So Happy Together - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
So Happy Together

Re: Lisa Fabrizio’s Perfect Together:

Good column. I have always thought that John Edwards entered politics in order to become President because someone, like an adoring grandmother, told him when he was probably in about eighth grade that his smile and hair reminded them of JFK. As all eighth grade boys do, he looked in the mirror and discovered that it was true! His hair is his most important asset: it is what makes him presidential material and he is a legend in his own mind.

Likewise some junior high social studies teacher told Hillary she was the smartest girl they had ever had in class and being the progressive that she is she simply took it from there and became (in her own mind) the smartest girl there ever was anywhere! (That had the added benefit of relieving her from having to look in the mirror at all, ever!) That they became lawyers, of course, helped them each hone the skill of telling the most convincing story in that cynical way we now practice law: “I can argue either side–it just depends on who is paying me; truth has nothing to do with it.” They are both stuck at about the eighth grade level intellectually and emotionally and can change their positions faster than my son could change his gym socks for swim flippers!
Rose Storey
Portland, Oregon

It is truly a good thing to be a Democrat. No matter what one does it is fully justified by the fact Democrats work for the common good, so the end justify the means. Ms. Fabrizio eloquently points this out.

I live in North Carolina and recently there was an editorial in the Charlotte paper which finds John Edwards to be entirely without flaw, but occasionally offers advice to his wife. It seems Ms. Edwards was offended by a North Carolina resident across the road from the manse. He had the temerity to fly an American flag and a sign that said Republicans in 2008 or something to that effect. Ms. Edwards found that offensive and told the gentleman to cease and desist. He would not and she became a bit cranky. Perhaps she raised her voice and used those words which begin with the most primitive letters of the English alphabet.

The gentleman sent her packing and thereafter remained on his front porch with a shotgun to chase off the many trucks which he had, graciously, allowed to sit in his front yard while waiting their turn to deliver their loads to the “Palacio d’Edwards.

Ms. Edwards then loudly complained to the local law enforcement and media. She was told that in the State of North Carolina it was perfectly proper to secure one’s property and that she would be well advised to leave the gentleman alone.

The Charlotte newspaper sought to educate Ms. Edwards on her neighbors by editorializing to the effect that: this gentleman was representative of much of the citizenry of North Carolina and if she wished her husband to get their votes she might behave in a different manner.
Jay Molyneaux
Quit, Cut & Run

Re: Patrick O’Hannigan’s The Problem With Journalism Is Personal:

Anyone who wishes to see why the public has lost its trust in the newsies, please check out the 1951 Kirk Douglas classic, Ace in the Hole, written and directed by Billy Wilder. No other commentary is needed by me.
Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York

Excellent article!!!! It is what I have said for a long time. It is very true. And I think, after reading Barry’s book, he was too nice in his assessment.
Joseph D’Ambrosia

Re: Jamie Glazov’s The Horowitz Corner:

A few reactions to the interview with David Horowitz:

1. With the following I totally agree: “Personally, I have lost all confidence that America’s political leaders on either side of the aisle will rise to the challenge posed by the Islamic jihad or by our porous borders until there is another, more terrible, 9/11 type attack.” To this I would add that I have no confidence that political leaders on either side of the aisle will reassert fiscal responsibility in our government’s functioning. Whether we tax to support profligate spending or put the deficits and debt and the national credit card for our major competitor (China) to own is secondary to getting spending under control.

2. In spite of Mr. Horowitz’s well rehearsed assertions, whether staying in Iraq is critical to our overall success against Islamic jihadists can be debated.

