Re: Lisa Fabrizio's The West Fling:
As I read Ms. Fabrizio's ever-insightful article, I paused a moment to wonder — if Ray Nagin, got away with his “chocolate” New Orleans remark, would I be forgiven for pointing out this was uttered by a “cafe au lait” official, surrounded by butterscotch supporters? I guess not. In fact, it's skating on pretty thin ice to even suggest. But if Nagin is going to characterize the New Orleans population, he will have to employ licorice, dark chocolate, milk chocolate, caramel and so on, to French Vanilla. No sillier or more insulting than “chocolate.”
Years ago I had a Chinese neighbor (once called Oriental, now Asian) who repeatedly referred to me as “you co-casions.” I asked him if I had ever categorized him as to his race (since re-labeled “ethnicity”). He said, “No.” I then said, “Well if you will stop call me “you co-casions,” I promise never to call you a Chink.” He laughed and that ended that. Today it might cause a Tong War.
As you may have guessed, I find all this color-charting a bit tedious.
— Diane Smith
South San Francisco, California
Ms. Fabrizio's witty and humorous analysis of the delusions that plague the American Left, leaves unsaid a deeper and more serious psychosis that we need to acknowledge. For the longest time, Conservatives have been troubled by the Left's seemingly unfazed attitude towards the oft expressed goals of radical Islam. We have been told in the most chilling of terms that the difference between Western Culture and radical Islam is the fact that we cherish life, whereas they cherish death. It is this raw expression of nihilism that makes radical Islam so dangerous. Nothing is out of bounds and no act of terror, no matter how despicable or cowardly is not deserving of approbation by its followers. Thousands dead are the cherished goal to obtain the fruits of paradise.
So while I enjoyed Ms. Fabrizio's humorous chiding of the fantasy world constructed by the American Left in order to avoid the harsh reality that they are no longer in control, I perceive there exists a despair in their delusions that eerily dovetails with the tenants of radical Islam. The more bellicose and unhinged the American Left gets, the more they slide towards the nihilism of radical Islam. If the proponents of radical Islam cannot achieve their Islamic Paradise on Earth, they damn well will try and make sure that the rest of us will not live to fulfill ours.
As the American Left observes the systematic remaking of the cherished institutions they once claimed complete ownership of, the more appealing the zero sum equation of radical Islam becomes. I don't think I overstate the case, not when the New York Times gives not a whit about disclosing the most sensitive of national security secrets and indeed delights in the harm this disclosure has caused the war effort. These are not the actions of rational people. We can only hope that until the madness passes from their fevered brows, that the American Left will be content to play act episodes of “West Wing” rather than an episode of 24.
— A. DiPentima
BURNING IS GOOD NEWS
Re: Patrick Hynes's Black Hat Democrats:
The good news about Patrick Hynes's account of leftists trashing conservative books and authors (ditto the rest of their fulminations in political discourses today) is that this sort of thing merely proves the end times of liberalism as a serious political philosophy are here. Ranting and vandalism is typical of bitter-enders, not of an ascendant political culture.
Our conservative books were almost all reviewed, respectfully, usually with disagreement, by Publishers Weekly, Kirks Reviews, Library Journal and the rest of these reviewers for reviewers and the book trade until the early 1980s, at which point blacklisting became the norm (for any conservative author not a brand name). While not good for business, I at least took satisfaction in knowing our side had to be winning when this sort of thuggery by purported liberals was felt to be necessary to preserve their perceived “on top” status.
Fortunately, the internet, the rise of scores of new conservative niche magazines, hundreds of conservative bloggers and thousands of talk radio programs, and the ability to sell direct to those interested in our books have made the traditional book pre-review media (and their clients running book review pages of newspapers and mass magazines) unnecessary.
In another five to ten years, I surmise, the owners of traditional book review media will wise up, and replace the ideological thugs they currently employ, or they will go out of business, to be replaced by new publications. Time is on our side.
— Jameson Campaigne
Jameson Books, Inc.
Mr. Hynes's article is just plain wrong. It has to be. Democrats care nothing of fame and fortune or power. They only care about “the people,” don't they? Isn't that why the senior senator from Massachusetts left Miss Kopechne alive and well in the back seat of a submerged car? Because he cared so much about serving the people that he was willing to make her a small and unimportant sacrifice, so his career of “serving the people” could continue?
What about the Clintons? Surely they didn't become President just to become rich, did they? I mean, sure, the money comes very easy and in truckloads now, but didn't they really just want to serve people and give young woman a chance to fondle and use the presidential equipment? We all should embrace such egalitarianism.
