Calling Out a Liberal Extremist
(and the facts of USS Abraham Lincoln speech)

284 days since Sen. Hillary Clinton declared U.S. victory in Iraq

301 days since Sen. Hillary Clinton declared the U.S. mainland safe from terrorists

As liberal extremists are obsessively compulsive about distorting President Bush’s words and blind to the truth of the words spoken by liberal extremists, I plead guilty to being obsessed with the words actually spoken by President Bush and liberal extremists.

Immediately below is an email I sent to Ms. Joan Vennochi, columnist from the Boston Globe.

Immediately below the email is the letter I submitted to the Boston Globe on Saturday, March 29.

And, finally, below the letter is the full text of President Bush’s speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln so at least the readers of ZACKlyRight.blogspot.com will know the facts (I bold and font-bump the key sentences of the President’s speech so those without the time to read the whole warning are at least equipped with the key sentence that can be used to embarrass liberal extremists who reject fact).

Ms. Vennochi is very good about responding to my emails, to the extent I can comment on any reply I receive, I’ll pass it along to ZACKlyRight.

Begin email to Ms. Vennochi:

Ms. Vennochi,

A letter I sent to the Globe today.

Knowing they will never print it, I still give you the chance to name a single lie and the name of a charity.

It would be noble of you to write an apology or correction if you cannot send me a single lie let alone enough lies to support the word "many".

Respectfully,

ZACKlyRight (End email.)

Begin letter to the editor:

Editor,

Boston Globe columnist Ms. Joan Vennoch, given her credibility, is the last columnist that should have written a column on the lies being told by Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (Honestly, candidates, stop the truth-parsing, March 27, A11).

For, it is Ms. Vennochi who routinely smears the 300 Vietnam veterans who dared to express an opinion in the 2004 Presidential election and Sen. John F. Kerry’s fitness to be Commander-in-Chief and who as routinely claims the Swfit Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth were linked to President Bush when, in fact, there is (regrettably!) no link between the decorated veterans and the President.

In her column, Ms. Vennochi also claims, “many of the statements (President Bush) made in the run-up to the (liberation) of Iraq and afterward are considered blatant lies.” I will donate $100 to the charity of Ms. Vennochi’s choice if she or any other delusional liberal extremist can produce even a single “white” lie let alone a single “blatant” lie spoken by the President prior to the liberation of Iraq. (End of letter.)

Begin speech by President Bush aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003 declaring the war against terrorists is going to be a long one (courtesy of www.whitehouse.gov):

President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended
Remarks by the President from the USS Abraham Lincoln
At Sea Off the Coast of San Diego, California

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.)

And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment -- yet, it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other, made this day possible. Because of you, our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free. (Applause.)

Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out with a combination of precision and speed and boldness the enemy did not expect, and the world had not seen before. From distant bases or ships at sea, we sent planes and missiles that could destroy an enemy division, or strike a single bunker. Marines and soldiers charged to Baghdad across 350 miles of hostile ground, in one of the swiftest advances of heavy arms in history. You have shown the world the skill and the might of the American Armed Forces.

This nation thanks all the members of our coalition who joined in a noble cause. We thank the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland, who shared in the hardships of war. We thank all the citizens of Iraq who welcomed our troops and joined in the liberation of their own country. And tonight, I have a special word for Secretary Rumsfeld, for General Franks, and for all the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States: America is grateful for a job well done. (Applause.)

The character of our military through history -- the daring of Normandy, the fierce courage of Iwo Jima, the decency and idealism that turned enemies into allies -- is fully present in this generation. When Iraqi civilians looked into the faces of our servicemen and women, they saw strength and kindness and goodwill. When I look at the members of the United States military, I see the best of our country, and I'm honored to be your Commander-in-Chief. (Applause.)

In the images of falling statues, we have witnessed the arrival of a new era. For a hundred of years of war, culminating in the nuclear age, military technology was designed and deployed to inflict casualties on an ever-growing scale. In defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, Allied forces destroyed entire cities, while enemy leaders who started the conflict were safe until the final days. Military power was used to end a regime by breaking a nation.

Today, we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. No device of man can remove the tragedy from war; yet it is a great moral advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent. (Applause.)

In the images of celebrating Iraqis, we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom. Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement. Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food and water and air. Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices; and everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear. (Applause.)

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. (Applause.)

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. (Applause.)

The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed. (Applause.)

In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists, and the camps where they trained. We continue to help the Afghan people lay roads, restore hospitals, and educate all of their children. Yet we also have dangerous work to complete. As I speak, a Special Operations task force, led by the 82nd Airborne, is on the trail of the terrorists and those who seek to undermine the free government of Afghanistan. America and our coalition will finish what we have begun. (Applause.)

From Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, we are hunting down al Qaeda killers. Nineteen months ago, I pledged that the terrorists would not escape the patient justice of the United States. And as of tonight, nearly one-half of al Qaeda's senior operatives have been captured or killed. (Applause.)

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. (Applause.)

In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got. (Applause.)

Our war against terror is proceeding according to principles that I have made clear to all: Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country, and a target of American justice. (Applause.)

Any person, organization, or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.

Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world -- and will be confronted. (Applause.)

And anyone in the world, including the Arab world, who works and sacrifices for freedom has a loyal friend in the United States of America. (Applause.)

Our commitment to liberty is America's tradition -- declared at our founding; affirmed in Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms; asserted in the Truman Doctrine and in Ronald Reagan's challenge to an evil empire. We are committed to freedom in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in a peaceful Palestine. The advance of freedom is the surest strategy to undermine the appeal of terror in the world. Where freedom takes hold, hatred gives way to hope. When freedom takes hold, men and women turn to the peaceful pursuit of a better life. American values and American interests lead in the same direction: We stand for human liberty. (Applause.)