3. The attacks on Democrats, liberals and progressives, LIKE THEIR ATTACKS ON CONSERVATIVES, are fine examples of what Professor Harry G. Frankfurt defines as “bull—.” I highly recommend his book, On Bull—. Professor Frankfurt states that “bull—ing” is not the same as lying. Bull—ers make claims without any concern for truth or falsity; indeed they may have lost the ability to distinguish between the two. Liars know what is true and what is false and deliberately assert what is false to achieve a particular goal.
Mike Roush
North Carolina

Re: Christopher Orlet’s No Sanctuary:

“Misreading of the 14th Amendment,” how would you prefer it be read, by adding a few ifs, maybes or buts? Which part of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” is ambiguous?
Bill Mylchreest
Austin, Texas

Letting babies born to someone in this country illegally be born citizens is just dumb. If the mom is illegal then what she is carrying in her womb should also be ILLEGAL. Stopping this travesty of the law would go a long way to stopping illegals from just crossing into America to have their baby.

Elvira Arellano is helping the citizens of America prove their points against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

Churches that give sanctuary should have their IRS status changed, as they have now turned into a hotel. Cities that give sanctuary should have all federal money cut off. It is AGAINST the law to be in this country illegally.
Elaine Kyle

Re: Jeffrey Lord’s Hillary Rodham Queeg:

As someone that has watched The Caine Mutiny at least 10 times, I’d say Jeffrey Lord’s article, “Hillary Rodham Queeg” is dead on! I hope the Republican Party and the Republican presidential candidate will be able to get your message across to the American people if Hillary becomes the Democratic presidential nominee.

Keep up the good work. I look forward to reading more of your articles.
David Espy

Re: Larry Thornberry’s Still Some Granite in New Hampshire:

That’s right, Larry. New Hampshire does have some real conservative fight left in her, witness Ron Paul winning the Strafford County Straw Poll Sunday. Huckabee, Tancredo, and Giuliani combined for 31 votes, compared to Paul’s first place 208. (Romney came in second with 26.) Wait? Your article didn’t mention Paul. Hmmm, Am Spec Editors, if you paid for Larry’s column, I’d check for some dated receipts to prove he was actually up this way.
Charles Bowen

Re: Russell Seitz’s letter (under “Lancet, Lies, and Statistics” in Reader Mail’s Preparing for Hillary and Michael Fumento’s Lancet’s Boil:

Michael Fumento perfectly captured the essence of science jihadist Russell Seitz on almost any matter he writes on: something could have happened! Substitute a “possibly” or “potentially” for a “could have” and you have his whole shtick without the style and the particular topic.

By the way, I fired thousands of rounds while in the army and never hit anything but a target. Do soldiers in combat stop all marksmanship training or do they train all the more? What is a typical number of rounds per kill for a soldier in a combat situation? When we are helping train an Iraqi army and police force, wouldn’t there be tons of rounds expended for that training? How many Iraqis are we training, or are using our ammunition? Would this less-experienced force be less efficient with their ammunition? Given some of the experience with Iraqis, could some of our ammunition end up in our enemies’ hands?

Unlike Mr. Seitz, I am willing to accept where reason takes us with respect to Iraqi deaths. His willingness to depend on simple minded figuring to defend his preconceived notions is alarming. If we follow him too far, he will convince us that nobody lives in Iraq anymore. After all, his argument only covered small arms fire. We still have air strikes, artillery, land mines, tank fire, rockets, etc. to consider. On top of this Iraqis seem to like killing each other as well. He spends a lot of time defending all kinds of bad science. It makes one wonder when he has time to read over 4,000 pages on global warming. I am willing to concede he knows a lot about hot air generation.
Clif Briner

