there are many people who care what Alec Baldwin thinks about anything, I suspect Robert Stacy McCain’s purpose in writing this article is to try to preserve this wedge issue for the GOP or to divert the attention of the faithful from the obvious hypocrisy evident among some members of the GOP and the Party itself.

3. Maybe the Party didn’t cut Craig’s throat, but Mitt Romney’s denunciation of Craig was so quick and so graceless it even left Republican Strategist Mike Murphy shaking his head in disbelief (Meet the Press — 9/2).

4. When will Americans mature beyond Middle School when it comes to human sexuality?
Mike Roush
North Carolina

Well we all know that Alec Baldwin does not tell the truth, after all he was going to leave the country if George Bush became President. Alex let me say: Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. You would not be missed.
Elaine Kyle

Excellent!!! Once again it shows how out of touch Alec Baldwin and the rest of Hollywood is with real America. Not there dream world America. It also goes to show just like when blacks, of notoriety, get arrested for a crime they committed that the “B” word Black is used as a defense. The same seems to be the case with “H” and Homosexuality now.

Joseph D’Ambrosia

Is there a better dividing line between liberals and conservatives than this one? Liberals think that it is acceptable behavior to trawl for sex with strangers in public toilets. Conservatives don’t. As a conservative, I have never lost a second’s sleep over this. I blame my parents; they bought me up this way.
Christopher Holland
Canberra, Australia

Alec Baldwin is an uneducated man who is only coherent when speaking the words of others. At that, I must say, he is a master.

But he is also deeply self-centered and, so far as I can see, completely disconnected from the human condition. I well remember his browbeating of his daughter on the telephone, a rant that went on and on, completely out of control. That was the real man — not words written by someone else. And whatever inconvenience or impertinence triggered that rage, the rage was there, completely inappropriate as a way to deal with a child. If I had been her mother, I would have called the police.

The leftist line is the default condition of the intellectually lazy and the socially uninvolved. The left takes the view that there is no public morality; that a person cannot advocate a course of conduct that they do not personally uphold in all circumstances. But we are all sinners. If public morality cannot rise above the lowliest of our own conduct, then there will be no public morality.

But that is far too heavy a thought for Mr. Baldwin, who simply exhibits leftist Tourette’s Syndrome, expostulating the first thing that comes into his head and thinking it is wisdom.

We haven’t forgotten that phone call, Alec.
Greg Richards

I believe that Craig my be correct in stating that he is not gay, in that he has no desire to develop a homosexual relationship with a man. However, he could have what is considered a sexual compulsion that he himself thinks is disgusting, and but feel compelled to engage in.

Compulsions can be treated and medicated, much like a hand-washing compulsion.
Susan Reeve
Cherry Hill, New Jersey

This bathroom stall signals technique is similar to another complaint I have when folks take their individual liberties too far.

Let’s examine the cigarette smoker’s habits. They congregate in groups and do their thing. They go out of their way to get to a destination, or skirt rules in many public places to “light up.” They expose themselves to risky behavior that can result in serious health consequences. Those choices do not bother me all that much.

It’s only when in a public domain, being among the general populace when their lifestyle pervades their own liberties and starts to creep in on myself or my kids, or any other person who does not do what they do. They then demonstrate their lack of respect for others’ rights to go about their business. Folks can be gay, folks can smoke. By all means hang out with your peers, but do not invade my personal space. Do not assume that the world of free (and fairly tolerant) people outside the confines of your car or smoking area is your ashtray. Nor is a public bathroom stall your bedroom.
P. Aaron Jones
Huntington Woods, Michigan

Re: Hal G.P. Colebatch’s The Ghoul’s Carnival — Ten Years On:

Wow! I wish I had written that.

And nary a word about posing and poseurs.

And not a syllable about marital infidelity and the double standard thereon.

Not even a stray dot about DNA and paternity testing.

A. C. Santore

Hal Colebatch writes that Princess Diana committed treason “in the full, technical, legal sense of the term.” Since this came as news to me, I googled the source of it, and sure enough, in the seamier recesses of the internet, adultery by the Princess of Wales is considered treasonous. The only legal citation I could find was to the Treason Act of 1351, which in any event seems to ascribe treason only to the male participant.

