Re: Reason Express (9/10)
Explaining Ritter
How can anybody take Scott Ritter seriously ?
He contradicts statements that he made before the weapons inspectors were kicked out.
He used to be worried about Iraq, now he isn't? So suddenly Hussein has thrown away
everything he was working on? This is completely ridiculous, and anybody who demands
proof that a maniac like him is working on nuclear weapons is a fool. Why aren't
the words of the Iraqi defectors, people who actually worked on these programs and
now try to warn us about the dangers, taken more seriously in the press? The press
likes to whine about "not having a debate", well here's an idea, do the damn
investigation yourself and present FACTS to the people so they are informed! Duh!
He got $400,000 from an Iraq sympathizer to help promote the recent documentary
about Iraq. Just a coincidence that he is now against attacking Iraq, I guess.
Weapons inspections are mostly a waste of time, because they keep us under the
illusion that we are doing something productive and protective. Do you REALLY
think there is no way, especially now that four years have passed, for Hussein
to hide what is going on, knowing that money is not an object? Very few people
address this question. I suppose if we played it right, we could force his hand
on this and start bombing 24 hours after they first refuse an inspection team the
required access, and I could be in favor of such an approach, if it wins more
approval across the spectrum. But I don't put alot of faith in the weapons
inspection process, because of the 4 year interval,
and the history of Saddam Hussein.
His position is foolish and naive. So is anybody who takes him seriously without
demanding answers to these questions, and without looking just as sincerely at
those whose testimony conflicts with his. Why not see what Richard Butler thinks?
The Iraqi defectors? What makes Scott Ritter more knowledgeable or more believable
than they are?
Jeff Brokaw
Wheaton, IL
Ad hominem
Haven't read you guys in a while. I see you're idiots on Iraq.
Good bye.
Joe Vesey
Praise for Ron Bailey
Have you all gone nuts? It's hardly "Borking" (with apologies to Judge Bork)
to castigate Mr. Ritter for current statements, as well as venue, that stand
in sharp contrast to what he was saying prior to being "let go" from the weapons
inspection team. Could it be sour grapes? Especially in light of his failed
attempt to work at the CIA (failed lie detector test).
Is Ron Bailey to be the only intelligent, rational and fact based columnist left
@ Reason online?
Good thing his essays are worth the trip.
Mike Daley
Re: Flag Days (9/6)
USA in distress
I appreciate your recent column about flag waving, but I am puzzled by it:
Most people certainly view the American flag as representing primarily love
of one's country, but most people also equate their country with the powers
of the federal government and the president as their righteous "father." In
short, popular political culture believes that the federal government's
pervasive involvement in our lives is essential to make "our country"
possible, safe, healthy, etc. This is one of the lessons of Robert Higgs's
book, CRISIS AND LEVIATHAN.
The reality is that the flag, like all national flags, does not represent
one's country or civil society at all, but the U.S. government, plain and
simple. It does not "represent liberty, tolerance, and the rule of law"
and has not done so ever since the federal government abrogated the
Constitution. To believe that somehow the flag represents liberty is to
fail to distinguish between government and the people and civil society.
To fly the flag is to fly a symbol of the federal government and all that
it does (or even a tiny part of what it does). To compare this to wearing
a crucifix is nonsense since a crucifix does not represent any church at
all (and certainly no Leviathan state today) but simply the crucifixion of
Jesus and Christianity. Especially today when the federal government is
trampling on the Bill of Rights, and pursuing pork, corporate welfare,
protectionism, and escalating interventionism worldwide, I fail to see how
flying the flag represents the ideas and ideals of liberty.
I would instead suggest that if you insist on flying the flag as a symbol
that you uphold, you do so showing it upside down, as a symbol of distress,
for that indeed is the state of "liberty, tolerance, and the rule of law"
in America today.
Best regards,
David J. Theroux
Founder and President
The Independent Institute
When the country was fallin' apart, Betsy Ross sewed it all together...
