Why They Do It - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
Why They Do It

Re: William Tucker’s From O.J. to Anita O’Day:

William Tucker is one of the few thoughtful commentators I have read on the subject of OJ Simpson and WHY I DID IT. Thank you for publishing him. His piece is flawless but for one detail. I did not pay OJ $3.5 million. This was a number given to the media in an attempt to discredit my work. I did not pay OJ. I paid a six figure amount to a company I was told was owned by his children who are the true victims of the crime.

Thank you for your accurate reporting.
Judith Regan

So happy to read Mr. Tucker’s heartfelt tribute to Anita. Caught her some years ago in Scottsdale, and, yes, it was good!

And, true, she certainly did rank among the best; nobody will probably ever touch Sass (AKA Sarah Vaughn) or Lady Day (who really wasn’t much of a lady — talk about a tough history!), but she was up there with Nancy Wilson, Blossom Dearie and a very few others. Carman MacRae was another winner and a very dynamite person; she once tried getting this “oh-fey” to enjoy soul food in Minton’s. Didn’t seem to work, never could cotton to those greens.

Glad he remembered her!
Geoff Brandt

Regarding your column about the O.J. Simpson book, why do you refer to this double murderer by his nickname? Why don’t you refer to him as “Simpson.” The jocular, whimsical use of “O.J.” when referring to this animal is disgusting.
Charles Heifet

Re: Jorge Amador’s Lopez Obrador’s Election Fraud:

Mr. Amador’s article regarding Lopez Obrador provided a comprehensive summary of the situation in Mexico, but there is one point that he should have stressed more. Simply put, Lopez Obrador and his ilk in the PRD (the Party of the Democratic Revolution, Lopez Obrador’s party) are not committed to democracy or the rule of law. Instead, they are traditional radical leftists committed to an authoritarian all powerful state with complete control of the economy. Very much in the tradition of the far left, when they speak of a “democratic revolution” they are invoking the worn out idea that they, as the vanguard, know what is best and must speak for the poor, and must have complete control of the state to implement their reforms. In order to fulfill their “mission” (which, of course, will involve many riches and power for them) these radical leftists believe that they must take power through any means necessary. Elections are a good thing if they win, but are illegitimate if they do not.

Indeed, Lopez Obrador, Manuel Camacho (Lopez Obrador’s campaign manager) and the PRD leadership used to be members of the PRI (Mexico’s former ruling party), an authoritarian left wing party if there ever was one. They left the PRI because the PRI veered to the right under Presidents Salinas and Zedillo in the 90s, began to deregulate the economy and sell off state industries and eventually, agreed to electoral reforms. The members of the PRD would have preferred that Mexico stay the course with its authoritarian left-wing system where elections were shams. It is little wonder that such men have no respect for Mexico’s truly democratic institutions.

I would urge Mr. Calderon to deal harshly with Mr. Lopez Obrador. The fact of the matter is that Lopez Obrador wants power at any cost and any compromise will simply encourage the left to continue ignore Mexico’s institutions to obtain their goals of “speaking for the poor.” Can’t Mr. Lopez Obrador be arrested for treason? You cannot declare yourself the “legitimate” president without violating some law!
Los Angeles, California

It’s a good thing this Mexican election occurred when it did and not six years earlier in 2000. Had that happened, I have no doubt but that Al Gore would have adopted AMLO’s tactics, and we should have had to put up with our own “parallel government” here in the U.S. Only left-wing candidates can get away with this kind of silly non-sense, because they represent the “people.”
Stuart W. Settle
Richmond, Virginia

Wow! Imagine that; a national election in Mexico decided by a razor thin margin. In addition, the loser stages a prolonged humiliating national spectacle that does indeed make Al Gore appear statesmen-like and dignified. Who would have thunk it? Fortunately for Mexico, their MSM appear not to have caught up with their elitist, hand-wringing, American counterparts. How refreshing that the Mexican’s appear not to care a whit about what the Europeans are saying about their election. Maybe the Mexican media are on to something here.
A. DiPentima

If Mexico is as corrupt as Mr. Obrador insists, it raises the question: Why would anyone want to be president of Mexico?
David Govett
Davis, California

Re: Mark G. Michaelsen’s It Could Have Been Worse:

Mark, in Minnesota the Attorney General was a Democrat, Mike Hatch, who ran for Governor and lost to Tim Pawlenty. The Attorney General seat hasn’t been held by a Republican for several decades. You might want to add that the Democrats are now just a few votes shy in the house and senate of a veto-proof vote.

