Reader Mail, 11/13

Reason welcomes all responses. If you do not want your message published, please put "Not for publication" in the subject line or body of your message.

Re: Big Brother Takes the T-Bird Away (11/12)

What about Herbie?

Couldn't an auto claim to be not guilty by reason of mental defect? A car certainly wouldn't have the level of intelligence generally accepted necessary to understand the charges against it, or provide competent assistance to counsel. It might not even be bright enough to understand the difference between right and wrong. You can't execute the retarded, after all. How much lower would a car's IQ be?

Of course, then the Naderites would start growling about all Detroit's defective cars.

Warren Way

Re: Manhandled (11/12)

Who will speak for the men?

Cathy Young's article on abuse of men by their female partners was right on target. It is fitting to devote 20% of the editorial page to cover such a terrible and almost forgotten subject. I praise Cathy and encourage her to devote the same devotion to another hidden and forgotten subject, breast cancer in men. Although more prevalent in women (99+% of all cases) the terrible story of the remaining 1% has never recieved proper attention. Cathy, if you are reading this, please publish on this important subject.

Lee Hibbs

Re: Gravytrain Troopers (11/11)

Bundles of combat

Either you have never read "Starship Troopers" or you are patently being dishonest in your references in your column of 11 Nov. You state "The American electorate is somewhere on a continuum between ignoring veteran status at the polls and following the quasi-fascist, veterans-only form of government eloquently promoted by Robert Heinlein in Starship Troopers (and even more eloquently satirized in Paul Verhoeven's Troopers movie).

I suggest you either re-read the book, or not make a comment based upon a Hollywood interpretation of the book. In the book, the form of government is neither quasi-fascist, nor veterans only. It is a limited franchise democracy, with the franchise limited to those who have demonstrated a commitment to the larger community, either through military service, or through non-military government service-which can take a number of bureaucratic and non bureaucratic forms. In addition, the individual cannot vote while in government service-either military or civilian. The non-voting citizen is just that-non-voting, with no other limitation on their citizenship status. Verhoeven's rewrite of Heinlein's work is self-evidently designed to obscure this; other than that I rather enjoyed the movie.

You seem to have fallen prey to the traditional socialist interpretation of Heinlein's oeuvre-they never were capable of understanding the difference between the right wing and the libertarian school of thought, and frequently demonized Heinlein as a right-wing, fascist, anti-feminist-none of which is evident in his writing.

Frankly, I am disappointed to see such a sloppy misinterpretation of the writings of one of the most important writers to outline the basics of libertarianism, especially in this journal. I do not hold Heinlein's work as something that cannot be criticized, but try at least to read it before writing such trite perversions of its intent.

Sincerely,

Garry T. Stockton

Heinlein defended again

Dear Tim:

I'm sorry to have to play critic in this one, but I find your interpretation of Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" to be off base. In the book, the right to franchise and to run for public office was reserved for those who took a term of government service that included, but was not solely reserved to, military service. In other words, your two-years of federal service not just included serving on a naval starship or fighting in the mobile infantry, but also non-military positions that couldn't be filled by a civilian contractor. Service is not mandatory, and those who do not take a term of service share the same liberties as "veterans", of course excluding the "right" to vote or hold public office.

The label of "fascist" has been affixed to the novel by Heinlein's critics, who take umbrage with his mistrust of the sanctum sanctorum of modern politics: Democracy. The film directed by the euro-socialist Veerhoeven was originally titled "Bug Hunt" but was changed and adapted to fit novel when the studio thought they could cash in on Heinlein's name. Veerhoeven used it as an opportunity to write over Heinlein's novel with his anti-capitalist, anti-military opinions and created a cinematic travesty.

An excellent essay on Heinlein, "Starship Troopers", and the real and imagined politics surrounding it can be found at: www.kentaurus.com/troopers.htm

Even taken on it's face, you can reasonably disagree with the society (a representative meritocracy) postulated in "Starship Troopers." However, to call it "fascist" or even "quasi-fascist" is intellectually lazy and doesn't take the real message of the story into account.

Cordially

Mark A. Siefert

Re: Registration Required (11/8)

Register 'em all, let God sort 'em out

Your article on sex offender registration was right on, but scary. What was scary about it arises from the consequences of your (correct) observation that there is nothing uniquely dangerous about sex offenders. If there is nothing uniquely dangerous about sex offenders, and registration is a good idea in their case, it would appear to be a good idea in the case of other ex-offenders as well. It is far more likely that the perceived success of sex offender registration acts will lead to registration laws in the case of many more categories of felons (and others) than that it will lead to more measured application of the sex offender registration laws.

