As to the recent discussion regarding editorial content, I see no problem as to current policy or content. As long as contributions of the editor are only used when space is available and marked as by him, I see no problem. Certainly it is better than blank space to hear the views of one of our members generous to give them and run the letter. Certainly we can defend our own views against mere opinion if they are sound. If not, we should reconsider them.

A complaint I do make here is that the portion of my dues earmarked for my regional newsletter is being misappropriated or withheld unrightly and I appreciate the efforts of our editor to continue in there present absence. Until Intertel provides me with another regional newsletter, I expect my dues to support this one.

As to complaints to the content being political, I believe this a worthy topic for our group to discuss. Besides being an important one, it is one that we all have in common because of the shear scope of the federal government. If you disagree, join in the discussion.

As to the letter of Dan Boone, I congratulate you on giving your input, and now I counter. I would ask one thing, please give us more supported counter arguments or fact or reason based original ones when attacking a position. Ad hominem attacks on positions are better than on people, but lack substance to refute or accept the attack as repudiating that attacked.

First a disclaimer, I have been a student of the law and of political science formally and informally for some years. I don’t say this to imply any greater credibility to me than any other, but familiarity means that I may occasionally be lazy and consider a position statement well defended by implications of common support for that position. Not being explicit, someone from another specialty area may not pick up the implication and rightly consider the position less supported. I also admit to having libertarian leanings.

I have seen Kort’s writing of late become somewhat venomous at times, Almost reaching that of some editorials in the New Yorker. I think this is understandable though when ones professionalism is questioned.

As to his (and often my) positions being convoluted etc. Just because a piece is in the form of an article instead of an editorial it doesn’t mean it is held out as factual except where a fact is claimed and hopefully supported with logic or a sound observation. This is true of any media. I don’t take everything uttered in the in the media to be strait fact. All is filtered through the writer’s view of the world. I would point out that the libertarian party is the third largest in the country. Also the fastest growing. It has done quite well considering the federal funds given to the demos and repubs. The libertarian position is the closest major party position to that of most of the founders. I suspect Kort’s and my views are more in line with Jefferson and Madison than any leading demo or repub candidate for Pres. (that isn’t just opinion, read Jefferson’s writings and the federalist papers and then compare) Does this make us right? Not necessarily. May be the founder’s ideas aren’t right for today. I think many of them do, but I am open to discussion. Give me good solid facts and logic to support modern liberalism conservatism on an issue as opposed to the classical liberalism of Jefferson and I’ll consider it against my position. You beat my support, I change to your position.

Many top leaders read mainly what they disagree with, they already know what they agree with. Let’s battle for each other’s minds. I choose historical facts and studies to show my views practical and logic and ethics to show them preferable. These I choose as my weapons. I urge all the readers to do the same.

Sincerely,

Jim Mortensen