Archive for the ‘Opinion columns and letters’ Category

Letter, a projection of the government I want

March 25, 2016

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.


Latest letter

September 2, 2015

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

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.

Ignorant of history

February 14, 2015

I have a very good reason for not putting a new post on this blog for awhile, I am editing my new book, “Aesgard Awakening!” As of now, my edited material is almost halfway through the book. So, I am taking a brief break from my book to discuss the latest George Nethercutt editorial. He has spent many a column space discussing civics, and how students in modern classrooms apparently know less about this country’s politicians, and more about memorizing the lyrics of “Frozen.” But if Mr. Nethercutt wants to fancy himself as a “teacher” for this nation’s newest leaders; then those same students have a definite problem.

Seriously, I was going to read his editorial, saw a fraction of it where some dude out of history opined, “Where are the giants?” With reference to Lincoln, Jefferson, and etc. Plus Nethercutt’s personal opinion, that the voters of this country are looking to leaders to unite them. That was when I cracked up, and I have now decided, that will be one column I will skip reading altogether. Question, what made Jefferson, Lincoln, or any other President a “giant?” In the context of their era, of the cultural thinking of their time, not necessarily. Nor did such men, considered to be among the greatest in retrospect, unite an entire country behind them. Quite the contrary, President Washington encountered rebellion from revolutionary war veterans. Jefferson, was annotated as being embroiled in high levels of public and political dissent, over the formation of banks. Lincoln had the Civil War to deal with, and its aftermath would be felt by the rest of this society and by every other succeeding President, through at least the Civil Rights era.

And that is just the rough frame work of events for this entire nation’s history. Now for some of the particulars; do states’ rights arguments unite voters behind a single leader? Of course not. Would hyper partisan politics unite parties behind a single leader? No, and why should anyone think so. Just on those relevant and current facts, it would seem that Mr. Nethercutt is particularly oblivious. It also looks as though he wants to create a mythic president. It can’t be the current White House occupant, you see; he must be blamed for all the hatred and bigotry thrown at him. As though the hatred and bigotry shown by others, “proves” how President Obama has “divided” the country. Well, then Mr. Nethercutt should crack open a few history books; this country has always been divided. And given our diverse partisan and religious differences of opinion, it is highly unlikely that a people would ever unite behind a single man. Unless, and I choose to be snarky here, he’s some kind of anti-Christ.

So what would make a President “great” or a “giant?” I’ll put it very briefly, because they overcame tremendous obstacles and moved this nation forward. In order to be “great” or “giants,” they were also the ultimate liberals. In a word, that would run absolutely counter to Nethercutt’s presumptive political views.

I am also going to briefly discuss a new book I recently acquired: “Love and Capital Karl and Jenny Marx and the birth of a Revolution.” An historical biography written by Mary Gabriel. I am only now getting into this book, briefly in between, further serious editing on my fantasy novel. But what I have already been introduced to, in the book’s opening chapters: socialism was already the outgrowth of the American and French revolutions. Karl Marx did not invent it, he was introduced to it. And in the context of the time that communism had also surfaced as an ideology, the significant difference between itself and socialism, was of course the abolition of private property. Incidentally, these ideas would be floating freely in at least some parts of Europe—specifically France. Long before the Russian revolution, would establish some concept of “property abolition” to the most eastern part of Europe. And create as well, the Soviet Union. Because these ideas were already floating around, for at least a decade before the American Civil War. If anything, Karl Marx became the representative and the face of radical ideas that had already preceded him. And as I had finally learned was correct here, Thomas Paine in his “Rights of Man” had set the stage for radical socialism and communism. Whether his own influence could have been publicly acknowledged or not, some of what he wrote would be similarly quoted in socialist and communist circles. Amazing what people can and will do with the dangerous ideas of their time.