The United States upholds these principles of security and freedom in many ways -- with all the tools of diplomacy, law enforcement, intelligence, and finance. We're working with a broad coalition of nations that understand the threat and our shared responsibility to meet it. The use of force has been -- and remains -- our last resort. Yet all can know, friend and foe alike, that our nation has a mission: We will answer threats to our security, and we will defend the peace. (Applause.)

Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike. (Applause.)

The war on terror is not over (please note the super-sized font for super-sized emphasis); yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory. (Applause.)

Other nations in history have fought in foreign lands and remained to occupy and exploit. Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return home. And that is your direction tonight. (Applause.) After service in the Afghan -- and Iraqi theaters of war -- after 100,000 miles, on the longest carrier deployment in recent history, you are homeward bound. (Applause.) Some of you will see new family members for the first time -- 150 babies were born while their fathers were on the Lincoln. Your families are proud of you, and your nation will welcome you. (Applause.)

We are mindful, as well, that some good men and women are not making the journey home. One of those who fell, Corporal Jason Mileo, spoke to his parents five days before his death. Jason's father said, "He called us from the center of Baghdad, not to brag, but to tell us he loved us. Our son was a soldier."

Every name, every life is a loss to our military, to our nation, and to the loved ones who grieve. There's no homecoming for these families. Yet we pray, in God's time, their reunion will come.
Those we lost were last seen on duty. Their final act on this Earth was to fight a great evil and bring liberty to others. All of you -- all in this generation of our military -- have taken up the highest calling of history. You're defending your country, and protecting the innocent from harm. And wherever you go, you carry a message of hope -- a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, "To the captives, 'come out,' -- and to those in darkness, 'be free.'"

Thank you for serving our country and our cause. May God bless you all, and may God continue to bless America. (End of speech by President Bush declaring the war against terrorists is not over.)

Let’s Not Antagonize the Terrorists

282 days since Sen. Hillary Clinton declared U.S. victory in Iraq.

299 days since Sen. Hillary Clinton declared the U.S. mainland safe from terrorists (despite our Commander-in-Chief).

A few days ago, the Boston Globe published a graphic editorial; 4 coffins, each comprised of 1,000 tiny little ribbon, each ribbon representing a U.S. military member killed in the war in Iraq (that Sens. Clinton, Edwards and Kerry voted for and that Sens. Clinton and Obama supported with funding votes through 2006).

But, before I get to my letter submitted in response to the recent graphic, know that the artist submitted a prior editorial marking the death of the 2000th military member killed. This was the letter I submitted in response to that graphic:

Editor,

I appreciated Mr. Thomas Starr's essay and accompanying graphic, "1,000 lives, again (October 27, 2005, A13)", for the dramatic manner in which he illustrates the loss of 2,000 U.S. military personnel in prosecuting the war on terror. Mr. Starr constructed two coffins from tiny ribbons, one for each military life lost.

I also appreciated the math showed that the average annual death toll increased by 200 deaths for the second 1,000 servicepeople killed compared to the first 1,000.

Accepting the 2,900 Americans that were murdered by terrorists on September 11, 2001 were killed in less than two hours, the average annual death rate by terrorism that day was 12,702,000 lives per year.

Mr. Starr's two "coffins" filled about 1/6 of a page of the Boston Globe. At 12,000 lives per page, the Boston Globe would need 1,059 pages to comparably represent the average annual loss of life from the terrorism visited on America on September 11.

No wonder there is not a single United States Senator calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. (End of letter.)

My letter in response to the graphic of 4,000 ribbons:

Editor,

I'm not really sure how to address Mr. Thomas Starr's editorial graphic of 4,000 ribbons representing the 4,000 U.S. military personnel killed fighting terrorists in Iraq.

Do I ask where the editorial graphic is of Saddam Hussein's an-Anfal campaign of 1986 - 1989 which took the lives of an estimated 182,000 Kurds?

Or, do I ask where is the editorial graphic is of the 4,274 innocents slaughtered by just a few selected terrorist attacks: 9/11 (3,000; victims were global), Pan-Am/Lockerbie (270; victims were global), the Beirut barracks bombing (241 US; 58 French), the Bali bombings (202; victims were global), the African Embassy bombings (Tanzanian, 11; Kenyan, 212), the Madrid bombing (191), the London bombings (52), the Khobar Towers bombing (19) and the USS Cole bombing (18)?

It took 1/3 of a newspaper page to depict Mr. Starr's editorial. It would take almost 16 full newspaper pages to comparably depict those killed by Hussein during his an-Anfal campaign. (End of letter.)

The Philadelphia Inquirer is as Atrocious as the Boston Globe

For those who have been wondering were I’ve been, there has been intense sniper fire in and around my neighborhood and it’s been difficult to work by candlelight lest I invite a bullet if backlit.

It’s been 296 days since Sen. Hillary Clinton declared in a Presidential debate that, “we are safer than we were” on 9/11.

I’ve written before that I liked the mature topics Sen. Joseph Biden (D, DE) tried to address during his failed Presidential run. Well, he was published in the Wall Street Journal again; this time on March 24, 2008. The title of the piece is “After Putin” and I think it’s a pretty decent read on Russo/American relations. I’m pretty sure I’m running afoul of copyright laws by cutting and pasting WSJ articles here so I think I need to stop that practice. I don’t think I can put a direct link to the article here, either. Accordingly, I give you the link in two pieces; simply cut and paste both pieces in your browser to get to the article. If you can’t figure this out, might I recommend the Daily Kos?
http://online.wsj.
com/article/SB120631667357658263.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

If anyone harbors any ill feeling toward me because I’ve championed someone who has ever said anything controversial or offensive or hateful, please know I condemn exactly and only those remarks that you found offensive. Wow, what an easy way to please everyone. Thanks, Barack!