So Mr. Hynes, go peddle your falsehoods elsewhere. America is too smart to fall for your thesis that democrats are just about power, privilege, money, and sex. We know that there's more. Why, insanity is also a big part of their value system — just look at Al Gore and Howard Dean! See… they do hire the handicapped.
— Jay W. Molyneaux
I was watching C-Span yesterday for the voting on Judge Alito, and after they were taking calls and two Democrats said if Bush had been voted in instead of appointed it would be different. I tried to call in but very few Republicans got in, to ask these idiots where they were in 2004. Most of the calls that they said were coming in on the Republican line were cut off before anyone even got on.
Rowe and the rest of the “white hats” need to turn the tables on the liberals and punch back hard and often. I enjoy talking about personal retirement accounts –, just wish they had been around for me. I was a divorced mom with three sons and in those days did not have money for savings accounts, would have loved to have used some of the money already being taken out of my paychecks for a personal account.
— Elaine Kyle
Re: Paul Chesser's It's Not Just Pork:
Capitalism evolves into socialism which becomes the foundation for the utopia of Communism. This in a nutshell is what Marx envisioned. The Kelo decision of the SCOTUS ultimately says is that the state owns everything. The state owns all the money (taxation), all the property (eminent domain), and even the means of production if it so decides (wage and price controls). The Kelo decision is a revolution without firing a shot. It is the creepy, creeping socialism we've been warned about. (The New York Times supported the decision in its editorial pages.)
— Fred Edwards Tucson
The root of the problem is not this or that politician, this or that program, but the fact that the American voters are now sold on the idea that government exists to a) hand them whatever they want and b) make someone else pay for it. Buck this trend and your political career is over, period.
Ben Franklin is often quoted about “giving up liberty for safety” these days, but how many remember his saying that the death knell of a democracy sounds when the voters decide to vote themselves money from the Treasury?
— Martin Owens
Great, so now we can watch Missouri and Minnesota to see if they start using eminent domain to make up for the TAX money they are willing to give to Ford. And don't forget Alaska's “Bridge to Nowhere” was cut, BUT they got to keep the $223 million, so what good was that?
I still say term limits on ALL politicians will be a big first step in bringing them back to do the voters will. Twelve years for national pols is more than enough for them to be in D.C. This should not be a lifetime job, give someone else a chance.
— Elaine Kyle
Cut & Shoot, Texas
BOY WONDER'S PLAN A
Re: James Bowman's review of Why We Fight:
“Peace through Weakness” is the Democrat Party's rallying cry.
Remember Jimmy Carter's Presidency? Russia invades Afghanistan and Carter responds by not letting our athletes participate in the Olympics in Moscow. Americans are kidnapped by Iranians (an act of War), and Carter responds with Warren Christopher sending letters to Algeria for the Iranians to read. Pol Pot murders 20% of Cambodia's citizens (millions of deaths), and Carter does nothing. Endless gas lines, 12% interest rates, 12% unemployment, 55 mph highway speed limits. Those were the good ol' days of malaise.
And Carter has the temerity to criticize President Bush's defense of our country. Clinton used the so-called “peace dividend” by decimating our military capability. Terror attacks were accepted as the norm (the blame America syndrome that Democrats have). Serbia is bombed into oblivion when the problem is essentially Europe's to solve. Bin Laden is to be arrested (not assassinated), the World trade Center is attacked. The embassy in Kenya is destroyed. The federal building in Oklahoma is destroyed. Women and children are murdered in Waco, Texas (no responsibility is claimed by Clinton's crew). Elian Gonzales is shipped back to Castro's totalitarian island prison.
Peace through Weakness: The Democrat rallying call.
— Fred Edwards
James Bowman recalls Frank Capra's “made for the troops” WWII documentaries Why We Fight. It is probably monumentally impertinent for a guy born in 1952 to write this, but I severely doubt that anybody who actually lived through the European, Italian, African or Pacific Theaters at that time needed anybody from Hollywood to clarify for them why they were lying in the mud, the snow, the jungles, the lice and the louses, and with death of every living thing such a constant occurrence that death itself became… ordinary.
