Letter, a projection of the government I want

This letter appeared in the latest “Inlander:” Titled Conservative Insult. “Mr. Reuter is politely insulting conservatives in his recent assertion (“Progressive Conservatism” 3/17/16) that, in doing what’s best for society, they ‘think the costs would be too expensive’ and ‘are abandoning the most challenging, immediate problems of our time.’

He rather well demonstrates the ease of tipping one’s hat to a straw man with his respectful tone, but his argument betrays the fact that he has never bothered to substantially digest any of the significant quotes by the great conservatives such as Milton Friedman or Margaret Thatcher. With any effort to truly understand the opposing view, he would see that conservatives do not believe that it is merely too hard for the government to solve society’s ills, but that when government seeks to do so by expanding its own power, even from the purest of intentions, it inevitably brings about more evil than good.

As soon as government gets involved, it is picking winners and losers. Lady Justice deliberately lifts the corner of her blindfold and tilts the proverbial scales. Multitudes of the able-bodied lay down their shovels at the offer of free bread, while the one who truly needs compassion slips through the cracks, and gets only a cold shoulder and an apology note from the computerized bureaucracy.

Is it really so crazy to believe that charity and welfare should be the domain of living, breathing affectionate, morally-convicted individuals, rather than the impersonal, perfunctory, often corrupt government? That is what conservatism is. If my taxes were not going to fund frivolous art projects around town, my tithe would be all the greater to go forth in support of my less fortunate neighbors,who I have been taught to love directly, and not through government ‘welfare.’

J. Crow
Cheney, Wash.”

Actually J. Crow, your arguments are that of left wing anarchism, not of anything remotely having to do with “conservatism.” But I guess you figure the only way you can justify them at all, is by slapping an oxymoronic label on them. So I shall duly inform you of a few facts: first of all, government does not expand by itself. And second, it doesn’t become inherently corrupt by its own devices.

Republicans or GOP, but not “conservatives.” Republicans such as Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, senior and Junior, all saw an expansion of government during their time in office. The winners and losers in each case,majority “rights” versus that of minorities, in order to systematically gut various civil rights laws. Republican governors in a number of states seeking to gut through the U.S. Supreme Court, voting rights acts. Further, to push religious intolerance against women’s rights, non-Christians, and those of the LGBT. the NRA as lobbyists over and above people desiring reasonable gun laws. Or for that matter, a pro-business agenda versus, the employed work force and the customers. Money as speech that furthers the corruption of government, through the “Citizen’s United” decision (Lady Justice deliberately lifting her blindfold, and tilting the scales). And how does it come to this? Because human beings who run the government, are more than happy to be less than morally-convicted, when money from lobbyists are waved under their noses. Government will expand at all levels, regardless of whether taxes are paid or not, because of assorted interest groups wanting to push their agendas through government. In short, the various factions we all know to exist, are not interested in solving society’s ills on their own. Instead, that is what they want government to do.

I can think of no greater insult to anyone than Crow’s declaring how “multitudes will lay down their shovels” because of an offer of free bread. No one is going to offer free bread, if the able-bodied are gainfully employed. But that’s the rub, isn’t it? People are not gainfully employed, and that is why they must depend upon “free bread.” Crow further asserts, that if his taxes did not have to go toward funding frivolous art projects… Then I shall also gather that he is too poor (from taxes) to tithe his church. A church incidentally, that ought to be extending charitable acts toward the less fortunate. Instead of using that money to build bigger and glitzier churches. Or putting the pastor in a private Lear Jet. Or providing the pastor with a fleet of limousines. Or building him a multi-million dollar mansion. Or using that money to fuel various GOP candidacies. So excuse me, J. Crow; one could write a book on every fallacy brought out by your argument. But this blogged sample will have to do, for now.

Time to settle your differences

In the “Inlander,” the latest “Slowpoke” by Jen Sorenseon caught my eye. The two sides of the Democratic party are engaging in name-calling, derogatory comments about each other’s candidates, etc. And this continues until Ted Cruz becomes the new President with a “TEA Party” Congress. Then the Democrats point fingers and blame each other.

