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 am a conservative Republican and a librarian and I can say with all honesty that the Internet Protection Act is a disaster for libraries and children alike (Claudia Winkler, Liberal Perversity). A little protection is not better than no protection at all, it is worse. I have seen a 7-year-old defeat the most filtered system in my state. He didn’t even know what he was looking at; he was just proud of his ability to do it and was showing everyone–including the members of a librarians’ workshop on filtering who were on their lunch break. Filtering merely gives everyone a false sense of security.
Filters do not work and cannot be made to work. If the Supreme Court cannot define obscenity beyond “I know it when I see it,” how can a few lines of computer code?
Internet porn is foul and disgusting, but filters change nothing. I had to deal with porn before filters and I will have to deal with it after. And dumping the problem on libraries is just as foul and the most foul porn. Libraries have the little funding to deal with Internet porn. We have limited computer expertise. But it is easy for politicians to say, “You libraries should spend the money to fix it!” Then they can thump their chests, say they protected children, and hold out their hands for campaign donations.
This is cowardice. Real leaders would invest in the hard work of policing the Internet, prosecuting pornographers, and putting them in prison.
The idiot supporters of the Child Internet Protection Act made it very difficult to be both a conservative Republican and a librarian. Could we please try some common sense?
–Robert Finch
*2*
I wonder how liberal ideologues would feel about children using state-funded library computers to fill their heads with information from sites promoting the views of “organized religion.”
Were that a child’s source of religious instruction, the ACLU would probably have made the case to enjoin such activity.
–Peter Byrnes Jr.
*3*
Though I don’t believe the Internet Protection Act case presents much in the way of a First Amendment issue, I disagree with Claudia Winkler’s suggestion that an absolutist approach to First Amendment rights is necessarily the province of liberals. Indeed, it only seems so when the subject is pornography. Move to a subject like racist speech and you’ll find a number of liberals seeking to curtail free speech rights.
An absolutist approach to free speech stems ultimately from a recognition that no other approach makes sense. Non-absolutism necessarily cedes some control of speech to the government–and almost inevitably so on the basis of viewpoint.
Also as a pure matter of textualism, the language “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” is an absolute command. (And textualism is surely more in the realm of conservatives.)
–William Rohner, Chicago, IL
*4*
David Brooks should know that the reason the economists are studying taxi drivers is precisely the reason he gives for not studying them: They are “pure” economic units and thus are suitable for determining the effects of economic incentives (Taxicab Confessions).
–S.G. Briggs
*5*
David Brooks contends that a cut in “capital gains rate encouraged some extremely rich people to more aggressively invest in new companies and ideas. Those investments paid off. New companies were founded, [and] new jobs were created . . .” But I must ask, where were these new jobs created? Certainly not in the United States, where the latest figures show the unemployment rate climbing to a nine-year high. In the rush to give the very rich another break at the expense of the average U.S. citizen, there has been little discussion of how such policies would necessarily result in investment in America’s job growth.
–Jason Doctor
*6*
I enjoyed Fred Barnes’s Bring On Deano. He’s a super candidate and he stands a good chance of beating Bush in 2004.
But I believe that Dean’s “Meet the Press” appearance actually made him look good. Can you imagine George Bush handling that sort of confrontational interview?
Dean is smart, he can think on his feet, he’s honest, and people like him. He’s drawing enthusiastic crowds, even in Texas. He’s a fiscal conservative (unlike George Bush), the NRA likes him, and he supports abortion rights. He’s pro-Israel, has signed a civil union law giving gay couples equal rights, established a system that delivered health care to all the children, and 90 percent of the adults in Vermont–all while cutting taxes.
Dean will be more than Karl Rove can handle in the next election. Bush is in trouble.
–Adam Starr
*7*
Fred Barnes should leave Howard Dean alone. He’s looking more and more like George McGovern every day. We don’t want another nail biter in 2004, we want a clear repudiation of the Democrats’ philosophy. My man Howard can provide that result.
–John Terry
*8*
Hugh Hewitt is down on Monday Morning Spooks, but I’m beginning to have some questions myself. For instance: Why has the White House refused to release to Congress and the American public the dossier on Mahmoud Abbas given to them many months ago by Israeli Intelligence Services?
–Anita Stieglitz
*9*
As a German, I really appreciate articles like Lee Bockhorn’s (Europa, Europa). Nothing will speed up European integration more than the United States recognizing Europe as a potential danger and turning hostile against it. So carry on, Mr. Bockhorn. I hope there will be many more articles of this kind. I agree with Andrew Sullivan that it is virtually impossible for the United States to stop Europe from turning itself into a major power. And who knows, in cooperation with Russia and China, Europe will probably be able to challenge America militarily in a not-so-far-away future.
–Dieter Kuckelkorn
*10*
Lee Bockhorn’s interesting article gave me a new appreciation for the origins of the question that has been puzzling me since George W. Bush was elected president: Why do the Europeans hate us? I now realize that they don’t really care about McDonald’s–they want Microsoft to have been theirs.
Bockhorn’s weak conclusion, however, was disappointing. He offers only a general and useless warning–read Sullivan and Ceaser and be aware of how much we are hated. Even worse is Ceaser’s admonition to American conservatives to be self-critical. Judging from magazines such as The Weekly Standard, conservatives are intensely self-critical. Surely we can do more than take on guilt.
–David Ciavarella