But in a curious coincidence and/or slip of conscience, Spielberg and Hanks chose to name “Band of Brothers” episode nine of ten “Why We Fight.” Hollywood's most brilliant, most powerful, richest director, who gave us all the reason but none of the fighting in “Schindler's List,” then all the fighting but none of the reason in “Saving Private Ryan,” finally grudgingly put both together albeit in an isolated one of ten episode. Had Capra delivered the Spielberg/Hanks filming of Steven Ambrose's accounting of the 101st Airborne's 506 PIR Easy Company from training in the USA to ultimate triumph at Berchtesgaden, it is questionable whether homebound Americans could have “taken it.” Today, most of them just don't care, like the Hadleyville judge explaining to High Noon's Marshall Will Kane why the townspeople would prove unavailable.
If you talk to guys who were there, the few we have left, they all understand Why We Fight or why we fought, but their recollections are so very different than Hollywood's or we homebound Americans could imagine. It took one of their own, Charles MacDonald, in his first literary work after returning from the ETO, “Company Commander”, to put the whole experience, including Why We Fight, into perspective. Read Company Commander, Mac's ETO auto-bio, and your overwhelming reaction is “this is not John Wayne…these guys must have really hated to be there.” Then Mac describes his and his company's final days in Czechoslovakia, liberating one last town before pulling back to the Potsdam declared borders. The most sincere and deep gratitude of the Czech townspeople, the way they let their liberating Americans know how much they were eternally in their debt, finally and convincingly clarified for Mac and his men “Why We Fight.”
The dominant media contrives today to censor reporting of any Afghan or Iraq village that might remind anyone of Mac's Czech village. But war and people do not change that much. It happened. It just wasn't “fit to print.”
— Frank Natoli
Newton, New Jersey
SPARK THE EDUCATION MARKET
Re: James G. Poulos's Neither/Nor: Higher Education in America:
Dare to ask a college student these days about the Federalist Papers, and you will undoubtedly get a blank stupefied look, yet the same students will cheerfully quote Marx and Engels. It is a shame that we can't get Congress to pass a school voucher program that would at least force public schools to compete and actually teach something other that the brave new world values of lesbian women's studies, Marxism, and teaching kids how to put condoms on bananas. This country is in sad shape and is in for a dim future unless someone can wrestle control of public schools from the Marxist tyrants of the NEA and their Democrat allies.
— G. Sorrentino
SUE THE THUGS
Re: Jim Eltringham's The Top 5 Campus Outrages of 2005:
Where are the conservative law groups, similar to the left's ACLU, to sue the colleges on behalf of the students? Making the colleges pay a heavy price for their tactics is the only way to stop them.
— Dan Mittelman
Cherry Hill, New Jersey
Jim Eltringham's list of outrages committed by the left on today's college campuses all have one thing in common: no one fighting back.
If anyone, student or faculty, had tried their thuggery with me when I attended the University of Arkansas over 25 years ago they'd have been introduced to the emergency room.
Consequences be damned.
— Greg Barnard
First, let me state my bona fides: My mother was a teacher, two of my four uncles were teachers, my sister was a teacher, and my first year of college (out of 12 and a half total) was at a college of education studying music education. I've taught Real Property and Contract law at a law school. I think I know something of teaching.
Here is the only thing I learned and remember from my first exposure to higher education at that teacher's college: “Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach. Those who cannot teach, teach teachers.” To which I would add, “Those who cannot teach teachers, become school administrators.”
I have been noticing in the news of late that there are problems with our automakers, Ford and GMC, stemming for the most part from their managements' past acquiescence to their unionized workers' ever-increasing demands, and problems with our education system, stemming for the most part from governments' continuing acquiescence to teachers' unions' ever-increasing demands. There are doubtless other examples; Kaiser Aluminum's closing and bankruptcy of a few years ago due mainly to their employees' union's medical plan and retirement benefits is one such.
How does this fit into any discussion of education? Well, aside from the obvious connection between the abysmal performance of most (not all) teachers in the K-12 grades which I deduce from the abysmal performance of their students, I view with alarm the decline and fall of workmanship and pride in one's work product. This applies equally well to aluminum or auto workers and teachers. (Politicians are beyond the pale.)
Unions served a noble cause decades ago. No more Haymarket Rebellions where the Pinkerton Detective Agency supplied strike breakers giving rise to the term “fink” which was a shortened version of “f—ing Pink.” We no longer have company towns like that of The Pullman Railroad Car Company where the workers “owed their soul to the company store.” Working conditions have improved dramatically from the days of Henry Ford's Model T assembly line where a worker got five minutes twice per twelve hour shift to visit the toilet for Number 1 and ten for Number two. If he took longer, he was summarily fired. And I have no doubt that the standard of living for teachers has improved to the point where a teacher no longer needs “a calling” to inspire students ten months a year and a summer job to make ends meet. Doubtless teachers' unions have made a significant contribution to this end.