The fact that Diana’s behavior did not live up to Mr. Colebatch’s 14th century standards is information of which I had no need.

My conclusion is that Mr. Colebatch is a pedant, and I mean that in the full, technical, legal sense of the term.
Glen Hoffing
Shamong, New Jersey

The simpering, childlike hand wringing over the tenth anniversary of the death of Princess Diana reminded me of the editorial that was printed in the satirical English newspaper Private Eye shortly after she died, when the public grief industry was in full, nauseous bloom. The editorial ran something like this:

‘During the life of the late Princess of Wales, readers of this and other newspapers were regularly informed that the Princess was a scheming, meddlesome neurotic who repeatedly embarrassed the Queen by interfering in matters of state that were no concern of hers and by openly associating with the son of a disreputable Egyptian businessman. Alas, now, we realize that the late Queen of Hearts was in fact the most saintly woman that ever lived. We extend our most groveling condolences to our readers on this saddest of days and sincerely hope that they will overlook our hypocrisy and continue to buy our newspaper’.

For an article written with so much tongue in cheek, it came as close to reporting the truth of the matter as you would want.
Christopher Holland
Canberra, Australia

I am genuinely curious; How in the full technical, legal sense of the word did Diana commit treason? I have heard many criticisms of the woebegone princess, but this is the first time I have heard this one. Please explain!!
Joe Reimers
Orange, Texas

Quite the article. I too was amused at my disgust of this entire spectacle, especially the media’s wall to wall coverage of the funeral. I recall, during the few minutes I actually watched this insanity unfold, a sudden fit of nausea, induced by the media’s use of funeral protocol experts. Then mercifully, the screen went blank. The parallels between the mass insanity of the besotted icon loving British and their media, to that of the symbiotic relationship that currently exists between our media and some of our more politically and culturally crazed fellow citizens, as this 24/7 political news cycle rolls on, is too horrible to contemplate. At least Diana had the good sense not to seek political office.
A. DiPentima

Re: The Prowler’s Ahead of the Posse:

It is time to amend the Constitution to have the position of Attorney General of the United States be an elective office. This has been proposed before, so it’s really “time yet again” yet again to get it done.

It is a sad commentary on our political system that our appointed Attorneys Generals create more legal problems for our government than our elected Senators, and the latter outnumber the former 100 to 1 and the Senators are trying harder.

I’d put two conditions on it. That all state elections for the office be non-partisan, in that each party’s nomination should be on all parties’ ballots. That the Attorney General’s tenure be term-limited — perhaps to something like two five-year terms, so as to keep their election separated from, and uninfluenced by, the political frenzy of other federal elections.

Just think. A second opportunity for Iowa and New Hampshire to influence the future of our country.

Nah. Never happen.

But I can dream, can’t I?
A. C. Santore

Re: Christopher Orlet’s Overplaying the Race Card:

Keeping one’s mouth shut may be prudent, but it may also be foolish, given what radical Islamists have in mind for the rest of us. Call it a phobia if you like, but here’s my subjective, non racist view of Islam: It is a twisted and intolerant philosophy of domination and violence, cleverly disguised as a religion, which, for his own purposes of politics and conquest, was made up in the 7th century by a truly nasty bugger who would probably make Charles Manson look sane by comparison. The sooner we kaffirs deny Islam the religious deference it demands, the more promising our future.
Robert Bulk
Wilmington, Delaware

Many organizations, ala CAIR, equate derogatory remarks about Islam with racism, particularly against those of Arab descent. I thought Indonesia was the largest predominately Islamic country. Funny, I never considered people from there as being Arabs.
Carol Hellman
Portland, Oregon

Re: Doug Bandow’s Amnesty International Adieu and Ron Schoenberg’s letter (under “Aborted Amnesty”) in Reader Mail’s The Unforgiven:

Great article Doug! Thanks for the quality of your communication.
Ralph D. Wyatt
Fort Physiotherapy Clinic

Thank you so much, Mr. Bandow. You have hit every nail on the head as regards this ridiculous policy change of Amnesty International. In particular, the blanket endorsement of abortion and how it supports the most savage of all reasons for abortion: sex-selection. Two small points, and perhaps I have misread the article.

