Two more letters on race

The Letters Editor of the Boston Globe hosted a half-hour chat one day this past week. When asked about the content of the letters chosen for publication, he wrote that the letters are balanced and that he enjoys reading letters that take the Boston Globe to task more than letters that just parrot a Globe position. Well, we all know that's a bunch of bull.

Here are two more thoughts that hit the editing room floor at the Boston Globe; the first is in reaction to an Ellen Goodman piece asking if the country is ready to elect a non-white male (yes the emphasis was on Sens. Clinton and Obama; there was no mention of Dr. Condoleezza Rice, of course!); the second is pretty, self-explanatory.

Editor,

An American who votes for a candidate because of the candidates race or gender is as racists or sexist as the American who votes against a candidate because of the candidates race or gender (Political early adopters. Dec. 29, A15). (End of first letter.)


Editor,

That my letter to the Editor calling out the racist, white, liberal elitists in this State hit the cutting room floor and the Boston Globe chose to print a letter lamenting the racial composition of patrons (white) and servers (non-white) in a Brookline restaurant "says it all" way more than the published letter to the editor (Elusive Diversity, letters, Dec. 25) suggested the title of a recent Boston Globe article, Increased diversity, separate lives (Dec. 18, A1), "says it all".

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, African-Americans and Latinos make up 2.5% and 3.3% of the Brookline population, respectively. More than 48% of Brookline households have incomes greater than $75,000 per year. And, on a separate site, I found Brookliners voted for Sen. John F. Kerry over President George W. Bush by 21,500 to 5,200 in the 2004 Presidential Election (I couldn't find hard data on party affiliation for Brookline but I think the voting data supports my implication). (End of second letter.)

The letter I reference in the second letter above is printed in its entirety in the post immediately below.

Liberal, white, guilt and liberal, white, racism

The Study I referenced in my prior post prompted yet another column on race! Boy, the African-Americans in Massachusetts sure aren't happy with their condition . . . or so the Boston Globe cannot stop reporting!

It must be all the white, Republicans that control everything in the State that are making the African-American community so unhappy. Not!

My second letter prompted by the same Study and a third Boston Globe piece on the Study:

Editor,

Liberal, white, Massachusetts elitists are more insufferable than ever now that they’ve relieved some liberal, white guilt and did something the rest of the Country has been doing for some time: they elected a black man to a position of power.

Just less than two years ago, Boston Magazine issued its top 100 influential people in Boston list and Rev. Eugene Rivers, at number 97, was the only African-American on the list. Boston Globe columnist, Mr. Adrian Walker, did a column on the article. I wrote Mr. Walker then that racist, liberal whites dominated the political, economic, social, and cultural scene in Boston and I asked him to consider this as explanation for the atrocious representation of blacks on the list.

I do not doubt the suggestion of racism in the recently released survey on race by the UMass-Boston’s McCormack Graduate School of Policy Studies, a survey which has been widely quoted in the Boston Globe (Race still matters, editorial, December 18; Increased diversity, separate lives, December 18, B1; and, Black “saints” cannot deliver whites from racial inertia, December 23, A11). All three pieces contained statistics that implied strained race-relations or suggested blatant racism.

Well, in a State where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans 3 – 1, where the composition of the Massachusetts Senate is 34 Democrats to 6 Republicans, and where the composition of the Massachusetts House of Representatives is about 132 Democrats to 21 Republicans, I’d say Democrats and liberals are very much responsible for the racism, real and perceived, being practiced at the expense of Massachusetts African-Americans and other minorities.

The relief of a little, liberal, white, guilt (electing an African-American Governor) should not be misinterpreted and subsequently over-celebrated as an improvement to race relations in this State. The relief may actually hurt the short-term cause if racist, liberal whites feel they made their “contribution” at the polls and now feel they can skip the next real opportunity or opportunities to help.

Anyway, calling out the racist, liberal, elites and those that empower the elites is a much better start to improving race-relations since the problem has to be identified before it can be acknowledged, and certainly, before it can be fixed. (End of letter.)

Anyway, the Boston Globe had its choice of two of my letters to publish but, instead, the Letters Editor chose to print just the following letter on a study that prompted three major references in its paper:

The title "Increased diversity, separate lives" (Page A1, Dec. 18) says it all. Despite the recent election of Deval Patrick, Boston and much of Massachusetts remain divided by race and income.

Recently, while visiting a local restaurant in Brookline I looked around the crowded room. There was not one person of color in the room, except for the serving staff.

The Boston metro area prides itself on being a progressive urban leader in America. But as this article points out, that pride is based more on our hopes and less on our realities. (End of letter.)

My goodness, I'm not so sure the letter writer's anecdote doesn't support my thesis! Brookline?! For those outside the gravitational pull of the extreme liberalism and whiteness that exists in Massachusetts, Brookline could be the capital of such people for the entire World!