But the incredible malaise of our present day population which expects comfortable living without commitment to reasonable work output is being fueled by welfare, unemployment insurance, overreaching union contracts, and pie-in-the-sky politicians' empty promises. And the products of our education system who are joining the ranks of the unemployed expect the same. I was raised in an atmosphere of self-reliance, dedication to higher education, and belief in “an honest day's pay for an honest day's work.” Perhaps I was being polluted by the economic climate of workers like my father who was weathering the great depression?
Alas, I fear those days are forever gone, although in some ways a return to the early 1930s which cured, albeit drastically, the excesses of the 1920s, might be the only way to cure the excesses of the 2000s. Unfortunately, we no longer have the security of two oceans which were sufficient to protect us from aggression back then. I fear for my country.
— Bob Johnson, B.S.E.E, J.D.
Some excellent responses to Jed Babbin's piece, “Iran Showdown.” All of them have some positives and some negatives, but they were all well done. Even the Biblical illustration was intriguing.
On the subject, the threat posed by Iran has now superseded that posed by North Korea, at least in the short term. It is entirely possible that it will have to be dealt with militarily. But, military action should not be take precipitously. For, when we (the United States of America and our possible allies) do take that action, the consequences, for the world, could well be extreme.
The success of any military action against Iran will depend upon the accuracy of our intelligence, the effectiveness of any strikes designed to remove nuclear weapons infrastructure and the worldwide public reaction to our actions. I have little information that would shed any light on any of these topics, and neither do very many others.
But I can make some educated guesses concerning possible results of any military action against Iran.
First, do not look for any reduction in troop strength in Iraq if the present tone continues in Tehran.
Second, more troops will probably be moved to the region, especially if Arab support is lacking or wanes.
Third, deployment of U.S. theater tactical nuclear weapons to the Middle East is a very real possibility if we fail to completely halt the Iranian nuclear program.
Fourth, the loss of control of nuclear weapons in Pakistan and one or more Muslim controlled former Soviet states may occur, with the possibility of some devices falling into the hands of terrorist organizations.
Fifth, uprisings in European countries by Muslim minorities, cause significant disruption of international commerce.
Sixth, Russia and China become more antagonistic toward the U.S. China decides not to rein in North Korea, or even encourage Kim Jong Il, allowing a second major crisis to explode in the Far East.
Seventh, prices of commodities, especially petroleum products increase significantly.
The list could continue, but you get the idea. The fact that, given its current government, Iran may get a functional thermo-nuclear device and the capability to deliver it over thousands of miles is entirely unacceptable. With these two capabilities, nuclear blackmail is extremely likely and simply can not be allowed. Also a fact is that there will be significant backlash, both internationally and domestically, if military action against Iran wears only an American face.
This is rapidly becoming a lose-lose situation for the world, as well as the U.S. The only question confronting us now is, how much are we willing to lose? If action is taken, it must be both swift and decisive. And whether action or inaction prevails, we have to be prepared for some very serious fallout.
I can only hope that the administration chooses a course of action that marginalizes the negative consequences and maximizes the positive. Until this happens, though, it would be wise for the rest of us to keep a close eye on anything to do with Iran, anything.
With the invasion of Iraq, we had a good chance to stifle this problem. But, due to a combination of some poor decisions by our leadership, the actions of our supposed allies to undermine American power and the development of anti-war sentiment designed to politically discredit the current administration, the chances of a favorable outcome without military intervention in Iran is significantly reduced.
I can only hope that the administration is working strenuously to beg, bully and cajole other countries to actively assist in the elimination of Iranian nuclear weapons capability. The surrounding Arab states should be vitally concerned about a nuclear armed Iran led by a group that envisions itself as the divinely appointed leaders of Islam and the home of the next Caliph. We should have a fairly good shot at drumming up support among the Arab states, considering the historic distrust of Persians in the region. The worst thing that could happen is if Israel is forced to take military action against Iran without widespread support from the Arab states, the US and the world. This could, indeed, cause something very like the prophesy of Ezekiel as one writer told it.
Many thanks to Jed Babbin for keeping this situation on the front burner. Its potential consequences are extremely alarming.