From 1974 to 1983, I lived in South Jersey, which, as anyone who has ever lived in either of the Jerseys knows, is a completely different state than North Jersey. Anyway, as I was kind of growing up, my (news)paper of record was the Philadelphia Inquirer (my first letter to the editor was published in the Inquirer in 1980!). At the time, I knew the paper to be liberally extreme. Well, visiting family over the Easter weekend, I was reminded just how liberal the (news)paper is.

My letter to the Philadelphia Inquirer; no introduction needed:

Editor,

I'm sure to the ill-informed (read: liberal extremists), political cartoonist Rob Rodgers' cartoon depicting a VP Dick Cheney in a rabbit costume declaring, "Iraq is a major success," while holding the hand of a President Bush declaring, "I still believe in the Easter Bunny," with both hopping and skipping, respectively, through a field of skulls in Iraq was funny.

The informed, however, know that Sen. Hillary Clinton actually did declare success in Iraq. While addressing the Take Back America conference on June 20, 2007, Sen. Clinton declared, "the American military has succeeded" in Iraq. Indeed, truth is stranger than political humor.

Simply, Sen. Clinton should have been depicted holding the hand of the Cheney Bunny.

Oh, would the truth have harmed a liberal extremist in an upcoming Democratic presidential primary in Pennsylvania? Okay, now I get it. (End of letter.)

It’s been 279 days since Sen. Hillary Clinton declared victory in Iraq.

Hate-Bush Drumbeat Goes On

Surpassing the 5 year anniversary of the war in Iraq, you can imagine the week that was for the Boston Globe. Every article, every column, every letter loaded with the same tired phrases and sentiments: "war of choice", "lies", "false pretenses", "blood and treasure", no weapons of mass destruction, no al Qaeda connection, $54 gazillion.

It's extraordinary the American public gets so little information about either Sens. Clinton or Obama's involvement in promoting the war in Iraq.

I will concede that every one knows Sen. Clinton, along with about 25 other Democrats, including the "brilliant" Sens. John F. Kerry and John Edwards, voted for the war. Clinton, Kerry, Edwards apologists argue these "brilliant" Senators were duped by a dope, though. And that qualifies any of them to be President how?

But, when's the last time you read that Senators Clinton and Obama voted for funding the war through a vote late in 2006? Neither has had the courage to show up for a vote on war funding in 1 1/2 years! Conveniently absent every time.

When's the last time you read that in a June 3, 2007 debate, Sen. Clinton declared "we are safer than we were" before 9/11?

When's the last time you read that Sen. Clinton declared on June 20, 2007 at the Take Back America conference that "the American military has succeeded" in Iraq?

It's been a while if you've read it at all.

The Boston Globe had this letter that could have run opposite the four hate-Bush letters it chose to publish today but the Globe decided the only opinions worthy of printing are the hate-Bush letters; facts and balance be damned.

Editor,

Of course, Sen. Clinton's current anti-American, defeatist, attitude that "we cannot win" in Iraq does not square with her declaration on June 20, 2007 at the Take Back America conference that "the American military has succeeded" in Iraq (Clinton slams Bush, McCain on Iraq war, March 18, A14).

If only Sen. Clinton's actual words received a tenth of the scrutiny from the liberal media establishment that the liberal media establishment invested in President Bush's mythical words from aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln (May 2003).

For those who do not recall President Bush's actual words from that speech, he warned that the war against terrorists was going to be a long one; how prophetic he. (End of letter.)

Okay, now I disappear for the Easter weekend; see you on Monday.

An Honest Conversation Begins

I’ve long written about the need for an honest conversation on race relations in the United States. Well, below is a column by Mr. Shelby Steele, as published in The Wall Street Journal, that would contribute greatly to that conversation. I bold the things I agree with and particularly want to highlight; I italicize the things I’ve written here previously (maybe Mr. Steele reads ZACKlyRight).

The Obama Bargain
By Shelby Steele
The Wall Street Journal
Wednesday, March 18, 2008, A23

Geraldine Ferraro may have had sinister motives when she said that Barack Obama would not be "in his position" as a frontrunner but for his race. Possibly she was acting as Hillary Clinton's surrogate. Or maybe she was simply befuddled by this new reality -- in which blackness could constitute a political advantage.

But whatever her motives, she was right: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position." Barack Obama is, of course, a very talented politician with a first-rate political organization at his back. But it does not detract from his merit to say that his race is also a large part of his prominence. And it is undeniable that something extremely powerful in the body politic, a force quite apart from the man himself, has pulled Obama forward. This force is about race and nothing else.

The novelty of Barack Obama is more his cross-racial appeal than his talent. Jesse Jackson displayed considerable political talent in his presidential runs back in the 1980s. But there was a distinct limit to his white support. Mr. Obama's broad appeal to whites makes him the first plausible black presidential candidate in American history. And it was Mr. Obama's genius to understand this. Though he likes to claim that his race was a liability to be overcome, he also surely knew that his race could give him just the edge he needed -- an edge that would never be available to a white, not even a white woman.

How to turn one's blackness to advantage?

The answer is that one "bargains." Bargaining is a mask that blacks can wear in the American mainstream, one that enables them to put whites at their ease. This mask diffuses the anxiety that goes along with being white in a multiracial society. Bargainers make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him. And whites love this bargain -- and feel affection for the bargainer -- because it gives them racial innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity for whites to experience racial innocence.

This is how Mr. Obama has turned his blackness into his great political advantage, and also into a kind of personal charisma. Bargainers are conduits of white innocence, and they are as popular as the need for white innocence is strong. Mr. Obama's extraordinary dash to the forefront of American politics is less a measure of the man than of the hunger in white America for racial innocence.