Finally, only one incumbent Republican lost his seat (Gutknecht). Congressman Kennedy lost his race to take over a Democrat held Senate seat, but was replaced by Republican, Michelle Bachmann in the 6th Congressional District.
Devin Foley

Mark Michaelsen rejoices that “Pennsylvania Republicans held both chambers of the state legislature.”

You mean the Republicans were already in control? Really?!

After the state income tax increase, midnight pay raise, expansion of state-subsidized children’s health insurance, raiding highway funds to prop up mass transit, and a one-size-fits-all statewide building code, I thought the Democrats had been running the show all along.
David Slauenwhite

In reference to the article “It Could Have Been Worse” by Mark Michaelsen on 11/28/2006. I wanted to note that only one incumbent Republican congressman lost in Minnesota, Rep. Gil Gutknecht. Two open seats (one held by each party) were both retained by their respective parties.
Ed Kvaale

Re: Paul Chesser’s No Spark for a Higher Power:

Thanks, for the bold article about your Faith. It is wonderful that we live in a country where we can freely worship and express our faith.
Adam Jones
Arlington, Texas

Mr. Chesser concludes his article on the conflict between men of science and men of faith with a Bible quote, part of which is “…His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made… “

Accepting this premise, I find it strange that he does not praise mathematics and the study of the material world for the glimpses of the divine nature they would provide. If I had knowledge of “the proof of a Force beyond their vision and for eternal life,” I do not see how I could leave that proof unexplored.
John Finigan

Scientists who think Science is opposed to belief in God are not correct. Science itself is an outgrowth of the search for God’s laws. Early pagan religions, with a God behind every tree, had no need to search for laws. With the growth of Judeo-Christianity it made sense to study nature.

Not long ago Science assured us the world was not created, but had always existed. Now, Science has accepted the idea of a created world. Everything, we now believe, even time itself, began with the “Big Bang”. The concept of a God outside of time is now quite sensible. Furthermore, Relativity teaches us that time is relative. Think of the famous twin paradox, in which one twin ages and the other stays young, by traveling near the speed of light. This makes sense of the seven days of creation.

I remember Atheists ridiculing “let there be light” before creating the source of light, the sun. Now we know everything is made of light (electro-magnetic radiation).

The more Science learns of the world’s fine tuning, the more amazing and purposeful the world is. This fine tuning sometimes referred to as “The Anthropic Principle” has all the basic forces balanced on a knife edge. Slight differences and we could not exist.

Pasteur proved life comes from life. Newton depended on God to maintain gravity. Einstein declared God does not play dice with the Universe.

Since the discovery that intricate codes govern the development of life, Darwin’s theory is doomed. Intelligent design will reign as soon as the current generation of “true believers” dies out.

Science is not opposed to God.
David Moshinsky

After reading their declaration, I am relieved to know that the Center for Inquiry-Transnational has imparted to us this revelation. Because of their prescient understanding of the human predicament we now know the source of all the world’s problems. According to them, anyone not driven by blind faith in reason and science as the only path to human knowledge has been unduly influenced by the wrong group of fundamentalists. These enlightened souls seek to rectify this by spreading the gospel of secularism and naturalism. They want their scripture imposed on the minds of the world’s schoolchildren without the restraints placed upon them by outdated theistic religions. This is nothing more than 19th century modernism dressed up in 21st century regalia. The notion that reason and science can explain everything and provide heaven on earth to its adherents has been around for over 150 years. The world still bears the scars inflicted by totalitarian leaders who tried to apply the tenets of this man is god religion.

I was particularly amused by their assertion that “[this retreat into mysticism [religion] is reinforced by the emergence in universities of ‘post-modernism’ which undermines the objectivity of science.” It hasn’t yet occurred to them that postmodernism arose from the utter bankruptcy of modernism. Those disillusioned with the failure of empirical science and pragmatism to provide satisfactory answers to life’s most difficult questions by and large gave up searching for truth and meaning and embraced moral relativism instead.

