Re: George Neumayr’s Losing by Winning:
George Neumayr seems to think that California Republicans voting for Arnold Schwarzenegger is tantamount to Episcopalians voting for a gay bishop. The fact is, Arnold is not a “de facto Democrat and Hollywood liberal.”
I like Tom McClintock. I’ve given money to his campaigns in the past. And up to about a week ago, if any pollster had called me, I would have told them I was voting for McClintock. But with polls now showing Arnold beating McClintock by 22 or more points, neither I nor the California Republican Party “elites” are sabotaging McClintock’s campaign by endorsing Arnold. Though I (and most of the party “elites”) agree with Mr. Neumayr that McClintock could beat Bustamante — in a two-way race — the fact is, we don’t have a two-way race. And it seems a bit much to ask of the Republican “elites” to pressure Arnold (polling at 40%) to drop out so that McClintock (polling at 15%) can have a chance to win.
It appears that one of the biggest problems conservatives like Mr. Neumayr have with Arnold is that he is not pro-life. But with Roe v. Wade the law of the land, this is irrelevant in a gubernatorial race. And certainly the California legislature, dominated by liberal Democrats, is not going to pass anything restricting abortion rights.
As commentators, we can be as ideologically pure as we want, without consequences. That’s not true in politics. Any political party that wants to be more significant than the Libertarians has to allow for a reasonable variation from its ideological core for the simple fact that the vast majority of voters are not ideological. Having little record to go by, Arnold is a bit of a question mark, but he says enough of the right things that this conservative is going to have no trouble punching his San Diego County punch-card ballot all the way through for Arnold on Tuesday.
I would like to remind Mr. Neumayr and like-minded conservatives, that George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan (or Tom McClintock). But we are all better off that in 2000 Republicans decided to win with George W. Bush rather than to lose with Alan Keyes.
— Brandon Crocker
San Diego, CA
George Neumayr is right about Ah-nuld. But, sadly, most of his criticisms could apply to the national Republican Party as well. Just a brief examination of Dubya’s domestic record compels the conclusion that the Republicans have very little soul left to sell. I see no evidence they’re engaging the left anywhere. They aren’t even trying to advance the conservative agenda — don’t even use the word “conservative” except in fund raising letters to their “dinosaur list.” The GOP battle cry for ’04 could be, “Our liberals can beat your liberals.”
A dinosaur in Tampa
When was it decided that the Republican Party was a subsidiary of the Vatican? Arnold has supported both Presidents Bush and the efforts of the American military in Iraq. Republicans might do a little better if they keep their religion separate from their politics.
— Gene Schmidt
Come on, George, I think it’s time you stepped back and tried to be objective. The only reason the California Republican Party exists is to help elect a Republican President. Period. Arnold as Governor does this.
— Mo Sandvig
We regard Arnold as “The Infiltrator” and have e-mailed his office as such and the Republican offices as such and that he should step aside for the experienced Sen. McClintock.
We are exasperated with the Republican party for what they are doing and will not support them.
— Mr. & Mrs. Martin J. Edwards
But, a Schwarzenegger administration has to be a disaster! He will have exactly the same Democrat-controlled legislature, a body that hasn’t the slightest interest in making him look good. “Renegotiate with the public sector unions?” Is Arnie on something? McClintock will probably take his notoriety and steadfastness and leadership out of the legislature and into the next campaign for U.S. Senator. But, in 2004, where we used to have the ability to point at California as an example of the terrible damage that liberal Democrats can do, if Arnie wins, the Democrats will now have proof of the Republicans’ (liberal and conservative) failure to meet campaign promises. Maybe Arnie can pull something off, but my view is that, over the near term, California and the country would be far better off with no recall and Davis still running the quagmire.
— M in Colleyville
Re: Hunter Baker’s Unintelligent Designs on Academic Freedom:
I read with sadness Hunter Baker’s Special Report.
I am not a constitutional scholar, but I assume that presenting students with a Stork Theory as opposed to teaching Sexual Reproduction would no doubt pass constitutional muster. And yet we would rightly ridicule anyone who proposed such a thing.
It is indeed sad that in the twenty-first century there is still any serious consideration given to hobbling our younger generation’s education by presenting magical thinking such as ID or Creationism on a par with effective theories produced by the scientific method. The pace of technological change today’s kids will face will outrace anything we have seen in previous centuries, especially in the biological sciences. Let us educate them technically and morally/spiritually so that they will be as prepared as possible.
— Ben Zipperer
Aside from the left knowing where to challenge “academic freedom” in the courts (since, like most of their “arguments,” it has been made up through verbal gymnastics over decades), it is heartening to realize that there are folks in this country who are still actually willing to stand up to the anti-religious thuggery of the Darwinists (many of whom feel the need to prove that we came from apes but to do so requires more federal funding).
By the way, I doubt many kids in public schools know what a monkey trial is/was. Either way, it occurs me that monkeys and faith can never be reconciled no matter what label is placed on it for legal expediency.