— Michael Tobias
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
This is the same junk as Iraq. You would just be wasting money dropping MOABs on iffy targets. What works every time is getting the people who would use or make WMD. If we just bomb those supposed nuclear sites that just punts the ball downfield for a few years and just makes it very much harder the next time and maybe our government at that time won't be up to the task. The Iranians would also learn and adapt to our attacks and not make the same mistakes next time. I'm tired of trying to keep fanatical despots “in a box.” It doesn't work. They need to chop the head off just like they did in Iraq.
The real tactical threat Iranian forces pose is their massed artillery — they have some whopping big guns and a lot of low-quality infantry. Our air force can open up a hole easy enough so it would be really a matter of how many bridges the U.S. military would need to upgrade to hold the weight of many 70 ton M1A2s on the road to Tehran and our citizens' stomach to endure. If we could get across all the bridges in a timely fashion that would seem like the best way to remove the threat. All you have to do is compare Iraq now with Iran now — which country is a bigger threat? If we had just bombed Iraq there would be that threat still on top of the Iranian threat.
And how hard is it to plan and implement a terrorist campaign against Israel or any of our allies when you would be hiding in a spider-hole like Saddam was?
I don't buy the story about our military being stretched too thin — we've got another two million or so we could be using if we so choose. Our guys are eating lobster tails and steaks in Iraq so it looks like we are doing pretty well there.
Plus you forgot about the new Iraqi army which by all accounts could whip Italy in a fight — no small feat. So they are more than capable of handling any infiltration in areas of Iraq that matter.
The Syrian military is no real threat to anyone unless they would be used to pin some troops down — which if this is the case all Israel needs to do is mass their troops near their border.
Jed Babbin replies:
Dear Brian: Many thanks for the note. And I heartily disagree. The issue of Iran cannot now be addressed by a military invasion, which — it appears — you are suggesting. We don't have the troops, the airlift or the logistics train to mount it or sustain it. And how do you propose to occupy Iran? It's not on, sir. Just not on.
If we have to do an incomplete strike — which could delay if not destroy their nuclear weapons program — it is far better than an unsuccessful invasion. I'm not in favor of spending American lives unless it's absolutely necessary, and no alternative will give us the result we must have. How many M1A1s do we have that could do what you propose? How would you run this campaign? It will not work without significantly increasing the size and arms of our army and marines. To do so will take years we do not have. There are many alternatives to stop Iran from achieving its nuclear ambitions. Some will cost American lives. The fewer the better.
MARCH OF THE CONFUSERS
Re: Mark Gauvreau Judge's March of the Resenters:
Mark Judge hit a familiar nerve with his article on the upcoming march of the discombobulated. Indeed, they are a pseudo-religious bunch who have replaced God with confusion (wasn't that a promise for those who reject God's word?). Their resentment of morality begs the age-old billboard question, “Why do the heathen rage?” It is perfectly understandable that Bush is hated in such an irrational manner simply because, he and conservatives as a group, represent the traditional Judeo-Christian code of morality and the confidence and vision it provides. Furthermore, the clarity of belief threatens the cloud of confusion kicked up during the '60's that continues to overshadow the ongoing moral reversal.
This same phenomenon also operates in Europe where the anti-Bush hatred has been overwhelming. Having cut themselves off from their Christian roots, the majority of Europeans too appear to be perplexed about what they believe, and consequently cannot act decisively to external threats. They react like Dracula to a clove of garlic when an American president like Reagan or Bush (or any European leader with similar character, e.g., Thatcher) confidently pursues policies based on firm principles. Conversely, Clinton was and still is beloved in the Old World because his code of ethics had no foundation. His Bible-carrying “religiosity” was not an issue because everyone knew it was a sham. Bush's faith is much more believable and, therefore, threatens the moral chaos that nurtures resentment and the vacuous ideologies and beliefs held by so much of the left.
The danger of the rage, of course, is that it masks a religious vacuum that eventually will be filled by some set of beliefs, whether rational or otherwise. Over the past two centuries, Europeans have tried replacing Christianity with secular equality, fascism, Marxism, and socialism among other ideas, but remain confused. Will Islam fill the vacuum before they return to their roots? We can only hope and pray that our future leaders will continue the efforts to protect our foundations and spare Americans from asking a similar question down the road. We will know that they are successful when we see the resenters back on the mall.
— Patrick Minnis
Readers seeking comfort should refrain from actually reading the erstwhile bibliography of Intelligent Design David Hornik brandishes like a matador's cloak in reply to his critics: “Here's the Discovery Institute's list.” But pick any search engine you like — despite his publishing 66 pieces here, author P. David Hornik hasn't left as much as a crop circle on the landscape of scientific publication — first and foremost, his erstwhile ID bibliography cites itself.