The Christian understanding of human nature is the only one that comports to reality. We are all fallen creatures by nature who consistently behave selfishly. We cannot perfect ourselves through our own efforts. Our intellects and an increased knowledge of how science works cannot save us. Attempts to achieve the utopian ideals of modern secularists will fail because they do not recognize or address this flawed nature. Instead they prefer to delude themselves by believing the lie that mankind can overcome any obstacle and solve all problems by himself. This attitude is best summarized in a passage from one of the antiquated books secularists want to save us from: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…” Romans 1:22
Rick Arand
Lee’s Summit, Missouri

I just read the column on the scientific community’s attack on religious faith. Based on the comments you cited, these eminent scientists are either extremely ignorant of their own craft or just plain anti-religious bigots.

In the former instance, they would have to be unaware that science is just a method of inquiry about the material world that, by its own standards, has absolutely nothing to say on questions beyond that physical world. Further, their insistent pointing to the power of science to do what it is designed to do—duh—as justification to preclude the existence and usefulness of something out of the reach of science, is about as incoherently non-sequitur-ish as if I were to continually tout the power of the flashlight in refusing to acknowledge the beauty—or even the possibility of the existence–of music. Even really smart people can’t be that dumb.

So the latter case of anti-religious bigotry seems to me the more plausible. Again they can’t seriously be that stupid about the essence of science to insist that it alone serve as the moral guidepost. But obviously, given the comments your column cites, they are so hostile to faith that they demand that it alone, among all other bases of moral reasoning, be excluded from any public policy debate about how and why we might use the tools that science discovers and provides. They cannot support that singular bias against religious faith by any scientific reasoning — their own “gold” standard — so one must conclude it is a prejudice born of bigotry.
Frank Murgel

Amen, Mr. Chesser. Amen.

Actually the skepticism, most unfortunately, has flowed both ways during the 20th century. Example: I grew up attending a “fundamentalist” Baptist church. My earnest fellow Christians generally assumed — though rarely stated directly — that “learning” and “scientism” were untrustworthy due to the consistent anti-Christ attitudes held and belligerently expressed by educated, intellectual elites who dominated American society. Therefore many Christians unfortunately become “anti-intellectual” as a knee-jerk reaction to supercilious secularists. We Christians too long ago ceded to the godless study of the natural world (and the arts, the law, politics, and so many other fields of study). Rather than express and defend the sovereignty of God over all His creation, too many of us retreated to little churchy boxes, abandoning the field of intellectual combat. We sinned in doing so. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside [including education] makes him unclean?”, declares our Lord. “What comes out of a man [sin] is what makes him unclean!” [Gospel of Mark 7:18, 20] Conversely, a man whom God elects as His adopted son unto grace and forgiveness of sins may receive all manner of godless training, and all the education does is make him a more dangerous foe to the godless. [cf. Moses, Daniel, St. Paul]

For many decades the secularists ruled society unchallenged, using their false goddess human Reason as an intellectual religious monopoly to bind minds and souls for statist exploitation. Today a new generation of Christ-confident Christians bursts out of our old self-imposed domestic exile, flowing back into all segments of society. The secularists recoil in fear and hatred at the rising Christian challenge. Rightly should they fear: fear Him Who is able to kill both their bodies and their souls in hell, destiny earned as punishment for their transgression of His Law. [Gospel of Matthew 10:28; Gospel of Luke 12:5; Romans 6:23] The secularists despise the Christians because in living by their faith [Romans 1:17] Christians prove the existence and authority of their Lord Christ, the true Target of the secularist hatred. [Gospel of Matthew 10:22, 24:9; Gospel of John 15:18, 24-25, 17:14; and Hebrews 11:1 cited by Mr. Chesser]

I plead guilty to respecting Revelation as above and beyond mere human Reason. The two must never be separated; but Revelation provides superior knowledge to those to whom the Holy Spirit grants Divine grace. Today I hold two earned graduate degrees. So the elites would tend to think of me as naturally one of them, respecting reason only and condemning faith. But God graciously makes me a living soul, and loyalty to Him demands that I reject selfish humanistic secularism in favor of governance of ALL of life by God’s Law. I thank God for arranging to provide me with JD and MA degrees. The secularist training honed my capacity to thwart and defeat the secularism I detest. Jesus Christ the Lord made and rules all that is, both seen and unseen things, past, present and future. Christians subvert and supplant the godless order simply by confessing and living accordingly. [See, e.g., Romans 12:20-21, Titus 3:1-2] My Sunday School lesson, there…