His actual policy positions are little more than Democratic Party boilerplate and hardly a tick different from Hillary's positions. He espouses no galvanizing political idea. He is unable to say what he means by "change" or "hope" or "the future." And he has failed to say how he would actually be a "unifier." By the evidence of his slight political record (130 "present" votes in the Illinois state legislature, little achievement in the U.S. Senate) Barack Obama stacks up as something of a mediocrity. None of this matters much.

Race helps Mr. Obama in another way -- it lifts his political campaign to the level of allegory, making it the stuff of a far higher drama than budget deficits and education reform. His dark skin, with its powerful evocations of America's tortured racial past, frames the political contest as a morality play. Will his victory mean America's redemption from its racist past? Will his defeat show an America morally unevolved? Is his campaign a story of black overcoming, an echo of the civil rights movement? Or is it a passing-of-the-torch story, of one generation displacing another?

Because he is black, there is a sense that profound questions stand to be resolved in the unfolding of his political destiny. And, as the Clintons have discovered, it is hard in the real world to run against a candidate of destiny. For many Americans -- black and white -- Barack Obama is simply too good (and too rare) an opportunity to pass up. For whites, here is the opportunity to document their deliverance from the shames of their forbearers. And for blacks, here is the chance to document the end of inferiority. So the Clintons have found themselves running more against America's very highest possibilities than against a man. And the press, normally happy to dispel every political pretension, has all but quivered before Mr. Obama. They, too, have feared being on the wrong side of destiny.

And yet, in the end, Barack Obama's candidacy is not qualitatively different from Al Sharpton's or Jesse Jackson's. Like these more irascible of his forbearers, Mr. Obama's run at the presidency is based more on the manipulation of white guilt than on substance. Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson were "challengers," not bargainers. They intimidated whites and demanded, in the name of historical justice, that they be brought forward. Mr. Obama flatters whites, grants them racial innocence, and hopes to ascend on the back of their gratitude. Two sides of the same coin.

But bargainers have an Achilles heel. They succeed as conduits of white innocence only as long as they are largely invisible as complex human beings. They hope to become icons that can be identified with rather than seen, and their individual complexity gets in the way of this. So bargainers are always laboring to stay invisible. (We don't know the real politics or convictions of Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey, bargainers all.) Mr. Obama has said of himself, "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views . . ." And so, human visibility is Mr. Obama's Achilles heel. If we see the real man, his contradictions and bents of character, he will be ruined as an icon, as a "blank screen."

Thus, nothing could be more dangerous to Mr. Obama's political aspirations than the revelation that he, the son of a white woman, sat Sunday after Sunday -- for 20 years -- in an Afrocentric, black nationalist church in which his own mother, not to mention other whites, could never feel comfortable. His pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a challenger who goes far past Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in his anti-American outrage ("God damn America").

How does one "transcend" race in this church? The fact is that Barack Obama has fellow-traveled with a hate-filled, anti-American black nationalism all his adult life, failing to stand and challenge an ideology that would have no place for his own mother. And what portent of presidential judgment is it to have exposed his two daughters for their entire lives to what is, at the very least, a subtext of anti-white vitriol?

What could he have been thinking? Of course he wasn't thinking. He was driven by insecurity, by a need to "be black" despite his biracial background. And so fellow-traveling with a little race hatred seemed a small price to pay for a more secure racial identity. And anyway, wasn't this hatred more rhetorical than real?

But now the floodlight of a presidential campaign has trained on this usually hidden corner of contemporary black life: a mindless indulgence in a rhetorical anti-Americanism as a way of bonding and of asserting one's blackness. Yet Jeremiah Wright, splashed across America's television screens, has shown us that there is no real difference between rhetorical hatred and real hatred.

No matter his ultimate political fate, there is already enough pathos in Barack Obama to make him a cautionary tale. His public persona thrives on a manipulation of whites (bargaining), and his private sense of racial identity demands both self-betrayal and duplicity. His is the story of a man who flew so high, yet neglected to become himself.

Mr. Steele, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of "A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win" (Free Press, 2007). (End of Mr. Steele article in the Wall Street Journal.)

I disappear for the Easter weekend; back on Monday.

Liberal Media Bias and the Super-Ugly Democratic Presidential Campaign

My last two letters to the Boston Globe:

Editor,

Letter-writer Chris Hogan, who penned an outstanding letter (Letters, March 16) on how the liberal media establishment goes out of its way to identify Republicans when they are even remotely associated with wrong-doing or unpopular legislation but is silent to party affiliation when the “culprit” is a Democrat, had to chuckle as I did after reading Devastation at 3,000 feet (editorial, March 16).

The editorial whines on and on about selected ills of coal mining, takes several gratuitous shots at President Bush (he’s a Republican, you know) but only says this in addressing a bill winding its way through Congress that would make current coal mining practices more costly, most notably negatively impacting the economy of West Virginia, “none of (West Virginia’s) members of Congress has signed on to” the proposed legislation.

For those who did not know, West Virginia’s US Senators are former KKK member, Robert C. Byrd (Democrat) and Jay Rockefeller (Democrat). Two of West Virginia’s three US Representatives are Democrats. Rep. Allan B. Mollohan (Democrat) is especially notable for he is under Federal investigation, a fact that forced Rep. Mollohan to very reluctantly step down as the top Democrat on, get this, the House Ethics Committee. (End of first letter.)