[e-mail]

Punish and deter

Dear Jacob Sullum,

I enjoyed your Nov. 8 column on the court battles over the registration of sex offenders. I think, however, that your closing comment may be based upon some presumptions about the nature of both the offenders and the justice system that are somewhat questionable. Your comment was, "One need not have sympathy for sex offenders to wonder if this is a sensible way to encourage their rehabilitation." This statement seems to presume that (a) at least a significant proportion of such individuals are capable of rehabilitation, and that (b) the purpose of the justice system is to rehabilitate—rather than, for example, merely to punish, or to incapacitate offenders or publicly identify them so as to reduce their potential threat to others. While these presumptions may in fact be true, they may also be incorrect. You did well in arguing that many sex offenders are capable of being rehabilitated in your article. Even if we accept that premise, however, the second point is still questionable. If we start with the idea of the justice system as a way to identify and incapacitate offenders, for example, then rehabilitation as such, if it occurs at all, is simply a by-product, not a goal, of the system. Many Americans today are much more interested in crime control than in rehabilitation. They want past offenders punished and potential future offenders deterred. If looked at from that point of view, the prospect of life-long police supervision and community scorn is intended primarily to punish and deter rather than to rehabilitate and reform.

[e-mail]

Never been sexually assaulted

Dear Jacob Sullum,

Though I often enjoy your articles, your article on sexual offenders ignores important points. Let me first confess I have never been sexually assalted or abused, though my wife was before I met her. But I do support the public revelation of offenders, and the fact other criminals aren't posted carrys little weight with me. I personally would publish all convicted adult felons (felony 4 or above) as a matter of embarrasment towards prevention. The first point involves the desire that motivates sexual crimes vrs. other types of crime. The biochemical nature of the sexual obsession is harder to break than other behaviors. Thus singling them out upon release is justified. The second issue is the perversion involved. Stealing cars doesn't lead to sadistic, twisted acts with cars. Shoplifting doesn't usually lead to perverted acts with the stolen products. Yet these twisted people often go beyond consentual sex with an adult of the opposite gender, venturing instead into the perverted. The third point is the impact to victim. Children and adolecents are often targets and the damage done far exceeds that of robbery, embezzelment, theft…etc. Perhaps only murder can equal the impact and murder is rarely random. Victims and families of sexual attacks are left needing years of help when girls, boys and women are scarred by sexual violence. Personalities are changed, relationships disrupted and future choices are affected. Yet what child chooses a different profession because a family car was stolen? Even media portrays victims begging to take money, the car…etc., but don't hurt me. Why, unless that crime is seen as more impactful? Exposure of past offenders provides some protection to families and past victims who can take precautions in their neighborhood. These victims have unjustly lost their sense of security and if publishing sex offenders names can even partially restore that—so be it. That it might seem unfair punishment to the criminal I tally up as restitution to the victim for such a personal and damaging crime. And any criminal grumbling over such I take to display a less-than-contrite attitude. Hey, in many foreign countries they'd have been eliminated, altogether. Until you account for the above points, you won't understand why many of us press for such laws or see such laws as just. Thank you for any time or consideration you may give this response.

Brad L.

Re: Snuffing Out Freedom (11/6)

Who do you blame when the kid is a brat?

Mr. Sullum:

In part, you wrote: "In today's New York Times, the eponymous Manhattan restaurateur Elaine Kaufman makes the case for a less coercive solution: "We'd put a sign out front, letting people know we're a smoking establishment. And here's a grown-up idea: let people make their own decision about whether to enter. As far as the employees go, it would be up to them, too. Since not all restaurants will choose to be smoking establishments, the work force will have other options."

But Floridians do not care for options; like spoiled children, they want things their way all the time. They believe they have a right to demand "a smoke-free environment" everywhere they go, even on other people's property. In principle, this is no different from insisting on "a meat-free environment" in a steakhouse or "a music-free environment" in a noisy bar. Instead of expressing their preferences as consumers and employees in the marketplace, which would lead to a diversity of choices, smoke banners insist on total hegemony, imposing their one best way on everyone."

Floridians don't want options, nor do, as the late H.L. Menkin noted, the rest of the moral uplift sisterhood/brotherhood, for obviously they know better than you and or all the rest of us put together. You must be terribly dense to have failed to arrive at this realization.

As for the rest of what is sometimes described as, The Great Unwashed, Jefferson was likely correct when he noted that "People generally get the form of government that they do not vote against", supposedly it was Jefferson who so observed.

In any event, I don't live in Florida, I hardly smoke anymore, yet I wonder as to what the "penalties" for violation of this new law might be, and as for NYC, I left there in 1967, as I, a law abiding citizen, was NOT willing to be treated like a criminal, at the behest of a two bit mayor, John Lindsay and his rubber stamp City Council, or ditto by that Keystone Cops outfit, otherwise known as the NYPD. As to Florida, I will have to phone or write my widowed aunt, who resides there, and who also smokes like the proverbial chimney. Her view of this thing might well be most "interesting", to say nothing of being picturesquely expressed..

Alan Schultz

Are you being sarcastic, Mark?

"In principle, this is no different from insisting on 'a meat-free environment' in a steakhouse or 'a music-free environment' in a noisy bar. Instead of expressing their preferences as consumers and employees in the marketplace, which would lead to a diversity of choices, smoke banners insist on total hegemony, imposing their one best way on everyone. "

But of course, it *is* different in principle–because a smoky environment endangers the health of other customers and, particularly, workers exposed to second-hand smoke over the long-term.