You state:

No one believes that women should be forced to terminate the child or children they are carrying, as once was the case in China. No one believes that women should be threatened if they don’t accept sterilization, as once was the case for men in India.

By saying “as once was the case,” you are implying these two things no longer occur. In the first example at least, it is well known that China still employs forced abortion as a major part of their One Child Policy. As for India and forced sterilization of men, I am not as familiar with this matter.

Amnesty International has grown to the point where is has ceased to be at all effective in working towards the goals of its founders. They are a bloated, stuffed-shirt populist organization. Better to let them grovel in their own self worth than to try to change them from within. Thank you for the most well written critique of their latest public relations fiasco.
John Hof
President, Campaign Life Coalition

In reading Ron Schoenberg’s response to Doug Bandow’s insightful piece outlining Amnesty International’s shameful weaseling about the abortion issue, I was struck once again by the precarious moral gymnastics pro-abortion advocates are forced to engage in. Mr. Schoenberg avoids the titanic issue of whether a baby’s life or a woman’s convenience is paramount by myopically going after the health and life of the mother issue. The necessity of making the awful choice of whether to save the life of the mother or the unborn child in cases of serious complication has been rendered almost moot, at least in the developed world, by the advances of modern medical science. Unfortunately, this pretense is the only shred of moral high ground pro-abortion folk can find. Therefore obfuscation and carefully chosen buzzwords carry the day.

Not incidentally, he is eloquently thankful for his children and grandchildren, but a hypothetical child who is unfortunate enough to find itself in the womb of a pro-abortion zealot; he cavalierly calls a blastocyst, something inconsequential and eminently expendable. The ethical contortions that can bring a person to that expression defy belief. The hypocrisy inherent in calling a child destined for the abortion clinic sink a “fetus,” while referring to one destined to be loved and cherished as a “baby,” is amazing.

Mr. Schoenberg writes that a woman’s “right not to be forced to undergo a pregnancy is a real right, a right not to have one’s body radically altered for nine months, a right not to risk serious injury or death.” I agree completely, but that right must be exercised in choices made long before a child is conceived.

It’s a baby, Mr. Schoenberg. Look at an ultrasound. No amount of high-sounding rhetoric can change that incontrovertible fact. How can we even think about rights when the most innocent among us are considered as just so much trash to be tossed or flushed away with the rest of the detritus of a self-centered existence? Amnesty International, of all people, should recognize that fact
David Atchison
Mobile, Alabama

Re: Jay D. Homnick’s Gays in the Militancy:

Mr. Homnick always treads where media angels fear to. And I love it. His choice of the descriptive “sordid” will no doubt be taken by some as describing homosexuality rather than the desperate Larry Craig’s response to being caught with his pants down.

Frankly, if Craig’s private pursuit is OK with Suzanne (Craig) its okay with me. If it is okay with the Idaho voters that is more than okay with me. What is NOT okay with me is that these creeps can lay waste to an already foundering GOP, with its “family values” theme hung around its neck like an albatross — and walk away with a pension.

If we can’t find, out of a population of some 300 million, enough well-behaved men to fill the seats of Congress, we are in big trouble. Much as it grieves me to say it, maybe more women is the answer. No scandals about the distaff side.

If we can’t keep the (thus far) undiscovered Foleys, Craigs and Vitters on the “straight and narrow.” my solution is forfeiture of pension — a reasonable Sword of Damocles. Perhaps that will be dampen the sexual appetite for the banquet laid before them.

No, this would punish the wife. Hasn’t she suffered enough being dragged before the camera? Public spousal humiliation started with Gary Hart and it seems it will never end.

My “solution” does not apply to Democrats, where anything goes and moral turpitude is almost a requirement.
Diane Smith
South San Francisco, California

Sign up to receive our latest updates! Register

By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: The American Spectator, 122 S Royal Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314, You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!