Thank you Chuck Malloy

December 10, 2014

This morning, 10 December 2014, The Coeur d’Alene Press published this article from Mr. Chuck Malloy, in its guest editorial column, “Idaho primary elections: Go on, get rid of ’em.” I fully read his column through and quite frankly, I applauded the man for what he said. A select quote, “General elections at the top of the ticket have all the suspense of old Communist Russian ballots, where only one name counts—the one with the ‘R’ label.” I am glad he said it that way. Because there is something else I am equally aware of, step up to the plate and criticize the too much power and the corruption it brings to the permanent party in power? People take triple flips as they go off the deep end shrieking about how they’ve been attacked. There must be something wrong with you, for daring to say anything! That communism as it is defined today, comes right down to the local level, as it describes and defines how people react and behave in general.

Mr. Malloy refers to them as the “TEA Party Crowd.” People who publicly declare what makes them “traditional Republicans.” Quite frankly, I wouldn’t know what they mean by that. Because there has never been one definition of a “traditional Republican,” throughout the entire history of the party. Abraham Lincoln happened to be the founder of the Republican party that was all about big government liberalism. Slavery was a black blot on the nation and needs to be scourged, once and for all. It took a civil war to do it, but slavery was effectively scourged. 1. Emancipation proclamation. 2. The ratification into law of the 13th and 14th amendments. This nation reference race relationships has known its bumps in the road since then. But back in the 1960s, “traditional Republicans,” still owning the mantra of the party of Lincoln, were quick to sign onto the Civil Rights Laws. Just as by the time of Richard Nixon and the highly impeachable Watergate scandal, Republicans still understood principles and accountability well enough, to tell Nixon that he stunk up the oval office with his criminal offenses. Literally being a signer and therefore an aider and abettor to criminal offenses. The party of Lincoln could still wear that mantle when its then Representatives told Nixon, he wouldn’t survive an impeachment and removal from office.

You can only be a silly idealist of a young adult only once in your life. As you get older, you come to realize that what Nixon did earned him a forced resignation. Moving on, Mr. Malloy’s entire commentary was about Secretary of State-elect Lawrence Denney’s proposal to eliminate Idaho’s primary elections. With those closed primary elections that draws too few voters, caucuses held in locations that become inaccessible to Idaho residents who don’t travel, even open primaries that fails to produce a heavy turn out at the polls. Then it is literally a waste of tax money. I can applaud Mr. Malloy being prepared to say that. Just as I can applaud his saying that our future elections should not be run on a party/partisan basis. Labels and platforms run on a label, have outlived their usefulness.

Case in point, when a low voter turnout returns to office men such as Governor Otter who’s own administration oversaw a whole lot of corruption. Yet, the voters who did bother going to the polls apparently preferred that corruption and mismanagement of taxpayers money, to anyone prepared to actually clean this mess up. Then that says just how much of a problem Idaho as a state really has. The definition of “traditional Republican” is one that no longer accepts principles, accountability, or a moral basis for its existence. And by arguing an “against Obama” limited government, —Incidentally, you did know that your constituents still need health care, stable employment, and good education, right? — it is a sorry-assed attitude that helps no one, inclusive of the children. Running campaigns against a Democratic leadership at the federal level, does not tell the voters at the state level, what you plan to offer that would improve what opportunities might and could exist for the citizens here. The Democratic efforts at trying to improve on those education and job opportunities, were never given a hearing by the low voter turn out at the polls. Is that “conservatism?” I don’t think so. Rational people would never vote in a way, that would screw themselves and their kids too.

My view of the far leftist “TEA Party Crowd,” is that they are primarily anarchists. They took it into their heads what Ronald Reagan said on the hustings about government being the problem, at least until he got into office, and ran with it. Guaranteeing when they did get into office, how much government would become a problem—at odds with itself and the American people. Quite frankly, having that office matters more than recognizing the responsibilities that go with it.