Mr. Seitz, you are obviously a smart guy with “book” knowledge, but otherwise ignorant of how things work in the world outside academia. I burned up 1,000 rounds last year between practice and actual competition I attended. Friends of mine easily hit 3,000 rounds a year of either .223 or .308 doing the same and none of us are in the military or shooting at anyone. The Delta Force guys I know who do shoot at live people expend over 100,000 rounds each year just in practice before we entered Iraq. I don’t have the check book for that. The bulk of that 1.8 billion rounds, if accurate figure for Iraq, goes into the ground in practice. I burned up over 1,250 in one week just in a class for this kind of stuff. Now divide that 1.8 billion rounds by 160,000 troops in a combat zone and fathom for just a moment that the bulk of the expenditure over a 12 month deployment in a war zone goes just for practice drills. If U.S. forces were actually firing that many rounds per solider, over 11,000 each a year, at live targets our forces would either be the worst shots in the history of warfare or the Iraqi population wiped out 72 times over. Which is it, our forces can’t shoot and hit anything or there is more to 1.8 billion rounds expended than meets the academic eye? How many rounds have the Iraqi forces fired Mr. Seitz that resulted in Civilian death?
Thom Bateman
Newport News, Virginia

Re: Tom Bethell’s Darwinism at AEI:

I really enjoyed Tom Bethell’s “Darwinism at AEI” and he made some very good points. But I have a minor disagreement with his characterizations of ID and creationism. Having been a creationist for over 30 years, I think Mr. Bethell is slightly off. Creationism teaches that evolution is not scientific and uses science to prove it. For example, the Institute for Creation Research in California, which is about 40 years old, is a post-grad school staffed with PhD’s in a variety of sciences who expose the scientific fallacies of evolution. As an example of their work, they have done extensive research on radiometric dating techniques and show that those techniques often date newly formed rocks as being millions of years old.

ID, on the other hand, doesn’t try to expose the scientific errors of evolution as creationism does, but strives to develop scientific methods for determining when something bears evidence of design in its structure and when its origin is purely random.

Obviously, there is some overlap between the two. Some ID people are creationists, too. And there is tension. Some ID members also believe in evolution, but divinely directed. No creationist believes in divinely guided evolution.
Roger D. McKinney
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma

I don’t know which new age religion is worse, Darwinism or Global Warmingism. It is always interesting to see those that live in the clouds try to prove these two religions are superior to others. I don’t have time in my life to expend it on “theory” so I kind of figured out a very long time ago that there not only wasn’t what used to be called the “missing link” between man and ape but that just the simple law of probabilities would have produced large numbers of variations within all life forms across the spectrum, not just what we see within species. If the basis on which Darwinism is based has a shred of truth to it, where are all the human variations that would be present from such a random consequence generator? Even within species in the insect and reptile world, the variations are mostly within species not across to a different life form. That there are cellular mutations has never been disputed but I’m still waiting to see what goes on at the molecular level replicated in complex organisms. There should be evidence for this everywhere if it was that simple.

Since primates are no more evolved today than they were 500 million years ago and still with us it stands to reason that the human species just didn’t mutate one fine day and everything else stayed the same for everything else. Pretty much the same species that existed 500 million years ago that didn’t die out are still with us as they were then. Alligators and crocodiles are just two examples. Only humans stand apart in this. If humans are the product of an evolutionary process, on a scale of 1 to 10, humans are a 10 and a billion other species are between 0 and 1 including all the primates and smart dolphins you can find. While some might make the case there are variations within the human race, those differences are more akin to different colored birds of the same species.

Adaptation to the environment is not unknown to humans as well as animals but frogs haven’t developed into cats; nor cats into birds; nor birds into humans due to the environment. There is a huge “leap of faith” required to extend an ape to any human.

Some may think liberals and some other ethnic groups are living proof that evolution takes place across species but I think the genetic evidence is that even the dumbest liberal is still human and not an ape. Different intelligence levels within the same genetic coding don’t make you a different species, just more challenged to live up to your XY pair coding. Like I said, until those that worship Darwinism can produce or account for all the variations what would be produced by your random generator theory you really don’t have two legs to stand on. Maybe three, four, or none — but not two.
Thom Bateman
Newport News, Virginia

Re: Quin Hillyer’s Hope Floats on the Bayou:

Please let it happen. Bobby Jindal is elected governor of Louisiana. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Cara Lyons Lege’

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!