Smartly, I reject the use of the "restaurant" setting for larger social commentary. Each restaurant has a reputation and theme (crazy high end joints to low-end joints focusing on take-out). We don't know, for sure, what kind of restaurant the letter writer was in. I suspect it was high end. I suspect most of the patrons were adults. I suspect most of the "staff" were young adults if not teenagers. It's just not even close to a representative setting for a conversation on race.

Nevertheless, maybe the next time the guilt-ridden, letter-writer chooses to dine out, he can go to a neighborhood predominantly populated by minorities on the improved chance of visiting a minority-owned business and stimulating the micro-economy of the people he so "hopes" to help.

The Importance of "Contact"

Though I've not had many posts lately, it doesn't mean I've given the Letters Editor at the Boston Globe a break.

In response to a Boston Globe editorial and article on a local survey on race; the survey results seemed to be interpreted in both the editoral and the article as an indictment of whites for not interacting with minorities more; maybe I was overly sensitive:

Editor,

Wow, in a state where only 6 out of every 100 people are African-American, 61% of whites polled said they have little to no contact on a daily basis with African-Americans (Race still matters, editorial, December 18, A14; Increased diversity, separate lives, December 18, B1). This surprises anyone?

Conversely, in a state where 83 out of every 100 people are white, 33% of African-Americans polled said they have little to no contact on a daily basis with whites.

Optimistically, which race is doing a better job of seeking out the other race? Pessamistically, which race is too successful in hiding from the other race? Or, are both races doing exactly the same seeking and hiding and everything in between and the first "contact" percentage cited is simply the result of there being so few African-Americans relative to whites?

I would not dare guess how 1 out of every 3 African-Americans say they come into so little contact with whites given the abundancy of whites without asking a few more questions.

Anyway, until we know more about why the numbers reported are as they are, it is irresponsible to publish such numbers, especially if the numbers are going to be construed negatively against one race.

Why did the respondents respond they way they did? When the Center for Survey Research at UMass-Boston has an answer to this question then I think the Boston Globe will have a story worth publishing . . . and we'll know a lot more about how to improve relations between the races. (End of letter.)

Did Americans Vote Against Iraq War?

Ms. Ellen Goodman, the hyper-liberal extremist who writes for the Boston Globe, suggested that the Iraqis should have another election; this one to determine if U.S. troops should continue to fight terrorists in Iraq noting "we (Americans) already voted against the Iraq War in November (Boston Globe, December 15, A23)."

Below is a list of 8 incumbent Senate Democrats, who voted for the war in October 2002, for $60 billion in additional war funding on October 7, 2005 and for $70 billion in additional war funding on September 7, 2006, with their margin of victory from November, 2006:

Feinstein (CA) - 1.7 million!
Lieberman (CT) - 115,000
Carper (DE) - 101,000
Nelson (FL) - 1.052 million!
Nelson (NE) - 160,000
Clinton (NY) - 1.491 million!
Cantwell (WA) - 349,000
Kohl (WI) - 807,000

As I noted earlier, Virginians voted for James Webb by less than 8,000 votes in a race where Mr. Webb fully exploited an unscripted joke by Sen. George Allen (Mr. Allen not getting the apologist support from the liberal media that Sen. John F. Kerry received). By only 3,000 votes, Montanans elected a Democratic challenger who ran against a Senator tainted by lobbyist Jack Abramoff. And, West Virginians returned former Ku Klux Klan member, Robert Byrd, by 139,000 votes.

Anyway, forgive me if I don't drink the Americans-voted-against-the-War-kool-aid that liberal extremists are peddling.

The Color-Blind Don't See Color

Submitted to the skin-color obsessed Boston Globe on December 9:

Editor,

It's super-ironic that the Boston Globe Editorial Board publishes an editorial on racial diversity, which was really just a feel-good and overly-preachy editorial about racial "representation", when the composition of the Board is eight whites, one African-American and no Asians (It's not easy being diverse, December 8, A20).

When my moderate friends and I mock the arrogant "liberal elites", this is exactly who and what we are mocking.

Or, contrary, to the Boston Globe and far too many white's misguided and guilt-sustained belief that racial representation equals diversity, I believe honest appreciation for diversity has more to do with celebrating diversity of thought; thought color-blind in the truest spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Specifically and bluntly, I think the Editorial Board would be stronger with a pro-life voice, regardless of skin color, than another pro-abortion voice of a unique color. There are many such blunt examples, but I think I made my point.

I'm not trying to be funny, just dismissive of the skin-color-obsessed: we will never be a color-blind society until we are a color-blind society. (End of letter.)

One hundred assembled people of one hundred colors that all think the taxpayer's money is the Government's money is not a diverse group.

One hundred assembled people of one color that have one hundred different opinions about when human life begins is a diverse group.

Change the numbers; change the issue; I'm ZACKlyRight.