In turn, these far left anarchists turn on the people slightly better at understanding what government is; and what you are supposed to do when you hold elective office: ie govern, fellow Republicans and called them RINOs—Republicans in name only. The anarchist “TEA Party Crowd” act like spoiled crybabies who don’t mind soiling their own nest. Apparently, if the real argument is that, “If I have to share something and I don’t really want to, then I’ll just destroy it during a hissy fit, that way no one can ever have it after me.” Well, that affects more than divisions within a single party. It does effect everyone, voters and non voters alike. Over all, I liked what Mr. Malloy wrote here. His column is well worth reading. Check it out at

You will not like this

September 26, 2014

I picked up the latest “Inlander” and found in the opinion section, a clueless type who had issues with the U.S. funding Israel some billions of dollars a year. Ms. Taylor Weech did not like it that some 500 Palestinian children died. Or that some thousands of Palestinian citizens over all died in that particular conflict. Perhaps if we weren’t subsidizing Israel and providing that couuntry’s government with all the latest weaponry, then all these “innocent” lives would not be lost.

My history about Israel’s existence as a state may not be complete. But I do know from the Balfour agreement that it was not one accepted by the Arab/Islamic/Palestinian world. That as a consequence of this agreement, the PLO was launched, where the main targets were the people of Israel, further, anyone of Jewish origin. After the PLO came Hamas as a political successor. Along the same line of thinking as the PLO, Hamas does not believe that the state of Israel should exist. Thus, whether “we” wish to agree or not with how the Israeli government has reacted to threats to its own existence or that of its citizens, I fully understand why they did so. What is not so understandable, is the refusal of Israel’s neighbors to learn to live in peace. Perhaps if they did, maybe 500 children’s lives would not be lost in this last conflict.

I don’t guess that the people who spend a lot of time seeking to condemn the tiny nation of Israel for something; would care to consider looking at all of the facts first. Like Hamas setting up missile sites (they did do so) near U.N. schools and “safe zones.” Fire off rockets or missiles near those schools and safe zones, and you can be sure that tank rounds, incoming missile launches will indiscriminately destroy—not just the intended targets—but also everything around them. Then Hamas can callously show to the world how those “terrible Jews” are such monsters. Well, Hamas are terrible monsters. They don’t have a problem using kids to further their particular war against the Jewish state.

So, shoot off a few rockets or missiles near a U.N. school, parade a bunch of dead bodies before the T.V. camera, invite westerners in to look at the carnage that Hamas was co-creator to. Expect those westerners to come back to the states, pleading the cause of a movement that is officially recognized to be terrorist in its agenda. Presumably, in the name of the deaths of innocents.

So what would happen if we did stop all funding in armaments and subsidies to the state of Israel? Well, given the many decades of hatred, now well over 60 years and counting that the Islamic nations have for Israel; it would be a massacre of innocent Israeli citizens and their children. Oh and with our international trade in oil, we will have helped to fund such a massacre. Just as with our international trade in oil, we have at least indirectly aided the terrorists. The only better way is to first recognize the facts on the ground of why the middle east is such a flash point. It isn’t about territory, it is entirely about religion. It isn’t about “taking land that doesn’t belong” to one people’s or another, it is about religion. It is about an interpretation of God that entirely justifies why men, women, and children can die all the way back to Old Testament times. It is also about the western European invasion of those same lands, in the name of God and Jesus.

I think of such people as Ms. Weech as needing a lot more education. An education that isn’t all that hard to get. Google is a wonderful thing; it can provide on line encyclopedias such as Wikipedia. It can provide on line news sources. It can provide the means to find the massive resource materials at your finger tips, that otherwise would take years of research and a whole lot of money to discover. Is there some kind of problem with using that kind of technology, before spouting an out there opinion to any newspaper? And we are not just talking about a weekly such as “The Inlander.” Yes, Ms. Weech has a right to her opinions being published and read. But there is more than one side to this sordid and tragic story of those Palestinian children who died. They were betrayed and destroyed by their own people. You can be sure that the people who would condemn Israel for those deaths, won’t take that specific fact into consideration.

Fascism? It begins with thou

August 8, 2014

You can find the latest Leonard Brandt letter 8 August 2014, published at  Otherwise, I will discuss certain of its absurdities here.  At least Mr. Brandt did introduce an interpretation of fascism that I best understand as well:  people who dictate to you, how you should think.  People who declare with whom you may properly associate with and further, whom you ought to serve:  IE in business, as a customer.  In short, fascism is bigotry personified and glorified through and by government itself.  I have heard that fascists had praised “capitalism.”  Precisely, that form of capitalism, that had no qualms trading with the enemy before or during times of war.  But in Mr. Brandt’s case, “fascism” is now forcing a business run by Mr. Brandt, to serve customers who are among the LGBT community.  Which I regard as interesting.  Even more interesting is how he uses Jesus to argue how much of a victim he has become.

