PRO-LIFE NO MORE
Re: David Mark’s Deja Do-Over:
In David Mark’s column “Deja Do-Over,” he seriously misrepresents the views of freshman U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Beaver County). Although he campaigned as a pro-life candidate, Altmire voted with the abortion industry to provide taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood. According to the National Right to Life Committee PAC, Altmire is only two-for-seven in key pro-life votes during his tenure in the House.
Altmire’s systematic misrepresentation of himself as a pro-life candidate was a critical factor in his narrow victory over U.S. Rep. Melissa Hart (R-Allegheny County), who was — and is — resolutely pro-life. If she is to reclaim the seat, voters must be shown how Altmire’s record belies his public persona. As a longtime reader and supporter, I am profoundly disappointed that TAS would help perpetuate the “pro-life Altmire” myth.
— David N. Taylor
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
MEN OF ACTION
Re: Paul Chesser’s Action Teams Skip the Science:
The special report by your Paul Chesser on “Climate Change Strategies” was very amusing. The Bush Administration as well as many state government have been cowed into accepting the myth of “globaloney warming,” pressed by the prestige of Nobel Peace prizes given to the UN panel of government-paid scientists and our own ex-VP Gore. That is the same Nobel Peace Prize Committee that awarded prizes to our ex-president Carter (presently embracing the Hamas leader in Syria) and to the former world terrorist #1 Arafat.
This present myth of “globaloney warming” was preceded some 30-odd years ago by the myth of “globaloney cooling ” — see Newsweek of April 28, 1975. Both myths call for massive government intervention led by government-paid doomsday scientists in the economies of developed countries — regulation, confiscation, taxation, redistribution, fines, etc. All of these measures would inexorably lead to an enlightened world socialist government. In the meantime no one mentions “The Petition to the Government” (see Internet) that states that human activities have no influence on the global climate and that is signed by over 21,000 scientists and professionals, none of them paid by the government. One should remember that at least 90% of government-paid scientists are in fact rejects of the private enterprise.
— Marc Jeric
Ph.D., UCLA 1968, and a signer of the above Petition
As Mr. Chesser accurately points out, for those proponents of the anthropogenic global warming farce, er, global climate change farce, it’s vital to get the nomenclature exactly right. Admittedly, it’s a bit tricky these days, but “climate change” provides just the right nuance, don’t you agree? And what better organization to assist in providing this much needed Orwellian climate change lingo and agitprop than the UN. It appears those free spirited, bourgeois hating, flower children of the’ 60s have managed to re-invent (one of Al Gore’s favorite words) Mao’s re-education camps into government sponsored anti- capitalism departments. We will tow the line on curbing fossil fuel energy production for free market growth whether we like it or not.
But as is so apropos of liberalism, as evidenced by our reader friend Mike Roush’s letter of today, the laws of unintended consequences play no favorites, even for those anointed apostles of climate change. Hence, the casus belli of the Left, bio fuels, have caused, much to Mr. Roush’s dismay, a bit of a sticky situation. Rising inflation and the threat of recession, can be attributed, in part, to higher costs of fuel and food, which are a direct result of government policies that inhibit the production of fossil fuels, while at the same time, demand that we pour food down our gas tanks.
And with an OOPS, that those of us still left with a sense of irony can appreciate, these policies, promulgated by the most well intentioned amongst us, especially in Washington, have had the additional unpleasant consequence of causing food shortages and riots in the 3rd world. Well, as we plebes in fly over country have been saying about these policies, Duh!! So Mike, who woudda thunk it? Actually, we did, but what do we know?
— A. DiPentima
I suppose I should not be surprised my Governor has joined in, joined us in. I know I am not surprised he stepped in it considering the naming of our climate savior panel. Jim Doyle is an old time Democrat trying to look fresh, but no matter what kind of lipstick is used he’s still an old time liberal Democrat who operates largely like a blunt force instrument.
