Boomer Fizzles - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
Boomer Fizzles

Re: Jeffrey Lord’s Borking Rush:

Another terrific piece. Excellent!
Ken McAdams

Many of the points in your piece are true, but the thing that got Rush in trouble is being ill informed about Parkinson’s Disease and the calls he took from equally uninformed persons to back up his ignorance.

I too am a conservative baby boomer, also a Vietnam vet and the husband of a wonderful woman who suffers with “young onset” Parkinson’s. Same as Fox. Rush did not know that Michael J. Fox was showing the effects of his medication (dyskinesia) and not the disease in those commercials. And one of his callers, purporting to be a nurse, said the Muhammed Ali was an example of a person on Parkinson’s medication. Wrong!

Ali does not take any medication for religious reasons. He is what Parkinson’s actually looks like. When most people take a medication it works to alleviate symptoms for a specific period of time.

Not so for Parkinson’s sufferers.

Sinemet (the primary drug for Parkinson’s) works like a sine wave. Sometimes too little, sometimes too much (dyskinesia) and sometimes not at all. It is very unpredictable. It usually takes about 45 minutes to an hour to start working and then the effect may last for 10 minutes or up to 3 hours. From day to day and dose to dose there is no consistency.
Mike Myhrvold

I’m surprised no one has mentioned that the use of Michael J. Fox in the stem cell commercial is simply another example of what Ann Coulter pointed out in her book; that Democrats use people who are “victims” to state the party’s position on an issue, and then scream if someone takes issue with their stand because of their “victimhood.”
L. McClure

The question that I have of Jeffrey Lord and his theory of “Borking” which he discussed in “Borking Rush,” is this: Was Harriet Miers borked, and if so, by whom?
Dick Woodruff
Arlington, Virginia

With all due respect to the author of The Borking Rebellion, I suggest Mr. Lord may be standing a bit too close to the problem to appreciate its full dimensions. He states “[t]he War of the Boomers is heating up” when in fact what is happening is the long awaited meltdown of the archetypical prototype of his generation, the Cry Baby Boomer.

That said, Mr. Lord is certainly correct to believe that technical members of the baby boom generation, like Messrs. Limbaugh and Bush (who have not merely rejected the phony, pretentious, self-aggrandizing drivel churned out by their Cry Baby Boom contemporaries, but have ridiculed it) have driven the cry babies bonkers. Unlike the hardworking, patriotic, modest, courageous members of this and other generations (i.e., the normal people, the ADULTS), Cry Baby Boomers demand to be treated with the sort of reverence accorded to the burning bush, their every whim instantly gratified and thus take themselves VERY seriously. In short these pompous, emotionally retarded know it alls offer up a deliciously target rich environment to those like Mr. Limbaugh whose true medium is the rapier witted, fast paced, often knee slapping application of reductio ad absurdum… “illustrating the absurd by being absurd” as he often puts it. He absolutely DELIGHTS in taking calls from wounded Cry Baby Boomers who sound as if they have so many Limbaugh harpoons in them as to resemble a porcupine. El Rushbo is invariably polite, cheerful and solicitous in the way he invites these pitiful creatures to self-destruct on air… an offer they quickly discover they can’t refuse. Even the legendary if fictional olive oil importer, Vito (“Don”) Corleone, would admire the adroit swordsmanship of America’s Truth Detector as he brings this offer into play.

George W. Bush, very much like another wartime president (FDR), is condemned as a traitor to his class, in this case precisely because he HAS class. In distancing himself from the nonstop vulgarities of prototypical Cry Baby Boom degenerates like, say, Slick Willie, Mr. Bush is correctly perceived as a direct and very personal rebuke to these spoiled brats and their everlasting sense of ENTITLEMENT.

And as if to rub salt into this wound are the consequences flowing from 9/11: a grateful nation suddenly learned that there has arisen from the ashes of ground zero, phoenix-like, the very qualities of character, courage, self sacrifice, compassion, honor, nobility and heroism of the great WWII generation — qualities that skipped over the vast majority of their privileged, pampered, precious, post war children — that have landed squarely amidst the ranks of their grandchildren and even great grandchildren. These are the magnificent young troops of the ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE — and those who support those troops — whom George W. Bush has sent into harm’s way to defend our Freedom by taking our fight into the teeth of the terrorists.

In short America is in the process of SURVIVING the Cry Baby Boomers’ bitter and sustained assault on the values of their parents (whom they bitterly resent), a counter culture assault that has consumed the last four decades.

No wonder the wilting flower children are in such a snit.

Their time is O*V*E*R! (And they know it.)

Dare I say it?

