Re: Bill Croke’s Bud Guthrie:
Bill Croke’s paean to A. B. Guthrie, Jr., is magnificent. He caught the man in sure, swift strokes. A few days ago, Western Writers of America inducted Guthrie into its Hall of Fame, placing him among the immortals whose works depicted the American West.
— Richard S. Wheeler
Re: Enemy Central’s Sandy and the Man:
Note the last line of Maureen Dowd’s Sunday personal attack on Justice Scalia. (“In the immortal words of John Riggins, loosen up, Nino, baby.”) I guess reading Enemy Central is easier than coming up with something original!
— Tom Price
ALIVE AND WELL
Re: George Neumayr’s Sodomy in the Age of Oprah.
Great Column! I haven’t encountered writing like that in a long time, and usually from writers that are long dead.
“… to safeguard a moral culture in which human dignity is possible…”
It appears to be precisely the commitment of postmodernist philosophy that that culture, and the human dignity it encompasses, has no right to exist.
— Brian V.
What an excellent piece of writing! Thank you, I appreciate you putting my own convictions into words so well.
— Dan Dickinson
Kansas City, MO
Great job on Thursday’s Supreme Court decision!
— David Cameron
Bravo, this article was absolutely brilliant!
— Stephen D. Stuart
George Neumayr in his screed on the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, “It would befuddle the framers greatly to hear sodomy and dignity in the same sentence.”
Well, yes, of that there can be little doubt.
Of course, it would have equally befuddled the Founders to see women with the right to vote, to find citizenship conferred upon Africans imported for domestic slavery, and to learn that national taxes are collected on the incomes of American citizens — to name only a very few ways American society has changed ‘way beyond their ability to comprehend. But none of these befuddle their descendants.
I also assert, contrary to Mr. Neumayr, that while the Founders may not have been able to comprehend the sea-changes their progeny have experienced, they certainly would have had no problem with our constitution being seen as elastic enough to absorb these changes without the need to do much more than tinker at its edges via amendment.
I think, regardless of how either of us may react to the Court’s decision in Lawrence — or in the University of Michigan cases, or even Bush v. Gore, for that matter — they could be justly proud of the work they created that has withstood, at its depths, the tests of time.
— Marty Keller
IRAQ AND BACK
Re: Jed Babbin’s The Mess of the Press:
This piece may be sufficient for the “blame the liberal media crowd’ but really goes nowhere to challenging critiques from the Right which suggested that a formal Declaration of War (see Constitution) would help prevent what any semi-sober literate could see coming from a mile away. Now we are stuck with the Cabal (their term, not mine) as the soul reason we went to war, and go figure, no one is taking responsibility for what is so obvious.
James Bowman, John Corry on this web site and dozens more unpatriotic conservatives, amongst others, seemed to pick up on the bait and switch in mid-February when suddenly the WMDs were downplayed and that evil mean Saddam became the chief reason for war in Iraq.
Bush was fed bad intelligence by somebody; Paul Weyrich has raised the specter of impeachment on the horizon. And for what? So Bush et al can maintain that the central intelligence apparatus is legitimate? This is reckless advice at best, or deceit beyond comprehension, willing to risk a Republican re-election to protect their own standing.
And, hey, I sympathize with Bush here. The last President who thought he was being lied to and manipulated by the central intelligence apparatus was, what, 40 years ago? How did that story end again?
There is a simple way to end it. Bush says what is obvious: the information stank. Powell and Rummy (and his Defense Policy Board) can resign for being dupes (both reluctant and willing) and we can look forward to four more years of Bush.
— C. Bowen
I agree with your article. But look, what about getting some help in Iraq from the U.N. maybe some multi-national troops to relieve some of our guys so they can come home for a while? Are you opposed to that? If so, why?
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://thespectator.com/world.