A couple of points to be made here:  Jesus’ position on “the enemy” can be found in a scripture in Luke, “Love even your enemy, pray for those who persecute you.”  If Mr. Brandt feels he is being persecuted for example:  running a restaurant and having to serve dinner to a gay or lesbian couple (and quite frankly, he wouldn’t know if they are or are not).  He already has a biblical scripture that requires of him to serve them regardless.  “For God makes the sun to shine on the good and the evil, the rain to fall on both the righteous and unrighteous.”  Literally, a love that does not allow you to discriminate.  As opposed to fascism, that indeed prefers that you can do so, with predictably deadly consequences.  Mr. Brandt’s real argument seems to be: “fascism” is telling him he can not discriminate against some customers, through an example of refusing to serve them and finally shoving them out the door.  Nor allow that he can show a more favorable attitude toward others, who are deemed to be his kind of people.  In other words, the Jesus he wants to prop up his letter, is a Fascist.  Or politically correct.   It says, what of the bible Mr. Brandt did not read today.

Quite frankly, I am afraid that Mr. Brandt lost me when he started whining at the LGBT being able to claim American rights for themselves, that quite literally he could personally take for granted.  Therefore in history, Fascism is revealed as official government bigotry.  That bigotry which was aimed as a deadly weapon against some people, first by making them non-citizens, and finally subjecting such people to the most brutal of assaults, etc. that was possible.  Gays and lesbians, gypsies, Jews, and etc. were among the unwelcome “pestilence” that made the “host nation and its people” weak.  With reference to Hitler and Mussolini.  Oh yes, that kind of fascism.  Is Mr. Brandt facing a Kristallnacht (sic?) if a couple of gays want to be married and choose Mr. Brandt’s commercial business, for catering services at their wedding?  No.  Nor is he facing the destruction of property, if for religious reasons, he wants to refuse to offer his services to this particular couple.  But if he knows what the “thou shalt not discriminate laws” are; then he is at his own risk for a valid lawsuit and fines, for failing to comply with anti-discriminatory laws.  Laws that say you can not discriminate, are not “fascist.”  Jesus himself who said that “love must be perfect” (again with reference to Luke) was never a Fascist.  Question:  given the letter that Mr. Brandt had published, what then does that make him?

Interesting commentary

February 10, 2014

Far be it from me to wish to add to a mother’s distress; but in yesterday’s (9 February 2014) Coeur d’Alene Press, Tami Cramer wrote quite the letter about the Alter Church of Athol and of her son who kept relapsing into Heroin addiction until he died.  This letter is particularly disturbing, which is why I will discuss it here.  Seems to me that the Pastor Tim Remington mentioned in the letter, was supposed to be helping her son, Brock, get through his very tough struggle against addiction.  And yet, her son kept relapsing until he died of an overdose.  That is why this is so disturbing a letter.  Is prayer, baptism, being saved in Jesus enough?  Precisely, is it enough for a young man, who got caught up in a vice that he could not escape?  Perhaps my expectations are too high; but I would think that anyone who was saved, would move away from addiction and toward a better life.  Not abruptly cut their own lives short from an overdose.  Quite frankly, I don’t think it was enough.  But I can certainly hope that the young man knows peace at long last.  I will also say this, that I don’t think Pastor Remington ever helped the young man.  I will also state, that “people who give their lives to Jesus,” “born again,” or however they wish to put it; go to church already.  Nothing much will have changed in that regard.  Make that instead, they wished to change churches.  And quite frankly, I wouldn’t know why the hoopla in all of that.  Sure, I am being snarky.  But that was a tragic waste of a young man’s life.  Only in Idaho.

