I'm looking for more stupid letters from anywhere; even though classics come up every so often, the pickings are kinda slim since I've only been pulling from the Intell and the Courier-Times, and most recently, the Metro.

If you come across one that seems exceptionally stupid, email it to me at jlg3jlg3@yahoo.com.

Thanks, and happy hunting!

If you're ever in need of a good laugh, turn to the Letters page of your local paper. No, not the New York Times... a real local paper like the East Podunk Tribune-Courier-New-Record.

As a chronicler of human folly, I'm always on the lookout for people who are writing really stupid stuff to their newspapers. Some of it is ignorant, and some of it is way out in left field. Below are some of my personal favorite stupid letters. And since people will keep writing them until the end of time, this page will most definitely be a work in progress. My side comments are in green.

(Note: the names of the authors have been withheld... I'm not THAT cruel!) 

From the Philadelphia Metro, 14 September 2005.

(written in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina)

The lack of prevention, preparedness and provision may be because the government has become a bloated system that even a hurricane does not quicken. Perhaps the media should be equipped to handle crises. However, I see both the hurricane and the resultant failures as a warning of judgments to come upon a nation that has responded to the grace of God by casting His word out of school and courts, etc., to make increasing provision for carnal lusts. May we as a nation turn to the Lord Jesus -- while we can.

How sad... I was hoping that Pat Robertson was unique in his lunacy.

It's a hurricane... it's a naturally occurring weather phenomenon, not a punishment from some Supreme Being for the separation of church and state, or gay rights, or the high divorce rate, or teen sex, or cohabitation, or anything else that religious conservatives like to blame on everyone who isn't a Rick Santorum clone.

Overuse of gadgets is hurting economy

From the Philadelphia Metro, 23 October 2002.

To the Editor:

The same state-of-the-art technology that provides us with so many conveniences may also be a major reason why our economy is so tight.

Today we spend $25 per month (and up) for Internet service, $40 per month on our cell phone accounts, $50 per month on our cable service, $3 for each ATM withdrawal, and more on VHS and DVD rentals. We also can't forget the $700 to $1,200 we shell out on our computers, peripherals and software.

Before the '80s, we would watch our TV for free, write letters and mail them at a minimal charge, make calls on our rotary phones (without paying additional for voice mail), go to the theater to see a movie, and visit our bank to make a withdrawal -- for FREE! Our lives have become much easier, but in many cases our 21st century conveniences have lowered our standard of living.

If it weren't for the fact that this letter's writer is from Philly, I could have sworn he was Amish.  Or maybe a Luddite.  The state-of-the-art technology has absolutely bupkis to do with why the economy is tight.  See, there's this thing in capitalist economics -- which I'll admit I have a very cursory knowledge of, but it seems to be more than this guy -- called "cycles".  What it basically means is that you can't sustain growth forever -- though Alan Greenspan sure has given it the old college try -- and so eventually there has to be a dip in the economy.  Whether that dip is simply stagnant growth, a recession, or the Great Depression, the dip eventually has to come, and will eventually pass.  And the number of "gadgets" we own doesn't relate to that cycle; in fact, if everybody was really buying that many "gadgets," we probably wouldn't be in a recession.

Regarding his complaints about how much money we shell out for things these days, all I have to ask is, "Who's standing behind you with a gun, forcing you to buy any of it?"  If he lives in Philly, then he should be able to get a decent number of local channels with simply an antenna.  No one forced him to get a cell phone.  No one forced him to sign up for an internet service provider. Just because millions of people use e-mail and instant messaging every day doesn't mean that the Postal Service has gone belly-up. The last time I checked, movie theaters were still in operation. Certainly, nobody forced him to make ATM withdrawals from an "alien ATM," which is the only time you'd ever get slapped with a $3 per transaction charge (usually $2.00 by the other bank and $1 by yours).  While most banks are strongly encouraging you to use their ATM for withdrawals (not the other bank down the street, but theirs), they'll still process your transaction from the window. And most people I know do not spend $700 to $1200 on computers per year.  Most people buy a new computer every three to five years.  Microsoft comes out with major software updates -- i.e., the ones so major you just can't download a service pack from their website -- every couple of years.  So I don't know where he's dreaming up this constant outflow of money from our bank accounts into Bill Gates' stock portfolio.

From the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal, 5 April 2002.
Note: I'm leaving the name on with this one... this guy's a public official, so he's basically asking for it. :-)

To the Editor:

The city school board, which also represents Lancaster Township, has stepped across the line (in its endorsement of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ed Rendell).

The Republican Committee of Lancaster Township takes great pride in the Republican school board members it has elected in the past two terms.