Editor,

I'm positive Sen. John McCain is not lamenting that he's been pushed off page 1 since wrapping up the Republican nomination (Barack Obama called remarks by his former pastor "inflammatory and appalling" and removed him from a campaign committe, March 15, A1; Clinton role in health program disputed, March 14, A1; Geraldine Ferraro quit Hillary Clinton's fiance committee after saying that Barack Obama's race is what makes him the party's front-runner, March 13, A1; and, tangentially, Scandal engulfs N.Y. governor, March 11, A1). (End of second letter.)

Spitzer, Libby and Some Perspective

Because I’m disappointed I got no action on my Cold Turkey post below, I need to reference it here in a way that is really unrelated to the main point of my post.

Mr. Alan M. Dershowitz is arguably the most celebrated professor at Harvard Law (Mr. Laurence H. Tribe is his competition). He’s Jewish (a “faction”). I’m Catholic (a different “faction”). Yet, however Madison’s Factions worked it out, he and I are in lock-step agreement that the State of Israel is in the fight of Her life for survival and any and all resources of the United States should be exhausted to help sustain this democracy (Israel’s survival goes directly to the national security of the United States, that’s my justification.).

Of course, Mr. Dershowitz is also a deranged, liberal extremist who thought the absentee ballots of US servicewoman and men need not be counted in any 2000 Presidential election Florida recount and only the votes that added to Vice President Al Gore’s total should have been added to any totals. Yes, I'm spinning here but, then again, I'm a clear-thinking, logical, conservative so in this case a different "faction" coming to a different conclusion. Now drifting back to my point of the day.

The link immediately below is Mr. Dershowitz’s Wall Street Journal apology for Gov. Eliot Spitzer. The title of the article, The Entrapment of Eliot, is all you really need to know about the article if you choose not to read the whole thing (caution: have a barf bag at the ready if you do). The article appeared March 13, 2008.

The gist of the article suggests the Feds targeted Gov. Spitzer exactly because of who he is and that prosecutors have discretion in cases involving the Federal laws Gov. Spitzer allegedly violated so only an over-zealous prosecutor would prosecute in cases where no such prosecution has occurred prior.

Other Spitzer apologists have gone out of their way to remind Americans that all the prosecutors in this case are Republicans; uh, duh!; the prosecutors are appointed by the President. Republicans keep winning Presidential elections so who do the apologists think would be the prosecutors? The apologists seem to be implying when the Republicans are in the White House, liberal extremists have free rein to violate Federal law because ipso facto their prosecution is only politically motivated. Thank goodness I’m not an idiot; I’d hate to have to argue this liberal extremist crap.

Anyway, the link to the Dershowitz article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120536943121332151.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

And, now finally to my point for the day. For perspective, these are the quotes of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald from his sentencing recommendation memo to District Court Judge Reggie Walton in advance of the latter’s sentencing of Scooter Libby, for obstruction of justice no less! (that’s sarcasm), and from Judge Walton at sentencing.

In Mr. Fitzgerald’s 18-page memo he wrote, "Particularly in a case such as this, where Mr. Libby was a high-ranking government official whose falsehoods were central to issues in a significant criminal investigation, it is important that this court impose a sentence that accurately reflects the value the judicial system places on truth-telling in criminal investigations . . . As an experienced attorney, Mr. Libby knew well both the seriousness of this investigation and the range of options available to him as the investigation progressed.”

Does anyone doubt that Gov. Spitzer is a high-ranking government official and who as a celebrated prosecutor of prostitution rings didn’t know the Federal laws he was breaking as he was breaking them? Free kool-aid all around!

Judge Walton said, "People who occupy these types of positions, where they have the welfare and security of the nation in their hands, have a special obligation to not do anything that might create a problem."

It appears Messrs. Fitzgerald and Walton recognize station in life and if Clients 1 – 8 are “private” citizens then selective prosecution is warranted. Or, please, no howls when President Bush fully pardons Mr. Scooter Libby.

Just so I can get all my Spitzer comments out in one post, I add just these thoughts:

At what point was the prostitution ring going to “comp” Gov. Spitzer’s services received in exchange for a well-timed veto or signature or similar?

Gov. Spitzer personally arranged for all the details in breaking Federal law. When he was arranging for a hotel room under his friend's name, when he was on the phone with felons, when he was structuring illegal money transactions, when he was plotting all of this when he should have been reading proposed legislation or coming up with his own solutions to New York’s problems, and when he was, um, engaged with Kristen, how were the people of New York being properly served by their Governor? Of course, this was a public matter; there was absolutely no privacy argument here at all. Only an idiot would argue there is.

Of course, Governors can spend time with their wives, children and other family members at the expense of reading more proposed legislation or coming up with their own solutions to State problems. I’d simply prefer my Governor not be breaking Federal law when he’s not doing something “governorly”.

Economic Facts, Senate Facts, and Flip-floppping

There really is so much to write about, Eliot Spitzer and the now super-ugly Democratic presidential campaign, but I just can't get the post done tonight. Hopefully tomorrow. So, instead, my most recent letters to the Boston Globe.

My last letter to the Boston Globe:

Editor,

The letters to the editor fact checker should have researched that the Dow Industrial Average is up 14% and 36% since President Bush's inauguration and 9/11, respectively, and that the unemployment rate has dropped for two consecutive months (to historically low 4.8%) before the Boston Globe published another letter from another unglued, hate-Bush, extremist that claimed Bush's economic policies are responsible for "personal retirement accounts losing value" and "unemployment rising" (Some might ask for a 'Bush discount', letters, March 12).

Oh, and President Bush did not lend one dollar to a home buyer who could not afford to repay the loan. (End of letter.)

My second to last letter to the Boston Globe:

Editor,

Letter-writer Ms. Margaret Merritt is simply wrong on the facts in suggesting Sen. McCain is anywhere near as guilty as Sens. Clinton and Obama are in being AWOL from their day jobs in the United States Senate (Have they forgotten they're senators, letters, March 10).