Strategic point: God’s Church today faces two significant intellectual threats to its historic and righteous partnership of true Revelation and right Reason. The old 19th-20th century socialist, humanist secularism expires as we watch. The “scientists” examined by Mr. Chesser produce but a death rattle of godless resistance. Secularism’s ever-fewer remaining adherents lack the ‘religious’ self confidence of their Marxist and positivist ancestors. They also lack their forebears’ fecundity, a plain vote of no-confidence in their future. For irrefutable proof that secularism = death, look at secular Europe. The 21st century’s challenge to Christ the Lord of Lords comes from anti-reason exaltation of a false “revelation”: Mohammedanism. Mohammedanism ignores human reason and exalts murder and death as a self-cleansing, self-atoning activity. Yes, that’s what “jihad” means: Kill your neighbor for the glory of god. [contra, e.g., Gospel of Matthew 5:19, 22:29] The Mohammedans rightly see that secularism is dead and rotting, and seek to overwhelm and supplant it. Their fundamental strategic error is to assume that Western secularism and Western Christianity are one and the same. Most interestingly the secularist demonstrates a penchant for defending Mohammedanism AGAINST Christianity. These apparently-antithetical false religions unite in their hatred of the One True God and His only-begotten Son. In the LORD’s own words: “All who hate Me love death.” [Proverbs 8:36].

Secularism subverted old Christendom a hundred years ago — but could never defeat Christ. Mohammedans have raged at the Church for fourteen hundred years–and Christianity holds the one Power on earth that has ever successfully resisted the Mohammedan tide. To reestablish Christianity as the fundamental Western world view we must stalwartly oppose both the false deification of “reason” by the secularist and the works-righteousness false “faith” of the Mohammedan. Only Christ can and shall defeat both of these vain philosophies. We must work to supplant both with Christian faith and reason and with Divine Law and Gospel. God gives His gift of eternal life to men through Jesus Christ, our Lord [Romans 6:23, Ephesians 2:8] and through none other [Gospel of John 14:6; Acts of the Apostles 4:12].
David James Hanson
Fayette, Iowa

I like to ask my friends who are believers if their belief in an imaginary God is so strong that they’d consider eschewing a hospital in favor of praying for one of their children who was dying from a medically-treatable disease.

None of them ever seemed eager to put their faith to such a rigorous test. So who’s really the more delusional: secular humanists with faith in science to solve real problems or God-fearing believers?
Rick Reigle

Re: Larry Thornberry’s Cowboys and Turkeys:

I am Lakhota, and am offended by much of the ignorance used in the press.

Problem 1: Native American is an academic term that is offensive to many Red Nations people. AMERIGO VESPUCCI (b. 1451) was the Italian navigator who gave his name to two continents that sit between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. How can any member of the over 2,500 indigenous nations of the northern “American” continent be called “native” to an European-based place-name? Most of us call it (the) “Great Island.”

Problem 2: Talking about the “Native American opinion” is as valid as talking about the “Asian opinion.” Nobody in the press would dare lump the people of China, Taiwan, Singapore, Philippines, Japan, (N/S) Korea, et cetera into an “Asian” category and attempt to state what the “Asian” opinion is on any subject. So, how can they blithely state the “Native American” opinion when there are over 2,500 separate nations of indigenous peoples on the Great Island? Some of the nations are divided by the US/Canadian border, but those people are not divided. Overwhelmingly, surveys indicate that the term Red Nations is preferred over the academic term “indigenous peoples.”

Problem 3: Every survey of the Red Nations has shown an overwhelming preference for the word “Indian” to other group moniker. Many of the Red Nations have adopted the spelling of “nDn” to distinguish them from “Indian” which refers to the inhabitants of a country in southern Asia covering most of the Indian subcontinent.

Problem 4: WE DON’T HAVE SHAMANS. The Wikopedia and other reference sources note that “shaman” originally referred to the traditional healers of Turkic-Mongol areas such as Northern Asia (Siberia) and Mongolia, a “shaman” being the Turkic-Tungus word for such a practitioner and literally meaning “he (or she) who knows.” In Turkic shamans were called mostly Kam and sometimes Baks. The Tungusic word saman is from Chinese sha men “Buddhist monk,” borrowed from Pali samana, ultimately from Sanskrit sramana “ascetic,” from sramati “he fatigues” (see shramana). The word passed through Russian and German before it was adopted into English.