The reason why this parody was right on point, Facebook and the political sides just the Democrats have taken,have made it particularly obvious. So, with reference to the above title: Democrats, if you want to vote for Clinton or Sanders during the caucuses and primaries, then do so. Then once your party has decided who will be the nominee, then vote in force for that Presidential candidate. After all, the GOP are only making a repeated mess of everything. The GOP are only pushing a special interest agenda, through governments at what ever level. You, their constituents are not being served by greed, corruption, dogmatic demands from religious extremists,or an obstructive climate in which the GOP even go so far as to "snub" the President. Time to focus more on why you have this anger, and then push for the candidate who can best deal with it. Quite frankly, I don't care who they pick, even if it proved to be Joe Blow down the street from where I live. Especially if "Joe Blow" proves to have what it takes in policies,both foreign and domestic.

I just picked up “The Inlander” this morning, 12 February 2016. Of course, George Nethercutt appeared as a guest columnist. I haven’t read his column, yet; I am uncertain right now, if I am even going to. But his change we can believe in, as of two decades ago? President Bill Clinton was in office in the year 1996. The GOP were looking for as many little scandals as they could find, to push the President out of office. They were not looking for a change they could believe in,because the GOP only happened to be sore losers. How interesting that Nethercutt would have to look to a Democrat, who could make the kind of changes “people could get behind,” but not give President Obama credit where it is due. Which is why the Democrats need to get behind one candidate and stick with him, or her. No one is going to get Mr. or Mrs. Perfection. What does need to be looked at, is how the GOP could produce a worst case situation for this country. Flint, Michigan, we all know about that. The Bundy militants who decided to occupy that wildlife sanctuary in Oregon. Governor Kasich is so concerned about the “well being of the fetus,” that he would sign into law a defunding of Planned Parenthood, how about the well-being of the children in his state? Or the well-being of his female constituents? That is one thing you don’t hear about. So, I don’t know what change Nethercutt could surely believe in, or that the people ought to get behind a Republican candidate. Especially when the GOP have documented, the people are not who they believe in.

“Conservative?” That’s a laugh

It has certainly been more than a month since I last visited this blog. I suspect for one reason, not enough inspiration of late and further, I have been working on my vampire novel: “Black Unicorn.” And no, that is not a misleading title, this is a fantasy story where the vampire is given the very strange power to transform into a winged creature, much resembling a unicorn. So, now onto what inspired me to post my latest commentary to blog. George Nethercutt is at it again. On the eve of the primaries circa 2016, Nethercutt is suddenly pushing his fantasy version of “establishment.” Suddenly, government is a very good thing after all, now that we face all these post Cold War crises known as terrorism. Oh and better yet, a government run by “establishment” Republicans would be perfect. I don’t know about you, but with this latest puff piece, Nethercutt’s credibility hit new lows.

Obviously the local Reagan Republicans around Kootenai County, Idaho, aren’t the only ones making a myth of Ronald Reagan. A brief summary of the actual Reagan in office: besides the fact that he actually did raise taxes a number of times, his “supply-side economics” put him at odds with the family farmers, unions, and foreign competition (Something you actually need to truly call it a “free market.”). There was his unquestionable floundering over Iran-Contra. Plus, the S&Ls that went bust with the taxpayers picking up the tab, soon after the first George Bush entered office. Being an actor, and a guy who did numerous TV commercials before he ran for Governor of California, did not make Reagan a “private success story.” Leave it to Nethercutt to literally re-write the Reagan he would rather have.

George Nethercutt ran for office, defeating Washington’s Tom Foley while he was about it, as an anti-establishment Republican. Notice that I am not going to state that being “anti-establishment” is in any way the same as “conservative.” Being anti-establishment in Nethercutt’s world view of the time, was to unilaterally oppose every thing the establishment Democrats were doing! George, George, George, some of us do hold long memories; even if you have a problem with keeping your own memories accurate. Many Republicans were anti-establishment, and for that reason tended to run the government into the ground. Remember ant-taxer Grover Norquist? Through massive reductions in taxes, we can shrink the size of government to the point where it can be drowned in the bath tub. Never mind how such a simplistic ideology, ultimately makes this nation a debtor state in hock to China. Norquist’s real anti-establishment argument, is one based on pure greed and not on actual reality. Congress, the Judicial system, the Executive branch, federal employees, bureaucracies, and programs all need money on which to operate. Just in case Norquist forgot, it is a capitalist system; you have to pay for everything. Taxes then, are an extension of capitalism.

