Matt Welch

WAR BLOG
War Blog Archives
The $75 Outrage
Send E-mail
Résumé
Reprint Info

Front Page
All Articles
All Columns

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

BY SUBJECT
Politics
Ralph Nader
Journalism
New Media
Economics
Sports
L.A./California
International

BY PUBLICATION
OJR
NewsForChange
Tabloid.net
Zone News
Sportsjones
Prognosis
Misc. Freelance

LINKS
ken layne
emmanuelle richard
dangerous monkey
tony pierce
gregory vaine
LA Examiner
ben sullivan
nick denton
chris scheer
champion
tsar

Press
Citations
Wedding

All Contents
© 1990-2000










Welcome to the letters page. If you want to add your two cents, send me an e-mail, let me know if you want or are willing to have it published, whether you want your name on it (which I would prefer), and whether you want your e-mail address on there as well. I reserve the right to publish or not publish whatever the hell I want to, to make annoying headlines, etc. Thanks!


The Chomsky-David Irving Connection
From:
ANDREW HAZLETT, Nov. 13
Re:
America’s Most Rancid Bitch

It is truly stunning to see how popular Chomsky is with the adolescent left. His current statements and his established record of lies remind me of another prominent (and academically-respected) prevaricator: David Irving [full account of the Irving affair]

Like Irving, Chomsky traffics in the demonstrably false. Maybe Chomsky will sue a critic someday and be surprised to find himself discredited.

11/13/2001 04:07:44 PM

Saudi Hospitality
From:
JASON ROSS, Nov. 13
Re:
Saudi Papers Threaten U.S.

Three hundred frightened Saudis on American soil certainly is too many. But, to date, none of them has been blown to pieces as he slept, the way 19 Americans were in Khobar Towers. Odd, indeed, to see the U.S. criticized for lapses in tolerance, when even that eroded level of pluralism would be unthinkable in the writer's emirate.

11/13/2001 01:03:53 PM

Good Comments in Yesterday’s Blog
From:
STEVE SHERMAN, Nov. 13

Some excellent commentary in yesterday's blog. I particularly liked the link and commentary surrounding the NYU student activist. I agree with the analysis (at least I think I've got it right) that it is mainly an identity assumed by some students as international do-gooders who have a bigger understanding than the mainstream. The muddled and mixed messages all seem to have one point, America is wrong. Oh another point, justice means everybody should have a nice house, good job, a little family, chicken in every pot.... oh wait a minute that's the American Dream. No wonder it's confusing. […]

Lastly, I didn't vote for Bush though I will concede that I would prefer a sack of potatoes to Gore. However I saw both kausfiles and 2 Boston Globe OPEDs today and they still don't get it. An election is not a divine calling it is a contest, and a contest that is carried out under specific rules. For once I agree with both Ari Fleischer and Al Gore. It is so over. While there may be some valid analytical points to be made that support Gore you can't go back and change the rules after the game. All of the shoulda, coulda and woulda isn't going to change things now and apparently most people think that things ended up working out for the best. A little common sense would go a long way here and it would seem to indicate that very few people are really going to be influenced by further claims of injustice at this point. If they don't understand that they look like such pathetic whiners at this point for continuing to try to manipulate opinion about the outcome then it's hard to accept the validity of their claims. I believe they are really doing themselves more harm than good by trying to concoct situations where the result would have been different. I know a lot of people will disagree with this but they are the same people who will not accept any verdict other than a Gore victory and having Bush resign and have Gore become president.

11/13/2001 12:03:10 PM

Is Noam Chomsky Actually a CIA Plant?
From:
JIM O’GRADY, Nov. 13
Re:
America’s Most Rancid Bitch

If I were like N.C., I would think that the United States Government, in all its diabolicality (since I'm Noam Chomsky, the famous linguist, I can create new words, see?), had kidnapped some canting, insignificant Ph.D. from off the campus of Manifesto U., and then had brainwashed this chap into playing the "Noam Chomsky" who is now roaming around the world, venomously attacking the U.S. and making an absolute ass of himself. The scurrilous U.S. government would be doing this in order to discredit the "left" and squelch "dissent", as part of its campaign to "manufacture consent" among the benighted citizenry. So, if I was Noam Chomsky, I'd think that "Noam Chomsky" is some clever ploy by the U.S. Goverment to discredit ... Noam Chomsky! And I'd shut the f**k up.

11/13/2001 11:54:56 AM

Invest Now in Alternative Energy
From:
RANDALL PARKER, Nov. 10
Re:
The Case Against Saudi Arabia

My modest proposal for making the world a safer place for America and Western Civilization: A crash program to develop alternatives sources of energy.

We spend hundreds of billions per year on defense. We are going to spend probably tens of billions a year on domestic security and probably even more than that. We lost thousands of lives and the two biggest towers in Manhattan while simultaneously taking a big economic hit in the economy as a whole.

The point here is that already the fundamentalist Islamic terrorists are costing us big time. So why not spend a small fraction of all that money on doing things that eventually allow the whole world to stop buying Middle Eastern oil? We could improve our balance of payments, reduce the money available to terrorists and to Wahhabi Islam proselytizers, reduce our cost of defense enormously (the US Navy would not need to keep the Straits of Hormuz to the Persian Gulf open) and even make the air we breath cleaner.

We should be spending a few billion dollars a year on photovoltaic research, a few billion for new battery technologies (lead acid batteries weigh too much and cost too much for use in cars for instance), a few billion more for fuel cells and a few billion more on assorted other energy research topics. This is chump change compared to what national defense and anti-terrorist efforts are costing us.