— Roger Ross
Wisconsin
JIMMY’S MUGABE
Re: George H. Wittman’s African Suicide:
The double standard is amazing. The New York Times et al. are outraged because of Robert Mugabe, and yet they leave out one little item. They helped to replace Ian Smith and Rhodesia with Mugabe and Zimbabwe in the first place, and they don’t want to be reminded of it. Jimmy Carter has observed elections in dozens of countries, all except one, Zimbabwe. Why? Because he doesn’t want to draw notice to the fact he helped get Mugabe in power. Once people went to Rhodesia to see the ruins of Zimbabwe. Today they go to Zimbabwe to see the ruins of Rhodesia. It was the nation that should have been. Perhaps one day it might be again.
— Michael Skaggs
Murray, Kentucky
Am I the only one who wonders why our so-called paragons of the American civil rights movement, aka Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and even Barack Obama, have had absolutely nothing to say about Mugabe’s gross miscarriage of justice?
His thuggery and butchery is no longer limited to ousting white farmers from their lands, gentlemen. He is killing his black opposition leaders, two and counting. Perhaps a word or two in passing.
— Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida
MOTHER KNOWS BEST
Re: Philip Klein’s Are Conservatives Out of Touch?:
I think Philip Klein is absolutely right. Right after Bittergate I sent out an e-mail outlining what was so wrong with Obama’s comments. But I followed it up in a message to my mom and others saying, “Despite what I wrote, I actually think his bitter comments will have little to no effect outside of Pennsylvania and outside of the primaries. I could be wrong but there’s precedence for it. The Wright issue didn’t hurt him nearly as bad as it should have.”
I’ve been accused of being overly pessimistic in this election cycle and, in fact, there’s some truth to that. But I too have believed — even before the Wright comments which I also suspected would not hurt him — that some of the politicians and pundits I have lent my utmost respect to for years have lost touch with what is really going on in America.
In fact, I think I began to notice it in 2004. Once Bush cleaned Kerry’s clock, Republicans seemed forget what had been on their minds for a long time; that is, that Kerry shouldn’t even have come close. He was such an abysmal candidate, that even many Democrats now look upon him with disdain. And yet it was a highly competitive race. Voters widely broke for Bush, yes. But it should have been a blowout long before they even had the chance to get to the ballot box.
Since 2004, things have only gotten worse. I see Obama as nearly untouchable. Nothing short of a revelation that he’s been murdering kittens for the past several decades could hurt him in the way it should. I’m not sure whether it’s him — that he just exudes this overwhelmingly persona, destined to remain unscathed — or whether the electorate has changed in a much deeper, ideological manner (I actually hope it’s the former). But I remain almost certain that Obama is destined to win this election and I have to agree with this sentiment expressed by my mom in response to my assertion that Bittergate would have no effect:
“For the first time I cannot even begin to get a finger on the pulse of this nation; it’s anyone’s game at this point.”
— Brittany Craigo
NEW DISCOVERY
Re: Richard Weikart’s Darwin and the Nazis:
It’s perfectly appropriate for Richard Weikart (whose bio in TAS Online omits the fact that he is a fellow of the Discovery Institute) to describe plausible historical links between Darwinism and Nazism.
Just as it’s appropriate to talk about how Christianity (American Protestantism in particular) for centuries taught the doctrine of racial inferiority based on the “curse of Cain.”
Both these topics are valid for discussion in the fields of political and religious history. They are in every way irrelevant to whether the universe is six thousand or fourteen billion years old, or to whether life evolved at random or was manipulated into being by a supposed “designer.”
— Bob Danielson
Author Weikart’s piece gets near the heart of a key problem for Darwinists, when he writes:
“One aspect of Expelled that troubles Dawkins and some of his colleagues is its treatment of the ethical implications of Darwinism, especially its discussion of the historical connections between Darwinism and Nazism. Isn’t this a bit over-the-top, suggesting that Darwinism has something to do with Nazism? After all, Darwinists today are not Nazis, and Darwinism has nothing to do with anti-Semitism.”
Given that Darwinists have no fixed ethical boundaries founded upon religious beliefs and/or reason, one cannot help but wonder why they are concerned about the comparison. To paraphrase Jonah Goldberg, “Aside from the genocide and the bigotry, what parts of the Nazi’s overall program do you find troubling?” As Weikart notes, Darwin himself clearly had no particular problem with genocide, so long as it contributes to producing “higher animals.”
