Re: Jerry Carter’s Clinton By the Book:
As someone who has read the book, the comments on Thomas a Kempis’s The Imitation of Christ were right on. However, depending on what one means by “read,” Mr. Clinton may have actually opened the book. He surely read the part where Thomas a Kempis states that “once a man is out of sight, he is out of mind.” I’m willing to bet that Bill Clinton missed the admonition to “avoid the company of women.” Keep up the good work.
— Tim Rasmussen
Right, Lyin’ Bill couldn’t have controlled his pornographic mind long enough to read any book of substance beyond the table of contents. Maybe Pervo Pants selected his favorite books by title only? In the case of Imitation of Christ, Satan’s Best Boy must have been thinking in terms of a “how-to” manual on fooling the people. (Remember all the pictures of His Fraudulence coming out of church services, and carrying what appeared to be a bible, and all the preaching from the pulpit?)
Bill Clinton: All pathology. All the time.
The whole article was accurate, hilarious, and sickening (by way of the subject matter). Let’s have some more writing, Jerry Carter!
— Carl Gordon Pyper
HEADED FOR TROUBLE
Re: David Hogberg’s Supply-Spend Economics:
David Hogberg does a good job describing the problems with the Republican platform but then refuses to answer his own question: “So what’s a supply-sider to do?” The answer which he probably knows in his heart but from which he and so many other “Conservatives” recoil is: “Fight!” It’s been true for some time now: “Friends don’t let Friends vote Republican.” Only if the Republican Party faces certain defeat will it, as a last resort, refuse to raise spending and add entitlements. David’s response might have been tenable a decade or two ago, but the time is long past when hope could overcome experience.
— Mike Rizzo
Did Hogberg or Wlady write the following header: “Bush Republicans have traded in their Reaganite soul for power”?
The article contains no mention of soul trading. If you insist on being libertarians, please don’t foam at the mouth. If not for the alternate headline about demand economics on the banner, I would have skipped reading this thoughtful article, from fear of exposure to fanaticism.
— Douglas Hill
Re: Lawrence Henry’s Heritage Day:
What’s the world coming to in Mass.? First ya’ll say buggerers can be betrothed, and now pickled herring is getting the bum’s rush. What gives? True, I get funny looks and questions from checkout girls when they scan my large bottle of Vita goodness (in wine sauce, please), but I live in South Georgia, for goodness sake, so I get the same reaction when my cart is overflowing with pierogies and lox. I just try and spread the word; please hold the culinary line up North.
— Alex Markowich
I haven’t a drop of Norwegian blood in me, but my husband is as Norske as they get. So, a few suggestions from his family:
(1) Dress Bud as a Viking.
(2) Have him recite this part of a Norwegian poem: “A thousand Swedes / Running through the weeds / Chased by one Norwegian.” Apparently a reference to Norwegian fighting skills (as compared to Swedish running skills). If you care to modernize it, you could probably change “Swedes” in the first line to “French,” but then it wouldn’t rhyme …
(3) Recipe for Lutefisk: Place fish on board, drain liquid; cover with bread, butter and spices. Throw out fish, eat board on bread.
Happy Heritage Day!
— Sally Haney
(Cary is right next to Fox River Grove, home of the Norge ski-jump!)
Lawrence Henry replies:
Most Norwegians and proto-Norwegians agree about lutefisk. They agree about it; they don’t eat it. And when I suggested herring to Bud, I said, “We’ll put out a dish of it, nobody will eat it, and then Daddy will take it home and eat it all.” He would have none of it, and in the event, spent two hours helping me cook lefse, which turned out great. Probably just as well we didn’t bring the herring. Bud’s friend at the next over desk was celebrating Hungary, and had brought Hungarian sauerkraut. You can imagine how many takers that had at 10:30 in the morning.
Re: Jackie Mason & Raoul Felder’s The Sorry Tale of George Soros:
Great article about Soros. I would, however, change the very last word to jackass.
All the money piled on Geo Soros’ back makes him a dangerous, meddling donkey. Well done, guys.
— Gene Hauber
Re: Paul Beston’s Garbage Time:
I completely agree with the article about Fox News and other news networks being unwilling to discuss our fallen heroes. I noticed in Italy there was a large public mourning for that country’s lost soldiers. Why can’t the United States do anything like that? And why hasn’t President Bush gone to any of the funerals? Maybe it is security issues, but it must be very hurtful to these military families. It seems doubly crass that they spend all their time covering Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson and Scott Peterson. Frankly, at our house, it got so disgusting that we have not been watching it at all for weeks. It is just too depressing.
Thank you for the excellent article. It gave voice to what our family was feeling.
— Karen Barker
FINALLY, someone who writes with heart and integrity, and is not afraid to call it as he sees it. Let’s hear more from this writer.