Thomas E. Stuart
Kapa’au, Hawaii

Mr. Lord has been a great addition to your business, and as usual (to my thinking) he has hit the nail squarely on the head in regards to Borking Rush. It seems what the left doesn’t understand is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to bork Rush because he, and so many other conservatives they try to “Bork,” are not before them trying to obtain something which the left may have control over. They control their own radio dial and that is all when it comes to Rush, and Lynn Cheney et al. Consistency, honesty, and an understanding of what they have and want without needing the left to deliver it seems to be a pretty fine antidote to getting Borked to me.
Roger Ross
Tomahawk, Wisconsin (talk about flyover country!)

Re: The Washington Prowler’s Democrat Slowdown Signs — Except at CNN:

I’ve been depressed by the lack of truly great GOP candidates on tap for ’08 as VP Cheney will not be running. As I was watching Mrs. Cheney and then reading and listening to all the fall-out of her vivisection of Wolf Blitzer it hit me. Wouldn’t she make a dynamite counter to Senator Clinton? But wouldn’t it be even more fun to watch her roast the chestnuts of Al Gore or John Francois Kerry in a debate? Let’s start cranking out those Cheney ’08 bumper stickers!
Pam Lange
Chagrin Falls, Ohio

Re: Jed Babbin’s Pre-Election SGO:

I wish we in Britain had an erudite politician such as Mr. Cheney, or someone as courageous as his wife, to publicly ask our very own BBC whether or not it wants the war (and we are at war) in Iraq to be won. I wouldn’t mind even if one of the opposition party’s MPs (gay or otherwise) chose to ask the question. Whoever so demands, the question needs to be asked and repeatedly so. Quite how the BBC can justify spending taxpayer’s money to send one of its journalists to interview the leader of the Taliban in Afghanistan is beyond me. Particularly when the said Taliban leader boasts that he has a kamikaze-like army with British soldiers in its sights. Balanced reporting — yeah right BBC! Stick to natural history programmes and make us proud. Better still; refund everyone their TV licence money, back-dated of course to our armed forces choosing.
Graham Constable
Oxford, England

I do wish this Babbin fellow would make up his mind — be he a Republican, or a neowhatever?

How is the enthusiastic admonition, “Sigh. Vote Republican anyhow, if only to annoy the media,” supposed to cut the mustard with our Nutmeg cousins when Babbin endorses Nutroot Kerry’s Democratic running mate over “whatshisname, the Republican nonentity in the Connecticut Senate race.”

It’s going to be hard sell, when even the Party of Lincoln Chafee next door can boast of a man who votes with his Republican brethren seven times more often than Jeb’s man Joe. He has Halloween week left in which to redeem himself by discomfiting the truly gruesome liberals that may stalk the halls of Congress if he fails to get with the program.
Russell Seitz
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Thanks for his summary for those who sensibly do not tune in to CNN regularly. As an admirer of Lynn Cheney, I made an exception. Resolved to suffer the insufferable Wolf Blitzer’s inane interview style. But, what a treat! Blitzer should have known he was out-classed. Mrs. Cheney, no shrinking violet, had Wolf’s guts for garters before the interview was done. Wolf’s stammered attempts to stop her verbal fusillade were a delight to witness. His glazed look gave new meaning to the term “pole-axed.”

Should the unthinkable occur and the Dems take the House and impeachment proceeds, President Bush could be forgiven for saying “Y’know, I think I’ll save you a lot of time and money. Laura and I are leavin’ for Crawford. You may deal with President Cheney for the next two years.”

Nancy Pelosi’s last words before she stroked out would be, “Omigod, I never thought of that.”
Diane Smith
South San Francisco, California

It is hard to top this characterization of our bias, agenda-driven, feckless media.

Tony Snow withstood a hilarious onslaught of righteous indignation as calm and well stated as Clouseau’s accusation that a suspect killed ‘in a writ of fealous jage.’ Some smiling smartass girl ranted on for at least three minutes insisting…

The topper of the entire political season; however, is Lynn Cheney. Mrs. Cheney kicked the crap out of Wolf. She is a smart, tough old gal. She is wonderful!
Doug Santo
Pasadena, California

Re: Hal G.P. Colebatch’s Harold Ford’s Offensive Gaffe:

Harold Ford does have some explanation, but not an excuse, for being confused about Australia — you would be surprised how often this happens. A few years ago the acme of Viennese chic was a tee shirt saying “No kangaroos in Austria, ” because the locals were being asked by American tourists were they could see a kangaroo. Sounds like Bob Corker should get himself a bunch of those tee shirts made up in the next week
Christopher Holland

Camberra is indeed a city in Australia, but beyond that had little to do with the Camberra bomber. The aircraft was designed and built in England by the then aircraft company, English Electric. It was subsequently built in the USA by Martin Aircraft under license and used in the USAF as the B-57 and subsequent derivatives.
Donald S. Sammis
USAF (ret.)