My solution is to fly a traditional American Flag -- either the Betsy
Ross Flag or the (15-star) "Star-Spangled Banner". That way, one can
express support for the American Constitutional Republic without
supporting the American Empire. I particularly like the Star-spangled
Banner, because 1814 was the last time that an American Flag flew
over a truly constitutional republic, legitimately defending its
citizens from unprovoked attacks by a foreign power. NOTE: You might
be able to argue successfully that World War II was also a
"just war", but by that time, the USA was no longer a Constitutional
Republic -- rather it was a fledgling Empire.
John Wallace
Re: Hoot 'n' Holler (9/3)
If you're not outraged...
Dear Mr. Cavanaugh:
Thanks for the observations on the reactions of various pundits to the
Real Beverly Hillbillies. I certainly do share your annoyance with the
self-righteous moralizings of those who can't stand for others to enjoy
themselves in an irreverant manner, and of course I concur that the
voluntary nature of the participation is sadly being ignored by these
complainers. And I think the movie Trading Places may have been yet
another example of the black/white switcheroo which was popular to
explore a few years back.
But just for whatever it's worth, I would like to point out that the
criticism of the original Beverly Hillbilllies, judging by the article
you linked to anyway, hardly seems to be eerily similar to the current
round, but I would say is possibly even the exact opposite. When
critics of forty years ago complained of twanging banjos and dumbed down
humor, were they expressing moral outrage at the show's supposed low
opinion of southerners, or were they indulging in that view themselves?
Furthermore, I would wonder if the original show's saving grace
according to some circles, that it lampooned the snobs who rejected the
Clampetts at least as much as the Clampetts themselves, will play out so
clearly in the reality version. Well, I suppose only time will tell
about that. And in any event, if I don't like it, I don't have to watch
it.
Regards,
David Lichtenberg
Re: The Other of All Battles (8/30)
Rube Goldberg regime-change scenario explained
Dear Editor:
In his article "The Other of All Battles" Jacob Sullum argues that President Bush has not
made a convincing case that Iraq poses a military threat to the US. Mr. Sullum may be
right about that, but in fact defending against a military threat is not the true reason
the administration wants to go to war with Iraq.
What the administration seeks is regime change not only in Iraq, but in most of the Islamic
countries in the Middle East. The scenario is something like this: the anti-western,
troublemaking regime in Iraq is overthrown and pragmatic moderates come to power. Life
improves for the people of Iraq, and its neighbors are secretly relieved that the neighborhood
bully is no longer around. The already considerable but hitherto intimidated movement in
Iran to overthrow the mullahs is emboldened, and with a little help from Iraqi friends the
moderates come to power amid general rejoicing. Syria calls for peace in the region and
an end to terrorism.
With bases in Iraq the US pulls its troops out of Saudi Arabia. That gets rid of a sore
spot within the Arab world and enables the US to start putting some distance between itself
and the Saudi royal family. With decreased dependence on Saudi oil, the US is able to put
pressure on the Saudis to gag the clergy who are the ideological source for much of our
troubles, and to crack down on the billionaires who bankroll Al Qaeda and other such
organizations.
Even if the attack on Iraq is technically an act of aggression, it is morally justified.
In the absence of widespread regime change of the sort I have described, the region will
continue to be a breeding ground for terrorism against the US and its allies, and the
situation will only get worse. The attack on Iraq is justified as a defense of our
country and our civilization. It has the added benefit that it could be the first step
on the path to a better life for all the people in the region.
It will be said that it is not the business of the US to change the governments of other
countries. Since September 11, 2001 that principle is obsolete.
Yours truly,
Joe Willingham
Berkeley CA
Re: City of Brotherly Slums (8/29)
Philly Phanatic
Just read your article about Philadelphia. OK. some of your points are valid but ...hey..
Haven't you heard about the fabulous new Kimmel Center - a venue for the best and brightest
in the entertainment industry.
and - have you heard about the art project that has resulted in amazing art work on
previously-grafitti-laden edifices??
On a recent trip to Philadelphia I was blown away by the courtesy of other drivers,
the cleanliness of the City and the above-mentioned art work.... and I was only there for
a few hours. (Didn't get a chance to check out the Kimmel but have heard lots about it).