On the three most significant pieces of legislation voted on this year by the United States Senate, the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 (February 7), the FISA Amendment Act of 2007 (February 12) and the "torture ban" (February 13), Sen. McCain reported for duty and voted.

Ms. Merritt should limit her snide insinuations for those who earned it by being conveniently absent for all three votes (as well as almost every other vote since last summer): Sens. Clinton and Obama. (End of letter.)

As I wrote some time ago, I think the media misuses the phrase "flip-flop". I think to change your position is to "flip". To change it and then change it back is "flip-flop". However, since nobody else acknowledges my definition, I reluctantly used the contemporary definition of flip-flop in my third to last letter to the Boston Globe:

Editor,

A big thank you to the Boston Globe for exposing Sen. Obama's flip-flop on the Iraq War (Obama stance on Iraq shows evolving view, March 8, A1).

Though, I didn't understand the reason for the generous title of the article given the abuse the Boston Globe gives other politicians whose views "evolved". (End of letter.)

The letter the Boston Globe published instead of my letter (look how many words she needed to say the same thing!):

I READ with interest Farah Stockman's front-page piece "Obama stance on Iraq shows evolving view" (March 8).

As a matter of principle, I admire people humble and open-minded enough to rethink their views to reflect changed circumstances or the acquisition of new data or information.
Although I like to think myself in possession of the seventh-grade reading skills necessary to navigate a typical newspaper article, coverage of the 2008 primary elections has taught me that poli-speak is a substantively different language than the American English spoken and understood by regular people like me. As a student of poli-speak as a second language, I must admit that comprehension often eludes me.

The headline of Stockman's article refers to Obama's changing stance on Iraq as "evolving." I wonder, does "evolving" mean the same or have the same usage as the term "waffling," or a candidate's changing views for purposes of political expediency?

Or is "waffling" reserved strictly for use in reference to the changing views or ideas of seasoned politicians? (End of letter.)

Skin-Color Obsession Continues

This was excerpted from an Associated Press story today.

ALBANY, N.Y. — Less than two years after he reluctantly ran for lieutenant governor, David Paterson is suddenly in line to be only the third black governor since Reconstruction, and the first in New York. (End of excerpt.)

This was the very first sentence in the story.

We are no closer to not noticing skin-color today than we were yesterday. This is only one story but I assure you, you will hear that Lt. Gov. Paterson will be "the first African-American governor" in New York's history many, many times once the Governor resigns.

Cold turkey. Just like I wrote a few days ago. Stop noticing.

Gender Obsession Continues

Excerpted from the Associated Press on March 9:

CAMP SALERNO, Afghanistan - A 19-year-old medic from Texas will become the first woman (so?) in Afghanistan and only the second woman (so?) since World War II to receive the Silver Star, the nation's third-highest medal for valor.

Army Spc. Monica Lin Brown saved the lives of fellow soldiers after a roadside bomb tore through a convoy of Humvees in the eastern Paktia province in April 2007, the military said.

After the explosion, which wounded five soldiers in her unit, Brown ran through insurgent gunfire and used her body to shield wounded comrades as mortars fell less than 100 yards away, the military said. (End of excerpt.)

Gender is simply not relevant to anything I bolded above. Woman can run. Women can use their body to shield. Why the need to notice gender?

For those who want to read the entire story of Spc. Brown's heroic actions, here is the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23547346/

Spc. Brown is a hero, plain and simple.

There is absolutely nothing in the link regarding Spc. Brown's heroic actions that make it necessary to know she's female. Well, unless you're a sexist and thought females were incapable of such heroic action. Or, unless you're a sexist and are now surprised to learn a female performed such heroic action.

I saw another story over the weekend that recently ousted American Idol contestant Danny Noriega could have been the victim of homophobia; how else to explain a "suspected" homosexual getting voted off? It couldn't possibly be because he was 13th best. Mr. Noriega has not acknowledged he is a homosexual and instead has been very stoic and gracious in declining to answer the dehumanizing and personal questions. I cannot find any mention of or speculation about the sexual orientation of the final 12 on American Idol; I'm not aware any of the 12 have been asked embarrassing questions about their sexual orientation.

Skin-Color and Gender Obsessed

Liberal extremist and Boston Globe columnist, Ellen Goodman, had published the following on March 7, "In the end, the most memorable line of the primary season may belong to Bill Clinton. He told a church group (AGAIN!, the Democrats are in a Church!) last month: "I've been waiting all my life to vote for an African-American president. I've been waiting all my life to vote for a woman for president. . . ."

No word on if the former President thinks the African-American or woman should be qualified.

My prior post is extremely relevant.

Cold Turkey

In a comment from my February 10, 2008 post on race, I was asked, “. . . what would you propose (Americans) ought to do to foster better race relations?”

Well, my answer to that question is the exact same as it is for the Nation's sexism problem, religious bigotry problem, and sexual-orientation problem.

But first, a disclaimer: I am not a sociologist, behavioral scientist, demographer, humanist, or any other “professional” that gets paid to spend hours reading about, researching and/or discussing these issue.

Second, for background and as I’ve written many times, I do not know if whites are more racist than blacks. To that, I’d now like to add I do not know if women are more sexist than men. I do not know if homosexuals are more heterophobic than heterosexuals are homophobic. I do not know if Muslims are bigger religious bigots than Jews or Christians. My desire is that all people with a prejudice are exactly the same composition of their “group” that every other racist, sexist, or bigot is of his or her group.

Third, I am a huge believer in Madison’s Factions; the belief that a constant or permanent majority would never exist in America because people have so many characteristics that they will be aligned in different groups based on the issues. Parents with two daughters would probably unite against a law requiring the execution of the second daughter on her third birthday regardless of their religion, skin color or sexual orientation. Smokers would probably unite against a law requiring a $5.00 per pack tax regardless of the religion, skin color, sexual orientation or gender of the smokers.