Half the entries are authored by familiars of the Seattle institute which gained notoriety, but not credibility by shoehorning its views into nominally scientific print by the hostile editorial takeover of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, whose editors wisely resigned in protest.
Had Hornik's allies written papers that commanded real curiosity, they might have escaped the vicious cycle of self-citation evident in his one page list — is it not odd that although centuries younger than teleology, General Relativity's bibliography already features not just scientific proponents named Behe, Demski, and Meyer but legions who are not? Intellectually attractive and fruitful scientific debates find ready entry into real scientific journals with objective standards of peer review, instead of flourishing only in publications conspicuously lacking science editors, such as this. But since Hornik cites the authority of Newton, Boyle, and other baroque worthies antedating peer review, some hypothesis is needed to explain
The American Spectator's status as a magnet for fringe science.
That fine relic of scholasticism, the Doctrine of Signatures , may be apposite, for surely, as like attracts like, and tends to cure it, the ancestral turkey that still graces your masthead from the epoch of The Alternative may exert a powerful metaphysical attraction for the scientifically unencumbered mind. If so, expect further submissions not just from anti-Darwinians, but from scientific aspirants rejected by journals of alternative thermodynamics, homeopathy, nuclear winter, biological transmutation, and fruit bat husbandry.
You should publish them all, alongside the productions of Intelligent Design. That's what journals of opinion are for.
— Russell Seitz
P. David Hornik replies:
I'm glad Mr. Seitz has searched through some of my publications to determine that I'm not a scientist, which is not something anyone ever claimed (aside perhaps from my mother when I was in second grade). His fuming semi-coherency suggests that even the questioning of Darwinist dogma is emotionally intolerable to him.
Re: Carole Graham's letter in Reader Mail's
Just a note to tell you I will not be getting out my wagon train and turning up at your door. Most conservatives, I am sure, will be there for him, and it is likely he will have at least two years. The liberals are in a real mess, a real divided group and they are flat broke and still have not paid back the money that was ordered to be paid back when they merrily stole it from the taxpayers. It is amazing to me why people would vote for a party like this, but liberals have been in charge for so long it is just habit for them, I suppose. I know you will understand the situation. Our biggest worry is the liberals will not act like adults about this and will spend most of the time trying to “get Harper.” If they do, they will lose all around, but who knows they might buckle down with a new leader and get some honest days work done. Remember Prime Minister Stephen Harper, he is a good one.
The results of the election were in one way, disappointing at first regarding the liberals doing so well. All of the pundits were muttering, “Can he do it with this minority?” “It is going to be very difficult to get their promises kept”; “He is young and has some inexperienced people in the party, it will be almost impossible to make changes in any way”; etc., so on and so on. Very depressing to conservative voters who wanted a higher minority.
Then Stephen Harper, Prime Minister Stephen Harper came out and blew all of the spin out the window. He spoke with force, with certainly, and with grace. He had conducted a flawless campaign and had reason to feel proud of himself and his party, and was not going to stop telling Canadians the truth. He made all of the critics from the left look so negative that he and his positive outlook did away with any negatives on his position.
Prime Minister Harper is a uniter, he is a man who wants to lead Canada to becoming a nation less divided, less corrupt and to show the world we are a great county that will return to a country who can now feel pride in the government. The time he has will be well used, he and his party of young, energetic and good people will work as hard now as they did in creating his flawless campaign. He is an intelligent man with good values and cares deeply about a Canada that can be less divided so watch as he works on this issue. We know it will be difficult, he is certainly aware of this, but after hearing his speech I know he will not lose his dream of a country that stood up for change with him.
I love writing the words: Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Conservative, at last.
Re: Mark Gauvreau Judge's Right Wing-tips:
Mr. Gauvreau Judge needs to lighten-up and live a little. Just because I drive a Porsche, drink Cabernet and prefer Marin Marais to Vince Gill doesn't make me a better person than your average beer swilling NASCAR fan, and it doesn't mean I can't support a candidates whose tastes run more to NASCAR and Gretchen Wilson.
When I was younger, I was much less tolerant (and a liberal to boot) than I am today. Mr. Gauvreau Judge should take a drive down 95 to somewhere like Wilson, N.C., eat some barbecue and talk to some of the “common” folk who live there. Walking in the shoes of another gives one a fuller view of life.
— Frank Harrell
Playa Del Rey, California