While perusing one of my favorite website haunts (buzzflash.com) I came across the article by Paul Beston about the garbage at Fox “news” and have to comment on it. I find it quite amusing when one group of right-wing fanatics picks on another bunch of right wing fanatics. Beston’s first mistake is the notion that FAUX is actually a legitimate news organization, which is proven false by simply watching it. Of course the biggest crime is not the daily coverage of such things as Jackson, Peterson, Blake or other trendy “real crimes.” The most real crime, the one that Beston and FAUX don’t have the balls to cover, or even mention, is the crime that Bush, the unelected frat boy fraud, election thief, liar, and destroyer of this nation’s economy committed against this nation, by sending our troops to Iraq to die in the first place. Therein lies the real crime against humanity, notwithstanding whether Scott Peterson actually killed his wife or not. As for the “buffoonery” or “verbal flatulence” of Sean Hannity, Beston doesn’t go far enough by failing to mention the fact that this is what talk radio consists of today, and Hannity is a major practitioner of the art. As for Beston, I presume that we must be constantly grieving for the loss of over 2,500 soldiers, and I do grieve for the families that have lost their brave sons and daughters so needlessly in Bushwar. However, instead of the endless pompom and flag waving that Beston wants, why not use the energy to get our troops out of Iraq, so Beston will not need to be awake at night pondering how they died in the first place, and focus the energy of who send them there to die. At least Beston got one thing right: The media’s obsession with Jessica Lynch, who by her own accounts is no hero, but sadly another victim of Bushwar ,and the PR machine of Rummy’s Pentagon, who desperately needed to put a human face on the quagmire in Iraq.
— Bill Sartori
Concord, New Hampshire
Mr. Beston might handle the disgrace of watching the “fiddling while Rome burns” programming of Fox News (sic) as I do — by never, ever watching it. And by the way, someone may want to point out to Mr. Beston that WOMEN and men are dying in Iraq.
— Barbara Van Auken
Interesting article — even more interesting is your assertion that Jessica Lynch’s story is one that no one can agree on. What about Jessica’s own version — shouldn’t that be the story?
— Sandra Diesel
Albuquerque, New Mexico
GOING FOR BROOKS
Re: George Neumayr’s Babbling Brooks and Reader Mail’s Why Knot?:
Republicans should thank David Brooks for what he has done. Tease the morally vacuous secularists with big tent allusions while splitting the Democrat party into as many pieces as possible. The “non-same-sex marriage” spit out by one of the Democrat presidential candidates when referring to what has been traditionally called marriage was I am sure extremely popular in parts of Springfield, Missouri, but demonstrated the utter foolishness of those who take money from homosexual lobbies while pretending to be church goers to the general public. Maybe Dave would write his next bit on the wonders of race reparations. This would create even bigger mischief.
— Clif Briner
NO NOW AND FOREVER
Re: R.H. Sager’s Guess Who Came to Dinner and Reader Mail’s Why Knot?:
This statement is the crux of the biscuit: “Marriage is a contract, it’s a choice, it encourages stability. Conservatives like all of those things. Why not extend the institution?”
Here is why not only conservatives but all rational humans should say no in an unambiguous way.
Because there is no benefit to society for two men or two women to have a stable relationship. There may be a benefit to the two men or the two women but that is irrelevant to society as a whole. On the other hand the stable relationship of a man and a woman becomes relevant to society when and only when they produce children. It has become increasingly obvious over the last 30 some-odd years that a stable relationship with a mother and father is the best for society as a whole because it has a better chance of raising law abiding productive future citizens.. You have often heard that a married couple has decided to divorce, the natural question is “did they have any children?” when the answer is NO. the response is almost always “That’s good.” This natural interchange between regular people shows in a vivid way that the marriage of two people does not matter to society until and unless there are children produced by the marriage. “Gay” marriage is simply another indulgence because as a result of it it can never produce offspring. All the other legal ramifications of the “marriage” that gays are seeking can easily be arranged in a contractual, power of attorney or last will and testament fashion. The “Gay” marriage agenda is simply a series of straw dog arguments offered by a bunch of red herrings and not worthy of intelligent discussion
— Stuart Buchalter
New York, New York
Did not really appreciate and was unimpressed by Mr. Sager’s cowardice. He was unwilling to fight the fight on abortion, so he switched to a left wing subject that would endear him to the hearts of his left wing audience: gay marriage. He must have observed Bill Clinton at work. Our old lovable lug was a master at analyzing his audience and saying what they wanted to hear.
Gay marriage is a pointless enterprise. Anyone can already have sex with anyone, or anything, that they wish. The point of a marriage contract is not visitation rights, property rights, or even “love.” A marriage contract is unnecessary for any of these silly reasons. The real reason for marriage, a real marriage, is for the next generation of children that spring forth only from a heterosexual union. Even the stupid idea of gay or lesbian adoption is dependent on good, old fashioned male-female intercourse. No babies for the gay men to adopt unless the sperm and the ovum unite. Duh! If heterosexual couples fail to live up to the standard of permanence that is expressed in the marriage covenant, that is no reason to present gay “marriage” as a substitute. A permanent, stable heterosexual couple is the optimum for bearing and raising children.
— David Shoup