Hal G.P. Colebatch replies:
The point is that the Canberra was designed to be part of a British Commonwealth strike force with Australia playing a big part. It was to be based in Australia, initial tests were carried out in Australia, and the project was supported by the Australian Government, which put in an initial order for 48, to be Australian-built. Details are given in the book Australia’s Bid for the Atomic Bomb, by Dr. Wayne Reynolds, Senior Lecturer in History at Newcastle University (Melbourne University Press, 2000), pages 79-81.

Re: James Bowman’s Immanuel Kant for Dummies:

James Bowman is to be applauded for his support of Orhan Pamuk’s role within a hostile honor society that is clearly in denial of its national history.

However, his dismissal of Kant’s categorical imperative as inappropriate for international relations bears further discussion. The categorical imperative is little more than a formal statement of the Golden Rule, which in some respects is the foundation of Western civilization. There is always the philosophical question as to whether a country is a proxy for an ethical person, and I don’t think that it is. Even so, a government is run by individuals who have ethical responsibilities, and all ethical issues on a national scale devolve to them. In this case, Mr. Bowman seems to be saying that the individuals conducting foreign policy are exempt from moral considerations. Under this amoral theory, there might be nothing wrong with limitless preemptive strikes in which millions of innocent people are killed. Let it be said that anyone who made such a decision would be personally responsible. There is also some basis in evolutionary biology for adopting the categorical imperative: if we don’t learn to cooperate, everyone comes out worse. By letting the world know that it’s OK for us to have the ability to blow up everyone else but it’s not OK for other countries to have that capacity, we’re telling the world that negotiation is a one-way street.
Abe Grossman
Pleasantville, New York

For a change I agree with Mr. Bowman’s take on conservative principles in international politics. His philosophy, though, seems to obscure the real issue.
His friend fails to see the powers behind the nuclear arms. The United States is a stable democracy, even in tumultuous times like these. Checks and balances exist to keep us from using nuclear weapons on a whim. The same is true for other Western democracies like Great Britain, France, etc.

Iran and North Korea, though, are run by unstable dictators who consolidate too much power and could make sales to other unstable countries also run by dictators. This fact is the pressing issue behind the recent Iraq War.
We do not need Kant to find this rationalization. It just takes a little common sense.
Stephen Scott
Tulsa, Oklahoma

Re: Steven M. Warshawsky’s letter (under “North South”) in Reader Mail’s Losing It and Florence King’s Dixie in Denial:

I wasn’t going to respond to the article “Dixie in Denial,” but as the descendent of colonial indentured servants (7 year slaves) and Confederate veterans I would respectfully suggest that Mr. Warshawsky and others who disapprove of our affection for the old Confederacy kiss our “grits.” We’re proud of our history and our ancestors and don’t need your approval or acceptance.

Instead of worrying about the long dead Confederacy those from the victorious North need to worry about the current treason in their midst’s. The problem in the war against Islamic imperialism/fascism is not in the old Confederacy, but in the victorious Blue states of the North where appeasement and surrender have the greatest support.

While many Southerners may still have affection for the Confederacy (not unlike the Irish for Eamonn de Valera or the Scots for the Jacobites) we know how great this nation is and that it provides the bulwark against the evil that now seeks to dominate this world. Have no fear Steven the descendants of the Confederacy will be on the frontlines of defending this nation and working to insure its survival. Our only problem is that we don’t know how soon our fellow countrymen from the North are going to drive the knife into our backs again (a la Vietnam).
Michael Tomlinson
Crownsville, Maryland

Re: Steven M. Warshawsky’s letter in Reader Mail’s “Losing It”:

Damn Yankee!
Mike Showalter
Austin, Texas

Re: Nadia’s letter (under “Keith and Kin”) in Reader Mail’s Losing It:

First, you really need to do something about that automated word-processing program you use to prepare this column — it took Irate Nadia’s cogent, articulate letter and transformed it into a barely readable hodgepodge! Work on that, will you please?

To answer some of her spittle-spraying points, the WMDs (very likely) are in Bashar al-Assad’s Beqaa Valley. In all probability, there are more weapons buried under the desert sands (remember the fighter planes?) — or just hidden away in people’s homes. It was reported that one scientist turned in component parts (for a centrifuge, IIRC) which he had been ordered to conceal by burying them under his rose bushes. Those parts — and the accompanying plans — are indicative of an ongoing, if currently dormant, program to develop nuclear weapons.

I would also point out that it was the Clinton administration (along with the Democrat leaders in Congress) which was shrilly insisting that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction — and was unequivocally espousing this position long before Mr. Bush won the 2000 election.