Sen. Max Cleland and embellished military records

Apparently, Mr. Paul A Morin, the national commander of the American Legion, is in some hot water because he's used overly-clever words to suggest he served in combat during the Vietnam War when in fact he served state-side for his two years in the United States Army (Fort Dix, New Jersey, 1972 - 1974).

This is all you really need to know as the set-up to the following letter to the Boston Globe:

Editor,

In the very article where Mr. Walter V. Robinson challenges a veteran's "embellished" military record, Mr. Robinson allowed a most compelling witness against such embellishment to do the very same thing (Legion chief alters line on war service, Dec. 3, A1).

Retired Army Captain and former Sen. Joseph Maxwell (Max) Cleland (D, GA) is a bona fide American war hero and anyone reading this letter that does not understand that or that chooses to be offended by what follows is simply desirous of being offended (Blogger's Note: If this subject matter is of interest to you, please see my post on Sen. Cleland from February 12, 2006 or my post on another bona fide American war hero, Maj. Tammy Duckworth, from February 28, 2006).

Mr. Robinson described Sen. Cleland as a Vietnam War veteran "who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam." While this is true, the reader is given the impression that Sen. Cleland lost his limbs in combat. He did not. On April 8, 1968, then-Capt. Max Cleland picked-up a "hair-triggered" grenade that another soldier dropped on a helicopter tarmac in Vietnam after returning from a combat mission. The grenade exploded after Capt. Cleland picked it up. Capt. Cleland lost two legs and an arm in the explosion.

During the 2004 Presdential campaign, Sen. John F. Kerry ("Sen. Cleland left his limbs on the battlefield"), national Democrats, and a compliant liberal media absolutely exploited Sen. Cleland; they all seemed embarrassed that Sen. Cleland's injuries were not suffered in combat. Their strategy was: let's imply the injuries were combat-related and dare anyone to call us on it. However, the Boston Globe is certainly capable of discerning a combat-related injury from a non-combat injury. Recall, on June 1, 2006, the Boston Globe did a story on Sgt. Peter Damon and twice in the story it was noted that Sgt. Damon's injuries (he lost both arms while serving in Iraq) were not combat-related. Then again, Sgt. Damon expressed a view not critical of President Bush; I suspect this had something to do with the "clarification". Sen. Cleland's service to his Country, his bravery (a Silver Star awarded on Apil 4, 1968; the same day Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, by the way), and his tremendous personal sacrifice are so very honorable, why cannot this be enough for those listed above who imply more? Sgt. Damon's service to his Country is no less honorable than Sen. Cleland's regardless of the Boston Globe's different treatment of the two.

My point is, Sen. Max Cleland should not have been the voice condemning military-record embellishment. Or, Mr. Robinson should have made it clear that Sen. Cleland's injuries were not combated-related. Or, Mr. Robinson most definitely should not have implied Sen. Cleland's injuries were combat-related.

If I've offended anyone with military service, I only ask you to consider how offensive and dishonorable it is to take credit for a combat injury when no such thing occurred . . . regardless of how horrific the injuries. Sen. Max Cleland is an American war hero, however, he does not have a Purple Heart. (End of letter.)

Misinterpreted Mandate

A very short post today; the letter the Boston Globe received from me earlier this week:

Editor,

That enough Democrats were elected to the U.S. House and Senate to give them control brings to mind two well-worn clichés: “be careful what you wish for” and “sometimes fact is more outrageous than fiction”.

In “Success of drug plan poses challenge for Democrats (November 27, A5)”, Ms. Lori Montgomery notes that 80 percent of enrollees in the Medicare drug benefit program, a program created by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (the Act), are satisfied with the program. Recall, the Act was strongly pushed by the President, was passed by huge bi-partisan votes in both the U.S. House and Senate and was endorsed by the AARP (Blogger’s Note: see my post of October 12, 2005 where I list this piece of landmark legislation as Accomplishment #9 in a very long and impressive list of Accomplishments by President Bush). Oh, and the program cost $26 billion less in 2006 than budgeted.

Yet, as the title of the article suggests and as Ms. Montgomery shares in the article, Democrats are looking to dismantle a program they think they successfully vilified during the recently completed campaign.

Why watch Comedy Central when there are Democrats in control in Washington? Uh, don’t get to comfortable in that Speaker’s chair, Ms. Pelosi. (End of letter.)

The Demagogues think they have a mandate; unfortunately, Seniors may very well be harmed by Democrats overplaying their hand. Let's hope this is not the case.

And, it is very interesting the liberal media did not share the popularity of the Act nor the favorable costs to budget with the American people BEFORE the election. And, yes, as I've written before, I put much of the blame for the American people, especially Seniors, not getting this information before the election on the President's entire communication team. I'm dumb-founded that the President's team keeps successes secret. Well, it gives me something to do.