Press:  Bully is as bully does

When you, the editorial staff, name call (bully) and ridicule about half  your readership (i.e. paranoia tied to “common core”), it’s no wonder so many newspapers are going out of business, cutting staff…

You are responsible to report the truth, even if it does not agree with your agenda.



Post Falls

As far as I know, it is the duty of the newspaper to report the facts.  It is the privilege of the readers of said newspaper to accept or not accept the facts as they are presented.  What letters I have seen published in the Press relating to the “Common Core” teaching standards, typically have been paranoid.  And the writers have engaged in plenty of name calling, toward anyone who advocates this upgraded educational system.

My view of “truth” is simple:  it must be based on facts with sufficient evidence to support it.  Any other “view” of truth, is a question of subjective opinion.  And from the above letter, the latter was expressed very well.  The Coeur d’Alene Press must print a “truth” that entirely agrees with the above writer’s agenda, or it will never be accepted.  I have no doubt that Eggen will never admit to a need to look in the mirror for that.

Christian hatred

December 20, 2013

“Byron” commented to an earlier blog post about how “I” must hate Christians.  Here is the latest Coeur d’Alene Press letter that “he” can digest if he chooses.

Rights:  Fine line of Racism

A smile crossed my face while digesting the article quoting history professor Ken Faunce from the University of Idaho addressing almost 30 attendees at a recent gathering of the Human Rights folks at NIC  He couldn’t help himself bringing up racism when mentioning our President Obama, as if one must be a racist if one believes that our president is an incompetent individual with social engineering and redistribution of wealth as his main goals.


Faunce mentions that there are some 250,000 slaves in our country, and that 15,000 to 17,000 new slaves are brought into the U.S. ever year according to the United Nations as well as the U.S. Department of Justice, WOW!  Could this possibly be due to our president’s open door policy and his instructions to not pursue illegal border jumpers?  Oh, I’m sorry; I could possibly go to jail or be audited for such remarks.


Ken falls back on stats from the United Nations, an organization that is fairly worthless unless you are a member from a third world country that is here to have a good time, chase women and escape parking tickets.  As to the U.N., it is high time for another country to take this organization under its wing thereby giving our nation a much needed break.  Sudan  might be a good choice.  As we all know, America picks up way too much of the tab.  If I had my way I would let the United Nations have 90 days to select a country that would take over this loser and announce that the building would be renovated and turned into condos, with the general assembly turned into a first class gym for the condo owners.


As to Mr. Faunce.  Pull up the U. of I. on your computer and you will find Faunce listed as a temp faculty lecturer which to me means just another campus dweller with little real world experience beyond going from class to class, thereby becoming all knowledgeable.


As to the human rights group.  Above all they must stay relevant, as donations are their life’s blood, although at one time they did good work.  I seem to recall one of their former members who is believed to have started a small fire on her front porch, put it out herself, and then screamed racism.  Often wondered if she ever took a polygraph?


In conclusion, one could speculate that one third of those in attendance were his students looking for an elevated grade, one third members of the human rights group and the rest, probably people looking to get in out of a darn cold spell.  But I could be wrong.



Well, Happy Holidays to you as well.  Besides the utter ignorance that can be found in much of his letter, there are also some pretty obvious projections from the G.W. Bush era, “Oh, I’m sorry; I could possibly go to jail or be audited for such remarks.”  With reference to the U.S.A. Patriot Act, you could conceivably go to jail for holding an opinion that President Bush didn’t like.  Or for that matter, lose your job as Dan Rather had, for daring to question G.W.’s history, especially with the Air National Guard.  With reference to the IRS auditing you for expressing the “wrong” opinions,” the IRS should only audit where you have made glaring mistakes on your tax returns, not because of your politics.  Quite frankly, I don’t think Mr. Murphy is all that “scared” of one consequence or the other, since his particularly nasty letter was published.