Now, I’m not the constitutional scholar that Nadia obviously is, but nowhere in the Bill of Rights can I find any mention of Habeas Corpus. It is mentioned in the body of the Document (Article I, Section IX) — and, therein, is called a privilege, rather than a “right”.

Finally, the lady is quite vehement about Mr. Olbermann’s right to criticize President Bush. Fair enough. But what, then, of Mr. Lord’s right to criticize Mr. Olbermann, in turn — or does she believe that “freedom of speech” applies only to those people with whom she happens to agree?

Just askin’.
David Gonzalez
Wheeling, Illinois

Re: Diane Smith’s letter (under “Remember the President”) in Reader Mail’s Losing It:

I am sorry that Ms. Smith is offended by my disapproval of Pres. Bush and many of his policies. First, yes, I might have referred to the Augean stables, but I give the readership here credit for understanding that analogy. I phrased that part as I did to indicate that I see the situation in the Middle East as a complex one with many issues and causes. Not one that can be solved by some minor cleaning up around the edges, but one requiring a more extensive, creative, and basic flushing out. A war in Iraq and Afghanistan waged with PC rules of engagement is not going to suffice. I do not want to see our warriors come home in the near future suffering over 3000 KIA (as we will have in the very near term) and many thousands of WIA only to have subsequent warriors dispatched to the area to fight and die by a future president because Pres. Bush would not do the job this time. That smacks of the same mistake that his father made in ’91.

Secondly, the aircraft carrier visit and speech. The ship involved had to be ordered to alter course to delay its arrival at its San Diego home port in order that Pres. Bush could fly out and make a carrier landing and a speech. Absent this, the pilots would have already flown the aircraft into their homeland bases and already been home with their families. This invokes, to me, memories of Bill Clinton at the Normandy cemetery straightening the crosses and on the beach strangely finding rocks to form a cross and dancing with Hillary on the beach “alone.” It is phony. Furthermore, launching and retrieval of aircraft on an aircraft carrier at sea is among the most hazardous jobs in the military outside of invading under hostile fire. What would your opinion be if one of those sailors had been killed or injured for that photo op. Also the realities of the war have vindicated the opinion that the mission has, in fact, not been accomplished. Pres. Bush is guilty of counting his chickens before they were hatched and healthy.

Thirdly, Ms. Smith takes umbrage at my use of El Presidente and my purposeful misspelling of Mr. Bush’s name. Well, I am afraid I take umbrage at the invasion of hordes of illegal Mexicans and others into the United States for reasons that we cannot be certain of. We do know that these reasons include narcotics smuggling and selling, gangland activities (MS-13), birthing “anchor babies,” as well as working to send money back home. We do not know if or how many Jihadists have also arrived via this same route. We also know that at least 10% of the citizens of Mexico are now in the United States, almost all illegally, and that an active and aggressive “reconquista” movement is ongoing. Yet in this situation, Pres. Bush wished to provide an amnesty for in excess of 10 million Mexicans and other Hispanics. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming into signing the recent border fence bill and appropriation. From this I infer that he needs to worry less about what is good for Mexico and more about what is good for us.

Finally, I will say that, while I was forced by the Dems to vote for Gorge Bush twice, my opinion of him is based entirely on my consistent conservative opposition to many of the issues of his presidency. He is not and never has been a conservative, except when compared to an urban liberal from, say, San Francisco. He, like his father, venerates too many of the traits of the New England moderate to liberal, country club Republican elitist. It is as if he was trying to break with that tradition, but just can’t quite make the leap of faith.

Well, Diane, you go on unqualifiedly cheer leading for George Bush. That is your right, and I shall not cast aspersions or labels at you for it. I shall continue my opposition to him based on conservative principles. Have a great day and I will see you in the “Letters” section of the American Prowler.
Ken Shreve
Diane Smith’s idea of a curmudgeon

Diane Smith certainly put it to Mr. Shreve. You go girl!
Susan Gluck
Weston, West Virginia

Re: Yale Kramer’s The View From Mt. Suribachi:

An interesting thing happened at the showing of the movie that I went to this weekend in Midland, Texas. Out of respect, no one left the theater until the screen went blank…after the still shots of our heroes that followed the movie. I was moved by this show of respect.
Andy Baldwin
Midland, Texas

Re: Jay D. Homnick’s Warming Under the Collar:

Jay Homnick is exactly right. To acknowledge the Earth’s warming is one thing, to ascribe it to human activity is preposterous. I have even heard some “experts” say that it is already too late to change course. Well, OK then; party on!
David Petersen

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!

Black Friday Special

The American Spectator

One Month for Only $2.99

The offer renews after one year at the regular price of $10.99 monthly.