When President Bill Clinton assumed office, the GOP seemed less interested in actually governing, than trying to punish the voters for putting a Democrat into office. Then, George Bush 2 spent all of his time running against Bill Clinton. And I suppose that he was so opposed to everything Clinton/Gore, that upon the eve of 9/11/2001, Bush still couldn’t be persuaded that this nation was at risk from terrorism. The day of 9/11/2001, he was reading “My Pet Goat” to some school children. But, but, but, he was a Texas Governor! He surely had the skills, knowledge, general wherewithal to pull this nation out of a crisis and overall tragedy! Actually, Bush 2 almost bankrupted the nation by the time he left office. That is the definition of “conservative” Nethercutt pushes today: create all these problems for society because you believe in corporate welfare. The only government you want is the one that acts on the behalf of well-heeled special interests. Never mind that your constituents are also everyone else and not just your radical “base;” keep on pandering to the hate-filled, the rabidly religious, and demonstrate pure ignorance while you are about it. Obviously, a not very representative government, one that makes life difficult for our American society. But Nethercutt thinks this brand of “conservatism” is the answer we all need? Sorry George, but Bush did not make this country “proud.” Nor did Reagan make this country “strong enough,” to face without fear the many challenges we would face, in the decades since his time in office. The GOP in Congress spent more time nit picking about non-essentials, than actually proving their ability to govern. They still do.

The GOP continued to prove how unwilling they were to govern under the Obama administration. The “TEA Party/[anti-] Freedom Caucus” have proven with former House Speaker John Boehner, how quickly they are prepared to eat their own. That isn’t a recipe for government should a Republican win in November 2016. —You really can not have a “smaller government” on the home front, without substantially hurting people who face natural disasters. A massive windstorm that caused a lot of destruction throughout Washington state, and parts of North Idaho as well;as just one example.— A “smaller government” can not exist, not when it is being called on to act promptly on the behalf of special pleaders. A “smaller government” can not exist, if it is expected to do what Donald Trump wants it to do, become like a police state as a threat to people who have the wrong kind of religion. On the international level, it still takes a hefty amount of cash to project strength abroad. A strange dichotomy I do believe. It is born out of the non-desire to face reality. No “small government” has the wherewithal to solve an international crises such as ISIS, nor correct any lingering domestic problems. So with that being said, the definition of “conservative” has now mutated into insanity. George Nethercutt’s latest contribution to the “Inlander,” is the face of that insanity.

Finally, I don’t know of any “moderate” Republicans in Congress. They are either by degrees out to lunch, or living it large in outer space somewhere, a place that no credible sci-fi author would ever venture upon. Given the stupid and really irrational things they have said, especially on the campaign hustings? The GOP clown car seriously applies to all candidates for the oval office. Sorry Nethercutt, the American society needs to be better served than this, in the coming years ahead.

Happy early Hallowe’en

Remember when the Republicans opposed the whole Iran nuclear deal? Seems that the real reason involved, is not whether Iran would get the bomb. Instead, the sudden collapse in oil prices, once sanctions were lifted from Iranian oil trades. As a matter of fact, oil prices have collapsed. The real GOP argument was on the behalf of oil companies, and not the bomb. Courtesy of “The Week.”

George Nethercutt was in the latest “Inlander,” and blamed House Speaker Boehner’s sudden resignation in part on President Obama. Unfortunately, Boehner was among those Republicans who never did work with our POTUS, and further insisted on some intransigence of his own. Nethercutt’s commentary on Boehner began to sound much like an eulogy: 1/4 facts topped with 3/4 bs.

Watching the Facebook news feeds, I see a lot of negative commentary about Ben Carson. If what he says is in any way, shape, or form to be true; our retired brain surgeon has wandered off down the road into Nutsville. And the American citizens are supposed to choose between him, or Trump, Bush, or some other loudmouth crazy? “The end of the world,” according to Carson. Or according to Trump and the guy he’d pick for the NIH? Autistic kids are just brats and ought to quit acting out. Seriously? Bet some of these pug uglies never once met a disabled child. Booo!

And finally, the school shooting in Roseburg, Oregon. Besides the family members who live there… A few days after that attack, a group of anti-choicers lined up on Highway 95 here in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Well, I am on my way home from hunting aluminum cans, and I swing by for long enough, to duly inform these people of the school shooting in Oregon. That’s right, you don’t just defend the “unborn” and stand silently by while the born children get gunned down. Somebody get a clue.