We have assembled an excellent group who have taken great strides in spite of the obstacles they have had to hurdle.

We feel the citizens of Lancaster Township and Lancaster City deserve to have these elected officials work within the political system.

I urge all voters to elect Mike Fisher, who we endorse, and come out to vote for all other endorsed Republican candidates. We must put these people in office to move forward with tax change legislation. Follow your committee people and elect endorsed Republicans in the upcoming election. They are the people who endorse candidates for you.

Tony Allen
GOP Area Chair, Lancaster Township

I got a huge kick out of this one. "We feel the citizens... deserve to have these elected officials work within the political system." So essentially, the School District of Lancaster school board is destroying the political system by endorsing Ed Rendell? "Follow your committee people... They are the people who endorse candidates for you." So Mr. Allen is obviously telling both the school board and the residents of Lancaster City and Township that they are unable to evaluate candidates on their own -- they're meant to be sheep and vote for whomever the endorsing committee tells them. That's why the Lancaster County GOP is nothing but a bunch of whiny political hacks.

SDL's board had a very good reason to endorse Rendell over Fisher. From their point of view, Republican governors Tom Ridge and Mark Schweiker haven't done anything to help the struggling school district, and they don't think Republican candidate Mike Fisher will either, so why not support the Democratic candidate, Ed Rendell, if they believe he can get the job done? It makes perfect sense to me! Ahh, politics...

(Post-2002 election post-script: Apparently the Republican members of the SDL School Board weren't the only Republicans to leave Mike Fisher out in the cold...)

From the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal, 19 October 2001.

To the Editor:

After hearing about and seeing these peace rallies that condemn our strikes on Afghanistan I received an e-mail from a friend that I feel is a perfect argument in favor of our military strikes.

It read as follows: What to do if you happen upon a peace rally, or a person who believes in no retaliation to terrorists, to convince them why force is sometimes needed:

• Approach these people who talk about peace and say there should be no retaliation.
• Engage in brief conversation, ask if military force is appropriate.
• When he says No, ask, Why not?
• Wait until he says something to the effect of, Because that would just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful and we should not cause more violence.
• When he's in mid-sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.
• When he gets back up to punch you, point out that it would be a mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would be awful and he should not cause more violence.
• Wait until he agrees that he has pledged not to commit additional violence.
• Punch him in the face again, harder this time.

Repeat steps five through eight until the person understands that sometimes it is necessary to punch back.

Now, it should not take these measures to prove to people that military force is necessary. But if we keep letting these terrorists get away with these atrocities there will be no end to the horror that they will subject America to.

Wow... yet another doozie. What a nimrod. Being that I'm not a pacifist, just a person who questions the validity of some of our more recent wars, I would have no objection to breaking this guy's arms and kneecaps (so he can't run around hitting people anymore), and leaving a flaming bag full of dog poop next to his hospital bed. Fortunately, other people in Lancaster have had much more reasonable reactions, including this response letter:

From the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal, 30 October 2001.

To the Editor:

[name deleted]'s letter of Oct. 19 is cleverly framed, but the scenario is predicated on flawed thinking. If, indeed, Mr. [name deleted] followed the scenario -- punching a peace advocate as hard as he could and trying to repeat the punches until the person struck back -- chances are that by about the third repetition the police would have been called.

Mr. [name deleted] would have been arrested and charged with assault. He would, no doubt, be found guilty at trial, sentenced to jail, fined and perhaps ordered to make restitution to his victim. The victim would not have needed to match violence with violence. This is a characteristic of a civilized society -- the fostering of the conviction that having a grievance with another person or holding a different opinion does not justify an attack on that person. This is the point those advocating peace are trying to make. Would that Osama bin Laden had gotten it.

Printed as a Guest Opinion in the Bucks County Courier-Times, October 2001.

If the United States has declared war, officially or unofficially, wouldn't it make sense to ask all non-citizens to leave our country immediately? And close the borders indefinitely.

If we take the above action, we can at least limit our chances of internal terrorist attacks. As it stands now, U.S. citizens are living in fear of the next attack or attacks. We don't know who has infiltrated our country. Naturally, I am angry with the U.S. government for not protecting my home from terrorists due to lax security.

While there is still a possibility that some terrorist supporters may remain in the country after all non-citizens have vacated, the numbers will have been greatly reduced. After this has been done, we can seek to destroy terrorist cells in supporting countries. Unfortunately, wiping out terrorist cells is much more difficult than excising whole countries. It will be a long and arduous process that we pursue while still attempting to dodge nuclear destruction or germ warfare.