What isn’t expressed in ignorance becomes a nasty form of hatred, where one’s partisan politics becomes an excuse for such attacks.  Professor Faunce is “only” a temp lecturer and therefore doesn’t have the necessary real world experience.  On the other hand, to be blinded by hatred and using one’s tired old ideology as an excuse for same, doesn’t exactly put the author of this letter in a good position to judge a fellow he doesn’t know the first thing about.  On another point, I am aware that there was some news items concerning a member of the Human Rights Task Force who did complain to the news media, KREM 2 News about racial assaults on herself and her property.  Unless the Coeur d’Alene City Police were of the opinion that she ought to be pulled in for questioning for “actions to bring attention to herself,” then this is not a matter for some “who believe” this or some “who believe” that.  Facts have to matter over what “some believe.”  Then his letter becomes a character attack.  Just as he attacks the characters of whom ever actually attended this lecture.

Now, sex slaves are not illegal border jumpers.  And that is whom the U.N. and Professor Faunce would have been referring to.  G.W. Bush had an open door policy on actual illegal border jumpers.  After all, they were only going to take the jobs that Americans would never consider doing.

Finally, what white Democratic President has ever been referred to as “incompetent?”  I wouldn’t know of any too many who actually were.  And from what I know of President Obama’s track record, if he had truly shown some incompetence, he wouldn’t have been returned to office in 2012.  Looks like a racist and over all bigot from here.

Latest news

December 13, 2013

I am going to start off today about the sudden death of Cliff Hayes.  Our county clerk was only 62 (pretty scary considering that I am almost 60 myself), when he abruptly died Thursday morning in his home in Post Falls.  He had only been in the County Clerk’s office for about 2 years.  I did not vote for him and also did not know him personally.  But I do know this, when “Recall CDA” aimed against our now out-going members of the city council failed, it was because Mr. Hayes was quite the stickler for the rules.  He wasn’t loved for that, by the Recall organizers, but there you are.  For those who knew him best, I offer my deepest sympathies.  For members of his family, I also offer my deepest sympathies.  May Mr. Hayes rest in peace after serving his community in Post Falls for more than two decades, and the County for around two years.

Now, to the letters:  At least the Coeur d’Alene Press does permit some people to write in their own defense.  And for others to also write on the behalf of a letter writer.  After Langford’s and Membury’s letters were transcribed and posted to this blog, the Press allowed into print Jimmy Pappas’ letter and also that of Dan Gressler.  Not everyone gets that kind of opportunity.

Next, Mike Reno wrote a letter about “WAGES:  Red states embrace poverty.”  I would consider that it was a really decent letter and further, Mr. Reno only says what I have; socialism is more beneficial to conglomerates like WalMart and J.C. Penney, than they are to the people often called “moochers” and “takers.”  I’ll agree with Mr. Reno that “we” can’t really support the people that Companies like WalMart put on the “payroll.”  Also, Mr. Reno makes it adamant what people like Membury like to forget, long before “we” ever run out of the 1% of “haves,” who love their profits and want to socialize their costs; we run out of taxpayers who are able to keep those employee expense accounts subsidized.  Kudos, to Mr. Reno for what he had to say.

Bill Blatner’s “MEMBURY:  Cheers for wise words,” in which Mr. Blattner regards infantile name calling and defamation of character as “wisdom” itself.  “There are so many well written and well thought out articles in The Press that there is no reason to read such ‘bovine excrement’.”  I guess that depends on how you politically define “bovine excrement.”  Quite frankly, Mr. Membury’s wasn’t a well thought out letter.  It was full of cheap shots.  And further, it shouldn’t have been published.  The Press puts itself into quite the legal liability mess, any time the editor publishes crap like Membury’s.  Yeah, Blattner praises Membury’s “bovine excrement” as wise, and attacks the person whom Membury also attacked.

Finally, “EDUCATION:  Get rid of group think.”  I’ll agree with Dan Norcini in one respect, reading proficiency isn’t at a “respectable” level if only 2/3rds of our students are able to achieve it.  However, referencing Pat Buchanan doesn’t legitimize the rest of his argument.  Back when I was going to Public School, I never heard of any such thing as “group think.”  I wouldn’t know to whom that would apply, or why. But I am aware that the more extremist types among the GOP rank are opposed to public unions, like teachers’ unions.  So, is “group think” a new code word for getting rid of teachers’ unions?  Or is it a new code word for getting rid of public schools? 

