Worth a Do-Over?
I could not disagree more with James R. Stoner Jr.'s "Saving a Great City" (Sept. 26). Considering the huge mistake being made now in rebuilding the World Trade Center to a new ridiculous altitude, New Orleans should, at best, be rebuilt as a much smaller version of what it was, and the rest left as a reminder to Americans of the supreme force of God (or "nature"). If the city is to be rebuilt, though, it should be done completely without federal taxpayer dollars; let the state of Louisiana fund the reconstruction if they so choose.
Mike Granger
Longmont, CO
Rebuilding Wisely
Regarding Irwin M. Stelzer's "Katrina Conservatism" (Sept. 26): It is fascinating that the people of New Orleans (the local government included) think it inappropriate for the federal government to advise them as to what may or may not be a safe place to build or rebuild.
In my town there are all sorts of safety regulations with which both public and private structures must comply. My front hall closet has a light that will never be connected, because the town says we cannot have a light and a shelf under that light as it is a fire hazard. Should not development be restricted in portions of New Orleans that pose a flood hazard?
Perhaps the federal government, as a part of its Katrina relief efforts, ought to begin to reserve the right to say where it is appropriate to rebuild.
Aaron H. Frank
West Hartford, CT
Twain on Joan
Eric J. Sundquist's review of Mark Twain: A Life (Sept. 19) was thoroughly enjoyable. Unfortunately, Sundquist, like many reviewers, completely ignores Twain's Joan of Arc, which Twain himself praised as "the best of all my books." It is the great exception to what Sundquist calls "his lifelong defiance of most every conventional belief." It is a beautiful and profoundly religious book with no trace of Twain's characteristic sarcasm. Perhaps deep down in him ran a small river of reverence. He just needed a proper subject.
Patricia Kushiner
Chicago, IL
First Responder
I am surprised that Fred Barnes suggests that President Bush "stumbled for a day or two" after 9/11 ("The Politics of Katrina," Sept. 19), thereby committing the same error as the Democrats who jumped on the president's back before he could get his breath. Bush needed to take a good look at what happened in order to make a wise decision about what to do first.
I have actually heard people say that he was "running scared" by jumping into Air Force One and skittering off to the Wild West to protect himself. Could any statement be more ridiculous? But that's what the lefties continue to tell us.
Alberta Zimmerman
Granger, IN
Roberts's Ruses
One thing Terry Eastland left out of "Chief Justice Roberts" (Sept. 26) is that when Roberts was asked if he saw any limits to what could be legislated, he agreed that Congress could legislate whatever they wanted. What he did not say, and what I hope he was thinking, was that Congress can legislate anything they want--and then the president can sign or veto, and the Court can uphold or strike down.
A case in point is campaign finance reform, which violates almost any interpretation of the First Amendment. Congress legislated it, the president signed it, and the Court, ignoring the First Amendment, upheld much of it (regardless of the fact that the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law . . . ").
This illustrates how Congress can make whatever law it wants, regardless of how constitutional that law may be. After craftily making it through the hearings, Roberts, Ihope, will be a restraining voice.
James H. Ward
Elgin, IL