Top Ten Letters

*1* Here’s a mischievous idea regarding the U.S. Senate seat that Torricelli will soon vacate to any Democrat that is almost guaranteed to cause an eruption of rage from any Democrat apparatchik (Fred Barnes, The Old Switcheroo).

Since the Constitution gives each house the final word on the suitability of its members, if the Republicans get the Senate back at 51-48-1, they would have the Constitutional authority and the power to expel Lautenberg on the basis that his election was an illegal and/or immoral act and, therefore, to seat him would besmirch the Senate’s reputation. Even if Torricelli resigns and McGreevey appoints Lautenberg, a GOP-controlled Senate could refuse to seat him–or even expel him–on the same grounds.

Yes, the knifing of a former member of the club would be the hardest of hardball and, thus, I have a lot of trouble seeing Trent Lott and others on the GOP side of the aisle shoving the blade home. (Oh, the collegiality!)

But I can dream, can’t I?

–Scott Belliveau

*2* Reading Christopher Caldwell’s Literary Heroes of the Stock-Market Crash occasioned a small chuckle, since I was an employee of Globalcenter, Global Crossing’s webhosting subsidiary. Leo Hindery made it fairly clear beginning in mid-2000 that his objective was to reduce GX’s debt load by selling the subsidiary I worked for, which he finally accomplished, to the late and unlamented Exodus Communications in January 2001.

Leaving aside the logic of this decision, which removed much of GX’s ability to provide “full service” telecommunication solutions to global enterprises, the sale was for (originally!) $6 billion of Exodus *stock*; stock that rapidly became worthless and may well have served to push GX over the edge into Chapter 11.

Leo can certainly write colorful memos, but his ability to manage public companies, let alone display “social responsibility,” is sadly lacking. The fact that Gary Winnick is squirming away is enjoyable of course. . . .

As for myself, I’ve survived to be a reasonably happy employee of Cable and Wireless. Not everyone else was so lucky 🙁

–Rupert Fiennes

*3* One could argue that conservative administrations are marked by an atmosphere of greater moral clarity (Katherine Mangu-Ward, Suicide Kings). Hence the likelihood that in conservative times, more individuals must face their own failings and depravity. That such individuals then resort to a final form of weakness is unfortunate, but the suicide rate goes up in response to an appropriate increase in the norms of responsibility–and hence an increase in guilt about our moral failures. The point is, the problem here may not necessarily be bad statistics–but bad interpretation.

–Richard Mulliken

*4* The Democrats claim that they need to replace Torricelli in order to preserve the voter’s “right to a competitive election.” Would that there were such a right, and about 350 gerrymandered House districts and unknown thousands of gerrymandered state legislative districts were therefore unconstitutional.

–Kevin Murphy

*5* The decision in the “Torricelli cannot win” case, and the make up of the New Jersey supreme court, are the natural outcomes of the Faustian bargain conservatives make when they elect RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) in order to keep power.

These are Whitman Republicans who are aborting the rule of law, just the way she wanted them to (pun very much intended). We are told by the appeasers within the GOP that we should vote for squishy Republicans because control of judicial appointments is so important. Last Wednesday in New Jersey, the hollowness of that argument was exposed in vivid and disturbing detail.

–Eric N. Darbe

*6* I sure hope this postseason will be less frustrating for us Braves fans (Terry Eastland, Chop Talk). The big question will be whether or not to keep Glavine and Maddux after it’s over. These guys prove that opportunistic pitchers who rely on brains, control, subtle changes of speed, and living on the borders of the strike zone can achieve a level of greatness. But it’s a greatness which preys on batters’ weaknesses.

In the postseason, where the batters are better, overpowering stuff is more important–as Smoltz has demonstrated. In the final years of their careers, Glavine and Maddox’s on-field skills should be worth less per annum than they were, although their value as mentors may increase. If we could be sure the $20+ million in savings could be used to sign and develop breakout young players on their way up, Braves fans could forgive not re-signing them. We could take our chances next year with Smoltz, Millwood, and Moss. But if the payroll savings would be squandered on the mistakes of AOL and CNN, then we’d be better off keeping our pitchers.

