THE DAILY STANDARD welcomes letters to the editor. Letters will be edited for length and clarity and must include the writer’s name, city, and state.
*1*
I had a hard time believing that a European Commissioner was going to submit a mere “Letter to the Editor” [letter *4*] to The Weekly Standard. I checked, and I was right. The writer apparently works for the Commission, but at what level is unclear–certainly he is not the commissioner for external affairs (that would be Dr. Rice`s counterpart, i.e. cabinet level), her name is Benita Ferrero-Waldner, she is the former Austrian foreign minister. I hope The Weekly Standard will continue to learn about the intricacies of the EU and its construction, and then, one day, perhaps, a letter from a European commissioner may be in the cards.
Besides, Bush`s visit was a success, and I do hope that we will all get along better than in 2003 and 2004.
–Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, MEP (that stands for Member of the European Parliament)
*2*
I am officially inaugurating a new semi-regular prize: The Hypocrite. (I’m working on a statue, so give me time.) My first Hypocrite is awarded to the author of this dreck. I read DailyKos every day. I also read Free Republic. And I can tell you that the vitriol spewed on Free Republic is far worse than anything Kos can imagine. The GOP invented this kind of discourse. Remember who killed Vince Foster? Oh yeah, Clinton did, with his bare hands. So suck it up, big guy, and put your own glass house in order before you go around throwing stones. The modern GOP is the most ruthless, deceptive, and immoral political party I’ve ever witnessed. If the Democrats feel they have to sink to this level to fight back, it’s only an indication of how damaging the GOP really is.
–Jon VanZile
*3*
Regarding the term blockbuster, the term derives from the Second World War–it was used by the Brits to describe the 4,000 pound bombs their Lancaster bombers used to pound Germany.
Sure, the media moguls may have picked up the term to describe a “big new movie,” but that definition is utterly derivative, and in its own little way, trivial. Just like Hollywood itself.
–John Link
*4*
Well, talk about the kettle calling the pot paranoid.
Yes, Power Line was accused–rightly–of adopting the paranoid style.
Paul Mirengoff should review his own archives, rather than simply quoting some of John Hinderaker’s more moderate statements about Jimmy Carter. In fact, over the past few years Mirengoff’s colleague has referred to Carter as acting in a treasonous or “borderline treasonous” manner. No, Power Line has never portrayed Carter as an “amoral superman–sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving.” And yes, they have mostly viewed him as weak and ineffectual. But they have also described him as a traitor, willing to sell out his country’s interests for personal political gain.
In reviewing a new book Reagan’s War in October 2002, Hinderaker writes: “Reagan’s War contains shocking disclosures of what can only be considered treason by leading Democrats. . .Jimmy Carter conspired with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin to try to prevent Reagan’s election in both 1980 and 1984. In 1980, when Carter ran against Reagan, he dispatched Communist-sympathizer Armand Hammer to assure the Soviets that “Carter won’t forget ‘the Russians’ help if he won re-election. Tip O’Neill, the Speaker of the House, likewise conspired with the Soviets against the United States. . .”
Earlier that same year, Hinderaker wrote that Carter’s actions, especially regarding Cuba, were “borderline traitorous.”
It hardly needs to be said that such arguments are patently absurd. The accusations concerning the Hammer incident are especially ridiculous.
Well, Mirengoff is kind enough to acknowledge that Carter acts in good faith. But he allows himself to be associated with a colleague who views a liberal politician, out of power and with little influence even in his own party, as part of some sinister design to subvert the American way of life.
Paranoid, nous? Oui, monsieur, vous (et vos amis) êtes paranoïdes!
–Gord Hunt
*5*
Careless Love charted the same day I wrote about it in the Wall Street Journal last year, the week of its release. Get with it!
–Terry Teachout
*6*
Noemie Emery gives Douglas Wead a whack. But from what I’ve seen on the Internet, as well as from emails from leftist “frenamies,” is that Wead’s tapes have made a positive impression. People have warmed to President Bush’s comments that he would not fire homosexuals because he too was a sinner. That made him human to them. The cartoon Bush they loved to hate has dissolved into a guy with a softer side in serious matters. As a Canadian Tory in Hong Kong, I applaud such a development.
I certainly do not believe Wead’s actions to be nearly so bad as the Kennedy fuss Emery discusses. One was a far more serious matter than the other.
Wead betrayed confidences no doubt, but I think the revelations will humanize the perception of President Bush, and that would be a very good thing right now.
–Christy McCormick
*7*
I am a Texan finishing a master’s degree in Medieval Studies in Reading, England. Latin, as you may know, was the language of record in the middle ages. Whenever they encountered an English word that had no Latin equivalent, they simply tacked a Latin ending on and assigned a declension–indeed, I have read charters with words like “mustardus,” as in the stuff you put on a sausage and onion sandwich. Perhaps we should email the Pope (assuming he has email now) and suggest “Blogium“?
–Max Wright
*8*
Shoot-outs! Shoot-outs!
And skill isn’t the issue. Duncan Currie doubtlessly spent many a night cheering lustily the goings on at Bright Arena. The skills of Ivy Leaguers do not measure up to those of even a poor NHL team. (Well, okay, maybe the Panthers would struggle in the Ivy League.)
Shoot-outs would put the emphasis on skill players rather than large men who can grab effectively. And they’d be exciting.
–Dean Barnett
*9*
We always praised the king Lemieux.
His critics weren’t me or you.
His comeback didn’t make us cringe.
We knew he’d stage a scoring binge
And grant us clues to royalty
Exchanged for servile loyalty
To stifle every brazen chortle
From fools who thought him merely mortal
Since we knew he would live forever
Far longer than the merely clever.
It’s not enought to write the story
You’ve got to be the cause of glory
We saw he need not pass away
That puck hog is a valid play
And floating couldn’t be a crime
Since angels do it all the time. . .
I wrote this after Mario’s comeback but can’t remember the rest, except:
To love Lemieux is not a sin
It’s civilised to be like him
To win by following the law
And rise above mere tooth and claw.
No better key to (y)our survival
Than outperforming every rival.
By the way, I disagree with almost every point made by Duncan Currie. Canadian, eh? Floaters everywhere who are demanding the end of the two-line pass should study why the rule was introduced in the early ’40s.
–Eric Fern
*10*
John Hinderaker is correct that “The Founders failed to foresee, unfortunately, an era in which unelected, unaccountable judges ignore the written words of the Constitution and the laws, and impose their own policy preferences by fiat.” That is evidently why they failed to provide, in the elaborate system of “checks and balances” they constructed, a check on the court’s now routine practice of amending our Constitution by majority vote. That is also why political confirmation of nominees to the federal bench has taken on such out-sized importance in recent decades.
Getting “better” justices on the bench is important, but I believe that until we implement a structural “check” on legislation by the judiciary, we can expect it to continue to exercise the sweeping powers we apparently have given them by default.
–Jim Willhite