Stunted art scene, the Inland Northwest

It isn’t very often that I do this, provide a paragraph sized transcript from a book in progress. But today I will: Chapter 16 — The Black Unicorn.

“This huge black creature surveyed the on-going battle, being played out in the narrow valley far below. Men well garbed in battle armor on the upper halves of their bodies, lay dead in heaps next to their poorly equipped foes. Lances and spears were being hastily flung into the roiling mass of combatants. Only those spears and lances were being met in equal measure, by bowmen expert in their profession. Men on either side, cut down in their prime of life. Shouts from the leaders on each side, exhorting their followers to greater efforts. In contrast to screams of men laid low with a fatal blow. Flashes of short swords and knives, glinting in the rain and flashes of lightning. A tableau of men hewing and hacking away at one another, a gut wrenching horror that seemed quite destined to never end. The flying creature watched this grim act played out, with a preternaturally canny red eye. It glided through the strong winds, or it sometimes banked and flapped about in a circling pattern, in an effort to fully investigate this frightful act of war. Not yet was the creature seen, by opposing forces struggling to survive, whether victory for either side could be achieved or not. No, in a day made dim by clouds and rain, spectrally lit up by periodic bolts of lightning. A moving shadow amidst all others, would provide no cause for anyone to pay much heed. When the battle-hardened warriors finally did realize what bizarre creature was in their midst, it would be too late for some. Only the men destined to die this day, would not include members the rebel forces. Such a time might arrive when the monster finally preyed on them as well. But not this day, or in this particular era. No, the demonic creature was simply biding its time, until it could select it’s next victim to feast well upon. Not just a victim to be certain. Rather, this ravenous monster would feast upon as many victims as it could claim. Indeed, that would happen after the outnumbered rebels abruptly abandoned the field of battle, and fled for the sheltering hills. The remaining Roman soldiers, would be caught in a new and deadly conflict, with a blood thirty and implacable foe. Thus a new front in this battle would be opened, and very soon. But the creature the Roman legions fought against, could not be cut down by sword, or spear, or lance. Not this flying creature, vaguely resembling a unicorn with wings. By description: an amalgam in all its parts of mist, rain, clouds, and hard driven wind.”

“The Inlander” just came out with its Fall Arts Guide, and I could already see that the only city or state they really planned to showcase, Spokane, Washington. And writers of interest, especially female, also living in Spokane, Washington. Of the latter in particular, women writers who were able to get their books published by traditional means. Congratulations are in order of course. But are they going to be the only female authors “The Inlander” wishes to showcase?

So let me tell you about, the publisher’s marketing strategy to get “magazines excited about debut novels and first time authors of books.” They wish to recoup the advances they give to the authors, and their initial investments toward the book itself. So the publishing companies aggressively market the books to as wide a readership as possible. And “The Inlander” locally helps that along by showcasing the authors in question. Of the majority of the female authors mentioned, sorry, but I don’t know them from Adam and never will. Just as it is not likely, that I will ever make a trip to “Aunties,” downtown Spokane, to ever pick up one of their books. Of the one author in particular, as stated by “The Inlander” — a columnist for the Spokesman-Review — I was never very impressed by her work. That was any time she stepped in to temporarily replace the author of the Huckleberries on line blog, hosted by the Spokesman-Review. To put it bluntly, I don’t care to be entertained by her pet cats and photos of firemen.

Well now, “The Inlander” requires a publisher to tell you all about a book and an author, before they will showcase either one? What if the publisher is an e-reader? Then it would seem to me, that if an author of said e-book notifies said rag like “The Inlander” of a debut novel, by e-mailed book link to be exact. Then it should be possible for the same publication, to interview the author or show case the e-novel. In particular, if the author lives only 30 minutes away from Spokane, Washington. You would think under the circumstances, that Coeur d’Alene, Idaho has no literary groups at all. No authors worth speaking of, if they don’t reside in the city with all of the action: Spokane, Washington.

“Black Unicorn” is my third e-novel in the works. It will debut, when I am done writing it and publishing it to an e-reader format. But I think that I shall not e-mail a book link to “The Inlander” again. I shall do my own marketing, through what networking I am most familiar with. Personally showing people the fruits of my own labor.

