|
Hate
mail is fun. Rarely do the writers respond to what you have written. Rather,
they pour forth their own personal venom -- usually scatological or obscene
-- because they lack the maturity and the vocabulary to form a rational
comment. A single word such as aliens or dictator sends them into paroxysms
of filth.
Occasionally, however, someone sends a cool letter. In self-defense
against the crazies, I cite two such today. One is from a woman named
Filomena Fonte: "If they are spunky enough to get through the barriers set
up against their entry, our country
will be great for their presence. Isn't this what we need? They are
hardworking families who are not lying down and waiting for help. They have
the kind of guts that make this country great. |
|
"We should applaud their resolve to make a better life for themselves and
their families, for in
their doing so they will be contributing to the continued prosperity of our
country."
Precisely. If the ethic of achievement exists among any group of
Americans, it is among Mexican immigrants. "Illegal" is an ink blot into
which sick nativists can project their emotional
troubles. The country needs them to do the work that has to be done. Then we
pass a law that
punishes them for daring to accept our de facto invitation to come work in
our secondary labor
market. Then we treat them like cattle.
The second letter is from David Stewart, the author of The Summer of 1787
(a book about the
framing of the Constitution). I had been accused of pretending that I was an
expert on the
Constitution by asserting that the framers feared a dictator, like George
III, more than anything
else. Stewart's comment: |
_
Keep in touch...
Locally,
and Globally!
Check
out
Andrew
M. Greeley's Columns for the
Chicago SunTimes'
Daily Southtown.
_ |
 |
''They did intend for the president to
be able to use military force on his own in exigent
circumstances -- the example they used was to repel an invasion while
Congress was in recess. That is why Congress has the power to 'declare' war,
but not to 'make' war. There was a healthy fear of the president as
potential despot, and no intention to create one by the back door. I do
think the principal failure of our modern republic is the overpowering role
of the presidency, which has grown from the permanent state of war since
1941 -- first World War II, then the Cold War, now our Middle Eastern
ventures. The framers thought Congress would be the most powerful branch,
which it was until this permanent state of war emerged and began to shift
the powers. Congress could reclaim many of its powers if it had the courage
to do so, and were able to explain that absence of war is a terrific way to
"support the troops."
Again, precisely. The so-called strict constructionists such as the
ineffable Nino Scalia and the sleazy Rudy Giuliani know this. They know that
the whole theory about residual wartime powers of the president is
mythology, not to say malarkey. Yet the current president has succeeded --
brilliantly, one might say -- in isolating all power in his own person on
the basis of that mythology. He has filled the executive with his own
incompetent creatures, he has neutered Congress by veto and filibuster and
has the Supreme Court in his pocket since it stole the election from Al Gore
and gave it to him. He dismisses the polls, which reflect the will of the
people, and prepares for war with Iran on the advice and consent of only the
vice president (68
percent of the people reject the madness of such a project). Only the
military leaders can prevent such a war, but they are a pretty thin basis
for hope.
|
Jesus: A Meditation on His Stories and His
Relationships with Women
Father Greeley strips
away centuries of false and mistaken
interpretations to get at the
essential truth of who Jesus really was and what he believed.
 Read
Description
Order
Book
Read
Reviews
Video
Interview with
Fr. Greeley |