Given the Sino-Russian origins of shamans, how can we nDns possibly have them as our healer-priests? We have medicine men or healers. Stop putting your words in our mouths!

How can you wasiciu (a Lakhota term for Europeans) claim to be noble and enlightened when you display such ignorance and insensitivity? After all the broken treaties, and the 150 years abusing of the Red Nations, you might want to begin by not using names that offend us through your ignorance of our cultures and beliefs. Oh, I forgot… you don’t care, until it affects an election. You are more worried about offending a Muslim or follower of Islam. Never mind.
Newt Love
living off-Rez in Annapolis, Maryland

It just seems so simple to fix the illegal immigration problem by going after employers that hire them. If the jobs are not open to illegals they will not have any reason to come. Of course this also means stopping all the free tax giveaways, like health care, welfare and schooling for ALL illegals. If you want to be a part of this country learn to speak ENGLISH. A good place for the INS to have started was during the protest. Any company that had to shut down because their workers were marching should have had their records checked to make sure they were all LEGAL. The people we have sent to Washington care more about someone here illegally than they do CITIZENS. It is time for them to wake up.
Elaine Kyle

I know it’s early morning and my caffeine charged brain is firing on cylinders it doesn’t even have, but this article called to mind one of my pet peeves which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with this article but…. Why in the very devil do we have to have hyphenated names anyway? You know, Mexican-American; Italian-American?

This the only country in the world to which one can migrate and become an American. Period. American. So why use the national prefix. If either you or your forbearers wanted to be Italian, you should have stayed there. If you were born here and want to be Italian, move there!

This of course continues my rant with even more heat! Why in God’s (Yes I know I’m breaking the law invoking the deity) name do the hyphenators put Italian before American!?!? This is the world’s least restrictive country. We have freedoms undreamed of in places like Britain, France and even Canada. So my view is that if you want to be “Polish-American” be Polish American, but do it in Poland! Here you ought to be an American Pole. Period! My God, I feel better now.
Jay W. Molyneaux
Wellington, Florida

Re: Paul Beston’s Last Thoughts on Michael Richards:

A point of view that I haven’t read. Well thought out, and right on the money.

Excellent job.
Steve L

I believe Mr. Richards meant every word he said. His true feelings exploded like a patient’s outburst in a counseling session. Comedic standup can be very therapeutic, and I feel, in Mr. Richards case it was. Mr. Richards obviously has issues with his fellow “Afro-Americans,” as he coins them. However, it’s not socially acceptable to say to a race of people that you hate them (unless it’s Israel), so Mr. Richards tucked that hate away, deep down in his gullet. However, the heckling “Afro Americans” at the comedy venue, helped Mr. Richards regurgitate his true colors.

In recent days we’ve had Mel Gibson, and now Michael Richards, utilize spin doctors to convince us simple folk, that all the awful words and accusations heard, were just a “terrible misunderstanding” …Michael and Mel, really love Everyone! I’m more inclined to believe that deep down, Mr. Richards hates blacks, and Mr. Gibson hates Jews. There, I said it. They won’t say it, because it would hurt their pocket book, their standing in far left Hollywood, and taint the illusion of them that they wish for you to see.

Michael and Mel are simply very talented individuals who don’t like particular garden varieties of their fellow man. There are millions of people in all varieties of shapes, sizes, and colors that are equally prejudiced and hateful of certain individuals or groups of people in their lives. The difference is the average Joe doesn’t have a world publicized Traffic Stop Incident or Stand Up Routine Faux Pas, to slap them on the front page, at a vulnerable time. No matter how hard we try, we’re all human, infallible, and we’re all prejudiced to a variety of degrees. I think the only ‘real shock’ is that these were Hollywood people showing prejudice, and Hollywood is the hub of the touchy, feely, I feel your pain, Left Wing, Left Coast mode of thinking’. We all know Right Wing folks are the real bigots…
Robert Rix

Re: Jed Babbin’s Aces and Eights:

Jed Babbin wonders in Aces and Eights who holds the dead man’s hand in the Middle East. One could ask the same about Latin America. Indeed, it’s time for Saturday Night Live to adapt the routine it repeated often to report that “Franco is still alive” — a “news” item it used long after the Spanish dictator was dead. Of course, the new routine would be about the bloody dictator Castro. In the first episode a cartoon picture of unfaithful Fidel could be shown, with the communist tyrant lying as if at a wake and the newscaster saying: “Fidel Castro is still alive.” SNL wouldn’t do this, because Fidel is on the left.

