SOCK IT, TOOMEY!
Re: Paul Weyrich’s Runaway Federal Spending:
What a joke it is for Paul Weyrich to urge greater involvement at the grassroots level to achieve conservative policies and then try to squash a tremendous grass roots effort in Pennsylvania to replace an aging RINO with a dynamic conservative in the U.S. Senate! Rather than staying neutral in the primary race between Arlen Specter and Pat Toomey, Mr. Weyrich tells us that we should support “the Worst Republican Senator”! RINO’s like Arlen Specter are the reason conservative policies rarely get implemented.
It’s evident that Mr. Weyrich has been in Washington too long and the Kultursmog has affected his thinking. We need Pat Toomey and Paul Weyrich should be leading the charge.
— Regis Dansdill
Re: John R. Dunlap’s Latin Zones:
I took Latin in my high school freshman year, and I still have my Latin First Year book by Charles I. Freundlich who, according to the inside cover, taught Latin in Forest Hills High School in New York City. Until that class, I had never heard of conjugation of verbs and declension of nouns. Until that class I, too, was clueless about my own language. I even loved the history of the Romans. Best of all, I felt superior when I could sing the Christmas hymns in Latin in church. I still miss the mass given in Latin. That one class has stuck with all these years. Veni! Vidi! Vici!
— Kitty Myers
Painted Post, NY
SECRECY PUT TO GOOD USE
Re: Francis X. Rocca’s The European Religion :
Mr. Rocca’s article though interesting forgets some salient facts about the “coming out” of our own Constitution. For the entire period that the signers of the Constitution met, the proceedings were held behind closed doors. The members were sworn to secrecy when outside the confines of Liberty Hall. The draft was sent to the several States for ratification by their then standing representative in state houses. There was no plebiscite for ratification of the Constitution by the People of the Several States. The primary discussion, found in print, is the Federalist papers that were published in the States during that period.
I don’t advocate closed-door government. Its track record is poor. But we need to be fair, the method of deliberation that is going on in the EU formation is the very same that spawned out Constitution. What is relevant is that the Constitution was constructed during the period of the Enlightenment while the EU is being formulated during a period of Devolution. Reading drafts of present EU documents is like reading a legal brief for a USC Title IX challenge. It’s long on facts but short on the Rights of Man that Locke and Rousseau espoused some three centuries ago.
Possibly the toiling ministers should go back to their roots and read
these men again?
— John McGinnis
HIGH ON HYPOCRISY
Re: George Neumayr’s Self-Indulgent Liberal Man:
“Hypocrisy is wrong, but a society which decides to live up to its standards by not having any is worse.”
Man, that is so spot on! Thanks — I needed that! I’ve almost become “proud” to be a hypocrite these days, because being one means you at least have a moral standard!
Better to follow Jesus and stumble, than to wander aimlessly into the darkness…
I think I’ll blog it!
— Marty McKeever
Thank you for that beautifully crafted piece of writing.
By my search for truth during the college years I discovered the smothering gray fog of relativism. Heads high under the “Question Everything” banner, it seems they never stopped to notice that questions require answers. There is a mental contortion of the most intricate sort that can display moral certainty of the fact(sic) that there can be no moral certainty.
Your article framed the liberal mindset so neatly.
Wonderful article. How right you are. El Rushbo will return and there will be hell to pay. Don’t gloat too much, the best has yet to come.
I enjoyed your article very much. Very insightful.
In that article you mention how liberals can leave their relativism for a time, to take on some conservative right and wrong in order to bash conservative hypocrites.
I would like to briefly present my theory as to how they can do this.
In post-modern thought, the only meaning and sense of right and wrong, as far as I understand it, is in the context of community.
Liberals have their community, conservatives have their community. So, in their community it’s not wrong, but in a conservative community it is. So, maybe it is this concept that enables them to call conservative hypocrites on the carpet? They don’t have any problems claiming something is wrong for someone else, but not wrong for them, I think, because they see it in the context of two different communities.
The even more fundamental question is then, how can liberal relativists claim only one truth, the truth that everything is relative? Because if everything is relative, how can their truth be a truth?
These are my initial thoughts stimulated by your article. Thank you again for writing and sharing it.
— Mark Marston
Thank you for putting it so succinctly when you said: “”Conservatives love the sinner but hate the sin; Franken hates the sinner and loves the sin.” I believe that is true for almost all liberals. They are more concerned with ideologies and feelings and philosophy than they are concerned about the person. They love “humanity” more than they love human beings.
This article is simply the best I have read concerning the liberals vs. Rush. Thank you so much from a dittohead.
Re: Enemy Central’s Make the Hurt Go Away:
The Red Sox curse will not be removed until Teddy is also removed.