Why not let workers choose whether or not to work in a smoky establishment? Well, why not let workers choose whether or not to work in a factory with lax safety standards? Why not let companies continue to produce asbestos shingles, insulation and brake-pad linings? Workers can decide whether or not to accept a pay premium in exchange for asbestos exposure (and an elevated cancer risk) and likewise consumers decide whether or not to buy asbestos-based products. And while we're at it, how about putting the lead back into paint and offering paint-factory workers and consumers 'choices'?

Regards,

Mark Weaver

Re: The Left's Weeping Clown (10/18)

Professor Ellipsis

I read what you wrote and I like it. Moore apparently got his start—at least where I first saw him performing—by taking the auto industry to task for closing plants.

I can add a dimension to that that perhaps may interest you if you do not yet know it:

….Delivery costs of new autos to market areas is a significant expense. Auto manufacturers in the US have price competition from abroad. A partial competitive response by domestic auto makers is to move their factories closer to the final buyer. The old locations for domestic auto plants began to be farther and farther removed from buyer markets. An auto factory located, today, in Tennessee will be one day's drive, in any direction, from 75% of the US domestic car market. New cars, then, can be put on highway haulers, in smaller lots, more flexibly scheduled, to take them to dealers instead of putting them on trains for long and complicated hauls. Take the plants to the people rather than force the people to come to the plants, for the sake of those plants' workers.

…..The same thing has happened to the steel industry, both in where its plants are located and in what types of steel it produces.

…..Both auto plant and steel mill closings destroy jobs. The jobs created by the new relocated factories are often of a different nature. The world changes.

…..For Moore to rail about these closings misses the target…..he would make a lot more sense criticizing the move of American Citizens to the heartland ; that would make him seem really silly.

But then……………

Regards

John B. McCall PhD

Circle-smirk

"This is a sadly typical example of political humor of any stripe, meant not so much to be genuinely witty or funny, but to give the self-selected viewers a pleasing frisson of agreement with the artist in recognizing the patent risibility of what's presented."

I have to thank you; for months I have been trying to put this phenomenon into words, and you describe it perfectly in a single sentence. It is the comedic equivalent of a knowing smirk.

I see this sort of thing more and more often, and in otherwise non-political works aimed at a mass market. I suspect that these people are completely self-absorbed, because I cannot think of a good reason to knowingly and gratuitously offend half of your prospective audience.

jason a. fager

I'm Your Captain

Interesting article about Michael Moore. I have a few comments about him myself.

First off, I guess Michael Moore considers himself to be funny. Actually, I don't think he has a sense of humor at all. Virtually everything he writes is filled with anger. On his appearances on 'Politically Incorrect,' he was always scowling. Bill Maher himself used to tell Michael to lighten up.

Regarding Michael Moore's 'facts.' A while back, VH-1 had a special about Grand Funk Railroad, who happen to be from Flint, Michigan, Michael Moore's hometown. On the show, Michael kept calling them 'The People's Band.' I guess he thinks Grand Funk Railroad are progressives. In reality, Grand Funk's politics are closer to Ted Nugent's than to his. In 1976, they did a song called 'Don't Let Them Take Your Gun,' one of most blatent pro-gun songs ever written. Also, you should hear the rude things Mark Farner has to say about the IRS. I would hardly call these guys lefties.

Well, enough from me. I think i'll go to a book store, find a copy of 'Stupid White Men,' & not buy it.

Jim Monaghan

Peeved in Beavercreek

It was recently announced that Charlton Heston is in the early stages of Alzheimers or some like-disease. How does his blindsiding Heston lend any credibility to Moore's proving gun-owning Americans are bloodthirsty? Moore wasn't ashamed of using Heston's celebrity status as a draw to his idiotic movie.

And was there any mention of a minimum deposit required for this bank account premium rifle? When was the last time you even saw a toaster given away for less than a couple thousand dollars in deposits? I'm guessing, having grown up in Michigan, that he had to go to a very rural area where banks are barely able to stay in business against the megabank monoliths and that his "easily acquired" rifle was tempered with restrictive qualifications like legal age, needing registration and so on. Moore himself was likely only one of a very few possible customers who could have come in with enough to deposit to get such an unusual premium. I wouldn't be surprised if he may have been the only one!

Beth Albert
Beavercreek, OH

Miscellaneous

Visiting assistant professor flunks Reason

Dear Friends,

I subscribed to your magazine due to your vaunted moniker—reason. I still have hope. (I know hope is a sin, but forgive me.) Unfortunately, what I find in between the sheets, so to speak, in your magazine itself, is a snide, de-cultured view of the world that people like Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh would find comforting. Your analysis is thin, you show no reasonable consideration of other points of view, and at every turn violate the paradigms of reason as to make me want a recount. Please change your name, and take me off your mailing list at once!

Mark Wagner
Visiting Assistant Professor
Nichols College
Dudley, Ma.