On writers

I am going to begin this blog post with a short story:

A walk in the woods

The bus had had just now come to a stop in the large parking lot, at the entrance to a vast national park. Obviously,other motor vehicles had already preceded the bus, to this same parking lot, and were currently unoccupied. Which meant that the redwoods national forest was certain to be full of visitors. Consisting of families on vacation, a scheduled tour which the bus had most certainly brought to this place, or people simply looking for a place to hike and camp for a while.

The tour bus doors hissed abruptly and swung open, disgorging over fifty passengers in total. Some of those passengers were in their teens, others were of college age, and other members of the tour group,who were certainly in their forties to fifties. Among the general group, were three aspiring artists. Timothy Verner was an author, Angela Walker was a painter, and Daniel Blake was a poet. Each of these artists chose to take this tour, because they sought inspiration from nature itself.

Angela being among the first to get off the bus, looked around and sighed with pleasure. “It is going to be a perfect day,” she said. “The sun is bright and there is not a cloud in the sky.”

She was briefly interrupted by Mr. James Talon, the tour guide, briefly reminding the group of sun screen, mosquito repellent, and having their denim jeans tucked into sturdy boots. “After this point,folks,” he gently reminded everyone. “The trails ahead are certain to be rough.”

“Come on everyone!” Daniel excitedly exclaimed, “Let’s make a day of it!” And so the three artistic friends, joined the rest of their tour group.

The trail leading out of the parking lot, was fairly smooth at first. And then as it continued to meander past huge stands of ancient redwoods,the trail began to briefly dip down into hollows before climbing back up and out of them. A pathway sometimes strewn with rocks, fallen branches, and pine cones. Timothy suddenly wondered aloud, who was even here last to maintain this deplorable trail.

What was supposed to have begun as a gorgeous excursion, went from bad to worse after that. Daniel commenced to complain about that particularly ugly moss, growing along the sides of the huge redwood trunks. Timothy grumbled about the dead limbs mixed in with a few scraggly living ones, found among some of the trees. As for Daniel, he was hoping to see flowers, or at least verdant bushes in bloom or possessing ripening fruit. Neither of these types of flora, seemed anywhere about, on the trail the tour group was currently taking. Perhaps, somewhere else?

But the tour guide Mr. Talon, insisted on keeping his charges, on the trail most commonly used. Just as he kept pointing out, quite excitedly in fact,the huge girth of some of the oldest trees. But at every step, the author, poet, and painter found more and more things to complain about.

Signs of rot and decay, where ever the eye could perceive it. The apparently ill-kept trail, seemed too difficult to navigate. It was too hot, why were they wearing long sleeved shirts tucked into denim jeans? The huge redwood trees cast too much shadow in all the wrong places, to ever be suitable for a painterly eye. Finally Angela spotted a single and beautiful butterfly flitting along the trail up ahead of them. She was prepared to excitedly point out the butterfly to her artistic friends, when a sparrow swooped down and claimed the butterfly for a meal.

“That horrid bird!” Angela angrily shouted, “I would have loved to have painted that butterfly; it was so pretty!Now it’s gone.” She very much felt like crying.

Eventually the tour of the redwood forest came to an end, and the entire tour group returned to the waiting tour bus. The three artistic friends agreed between themselves, that this national park so-called, wasn’t all that it was cracked up to be. Nothing would ever persuade them to return to the park again.

That was when an older woman quietly but firmly announced, “What ever are the three of you complaining about, anyway? This was a wonderful and beautiful excursion. The best I had been on in years.”>

Which is exactly how I feel about certain people, who purport to claim they are authors. While they see a need to constantly nit pick and complain about any work that is not their own; I have to wonder if they even bothered reading anything, just for the pure joy of doing so. If they can take no pleasure in what they see around them, neither can they transcribe that pleasure into their writing. Give me a Charles Dickens or a Henry David Thoreau any day, over people who are stuffed full of pure conceit.

Vanity press

Throughout much of last night, I was quite the subject of snobbish behavior. Because I had not spent $400.00 on a garish piece of graphic art, and therefore my book covers (Nikon), sucked; to put it mildly.