Make no mistake in thinking that these Islamic axis countries that harbor terrorists do not have the capabilities or will not invoke nuclear or germ warfare. It is possible for some of these countries to begin a horrific path of destruction. Because of this, I suggest we limit our exposure to such destruction by eradicating all non-citizens from within our country. When we open our borders again we should be more vigilant in scrutinizing the legitimacy of their entry.

War is an ugly thing. It would be hard but necessary to send innocent people back to their own countries -- in some cases, people who would come here to escape terrorism. Unfortunately, it is our support of political correctness that has landed us in this situation. Our country should have been protected against the entry of known terrorists.

I find it odd and disgusting that within hours all 19 hijackers were identified and found to have committed or been associated with crimes before being allowed to enter this country. We are lax in our vigilance to keep terrorism out of our country in the name of "political correctness."

I have no use for political correctness. Things are what they are. If I park illegally in a handicapped zone I get a ticket. I don't get a ticket saying I parked in the "physically challenged zone." And taking prayer out of public schools because an atheist championed that cause for freedom of religion began the breakdown of traditional reverence in this country. I find it pretty interesting that all the atheists have no problem spending U.S. currency with "In God We Trust" printed on it.

I also find it pretty hypocritical to find atheists living in a country that is one nation "under God." But, atheists are not terrorists. So I am not for expulsion of atheists -- just anyone who is not a U.S. citizen. Clearing out non-citizens would reduce our chances of barbaric, terrorist attacks.

This is much like eradicating cancer. If you have one cancer cell in the body it affects other parts of the body and spreads to all organs. In order to eradicate the body of cancer, we first define the area in which it started and excise those cells.

Terrorist cells exist everywhere and in many countries. In order to define terrorist cells in the United States, we should ask all non-citizens to leave. We are at war. In times of war extreme measures need to be taken. This is not a time for passive political correctness.

Whew!!! Let me just say that this one is a doozie. Makes me wonder what Tom Clancy novel she's been smoking. First off, in the little blurb that the newspaper printed about the author, it said that she is the CEO of an information technology company that "specializes in placing consultants and employees in brokerage houses and financial services firms." While I don't know the exact nature of her business, I do know that there are a lot of people from the Middle East and Central Asia working in the U.S. on visas, many in the financial sector. Since some of these people might potentially be doing business with her, she is essentially advocating the deportation of a portion of her clientele. I'll bet that's really good for business.

Second, she keeps hammering on the point that we will be safer if we expel all non-citizens, because 19 non-citizens carried out the September 11th attacks. So what? Does anybody remember a guy named Timothy McVeigh? He was every bit as much a U.S. citizen as you, me, and the dumb person who wrote the above. Coincidentally, he was executed back in 2001 for carrying out what was previously the worst terrorist attack in the U.S. So put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Third, what does political correctness have to do with it? Before September 11th, we didn't consider ourselves to be at war, so why would we have strict entrance standards? Her remarks about political correctness smack of racism, because she's assuming that all terrorists are non-white people. What would her reaction be if the attacks had been carried out by the Irish Republican Army? It gets hard to advocate ideas like that if the terrorists look like they could be part of your own family.

Fourth, while I respect her opinion on atheists, school prayer and so on, it sounds like she wants to set up a theocracy. To deport atheists (which, I think, she would clearly like to do given the chance) would mean throwing the First Amendment out the door. Freedom of religion means that people living in America have the right to worship whatever deity or deities they want, or the right to worship none at all. To deny people that right is un-American.

Finally, her phrase "eradicating all non-citizens" leaves me feeling queasy -- does she mean all non-citizens, or all non-white non-citizens? -- and the assertion that we should seal the borders "indefinitely" sounds like Pat Buchanan ghostwrote that part for her.

From the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal, 1 October 2001.

To the Editor:

I would be willing to bet that the internment of Japanese people living in America during World War II prevented more death and destruction in this country. And it's a shame those peoples' lives were uprooted and their freedoms were limited. But I believe it was a necessary sacrifice to ensure this country would survive during a dangerous time in its history.

The people detained in those internment camps were not the only ones who were asked to sacrifice during that time, however. American fighting men were told to leave their homes in our cities, farms and small towns and go to a place far more dangerous, hostile and uncomfortable than any internment camp could possibly have been. We all know many of them never returned. Some of those who did return are still tormented by the horrors they were exposed to in combat. And until Sept. 11 all of us enjoyed the freedoms these men preserved for us. But now those freedoms are threatened. And we're in a fight to preserve them, as well as our lives.