–Jim Kearney

*7* The PETA discussion strikes me as yet another example of Public Policy Discussions Worth Having that are tainted by their lefty spokespersons. Consider:

Drug Law Reform: The best (though perhaps unpersuasive) arguments are crowded out by spokesman who have clearly inhaled. In the Green Room.

Prison Rehabilition: Worthy and doable policy goals are subverted by those who believe John Wayne Gacy was merely deprived of McDonald’s Playland as a child–and who demand prison conditions remedy the deprivation.

–Tim Schultz

*8* As long as we’re listing Steve Earle’s mistakes (David Skinner, ‘John Walker’s Blues’ and America with a K)–fun stuff since he wants to lecture us for our ignorance–we should add a couple more: (1) Patrick Henry, while influential in our break from England, fought against the adoption of our Constitution and was one of the more prominent writers of the Anti-Federalist Papers.

(2) Poor Ben Franklin never had a chance to support or oppose the Constitution–he was dead by 1790. But I think he would have liked it.

–Sean Farrell

*9* I appreciate Matt Labash’s For the Love of PETA in many ways. I consider myself a conservative with animal sympathies, mostly stemming from the creation argument: that God has entrusted us with His creation. I also love meat, but have a moral dilemma at many meals.

However, I wish we could drum up support for other organizations that assist in making society aware of the cruelty to animals. I do hate much of what PETA does. They engage in many activities for shock value and to call attention to themselves, which seriously irritates conservatives. Many of the good arguments supporting more ethical treatment for animals are arguments that conservatives would support. But when a group like PETA supports animal rights with their heavy-handed and pseudo-terrorist actions, they do more harm than good. Other organizations like the Humane Society do more good for animals with less baggage.

Thanks for the good work.

–Rob McNicol

*10* It’s always interesting when an urban conservative takes up the issue of animal rights. The discussion is generally theoretical, since the first time he meets his food is at the supermarket or restaurant, and he often comes down on the squishy, feel-good (or feel-bad) side of the argument. Matt Labash is the latest example.

He begins by making an embarrassing admission: He has a soft spot for PETA. This certainly is call for embarrassment, but more embarrassing still should be the muddled reasons he gives for this weakness. He begins by confusing PETA’s mission as one of animal welfare, “promoting the proper care and humane treatment of animals,” when in fact this is simply a tactic they use on the way to their real goal–full animal rights.

That this goal is contrary to nature and common sense is irrelevant to them and not even mentioned by Labash. Instead, he devotes paragraph after paragraph to explaining how we should feel our consciences “pricked” by the treatment animals endure on their way to our dinner tables. This, after explaining that he won’t be giving up meat for himself any time soon.

It’s this sort of emotional sadomasochism that puzzles me. He feels bad about the suffering he’s responsible for, but the only thing he’s willing to do about it, is to try to make others feel bad as well. To top it all off, he dismisses one of the best things he could do to alleviate pressure on factory-farmed livestock. In his list of things he does that salve his conscience about eating meat, he says, simply, “I don’t hunt.”

So, he eats meat from animals raised in factory farms, slaughtered under conditions known to him only through the exaggerated claims of PETA and their like, but he refuses to hunt animals that have lived wild and free, and that would be killed quickly and humanely through his own efforts. The implication is that he thinks this would be cruel. But that’s hard to figure when most eastern states are overrun with deer, in some places to such an extent that they suffer from chronic malnutrition and regularly die in harsh winter conditions.

Our bow hunting season in Oregon ended just recently. I spent a couple weeks hunting wild country, searching for a nice bull elk. Along the way I met up with many, many range cows in the areas I thought should hold elk. Miles from the nearest feedlot, they stood looking at me with interest as I walked by and cussed them under my breath. (Perhaps that’s the cruelty he was referring to, but I assure you, I muttered the bad words unintelligibly). When I finally met up with my elk, I made a good shot and he died quickly. I know how he lived and I was there when he died.

My plate is full and my conscience is clear.

–Dan Kenagy