THE TOTAL PACKAGE
Re: James Bowman’s Air Force Academics:
Two points to make in reference to Mr. Bowman’s article: The charter of the military academies in this country spelled out the goal of furnishing combat officers for our armed services. That was changed and, in my opinion, corrupted when women were admitted in 1976.
Sorry, but “omerta” doesn’t cut it. The honor code at the U.S. Military Academy is: A cadet will not lie, cheat or steal, nor tolerate anyone who does. There is no honor is remaining silent in the face of lawlessness. (I would argue that Cadet MacArthur’s silence was not to protect law-breaking, as hazing was an integral part of academy life well into the 1970s, but that’s a topic written about exhaustively.)
Duty, Honor, Country,
— Lee D. Lowrey
Women are indeed allowed in front line warplanes. I personally have flown real world missions, Northern and Southern Watch, where women were occupying fighter aircraft in my package.
— Jeff Wilson
Lt. Col. (Retired)
Jim Bowman is wrong when he asserts the fairer sex is restricted from flying warbirds in combat. This restriction was lifted by Hillary and Co. in the early nineties. Gals are still restricted from flying whirlybirds in direct support of the ground combat. This too is being challenged by the feminazis.
Colorado Springs, CO
Re: Adam D. Thierer’s Schumer’s Cell Phone Silliness:
Well, Duh. Of course there is no mention of cell phones in the Constitution. Must I explain why to the VRW?
I read this week’s Enemy of the Week. It referenced last week’s EOW, which I promptly found archived and went on to read (sorry!). That reference was to ABC, Terry Moran, and Sir Peter Jennings, of “World News” fame. Our community, Portland, Oregon, was graced by a full day of Sir Peter, as in 24+ hours’ worth! He was gracious to co-chair our local town hall live TV show on the ABC affiliate as well as anchor his “World News Tonight” from our beautiful area.
Mr. Jennings was glad to explain his role in the news media as well as his desired outcome in that role. He sounded decidedly French when speaking of the media’s role and his role as the editor-in-chief of ABC’s “World News Tonight.” He went on to say that their (his) job was to act as a counter-balance to the stated U.S. policy (read: President Bush’s), and to provide another view. Not one time did he mention the primary role of news shows, the one remembered in the past, in reporting the news. The “editing” came in deciding subjects of “national importance,” or which live events to cover, or what general topics would be of interest to viewers. Now we have the pleasure of hearing vaunted opinions of such luminaries as Sir Peter, or the ever valiant Prince Terry. Any question as to their opinions and slanting is cast aside by reviewing the question asked by his royalness, the Crown Prince, referenced in the EOW of March 7th.
Forgive my sarcasm, but these folks from ABC, or Disney for that matter, are somewhat less qualified to decide the “role of journalists” than the schools that teach the true history and practices of the subject. There is also, thankfully, a follow-up business correlation from these kinds of obvious public-steering decisions; namely to help ABC rest secure in 3rd place amongst the “Big 3” and being regularly challenged by the newer upstart networks who show routine ratings advances against them. Some say that is surely or purely from lame programs. I feel there is a larger and broader cynicism towards ABC’s blatant “steering” and far left leanings in the views supposedly shown as balanced. Fear not, guys and gals at ABC. The outcome of lower and lower rankings/ratings is All But Certain as long as these abhorrent changes in journalistic practices are employed and supported. We, the viewers, understand.
— Dave Grasser
THE NEW CENSORSHIP
Re: Michael Craig’s What’s the Big Idea?:
It surely is time to put Michael Craig out to pasture. On matters narrowly concerned with the stock market he has some interesting ideas; not all of them correct, certainly, but many of them worthy of consideration.
When he goes beyond that area, however, and speaks of matters such as the overall value of lawyers to American economy and society, or when he comments on the policies of Dubya, he seems so far out in left field that the peanut vendors won’t even deal with him. His latest effort gives the impression that Bush is running foreign policy as an aid to Wall Street. He is not. And if Wall Street is unable to properly interpret what seem to most of us as a set of straightforward policies then it is the investors who are at fault not G.W. Bush.
There are plenty of more insightful writers on the web today. Pick up one of them and send Craig back to the reservation. As for me, I have wasted my last bit of time reading his screeds.
— Richard Donley
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.