Just teach both (i.e. religion and science). Make it legal to do so and let the educated individual make the choice. When knowledge and understanding are not able to fill the void between science and religion, faith will step in no matter how hard lawyers and the left try to prevent it.
— Stu Margrey
YEARS ON MY PILLOW
Re: Jeremy Lott’s Crossfire Hurricane:
Dear Jeremy: What! You are only 25 and so smart! I couldn’t believe what I was reading, your columns sound so clever and full of wisdom, and now I find out you are just a kid, what a surprise!
I am not being sarcastic, I really was surprised, and think how wonderful it must be to just be 25, you are not expected to be grown until you are 30, did you not know that?
At 30, it is, “Oh, God, I have to grow up now!” (It is not so bad, really.) At 40, small slide into “what is it all about?” time. (Deep, moody, “why am I here?” and growing — or buy a sports car.) At 50, just cry a lot. At 60, I feel like I am twenty, my body refuses to think so, but hey, there are still adventures out there. Can’t go further than that, but have a suspicion that life can still be fun.
The best part, Jeremy, is when you are sixty, you will still feel 19 in your heart, that does not ever change!
Get out there and enjoy being 25, it could be worse! Happy Birthday,
Hello Jeremy. Cheer up! You’re half-way to 50!
— John Carrigg
49 years old in Downers Grove, IL
Jeremy, wait till you are approaching 70 and only have 35 days to enjoy your sixties. That’s something to dread so enjoy the great years of your life and I hope you have many more to enjoy.
CAPTIVE TO THE WORD
Re: James Bowman’s review of Luther:
I was pleased to note that someone was paying attention to the Luther film. I was disappointed that Mr. Bowman paid so little attention. Like so many others, he bases his critique on outdated attempts to understand Luther. I share the reviewer’s disdain for portrayals of Luther as some larger than life hero which is the stuff of nineteenth century Protestantism. The portrayal of the posting of the 95 theses is portrayed in the film, not as an heroic act, but as the everyday occurrence it was in the sixteenth century academic world.
What Mr. Bowman fails to notice in the film, is that it is Luther’s being “captive to the Word” which drives him to confess at peril to his life. This is thoroughly un-modern and counter-cultural in this 21st century. Unfortunately the reviewer chose to distort the film by throwing it into an anti-Catholic movement in our culture. I would agree that there are such tendencies in our culture and they are of concern to me. This film does not strike me as a part of that tendency. The portrayal of early sixteenth century Western Christianity is as accurate as a film covering a span of 25 years can be expected to be.
I would suggest that the reviewer view the film again — without the biases which blinded him to what the film actually portrays. He might even begin to understand why Luther remains such a towering figure in the history of Western thought. He will also understand the films portrayal of Luther’s friend Ulrich and of the Electors at the Diet of Augsburg. Captivity to the Word and the compulsion to share the Good News with others who languish in self-absorbed hopelessness are motifs the reviewer would do well to note at his second viewing of the film. He will perhaps discover that he over-looked and failed to hear much of the film.
— Michael Zamzow
Little Suamico, WI
Re: Richard McEnroe’s letter (“Create Something First”) in Reader Mail’s Sticking It to Stuck Democrats :
In response to Mr. R. McEnroe:
1) I am coauthoring a book on Linux for the University at which I teach. I have also written several articles on Open Source deployments. Have been the programmer, designer or systems architect on two dozen projects over the years. So I know of the effort associated with IP related products. But no, I am not a musician.
2) If 10 million people download one of your songs that you have not positioned yourself to get paid via the medium, that is a marketing problem not a crime scene. The RIAA has consistently resisted any effort to develop or accept a pay per song schema for the Internet. The RIAA at this writing is making waves about the Apple pay for play download site.
3) The record industry is stealing from you today if you walk into a local Office Max and buy blank CD’s. As a compromise plan, Congress passed back in the late 80’s, a bill that the record industry would be reimbursed for “fair use” copying of CD’s. The provisions of that bill were to apply to audio CD’s only but it is applied to all CD’s at point of manufacture. So when you or I buy a 50 pack a percentage of the cost goes to the record industry, even if I only intended to use them to back up my PC. That, Sir, is conversion.
4) I would agree that each player in the record chain is only taking a small percentage, adding to the costs. And there is the rub. Most of the players are not required anymore. Sorry. I have been part of or seen whole layers of middlemen eliminated in several industries due to information/automation of the supply chain. I usually follow Jazz as a genre. Most of the artists have small followings. I buy most of my CD’s direct from the artist — $10-12. He is getting the lion’s share of the profit. If you wish to see the future of music, look at Amazon. Several artists sell through this venue, collapsing the supply chain.
5) Lastly I would suggest a review of Jefferson and Madison on the issue of patents and IP in general. Had it not been for these two gentlemen this country would not have a Patent Office at all. But if you read their assessments IP is to be used to promote the scientific and intellectual arts not to suppress them as is generally done today in the business arena.
I do not condone stealing property. But the RIAA’s tactics and inability to address change is unacceptable. Give the American Public a means to buy a single song electronically and this issue will become moot.
— John McGinnis
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/.