More Adventures In Letters To The Editor

I post this comparison not as a matter of complaint, but as another 'isn't it interesting to see where the thing started, and where it ended up' kind of thing.

Here is my letter, as printed this morning in the Indy Star:

"Look to Libertarians to provide solution", July 30, 2003

A headline on the front page July 27 asked an important question: "Higher taxes: Who's to blame?" As Democrats and Republicans predictably blame each other, something should become clear: They are both correct. Both parties are the co-authors of this horror story.

The follow-up question should be, "Lowering taxes: Who will provide the solution?" The Libertarian Party has always been the advocate of the taxpayer. We believe the taxpayer's dollar belongs in the taxpayer's pocket, not to a government caught being greedy.

Voters who replace incumbents at the polls with other Democrats and Republicans can expect no changes, because they believe that tax dollars belong in government's coffers first and in taxpayer's pockets last.

Voters who want a change will vote Libertarian.

Michael R. Kole, Secretary, Libertarian Party of Indiana
Indianapolis

Below is the full letter. The things that were cut out are featured in italics. Substitutions are in parenthesis.

A headline found on the front page of Sunday's Star asked a very important question, "Higher taxes: Who's to blame?"

As Democrats and Republicans predictably blame each other, something should become clear: they are both correct. The Democrats and Republicans (both) together are the co-authors of this horror story.

The follow up-question should be, "Lowering taxes: Who will provide the solution?"

Naturally, Democrats and Republicans would claw each other in a race to declare themselves the advocate of the taxpayer. But don't lose sight of the cause of the problem: Democrats and Republicans. Can you trust them? It has taken nothing less than their own creation of a disaster to become the sudden defenders of property owners.

The Libertarian Party has always been the advocate of the taxpayer. We have always believed that the taxpayer's dollar belongs in the taxpayer's pocket, not merely as a remedy to a government caught being egregiously greedy(.), but as a constant matter of principle.

Voters who replace incumbents at the polls with other Democrats and Republicans can expect no changes, because they believe that, as a matter of principle, taxpayer dollars belong in government's coffers first, and in taxpayer pockets last.

Voters who want a change will vote Libertarian.

Michael R. Kole, Secretary, Libertarian Party of Indiana

In all, I'd say that the deletions aren't terribly egregious, although I wonder if the Star's Editorial Paged Editor believes her readers are unaware of the meaning of that word. I'm glad I made the point that the property tax issue is a self-inflicted wound three times. Although they printed my least pointed enunciation of the point, it did come across, and that's really all I can ask for.

My friend Kevin Fleming, also an LP member, and a candidate for Indy City-County Council, had his letter printed on Monday. We're getting the ink on the right issue. The next step is to be included in the stories themselves. We are the solution, after all.

Speaking of Body Counts

Where are greater losses suffered by the day, in Iraq or in Chinese coal mines?

Here's the latest update on a story I noticed and began tracking a couple weeks ago:

Yahweh, or Allah

Al Barger asked the very pertinent question for today's American foreign policy on his Culpepper Log:

What is the least amount of killing and destruction that will put the fear of Yahweh into our enemies? That's the $64,000 question.

The answer I have seen pop up over and over is the idea that burying a Muslim in pigs' blood, skin, entrails, etc., closes the gates of heaven, with the suggestion now resurfacing with the Hussein boys being buried this way as a sort of object lesson.

The urban legend website, snopes.com, debunks this one, too, as has Jonah Goldberg, among others.

It certainly would have been cost effective, in every way possible. It's a shame that a simple solution such as this appears not to be in the offing. The $64,000 question is needed, because the American public knows of no other way to deal with a problem but via the quick fix.

I think there is no doubt that the American public has little tolerance for sustaining casualties on a daily basis. More Americans died during a weekend at Gettysburg than in all of Viet Nam, but Americans had Cronkite giving the daily count, and it wore us out faster than the Union in wearing out the South. The daily count is reality here now, and the public will tire of this before 2004.

However, the quick fix suggests not a Dresden, but a Hiroshima, which is freakin' scary. Fortunately, I don't think Americans have any stomach for the job, and as Bush is a political animal, he would never jeopardize the most important objective of all: re-election.

So, to answer the question most accurately and concisely: I don't think the U.S. will be putting the fear of Allah into anybody any time soon. We've become the world's cop, and like most cops, we're feared mostly when in close range, but we're held more in contempt, and heaven help us if we turn our backs.