I am male, white, Catholic, married, non-smoking, flaming heterosexual, taxpaying, home-owning, college-educated, Boston Bruins lovin’, cereal eating, marathon running, conservative to name a few of my “factions”. I also have life experiences; I lost my father violently and tragically, for example. The effect of this single event on my life cannot be overstated; this event is completely blind to all my other “factions”. I gather a female, black, atheist, smoking, homosexual, welfare recipient, high school drop out, Philadelphia Flyers lovin’, candy-eating, cycling (my goodness, they sit down!), liberal and I could develop quite a bond if she, too, lost her father tragically and we met at a “Lost Your Father Tragically” support group.

Depending on how life’s experiences introduce you to public policy can greatly influence your opinion of that public policy. I’m a huge proponent of privatized Social Security because of how the program failed my family. Of course, the youngest of 9 who lost her Dad at age 5 may be a huge fan of the current Social Security program because she’s convinced it “saved” her family.

Fourth, the solution to healing the racial divide (gender divide, religious divide, etc.) must be societal, economical, and political. The huge machinery has to all change together. Ninety-two percent of African-Americans voting for a Democrat for President is ludicrous. When that number is closer to 50%, then we’ll know we’ve achieved some sort of racial harmony. There is no way 92% of any “faction” can be so monolithically in agreement; this is a clear breakdown of Madison’s Factions.

So, the table having been set, what to do?

Cold Turkey.

I suggest we immediately stop noticing skin color, gender, religion, and sexual orientation.

I suggest we immediately stop advertising and promoting skin color, gender, religion and sexual orientation.

"I'm gay." So?

"He's Jewish." I don't care.

"She's a she." And?

"They're black." Your point?

What ought Americans do to foster better race relations? Stop noticing race. Get more blacks to have more than one societal, economic, and political identity than that which springs from the color of their skin.

(Blogger’s Note: Though I’ll only reference race below, the theme is applied to gender, faith and sexual orientation as well.)

Ultimately more blacks need to vote as homeowners OR renters instead of blacks (however being black would impact the voting decision); to vote as parents OR childless instead of blacks (however being black would impact the voting decision), to vote as smokers OR non-smokers instead of blacks (however being black would impact the voting decision). In other words, a faction other than skin color has to have primacy on more issues for blacks than skin color apparently has. AT THE SAME TIME, more whites have to see blacks as homeowners OR renters on a housing issue; as parents OR childless on a schooling issue; as smokers OR non-smokers on a tobacco tax issue.

I’m aware of no conscious thought that my skin color has ever prompted me to vote a particular way. Of course, the color of my great, great grandparent’s skin was not used as a reason to keep them in chains, either. I get that.

But how long does the victimization run? Former US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor actually put a time limit on it. In Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice O’Connor wrote that the University of Michigan Law School could practice racism for 25 more years; blacks will stop being victims is 25 years! Hooray! Well, I disagree. I say no more. I say no more victimization starting today.

Cold Turkey.

My suggestion offers a better chance we'll be more color-blind than Justice O'Connor’s silly opinion that we can practice racism for 25 more years. If we practice racism for 25 more years the likelihood we'll be more color-blind in 26 years is zero. If we practiced racism for 100 more years the likelihood we'll be more color-blind in 101 is also zero.

Cold Turkey.

No more militant blacks demanding race-conscious help from government or business. This only prolongs the transition.

No more guilty whites offering race-conscious help from government or business. This only prolongs the transition.

Cold turkey, starting today. No recognition of skin color in any decision or policy.

My goodness, telling hiring managers they have to hire the most qualified black who can do the job? (Sarcasm ahead) Yeah, the white, Jewish hiring manager who lost out on his last promotion to a Christian specifically because of religious bigotry is appropriately equipped to handle this hiring directive.

I wrote it here a long time ago, but the black Supervisor who gets promoted to Manager deserves to go home to her/his family and celebrate the promotion known to be earned on merit. “They wanted ME!” The ugly cloud that the promotion was the result of some corporate, feel-good, program robs the new Manager of one of the greatest feelings in the world and creates resentment in a white workforce with reason to be suspicious.

Regardless of the context that someone declares her own label or labels another, ask, “So?” as a conversation starter. Yes, it could be innocently stated but see if the declarer can then explain herself. If the conversation is about the Order of Mass, a Catholic might declare, “I’m Catholic” to imply only that he is familiar with the Order of Mass instead of saying, “I’m familiar with the Order of Mass” but put him on the spot anyway.

Cold Turkey.

Stop noticing TODAY and force everyone to adapt. Stop promoting TODAY. How long until the American-Samoan Lesbian Smokers Affinity Group in the workplace? Will the transition be painful? You bet your ass. Will we be closer to a color-blind society in 25 years if we go cold turkey TODAY? You bet your ass. Hell, we'll be more color-blind one year from now if we went cold turkey TODAY.

“I’m Asian.” So? “He’s a he.” So? “He’s Mormon.” So? “I’m straight.” So?

Busy! Busy! Busy!

In no particular order, these were my last few emails to the Boston Globe or to its stable of Leninists:

The Boston Globe sought fit to do an article on the Electoral College and then the bitter, hate-filled, editor of the letters page allowed a bitter, hate-filled leftist to lament that if popular vote decided Presidential elections, Vice President Al Gore would have been President in 2000. My logical, unpublished letter:

Editor,

Those who think Al Gore should be President because he won the popular vote in 2000 probably think the Patriots should be Super Bowl champs because they had more first downs than the Giants (22 - 17) (Some contest push for a popular vote, Letters, February 28).