So, precisely what is it that makes Darwinists uncomfortable about the clear connection between their worldview and that of the Nazis, as well as some of the turn-of-the-century eugenics advocates? If they are so convinced of the correctness of their worldview, they surely ought not care about how others view them. Is this merely a worry about bad press? Or could it be that some of them realize ethics may be more than “an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes.”
It must take a lot of mental energy to simultaneously dismiss ethics as a genetically induced illusion and hold the position that humans are a kind of higher animal. More pointedly, the Third Reich and Soviet Communism, the two major 20th century movements founded upon Dialectical Materialism/Darwinism, were spectacularly destructive failures. How does a Darwinist square that circle?
For the rest of us, it is understandable that someone might resist looking into a mirror which reflects an image resembling Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, and all the rest.
— Bud Hammons
“Where did the Nazis get the idea that some human beings were ‘lives unworthy of life’?”
I’d ask the Democrats who think it fine to take about 1,000,000 such lives a year in this country. They don’t call it euthanasia or genocide though. They call it abortion.
Mr. Weikart might have titled this “Democrats and Darwinism.”
— Jay Molyneaux
North Carolina
TWO THUMBS DOWN
Re: Ben Stein’s Florida’s Darwinian Interlude:
With talk of Stein’s new movie, I searched the net for more information and found this nearly two-month old article. I’m sorry for not commenting earlier.
Stein starts with 7 talking points, such as “Where did matter come from?” Evolution explains the diversity of life on earth. I does not explain abiogenisis, nor numerous laws of physics. It doesn’t have to. The first 6 of Stein’s talking points are therefore non sequiturs, having double-ought nothing to do with evolution. Whether God sparked life in the primordial ooze, or life arrived on earth in a meteor hardly matters to evolution.
He speaks of “Darwinism,” as do Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. None define what the heck that’s supposed to mean. Apparently means something to them, but no one else that I know. It’s meant as a prejudicial term, I can tell, but I haven’t been able to figure out why. I can’t defend or refute Darwinism, because I don’t know what it is. I can easily defend evolution.
Stein’s 7th point, “Has anyone ever observed beyond doubt the evolution of a new mammalian or aviary species, as opposed to changes within a species?” is bizarre. Evolution only counts if we see it? It doesn’t count if it’s insects, reptiles or amphibians? Or amongst myriad invertebrates? Or plant life?
People have a general knowledge of life and the history of earth. We know the earth is old. We know that there have been different kinds of animals on earth at different times, like dinosaurs millions of years ago, and mammoths more recently. Species come and go. All that is required for evolution is reproduction, inheritance of traits, variability of traits, and time. All of these can be seen by everyone, though people really have a hard time imagining geologic time, as we have no paradigm. I love Ben and Ann and Rush, but their position on evolution and creationism/ID is destructive. How can they sell conservative values to people after showing such colossal ignorance? Why should anyone believe them on anything else?
— Joe Baxter
Fort Mill, South Carolina
RNC IN NAME ONLY
Re: The Prowler’s The Excluded Believer:
Why am I not surprised that the RNC is so tone deaf?
I am both a Catholic and a Federalist, but I am certainly not voting for John McCain.
The RNC, the President (in his second term) and the Congressional Republican leadership embody the characteristics which have caused the Republican Party to squander its majority status to fall to its current depths of public opinion.
John McCain similarly personifies those same traits.
He has spent the last 7 years opposing his party and President, and now the RNC proudly proclaims him as its choice for November.
The RNC long ago abandoned its core principles in favor of what it perceived to be political pragmatism.
In doing so, it forfeited its credibility with conservatives, who have loyally supported its candidates since the candidacy of Barry Goldwater in 1964.
The RNC will continue to pay the price at the ballot boxes until it recovers its conservative soul.
The RNC has certainly left me.
I will continue to vote exclusively for conservative candidates.
— Chris Hall
Knoxville, Tennessee