The Art Museum is a week's activity in itself (all I had time to see were Rocky's footprints
permanently installed in the sidewalk)... the Riverside drives are beautiful with lots of
people running, skateboarding, walking, having picnics in Fairmount Park (which I heard is
larger than Central Park).... the quaint "boathouse row" with its line-up of adorable houses
all trimmed and lit with white lights at night.... and swarming with athletes during the day
from the many high-ranking schools in the area, including the Ivy Leaguers from nearby
University of Pennsylvania. The stores in center city can challenge Paris and the Independence
Square area is clean and inspiring
Give Philadelphia another chance!
(only an "outsider" would call it "Philly")
Joan Forry
A (reluctantly) transplanted Philadelphian!
Re: Help a Smoker: Show Him the Door (8/28)
Miners are breathing easy!
Mr. Sullum,
Just exactly what are you trying to infer in your closing paragraph
when you reference loggers and miners? Are you inferring that there
is something wrong with being a miner or logger, and producing the
mineral, paper and wood products our society demands on a daily basis
(and which enables you and I to use computers, etc.)? Are you
attempting to infer there is a greater health risk to miners and
loggers than breathing second-hand smoke? If you believe working in a
mine today is more dangerous than breathing second hand smoke for 8
plus hours/day, then let me suggest you are out-of-touch with the
health and safety record of today's modern, safe, and environmentally
responsible mining industry.
Smoking is not an activity required to produce a sustainable community
or society, but mining and logging are. Your closing paragraph is an
insult to the tens of thousands of men and women who safely make their
living and support their families in the US mining and wood products
industries, creating new wealth and enabling to US to be the engine
that drives the global economy. You owe those hard working Americans
an apology.
Laura Skaer
Executive Director
Northwest Mining Association
Re: Roly-Poly Snakeheads (8/27)
A new rival
I loved your article on the snakehead fish. I had
never heard of it before, and I'm sure someone has
pointed out what I'm about to say, but... if these
fish are able to leave the water and slither on land
for a few days at a time, doesn't it sound like
they're trying to escape from the primordial ooze and
evolve into a new breed of human? I find that
possibility to be quite disturbing, don't you?
Rhys Southan
Re: The Bold and the Boring (8/27)
Coulter's good for self-esteem
I got hold of her book the other day and I think I have figured out what
it is for.
That is, to remind one's self just how careless, outrageous and just
plain stupid the liberal line really is.
If Coulter spends time on ancient history, perhaps it is because
sometimes it has relevance. Example -- her explanation of the way the
"religious right" has been treated as an explosion of Nazism one day,
and the next day written off as a movement that has worn itself out.
Over and over again, up and down. As Coulter says, the comparison to
Orwell's perpetual phony war in 1984 is spooky.
But beyond that, the book makes a person feel good about themselves.
For instance, she reminds us about they way the liberal media ripped
people like Linda Tripp and Paula Jones up and down about how butt-ugly
they were, while at the same time giving a pass to Janet Reno, Chelsea
Clinton and Madeline Albright. Now on the one hand it makes me mad
enough to stand up and say that Janet Reno has no business running for
governor of my home state because she is such a fucking toad -- but you
know what? I would never do that. First of all, because it is the
content of one's character that counts; and second of all, because I am
not that sort of person. I was brought up to be polite. Liberals?
James Carville? If he, for one, ever was brought up that way, he sure as
hell doesn't show it now.
Nor do the lot of them. And that is what Coulter's book is all about.
Best regards
Mike Gallagher
Cape Coral FL
Miscellaneous
Self-promotion spam of the week
BOOKING INTERVIEWS FOR 9/11 ANNIVERSARY WEEK?
Your most important call is to:
Carole Lieberman, M.D.
The Psychiatrist America Turns to for Help Coping with Terrorism!
www.drcarole.com
Dr. Carole has already begun her '9/11 Anniversary' media tour on
top media outlets - talking about everything from:
what you should tell your children to how to avoid triggering your
post-traumatic stress to the media's influence on the world to
what has changed inside our psyche during the past year!
Contact: 310/278-5433 and 310/456-2458
Dr. Carole Lieberman, M.D.