This is my view of a book cover, if displayed on line, then obviously you will see the front of the book in full. However, a hard copy book displayed on a traditional bookshelf; you will only see the spine and not the rest of it. Nor does a cover however stylish, tell anyone about the contents of a book. Rather, the graphic art that looks more suitable for framing, doesn’t necessarily add to a book. I think if anyone wishes to spend $400.00 on graphic art, had best have a book worth reading. Otherwise, the “art” only serves to mask the content of the book.

Next was the complaint (jeers really) of my over use of commas. I suspect I always did have that problem, and it is not likely to improve now with age. It could be worse, I could write much like Henry David Thoreau. Where his paragraphs would be all of two or three sentences and sprinkled heavily with “out of place” commas. And yes, Mr. Thoreau was college educated, circa about the mid 19^th century. I will grant that styles of writing can be taught differently depending on where you live, and how you were taught in public school. I haven’t seen the inside of such an institution, since my late twenties or early thirties. Or I could write like Cassandra Clare. Presuming she has a good editor,I could critique her work as having a dangling participial here. A lack of commas in all the right places, to make it harder to read, there. From that perspective, no editor is 100% perfect. So far, if the only argument my (LOL!) detractors have, are the commas; then I must be doing pretty good.

Finally, what sparked the “outrage” on the comments thread, was a singularly useful cover concerning a book, written by an AIDS victim. Thus the title of this blog post, “Vanity press.” I saw a full frontal display of garish art, like you would never believe. I am only going to be “nice” on the comments thread. Because otherwise, you wasted $400.00 on that? “HIV in the Eye,” had a perfectly satisfactory cover. The majority of comments however were, acts of oneupmanship (Oh, I can do better than that!), with the intent of various authors attempting to out-impress each other. Then comes the pop-psychology, I am passive aggressive. Or I am “coming across” in a manner, that no one else likes. Excuse me, but that is bullying folks. Nor are you going to have provided a useful criticism, by jeering and laughing.

Yep, as a senior citizen; I believe I have seen it all and heard it all, for close to the entire sixty years of my life. And likely by my personal experiences, I have a different perspective from the people I am blogging about. What impresses me about a book: there may be no cover at all. An author whom I am familiar with, it will be the first reason I reach for that book. His or her other books were good, the one I purchase should be just as good. The title, it is a new title. Of least impression to myself, is the cover art. No, the cover art tells me nothing of what is inside the book. Nor is it expected to, that’s why you read the book.

Latest letter

On 2 September 2015, this letter appeared in the Coeur d’Alene Press:

PRESS: Shows its liberal bias

If you are slightly right of center or more to the right like a conservative, do not bother writing to Readers Write. You only have about a 40 percent chance it will appear in this newspaper. The editors have a liberal bias.

A friend said if you name call or character assassinate anyone, they will not print it. I thought about it for half a minute and then said “You are half right. If you are a liberal and smear some conservative, you will have your letter printed.” Case in point is Mr. Gressler, who smears people by name who he disagrees with and will accuse them of wanting this bad thing or thinking of that bad thing. That is character assassination in my book, since he knows none of the people he smears. So how can he know what they want or what they are thinking. Yet Mr. Gressler’s letters are regular in this paper. I for one will not look at this section of the paper any more

JOE GERARDS
Coeur d’Alene

Editor’s note: In 2015, The Press has published three opinion pieces by Daniel Gressler. Including today, it has published five opinion pieces by Joe Gerard

Because I don’t have a subscription to the Coeur d’Alene Press, I don’t read all the letters to the editors, or “My Turn” columns found in any edition of the newspaper. But of what I have read down through the years, self-proclaimed “conservatives” had no problem engaging in name calling (liberal is at the top of the list) and character assassination (which certainly includes, because I disagree with your opinion, you must really l-o-o-o-v-e Karl Marx). Because I have read those letters, they were obviously printed. —rolls eyes now.

Next, I am certainly not going to complain about the fact, that my own letters appear more often in The Press. I guess the editor finally wised up to a few things, and quit allowing the bitchers and moaners to dictate who’s letter can rightfully appear in the paper, at any given time. In short, a letter that gets published, is at the discretion of the editor, and not of his subscribers. They are not running his newspaper, he is. That being said, a published letter already tells you what a person thinks, or even what they want. That is why, whether you agree or disagree with someone else’s opinions, it will always be based on the contents of the letter published! Not necessarily do you need to “know” who that person is, to still agree or disagree with what they wrote. What Mr. Gerard is really saying, I can’t tolerate the idea that you can present your views as well.