The product of such research would make us all wealthier. Some day houses could be built that would have incredibly cheap photovoltaic shingles, lightweight, small, long-lasting and cheap batteries and assorted other innovations that would reduce the need for outside power sources. Cars would not pollute at all. We would not need to import oil. The Middle Eastern Muslim fanatics would have far less money to use to attack us. Our foreign policy would no longer be held for ransom by a bunch of corrupt oil sheikhs and their America-hating mullahs.

The politicians are debating all sorts of spending packages to stimulate the economy. Well, instead of building another Lawrence Welk Museum (yes, Congressional pork funded the creation of such a thing) lets spend the money on something beneficial that will pay us dividends for decades to come.

11/12/2001 12:57:29 PM

Trade Note from a Textile Professional
From:
SCOTT HUNTER, Nov. 12
Re:
Tear Down Hypocritical Textile Tariffs

I normally appreciate your blog and your writing. I even occasionally agree with your opinions. However..... your blurb of 11/8 regarding "protectionist tariffs" is a bit narrow sighted.

I am a highly skilled worker (a degreed Chemist) in the Textile Industry. Our particular corner of the industry is only now beginning to suffer from overseas competition. My company manufactures woven fiberglass fabrics. This is a pretty neat product with many uses. One of them is in producing board for electronic circuits.

I am familiar with how the scenario usually operates. Textiles is a relatively "low tech" industry and low end countries are most able to tackle something like textiles first. This means we are competing with low wages, no ecological rules and terrible conditions for workers. It's tough to compete on this basis. That's why what is left of the American textile industry is niche based, high tech textiles.

Recently many of our customers have had to close their plants because of the low cost materials flooding the market from Asia. The Chinese are dumping materials at costs lower than that at which we can buy our raw materials. I am not able to find it in my heart to give up my job to a Chinese convict.

I cannot agree that allowing foreign nations to dump materials in our markets serves our self interest in any way. It's difficult to foster an economic recovery as we continue to lay of workers. One of these days we will need that "dirty" steel industry you are so interested in exporting to Pakistan. I would think that during this time of war it would be particularly evident to you why it's needed.

11/12/2001 12:32:46 PM

Comments, questions, bad links? Send e-mail to Matt Welch

© 1997-2000; All rights reserved.

the two biggest towers in Manhattan while simultaneously taking a big economic hit in the economy as a whole.

The point here is that already the fundamentalist Islamic terrorists are costing us big time. So why not spend a small fraction of all that money on doing things that eventually allow the whole world to stop buying Middle Eastern oil? We could improve our balance of payments, reduce the money available to terrorists and to Wahhabi Islam proselytizers, reduce our cost of defense enormously (the US Navy would not need to keep the Straits of Hormuz to the Persian Gulf open) and even make the air we breath cleaner.

We should be spending a few billion dollars a year on photovoltaic research, a few billion for new battery technologies (lead acid batteries weigh too much and cost too much for use in cars for instance), a few billion more for fuel cells and a few billion more on assorted other energy research topics. This is chump change compared to what national defense and anti-terrorist efforts are costing us.

The product of such research would make us all wealthier. Some day houses could be built that would have incredibly cheap photovoltaic shingles, lightweight, small, long-lasting and cheap batteries and assorted other innovations that would reduce the need for outside power sources. Cars would not pollute at all. We would not need to import oil. The Middle Eastern Muslim fanatics would have far less money to use to attack us. Our foreign policy would no longer be held for ransom by a bunch of corrupt oil sheikhs and their America-hating mullahs.

The politicians are debating all sorts of spending packages to stimulate the economy. Well, instead of building another Lawrence Welk Museum (yes, Congressional pork funded the creation of such a thing) lets spend the money on something beneficial that will pay us dividends for decades to come.

11/12/2001 12:57:29 PM

Trade Note from a Textile Professional
From:
SCOTT HUNTER, Nov. 12
Re:
Tear Down Hypocritical Textile Tariffs

I normally appreciate your blog and your writing. I even occasionally agree with your opinions. However..... your blurb of 11/8 regarding "protectionist tariffs" is a bit narrow sighted.

I am a highly skilled worker (a degreed Chemist) in the Textile Industry. Our particular corner of the industry is only now beginning to suffer from overseas competition. My company manufactures woven fiberglass fabrics. This is a pretty neat product with many uses. One of them is in producing board for electronic circuits.

I am familiar with how the scenario usually operates. Textiles is a relatively "low tech" industry and low end countries are most able to tackle something like textiles first. This means we are competing with low wages, no ecological rules and terrible conditions for workers. It's tough to compete on this basis. That's why what is left of the American textile industry is niche based, high tech textiles.

Recently many of our customers have had to close their plants because of the low cost materials flooding the market from Asia. The Chinese are dumping materials at costs lower than that at which we can buy our raw materials. I am not able to find it in my heart to give up my job to a Chinese convict.

I cannot agree that allowing foreign nations to dump materials in our markets serves our self interest in any way. It's difficult to foster an economic recovery as we continue to lay of workers. One of these days we will need that "dirty" steel industry you are so interested in exporting to Pakistan. I would think that during this time of war it would be particularly evident to you why it's needed.

11/12/2001 12:32:46 PM

Comments, questions, bad links? Send e-mail to Matt Welch

© 1997-2000; All rights reserved.

>© 1997-2000; All rights reserved.