Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Aren't Nazi books and ideas just as threatening as guns?
Aren't Nazi books and ideas just as threatening as guns?
According to a wire report, a college student dressed in a vintage German uniform was shot to death by the police on New Year's Day because he wouldn't drop his bayoneted rifle, ("Police fatally shoot armed history enthusiast," Jan. 4 news brief). Afterward, authorities found in his apartment "a large collection of German and Nazi memorabilia, including photographs and uniforms." He was later described as a "harmless, eccentric history buff."
Imagine if the police had found a huge library containing books of heroic poetry by stormstrooper and elitist intellectual Gerhard Schumann, winner of the German Book Prize, or "The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans," by Hans F.K. Guenther, recipient of the Goethe Medal for Arts and Science.
What if the collection contained books by Savitri Devi and Miguel Serrano, neo-Nazis who wrote on vegetarianism, green issues and esoteric Hitlerist philosophy? Or a picture book of sculptures by Arno Breker, described by Aristide Maillol as "Germany's Michelangelo?"
It seems whenever there are guns, uniforms and swastikas in seas of red, it makes the news. But, what about books and ideas: poetry, art, anthropology or intellectual history -- the blue side of National Socialism? Would wire services not find that "Hollywood" enough, or would they be scared to touch something they hope isn't there?
Obama inauguration doesn't spell change
Our new president plans to use the entire $700 billion bailout and immediately get an $800 billion stimulus package all paid by we taxpayers. If that is not daunting enough, let's throw in a $160 million inauguration for him, half of which will be taxpayer money. Add 10 inaugural balls funded by big donors and corporations (also known as lobbyists) and doesn't the aroma smell like more of the same?
I remember the media harping on the $42 million spent on the Bush inauguration in 2004, but they don't seem to think this is a bit much in a time of a serious economic crisis. I'll say it though. Shame on you, Barack Obama.
Obama does not compare to Lincoln
I am not registered as a member of any party. I've always voted for the person as an individual and what they stand for. I've voted many more times for a Republican candidate.
I did not vote for Obama in this election. But just as Bush and McCain have stated they support him in his term as president, we all must support him and hope he makes the right decisions for the benefit of our country and not for any other reason.
My problem with Obama is his fantasy of projecting himself as the second coming of Abraham Lincoln. He has openly stated he wants to be like Lincoln and a good bit of the time, when he can, he gives his speeches with a Lincoln background or a picture of some sort of Lincoln.
The biggest issue I have with Obama is he defaces Lincoln by trying to compare himself to him. Just like there was only one George Washington, there was only one Lincoln, and Obama doesn't have any characteristics of Lincoln. No other president in modern history has compared himself to any other.
'Change we can believe
in'? Some day, maybe
With the election over, liberals have to be feeling elated in their choice for president. But even as the new president takes office, I'm left wondering how will Barack Obama really lead the nation? Yes, he does remind those unblinded by the rhetoric of the run-of-the-mill politician, with all of the scandals surrounding his cabinet picks to, yes, the notorious flip-flop on the issues. Gitmo? He now says that he would consider it a failure if it was not closed before his first term is up. What he really means is that he doesn't know what to do with the verminous America haters.
His no-holds-barrred, troops-out-now stance on the war in Iraq got him nominated. But you have to ask yourself as a liberal: Are you happy with the claim now that he wants all troops out by the end of his term?
Obama needs to put some type of expiration date on his policies or he might just find himself out of a job in four. But, then again he said it best: "This is change we can believe in."
Personal attacks don't belong in politics
Re: "President Bush's departure has taken too long," Jan. 11 letter:
I read the letter from Bob Willis, who I believe at one time was a policymaker for your paper. Many think it was a good local paper that has gone from bad to worse. Willis has called our president a liar, lazy, anti-intellectual and incurious. How Willis knows this is beyond me, since as far as I know they have never met, but he has no compunction in making those statements without personal knowledge.
I don't know Willis, but from what I've seen of his letters and the slant of the Times, I could infer that Willis is self-righteous opinionated, loose with the facts and, most of all, lacks class and common courtesy. But I won't do that without knowing him. I'll let the facts speak for themselves.
Politics are politics, but I believe personal attacks are out of place no matter what your politics are. For a person who has been in position of public influence in the newspaper business for so long, Willis should know better.
We will have a new president whose expressed policies may not please me, but I wish him well. Perhaps in the end, history may judge that Bush's administration wasn't so bad after all.
Hunting photos don't appeal to everyone
When will the pronoun-challenged headline writer learn? I'm sick of that daily Page 2 photo headline, "Your Hunting Photos." It's not my hunting photo, and I venture not that of many Roanoke Times readers either. Keep those killing photos in Mark Taylor's column.
Does The Times think it is generating a sense of community with its unending barrage of dead animals and iconic photos of grinning hunters? Why is the interest of other groups not featured with the same ferocity as shown hunters and dead wildlife?
I wonder about the mantra that hunters kill to feed their family. They have money for courses, licenses, rifles, bullets, outfits, bright orange vests (so they're not shot -- just the wildlife) but not to buy food. Oh, yes, they commune with nature before they blow the animal's head off. And, please, no response about cellophane-wrapped meat in stores. Hunters would kill even without cellophane-wrapped meat.
I shudder to think of their children slaughtering their way through life, killing animals because their fathers (and other family members) did. How many animals will die before that child/adult departs this mortal coil?
Cars require full, undivided attention
Re: "Ban on phone use more than just talk," Jan. 13 column:
Why is it that for years there has been endless discussions, opinions and expensive studies concerning the use of cellphones while driving when the whole argument is such a no-brainer?
Before cellphones were invented, four cars I owned were partially demolished due to inattentive drivers. Since the invention of cellphones, I've been rear-ended twice by people talking on the phone. I can't count the times I've had to take risks trying to get out of the way of distracted drivers.
Cars are killing machines. They require your full and undivided attention. Years ago driving was a pleasure, but with the burgeoning population and the huge increase in the numbers of cars on the road, all that has changed.
It's bad enough that so many other distractions (GPSs, TVs, etc. -- helpful or not) have been added to car interiors for drivers to deal with. For years, we got along just fine without all of these play things to take the focus away from careful driving. Now they are wreaking havoc. The very least we can do is to outlaw the use of cellphones while driving.