And finally, character assassination isn’t simply about disagreeing with stated views. It is an argument of presuming the worst about someone, with the full intent of making your opinion public, without trying to learn whether you are right about that individual or not. Under the circumstances, I shall confine my agreements or disagreements, to what are after all published and therefor, public statements. I shall presume nothing of the person, unless this is an individual who engages in particularly virulent and violent rhetoric. Very precisely, if this person wishes to act like that toward a complete stranger. How is he prepared to act to members of his family, friends, or nearby neighbors? The Gods and Goddesses only knows. Yes, such letters were in fact published, over the course of many years. Nor would I call such people, who did submit them for publication, “conservative.” No label will ever justify the childish behavior, or the hate-filled crap that I have seen in an “opinion” column. Just call it what it is, letters to the editor are just a preview of the kind of people, we really are. Mr. Gerard, well he acts like a whiny little boy, with a letter to prove it.

Manufacturing fear

I picked up a copy of “The Inlander” this morning, and read their lead article, “Manufacturing Fear.” It pertains to Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich versus the “crazies.” The kind of people, inclusive of Washington State Representative Matt Shea, who apparently likes to stir up a lot of trouble. Only, not just in Washington state. Yes, this article written by Daniel Walters was certainly illuminating enough. But I do have a number of questions, not of Mr. Walters. Rather, of the kind of people he wrote about.

Why is Washington Rep Matt Shea in Idaho? The citizens of Idaho have nothing to do, with his election to the Washington state legislature. If this is all about the sovereignty of citizens, especially concerning matters of “mind your own business” types of politics, then Rep. Shea is in the wrong state. He should be doing his job, that the citizens of Washington state elected him to do. Not mucking around in the affairs of another state. It doesn’t matter if the fellow was invited; he is a fellow who represents Washington’s government, and that is his place.

Second, why should anyone insist that “right wing” is applicable, to being opposed to government? Or that a “revolution” is needed to remake society, my way? It might surprise the crazies out there, in Washington state and Idaho, how much the government has acted for them, than against them. For example, the federal government always did act against extremists. I can think of “The Whiskey Rebellion” as a primary example, of when the government sent in the troops to crush resistance. When the new Constitutional government that was formed under George Washington, precisely; “trampled on the constitution,” to crush this particular resistance. Over the more than two centuries of this nation’s history, inclusive of President Woodrow Wilson and Senator Joe McCarthy, there have been many instances of “constitutional trampling.” But of course, [those] people were seen as an enemy: We were at war—Germans, Japanese, etc. Economic—immigrants, legal or illegal, or the wrong sort of politics such as socialism. Racial—especially in the aftermath of the Civil Rights movement, and the demand for “state’s rights.” Or more accurately, the right of states to continue institutional bigotry. Religion—if it is of any culture, sect, denomination, that I don’t adhere to. Reference: Christian nation. But who are the identified Christians that ought to belong here? Which ultimately renders this article as highly ironic — It is okay to trample the constitution against an alleged Commie, but it is not okay for me to get the business end of it. Especially if I have done something that is against the law: Phil Hart, Cliven Bundy, Randy Weaver, etc. — that is when I shall style myself, as an “anti-government right winger.”

Remember when “My country, love it or leave it!” was the meme used against Vietnam war protesters? Yes, it was a meme, before the days of the internet, and such comments can be rendered digital to be shared. The descendants of these “conservatives” from the 1960s to 1970s, would actually have dad or granddad rolling in their graves. There is no such commentary of “My country, love it or leave it!” heard from their lips today. Not when people like Rep. Matt Shea, etc. declare their hatred of anything, that could be corrosive to “their” rights. At this point, I shall step in with this argument: just your rights, is that it? Just your proclaimed “love” of the U.S. Constitution, correct? I can already see that you don’t care to get along with anyone. And if all you can do is hate people, even the very government you represent, it isn’t the governing document you “fear” for. If your paranoia was truly based on fact, you would be herded off to a federal penitentiary and likely deported. IE, the AG Palmer raids, during the President Wilson years in office. A newly formed FBI would be surveilling you for questions of “loyalty;” through the offices of lead G-Man, J. Edgar Hoover. The House Committee on Anti-American Activities, would be quick to pinpoint what was wrong with your way of thinking. A Joe McCarthy would be rounding up “militia” and “TEA Party” leaders on the assumption that; a hatred of government and calls for a revolution, must destroy this nation as we know it. By all means, investigate and crush it at its very source. A Joe McCarthy would not have seen Rep. Matt Shea as “right wing.” Especially in the light of the following:

The government at various levels; funds, builds, and otherwise maintains the infrastructure. While Rep. Shea is zipping around between Washington state and Idaho; he is literally using the infrastructure, “tyranny” made possible for him. Government collects taxes, yes. Rep. Shea is a beneficiary of state tax collections. Or did you really expect that the fellow, was going to occupy an office in the Washington state legislature, on a voluntary basis? I didn’t think so. The fringe lunacies among the militias, “TEA Party,” etc.; can expect Social Security in some form or another. The government provides the Forest Service, to fight fires. The government provides the BLM, to help regulate the use of public lands. The FDA, the EPA, to reduce the consequences for citizens and customers, of acts of rapacious greed as produced by various commercial interests. You should be able to trust the meds you are given, or the food you eat; or the park you and your family go to, to enjoy. That’s the problem with radicals; they aren’t thinking much beyond the “conspiracy of the moment.”

---

Planned Parenthood was recently put in the news, owing to a heavily edited and highly deceptive “sting video.” As expected, the anti-choice religious fanatics entered into a self-righteous uproar. A recent “The Week” detailed, how fetal tissue is used by research scientists for its wealth of stem cells. Through such research, they tackle such medical problems that includes Parkinson’s disease. I have this question, are the anti-choicers opposed to organ donation? When they die; no part of their body should ever be used, to save another life? That is definitely their argument against the health and welfare of their neighbors, themselves, and their families. No funding, no killing, and yes, no medical cures for yourself. Simply sad.

White pride?

I recently saw this “meme” that effectively attacked racial and religious pride as long as it wasn’t “white.” After that, the self-inflicting wound of “white pride” being regarded as racist. I don’t care to argue with the people, who put this kind of thing up on their Facebook timelines. Suffice it to say, that the human race has a violent history. Yes, as a matter of fact, the human race is known for tyranny, slavery, human rights violations, and etc. But trying to justify “your racism,” by pointing out the flaws of your fellow human beings; I don’t think that cuts it.

Yes, any human culture, society, and religious persuasion has engaged in slavery. You will find instances of it in the bible. Indeed, you will find justifications for slavery, throughout all of history. There is no one people at any time, who has never engaged in such a human rights abuse. Which means, this being part of human history, of what can we be proud?

Thus, if you are going to fault the history of say, the pirates of the Barbary Coast? This is with the declaration of, “We got over it and therefore, so should they.” Question, did “we” actually get over it? Quite frankly, I don’t think “we” did. Or I wouldn’t be seeing this kind of meme, on a “friend’s” Facebook timeline. So, knowing that all of the human race, has done some particularly horrible things throughout history. All of the human race has done so. Then it is useless to attack others while pretending to be a “victim.”

It might surprise anyone to know that the majority of American history is written for and by white Americans. This country has always known “white history,” by the year, every year since its founding. And even further, it is a “white history” with an over all Christian basis. Which means that anyone else as a minority, becomes literary footnotes. Under the circumstances, I can understand the why behind “Hispanic pride,” “Muslim pride,” “Black pride,” etc. It is extremely difficult to “get over the fact,” that a majority people holds you in the deepest possible contempt, for being different. Unfortunately, that is also true anywhere with any human culture. As long as you know this to be true, how about just “getting over yourself” and learning to let go of the past. Instead of using the past to lash out at everyone else.

I actually regard such memes to be infantile in nature. A child on a school playground will talk like that, but adults should know better. No, being adult about something, doesn’t make you a liberal. What it means is that you have learned something, that basically changes the way you ultimately view the world. The failure to learn some necessary lessons in life, doesn’t make you a conservative. The real argument is, you prefer to be ignorant. Thus, facts can’t get in the way of your paranoia and conspiracy theories. All in all, I have to shake my head at this kind of thinking. This is the 21^st century, time to grow up.