Message in a bottle
Late in my university years I found my voice. In high school I wrote editorials for the school newspaper and won some prizes for them but for some reason the university intimidated me into silence. Then in my last year one of my professors, in a real estate investment course as I recall, began the class by writing on the blackboard, ‘Taxation is theft,’ and he asked us if anyone could tell him what that meant.
It seemed pretty obvious to me, and I spoke up without waiting to be called on, which was itself a bold lack of courtesy. I said, ‘without getting into who will pay for what government does, theft is taking our property without consent.’ He snickered about that ‘what government does’ thing and began the class with his lesson.
Then it was off to the Marine Corps and law school. At Officer’s Candidate School I learned that when the man in charge asks, ‘are there any questions,’ the right response is ‘no, Sir,’ and it is best to keep your mouth shut. I learned the hard way, which means I answered the question – silly me – and did more pushups than any of my fellow candidates.
At law school, flying under the radar was my preferred approach to avoid having to recite the facts and holding of a case I barely read and likely did not understand. Once when my turn to speak came up in Civil Procedure, I opened my remarks by saying, ‘cutting away all the fat and getting right to the meat of the matter’ when Professor Bjorge interrupted me to ask if I could put a little meat back on it.
Later in life I found newspaper editors who agreed to publish my letters and an op-ed from time to time. These were opinion pieces prompted by an article that pushed me the wrong way and I was unable to restrain myself.
This phenomenon reminds me of a Ron White story. While speaking to the police after he was thrown out of a bar for disorderly conduct, he says he had the right to remain silent but not the ability.
While it is fun to see your name in the paper and flattering when they publish a 700-word essay, the most fun comes from reading the comments. In response to an op-ed I wrote about why Donald Trump would make a good President, one of my readers wrote in a comment that I was obviously one of those low information voters.
Right. I read three newspapers a day and subscribe to a dozen magazines from all political stripes; low information I am not. Wrong maybe, crazy at times for sure, but I have a mind and memory like a steel trap. Well maybe more like a small mousetrap. Just ask my wife (known around here as the IT girl) who has discovered how to use Google on her iphone to fact check me when I go off the deep end.
I began to subscribe to the Financial Times about 25 years ago, and the letters editor has been kind enough to publish over 65 of my letters. It helps to call on the memory of Englishmen like Winston Churchill and Oliver Cromwell. I’ve been wondering when I should start sending them an invoice for content.
Like much of what comes out of the UK, the Financial Times leans progressive and its columnists are no fan of the conservative point of view in the US. Nonetheless, they are a great resource for international news, and I learn more about US politics from the FT than I do from the many US papers I follow.
In two cases the editor forwarded my letter to the author of the piece I was inveighing against, and that prompted a rewarding correspondence. In several cases my letter prompted a response from another reader who beat me about the head and shoulders, reminding me of Hamlet who asked,
Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against the sea of troubles.
If it’s all the same, I’ll take the slings and arrows of my critics even when as one reader complained, ‘why do you keep publishing this rubbish?’
FT’s columnist, Edward Luce, writes about US politics. In a recent column, he came to the defense of those who celebrated the Charlie Kirk assassination, and he attacked Trump, and all of our institutions, which he claimed Trump was pulverizing. Riled again and drawn to the fire, here is the letter I emailed the FT in the morning. They titled it, Trump as Gulliver, and included a cool drawing of Jonathan Swift’s giant lashed to the beach.
If Edward Luce’s article was intended to report to the world the state of affairs in America, he has it all wrong (Opinion, September 24).
First, his assertion that “under America’s First Amendment, pretty much all speech is protected by law” is not correct. The First Amendment applies only to government censorship of speech. As in the UK, there’s no right of free speech among private actors.
Second, it is prior restraint that is prohibited, not consequences for advancing lies or hateful language. Those who celebrate Charlie Kirk’s killing deserve all the opprobrium that can be mustered, including condemnation and loss of employment.
Third, even the president is entitled to speak his mind as he did so clearly and unambiguously to the UN.
Last, our institutions are stronger than ever. Congress is highly relevant, and the minority Democrats have slowed Trump down considerably.
The federal courts tie Trump up like the Lilliputians they are. The media attack Trump on a daily basis. It is as it should be.
Mike Bond, US
The readers would have none of it. They said,
I like the bizarre idea that Trump can speak “clearly and unambiguously”. What are you smoking, Bond?
Nothing in a long time, my friend. But a wee dram of Glenmorangie and ice would be nice.
These next two comments drew 8 recommends each:
Mike is obviously completely cut off on his island. Was this letter found in a bottle?
I saw a pig fly past my window. “Our Institutions are stronger than ever”.
To which I say, indeed, they are, and I’ve noticed pigs do fly with the magic of AI.