On second thought, it might help slightly to disabuse college students of their romantic image of Che Guevara if the photo of the dead Che were part of such a routine. The newscaster could say: “Che Guevara is dead.” Some students might actually look into his record, find out about his blood-sucking life, and be dissuaded from wearing a T-shirt with his Jesus-like image or try to persuade others to cease and desist regarding the at least slightly blasphemous and clearly idolatrous practice. Though it would possibly be too didactic to do so, the story could be followed with this statement: “And from Venezuela, unfortunately Chavez is still in power.”
Richard L.A. Schaefer

Jed Babbin writes that if America folds in Iraq it will give credence to its enemies that America is morally weak and lacks the will to protect its values and interests. The news is a lot worse than that. The Australian Prime Minister, John W Howard is one of the very few world leaders who has consistently supported America in Iraq, regardless of the considerable opposition here from the usual suspects — Australia has its own versions of Nancy Pelosi, and more than enough of them to go around. John Howard has made it crystal clear here that he expects America to stick it out and not to bolt and leave Australia holding the baby in Iraq. John Howard is a keen student of history, he is a big fan of Sir Winston Churchill (he was born during World War II and Winston is his middle name, after the war time Prime Minister), and his unvarnished view is that America can forget about allies and coalitions for good if it runs away from Iraq — America’s name and reputation will be mud, both here and in Asia as a whole.

If James Baker has his way and George W. Bush loses his nerve, they will bring on a new age of isolationism that will be terrible for world peace and for America. It might bring some temporary relief for those who want to get the Iraqi stone out of their shoe, but there will be an horrendously expensive bill coming due, not too far down the track, and there won’t be any volunteers to carry America’s bags this time around. If you think the axis of weasels and cheese eating surrender monkeys are a problem, then stick around ‘cos you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet. James Baker will do to allies and coalitions what group sex does to marriage and it won’t be nearly as much fun.

Sticking it out in Iraq and trying to win, rather than constantly conceding the initiative and playing the punching bag, which is America’s ridiculous way of waging war so far, is an ugly option but it is a lot better than the others, which are downright hideous.

Considering how obsessed the Bush administration has been about building coalitions to conduct its foreign policy, throwing all that away for good by retreating from Iraq is a policy that simply defies common sense.
Christopher Holland
Canberra, Australia

Re: Julius Blank’s letter (under “Turning Up the Heat”) in Reader Mail’s It’s a Wrap:

Mr. Julius Blank of Los Altos , California writes: “an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 100 parts per million cannot possibly add enough heat to raise atmospheric temperatures by anything measurable unless somehow the CO2 gets heated up to some absurdly high temperatures. For example; if you want to raise the temperature of one million pounds of air… If you add 100 pounds of CO2 (100 ppm) you get 20 BTU for every degree of heated CO2. You can do the math to see how much CO2 needs to be heated to get to 250,000 BTU.”

Really? Examining the infrared spectrum of CO2, one finds it is opaque in the region from roughly 5.5 to 10.6 microns, in which its molecules absorb infrared quanta with energies of one to a few tenths of an electron volt, becoming vibrationally and rotationally excited in the process. Very excited– one electron volt corresponds in reality, not absurdity, to a temperature of some ten thousand degrees Kelvin, and as Mr. Blank points out, “You can do the math.”

Adding to air one part in ten thousand (100 parts per million) of CO2 molecules excited by ~5 to ~10 micron infrared quanta to effective temperatures of thousands of Kelvins will raise atmospheric temperature by several tenths of a degree C. This is indeed what has been observed as the global concentration of CO2 has risen from ~280 to ~390 parts per million over the last century. As “students of thermodynamics and heat transfer” including venerable semiconductor pioneers like Mr. Blank “can easily verify” far from violating the laws of thermodynamics , the much maligned — and certainly uncertain art of climate modeling merely confirms them.
Russell Seitz
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Re: John Corry’s letter (under “Democracy and Defeat”) in Reader Mail’s It’s a Wrap:

I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Corry. More than a million civilians, largely children, perished from starvation under a Nigeria-imposed blockade instituted by General Yakubu Gowon. Wasn’t it Gowon’s government that in 1968 said “starvation is a legitimate weapon of war”?
Chris Orlet

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, http://spectator.org. 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!