— George O’Neil
ABOVE THE DIN
Re: “Gunga Ho on Eduardo Ciannelli” letters in Reader Mail’s We’ve Been Deaned:
I read with interest all the reader mail regarding Mason and Felder’s horrible Gunga Din gaff. It is good to see that some things create more furor among readers of The American Prowler than even Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Though all correctly pointed out that Sam Jaffe played Gunga Din, not the evil guru, there appeared some confusion about what was the actual exhortation to the Thugi followers. Thomas Kennedy came close when he wrote that the guru — or “Mr. Wiseman” as Sergeant MacChesney (Victor McLaglen) calls him — said “‘Kill for the love of Kali’ not ‘Kill for the love of killing.'” Actually, he says both. But Mr. Kennedy also makes an error that cries out for correction. Sergeant Cutter (Cary Grant) does not call the guru’s son “Frogface” but rather “young toad face.” Thought it was important to clear that up.
— Brandon Crocker
San Diego, CA
HYPOCRITE AND TRAITOR OF THE WEEK
Re: Jackie Mason & Raoul Felder’s Hypocrites and Traitors:
BRAVO!!! And speaking about traitors, have you seen the comments by Madame Albright –in Paris on her book promo tour! ARGHHH
— Noela Karl
Re: Lawrence Henry’s My Name Is Rush L.:
Lawrence Henry may be right about Rush Limbaugh coming back stronger than ever. But Mr. Henry does gloss over a couple of points in his march toward ultimate victory. First, Mr. Limbaugh did not willingly walk into an AA meeting, as Mr. Henry tells us he did, and announce his dependency on addictive substances. He was shoved into a public admission by his maid and the National Enquirer. Only then did he admit what he apparently could not deny. Big difference. Second, if what he admitted is true, he’s a potential felon. Beer and liquor drinking is not a felony. Using controlled narcotics is. Seems to me that this situation with Mr. Limbaugh is forcing you usually razor-minded conservatives into the fuzzy world usually occupied by us liberals. Be careful that in attempting to protect your big battleship you don’t lose your entire navy.
Your present approach will work with Moron Republicans (pardon the steal) — anything will work with them. But Mr. Limbaugh’s value was that he appealed to the open-minded. Now he’s badly damaged goods. All of us who have suffered in life can sympathize with Mr. Limbaugh’s plight as a human being. But as a propagandist for the Republican Party, he’s in Big Trouble. Mr. Henry’s desperate attempt to paint Mr. Limbaugh as a voluntary member of a twelve-step program, and your printing such an easily refuted argument, shows just how big your trouble is.
— Ed Marston
Lawrence Henry replies: I suggest Mr. Marston read a little more closely. I did not suggest that Rush Limbaugh willingly marched into a 12-step program. And, indeed, many of us came to AA and NA because of what we call, laughingly, “a nudge from the judge.”
With all of the media crowing about Rush Limbaugh’s “downfall” because of painkiller addiction, I quickly grew weary of it all because these people can only exist in a world of hype.
However, I recently saw an interesting contradiction that I would like to point out.
I was reading this month’s issue of Playboy and its interview with filmmaker Quentin Tarantino. In it he boasted that, during production of Kill Bill in China (in China?), he dropped Exstasy at the Great Wall and that he and his cast and crew “partied” like hell on their days off.
Yet I hear no righteous indignation and moral catcalls and shouts for rehab directed at Mr. Badboy. Hollywood and its left-wing hypocrisy takes care of its own.
— Paul Austin
WHAT CAN GOV. BUSH DO?
Re: Jeremy Lott’s reply to Roger Ross’s letter in Reader Mail’s We’ve Been Deaned:
Perhaps we see things differently but I don’t believe our laws and the Governor’s willingness to take what legal action he can are of any moral equivalent to the late Pontius Pilate and his disposal of his situation nor the laws and options facing PP. It seems absurd to me to suggest it. I would ask again what more would you have the Governor do? Is he failing to wring his hands enough publicly? In the end, I believe he is correct and I simply do not understand your conclusion or suggestion.
As far as “get a grip,” I do realize how this issue is extremely emotional but, to me, your question concerning Governor Bush distracts from what you wish to have happen,. The Governor is not the problem here. My suggesting that you might get a more firm hold was not something to promote or further “my” cause. As some pols would say, “I don’t have a dog in this race.” I was responding to your article that certainly appears to be a call to action. I just believe you could better serve the cause you wrote about without attempting to make a point the way you did. You even mentioned an apparent concern to say what you did.
I generally enjoy nearly every aspect of TAS but that doesn’t mean I agree with everything I read here. Would I be wrong to suggest TAS keep up the good work?
— Roger Ross
I love your website and go on it every morning, but I cannot stand having to look at the photo of Hillary Clinton every time I click on. She is one of the most disgusting humans on this earth. Could you please move it down so it’s not in sight while I’m reviewing the new columns? It’s enough to dissuade me from getting on your site.
— Mary Menard
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.