For Mr. Norcini’s information, what he described as “group think:”  As long as the “group think” is never challenged from those within the group, all views that contest their delusion are violently attacked; sounds more like he is describing political parties and extreme partisanship, than what ever passes for education here in Idaho.  In fact, it sounds more like he is drawing attention to Membury’s and Langford’s letters.  Norcini’s letter sounds more like deflect-a-blame and seeking scapegoats, than offering any viable solutions to our educational failures.

Sour grapes

November 16, 2013

Two letters appeared in the 15th of November 2013 edition of the Coeur d’Alene Press. One titled, “ELECTION: Four strikes, we’re out.” And the other, “GOP: Time for us to compromise.” Craig Ankney was the author of the former, in which he attacked the people whom BNI PAC endorsed, as Progressive Socialist Democrats. Well, they weren’t endorsed by the Reagan Republicans, then they must be “Progressive Socialist Democrats.” Which I am sure would be news to Sandy Potano (Former Republican Idaho State Party — vice chair) and Jack T. Riggs, M.D. (former Lt. Governor of Idaho). They both endorsed Steve Widmyer as a Republican and a conservative. Well, Widmyer is also a capitalist, considering that he is a business owner. But now, since he, Kiki Miller, and etc. managed to beat out the Reagan Republican favorites including Mary Souza and Chris Fillios among others, suddenly he (as newly elected mayor) and the newly elected members of the City Council are now “Socialist, etc.” Which is frankly quite hilarious. Then Mr. Ankney further whines at how this country is on the verge of collapse. Along with a lot of other hyperbole. — While we are about it, just how much of the U.S. Constitution is actually revered by the Republicans and their special interest hangers on, anyway? Besides the 2nd Amendment, that is? Right along with the methinks Mr. Ankney doth protest too much, maybe he needs to look in a mirror for a lot of society’s problems. — Also of note, Mr. Ankney fled California “because of its socialism.” Instead of his looking for scapegoats as to why it may have followed him here; perhaps he needs to look at himself. Precisely as one of those people who created the conditions for its existence. And maybe he should also recognize, that there are plenty of natives around who are going to think what they wish and vote accordingly. What if they (we natives) don’t like the idea of Californian transplant Mr. Ankney telling us how to vote, or whom to vote for? 5 November 2013, the voters decided whom they wanted for Mayor and City Council; people like Mr. Ankney can learn to live with it.

Then Ralph Hallock, the writer of the latter letter, makes a common sense argument (to a point) about the need for the GOP to start to compromise. Not with those “liberals out to destroy the country,” of course, but with each other. From what myself as a standard and common sense Republican has seen in these last few years, is that the GOP have gone fringe radical to a high degree, and further are shafting one another. The “TEA Party,” with whom Mr. Hallock has many agreements, are no exception. However, if Mr. Hallock would like some kind of compromise, he would first need to talk to Mr. Ankney about the kind of nasty letters that he chooses to write. If anything, being a recipient of childish name calling because your Reagan Republican endorsed candidates did not win, is not going to endear the recipient of said name calling to any valid ideas you might present in the future. Ankney’s letter was factually a my way or the highway argument that Mr. Hollock felt the GOP could do better without. But his own argument was no less than a my way or the highway argument, when he snarled about the Democrats winning over voters with all those giveaways and handouts. A letter filled with cheap shots. Which would also argue that compromise is not likely. All I can say is, keep attacking your neighbors, and they aren’t likely to vote your way any time soon.

In Aesop’s Fables, read many many years ago, there is this story that sticks out in my mind. The wolf (actually a meat eater) sees a bunch of ripe grapes. He is thirsty and they look delicious. But try as he might, the wolf can’t jump high enough to reach them for a nibble. That is when the old wolf finally turns away and grumbles that the grapes were probably sour to begin with. The wolf is probably correct to be disappointed, but not so correct to blame the “untouchable grapes” for why he can’t get to them in the first place. Unlike the wolf and the grapevine, a change in attitude could advance one’s politics by considerable. I don’t expect that from either of these writers.