Internment camps today can save us all from more terrorists attacks on our soil; I think we should use them. I do not advocate violence against people based on their appearance. But I strongly support using every option at our disposal to eliminate real threats. And currently the real threat moves about freely in our society planning and plotting its next attack. With the use of internment camps we can confine and detain that threat. There is no denying the fact that innocent people in internment camps still enjoy a much higher survival probability rate than a soldier on the front line!

This letter irked me so much that I actually wrote a Peanut Gallery column on it. Read it here.

Printed as a guest opinion in the Bucks County Courier-Times, August 2001.

The destruction of the United States has been taking place through the "democratic process." The belief that we are a "democracy" and not a republic has been carefully nurtured by every level of the establishment and with predictably disastrous results. As our sixth president, John Quincy Adams, declared, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

On March 9, 1993, President Franklin D. Roosevelt at Breton Woods, N.H., together with governors of the 48 states, declared our republic bankrupt, and on April 5, 1933, he issued an illegal executive order forbidding the hoarding of gold coin, etc., under penalty of a $10,000 fine.

On June 5, 1933, the 73rd Congress passed House Joint Resolution 192 to "suspend the gold standard and abrogate the gold clause," which was a treasonous act. The natural man of flesh and blood lost his ability to pay his debts. Therefore we are no longer a nation of laws. A new system was instituted known as the Uniform Commercial Code.

Our identity has been substituted by changing our Christian name using the same spelling but in all capital letters known as a "strawman," which is not the real you but a fiction. A copy of a recent birth certificate and/or Social Security card will prove my point. Now you are a "human resource" under the democracy and have lost most of your "constitutional rights," a slave for the government.

Research has indicated that the only way to capture your strawman and become a "holder in due course" and be able to "state a claim where relief can be granted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6)" is to file a Financial Statement UCC-1 at your state level and a certified copy to the secretary of the Treasury in Washington, D.C. This process, provided by the government, is known as redemption or a non-negotiable charge back, which may return your legal freedom.

We are a system of commerce and always conducted by contract or agreement. The Uniform Commercial Code became available for use in 1952. Pennsylvania was the first state to adopt it on July 1, 1954. With your sovereignty and self-ownership via UCC-1 Financial Statement, your entire life is dramatically affected. You become the "holder in due course," the sovereign, rather than a hopeless debtor. The controversy, paying and fear are mostly over.

The bankrupt U.S. government put up our birth certificates (value $630,000 apiece in 1936) as the security instruments (Federal Reserve Notes) for the new commodity, pledging you, your labor and your property. In other words, you and everything you own and ever can own, including your labor, has been hypothecated by the bankrupt federal government to the Federal Reserve creditors. All wealth of the nation was "legally" transferred from "We the People" to the government.

The point of the real battle is to start you thinking, so that you will have questions and seek out some answers. This "game" is not to be taken lightly. It is not a "get-rich" scheme. This process is not for everyone. Knowledge is power. Think about it.

All I could say after reading this one was "What the...?"

Printed in the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal, February 2001.

To the Editor:

The Japanese are awfully upset that one of our submarines sank their fishing boat. I wonder how upset they were when their planned sneak attack on Pearl Harbor killed thousands?

The truth is, there's a great deal of difference between their act of war and our act of carelessness.

Printed in the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal, 12 November 1997.

To the Editor:

When will we wake up? A few years ago, lotteries were introduced, and immediately we had "the homeless." Next we allowed casinos and more gambling. Now we have multiplied "bankruptcies." Back in the 60s, we removed Bible reading and recitation of the Lord's prayer from schools and the result was teenage pregnancies and increased welfare rolls. This has also led to more suicides and sexually transmitted diseases. Further back, creation science teaching was removed from schools. That was in the 20s. The result was the Wall Street Crash, the Great Depression, and World War II. Why can't we see these things are wrong and undo them?

President Clinton wants to put more testing into the schools. How is that going to help pregnant teen-agers or their offspring? Clinton wants to put in some kind of new health program to cover all children. How is that going to help 5000 fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) babies per year costing society for each FAS child at $1,500,000. Another 50,000 infants with FAS effects are born each year resulting in birth defects with lifetime costs exceeding $250,000 per child. This is all due to mothers drinking alcohol. Why not ban all alcohol? If they can get rid of asbestos, why can't they get rid of alcohol, which does much more harm and has nothing good about it? Alcohol is only commended by those who make money selling it. It doesn't add to anyone's health.

I think it is time we take a close look at the harmful legislation passed over the years and seeing the harm, pass legislation to undo it. Are all the legislators and constituents sleeping?

This one is perhaps my all-time favorite. A college friend of mine pointed out that this letter perfectly illustrates the concept "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," or, "afterwards, therefore because of." 'nuff said.