As the Giants would have tried to get more first downs during the Super Bowl if they knew BEFORE the Super Bowl that first downs would decide the winner, so, too, would have President Bush tried to get as many votes, regardless of what state the votes came from, had he known BEFORE the election that the popular vote would decide the winner.

Instead, the Giants scored points and President Bush won electoral votes; the Giants and President Bush tried to collect the things the rules said would decide the winner. Imagine that. (End of letter.)

If Al Gore spent anymore time in California than it took to jet in, pick up the bags of campaign contribution cash (unmarked bills, of course) from the Hollywood elites, and jet out during the 2000 Presidential campaign then Al Gore is an idiot. Al Gore ran up the score in California (plurality of over 1 million votes) and he lost Florida by 537 votes. Al Gore is an idiot. Al Gore's campaign staff from 2000 is loaded with idiots. Anyone who does not understand this is also an idiot.

A left-wing apologist letter-writer was allowed to “correct” the record and explain that Sens. Clinton and Kerry’s 2002 vote to authorize war in Iraq was not a vote to authorize war in Iraq. My fact-based, unpublished response:

Editor,

I appreciate the Boston Globe's recent effort to allow letter writers to "correct" the record; failed as the effort was (Let's get this 'Iraq war vote' thing straight, Letters, February 28).

Now, please allow me to actually set the record straight on several topics:

The letter writer is delusional if he thinks Sen. Kerry's vote to authorize war was anything but that. To wit, on August 9, 2004, fully 22 months after he voted for the war and 17 months after the beginning of major combat operations, Sen. Kerry said he still would have voted for war even if he knew at the time that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD and there was no operational link between Saddam Hussein and terrorists (Kerry says he’d still vote to authorize war, Boston Globe, August 10, 2004).

President Bush never said "mission accomplished". Matter of fact, the entire text of his speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln warns about the long road ahead. Oh, President Bush never said Iraq was an "imminent threat" either.

The last time Sens. Clinton and Obama had the courage to vote on war funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (September 7, 2006; http://www.senate.gov/), they voted for the funding.

The Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth are 300 decorated Vietnam veterans who dared to express an opinion about who should be commander-in-chief; unfortunately, the group has no link to President Bush. There was a link between a senior member of Sen. Kerry's 2004 Presidential campaign and CBS' forged document smear-job of President Bush. (End of letter.)

Mr. or Ms. Shelley Murphy of the Boston Globe did an article on Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and his first decision as Governor to commute a felon’s sentence. The felon in this case is a convicted murder who shot a 26 year-old man in the head for the victim's wallet. The quotes are from Mr./Ms. Murphy’s article. My email to Mr./Ms. Murphy that went without a reply:

Ms. Murphy,

"One inmate, Willie Horton, raped a Maryland woman and stabbed her husband during a 1986 furlough."

First, the inmate is convicted murderer Willie Horton. He stabbed a teenage convenience store clerk 19 times AFTER the clerk emptied the cash register for Mr. Horton's "withdrawal". Mr. Horton dumped the not-quite-lifeless body of the boy into a dumpster to die in filth. Second, Mr. Horton raped Ms. Miller, she wasn't married to Mr. Barnes at the time, twice during a home invasion. Mr. Horton stabbed and cut Mr. Barnes over twenty times; Mr. Barnes bounded and gagged in the basement of his home while Mr. Horton brutalized Ms. Miller. Finally, Mr. Horton didn't skip out over the weekend, terrorize and brutalize two innocents and return on Monday. He skipped out on his furlough and was captured months later. But, you almost conveyed the facts properly. (Aside: Recall, Gov. Dukakis nor Lt. Gov. John F. Kerry ever met with Ms. Miller or Mr. Barnes and that President Bush did meet privately with Ms. Cindy Sheehan.)

"Benjamin LaGuer is a convicted rapist . . . ."

Mr. Benjamin LaGuer bound a 59 year-old woman and then raped her repeatedly for 8 hours.

What doesn't "loom large"? No mention of Mr. Carl Ray Songer?

Mr. Carl Ray Songer gut shot a Florida State Trooper 5 times! The Trooper died. Mr. Songer was convicted and sentenced to death, a death sentenced signed-off by liberal governor Bob Graham. The sentence apparently was too harsh for Mr. Patrick. He fought on Mr. Songer's behalf to reduce the sentence to life with the possibility of parole. Mr. Patrick prevailed. The entire criminal justice system should be so thrilled. (End of email.)

The Boston Globe announced last week it was AGAIN cutting jobs; the cold-blooded bastards! Maybe I mentioned it here, maybe I didn’t, but I recently exchanged emails with Globe columnist Ms. Joan Vennochi on the same topic when she was attacking Presidential candidate Gov. Mitt Romney for cutting jobs when he was a practicing capitalist. My email to Ms. Vennochi that did receive a very icy reply:

Ms. Vennochi,

Picking up on our recent "conversation", I see the Boston Globe is cutting jobs for the fourth time since 2001.

Your boss, Mr. Ainsley, said, "This reduction in staff is a difficult but necessary step toward our on-going goals of reducing costs and finding efficiencies that allow for the long-term health of our business." So that's the language Gov. Romney should have used when he was a practicing capitalist!

Or, I look forward to the Boston Globe editorial page writers now trashing Boston Globe and New York Times Co. management. It should be a fun read . . . if you are allowed.

Since I copied Messrs. Ainsley (I think) and Baron (I'm sure) I make one observation on declining revenues as mentioned in the article: just maybe the left-ratchet (meaning it is still moving) slant to everything is having an impact. Oh, no, it can't be that! Let's blame it all on the internet and 24/7 news. (End of email.)