pblakeney.com

Response To A Thoughtful Reader

2008-08-13T18:03:32Z

As I was slogging through the thousands of spam in my e-mail box, I came across an actual letter that I feel compelled, in all fairness, to respond to. Although months old, I just discovered this e-mail today, and as it is a thoughtful critique, I would like to do my best to offer a fair-minded response. Here's the letter:

Dear P. (Sense you favor use of initials), I find it odd that you are so quick to call H. a racist, but you won't acknowledge your own families(sic) racist history of Slavery. I wonder how many of your readers would be interested in the history of your own families recent past. You are a talented writer and even though I'm a Democrat, I find your post well researched and informative. You should use your talents to be more open-minded and less bias. It is one thing to support your party, but another to build support by posting such negative (and often hateful) comments regarding your opposition. I have not read one post describing anything positive that McCain or Bush (W) stand for that would make the reader switch parties or even see your views. Your posts have more hatred and ridicule towards Obama, Syesha Mercado, R-Kelly, Rev Wright and other minorities than insight on the party issues.

The first issue mentioned is my own family's "racist history of Slavery." I am not aware of any such history directly involving any of my ancestors. I am an American "mutt" to be sure, but my ethnicity is primarly from the following: I am part French Canadian, German and Chippewa Indian. The English name Blakeney has come from marriage, although I have no English that I am aware of in my blood-line. So, as far as complicity in slavery may be concerned, my European ancestors did not arrive in America until well after slavery was abolished, and I feel no personal complicity in the American slavery issue, other than that I am an American and realize that my citizenship is of a country that did engage in such a nefarious trade. There is an implication here that I am a racist, although it is not implicitly stated. I am not "quick to call" H. a racist; as the letter states, my post is "well researched and informative." I am not sure exactly to which post the letter writer is referring to, but I did a quick search of my posts from April and May (when the e-mail was sent) and could not find a statement where I called H. (Obama) a racist. I certainly have called Reverend Wright a racist, and perhaps it could be inferred by my linking of Wright to H., that I was calling H. a racist. While that may be a fair conclusion, I was primarily trying to question the judgment of H. for associating with racists such as Wright, and not just for a short time, but for twenty long years. More importantly, I feel the letter writer did make a very important comment when he implored me to be more positive. I think he has a valid point there, and in the future, I will do my best to comment on the positive offered by the people I support, and not just knock the people I don't. I believe I have offered positive comments, but they may have been buried in the deluge of harsher criticisms. For example, I posited that the surge in Iraq is working when I stated on April 26, 2008 that the Iraq War has strengthened the U.S. international position. On March 27, 2008, I called attention to a great speech by John McCain where he deftly describes our current international position in regards to Iraq, and what he feels needs to be done. On February 19, 2008, I called attention to the recognition of Bush from Bob Geldof for providing more aid to Africa than any other American president. And more recently, on July 7, 2008, I compared and contrasted examples of what I feel are patriotic and unpatriotic actions in regards to the service afforded to our nation. Still, these examples are few and far between, as the letter writer infers. So, in that regard, let me offer some of the positives that have resulted from the Bush administration:

While the economy seems to be rocky right now and the price of gas was recently increasing, there is no question that our country has experienced one of the longest runs of economic growth in history. I believe this may be credited in part to the tax cute that Bush enacted early in his first term, as well as the pro-business, pro-growth policies that are implicit in lower taxes.
The foreign policy of the Bush administration has yielded significant achievements in our world position. Libya has gave up its pursuit of atomic weapons and is pursuing a path to becoming a partner in the world, rather than an adversary. Pro American politicians have been elected in Britain, Germany and France. While Iraq has been a rough and sometimes tragic endeavor, a fledgling democracy is taking root there. In regards to the Iran problem, one of the reasons they are blustering on the world stage is that we now have our troops stationed in countries both East and West of them (Afghanistan and Iraq). From a strategic stand-point, we have them surrounded. That may a simplistic way to look at the issue, but it is true that we have troops on both sides, and they undoubtedly are feeling the squeeze.
Al Qaeda in Iraq has been shattered. Of course, liberals will say that they weren't there until we drew them there, but one of the best strategic actions any nation can do in fighting an enemy is pick the battleground.
Self reliance by the American individual is supported and strengthened by the Bush administration and Republican policies. While some may say that the American way is to offer hand-outs to the people who have less, I believe this is trumped by the American spirit of creating your destiny, not having it handed to you.

These are but a few positives I see in the Bush administration, and I will my best to elaborate on these and others in future posts. Now, for John McCain, and some of the reasons why I will be casting my vote for him:

John McCain favors the renewal of the tax cuts, which do not just help the rich, as some would have you believe. As a small business owner, these tax cuts have helped me tremendously. And I am not rich by any means. My income is in the low five figures, in other words, I make less than 50k a year. Much less.
On foreign policy, McCain will continue the practice of regarding terrorists as engaging in acts of war, rather than criminals to be prosecuted. This is actually the number one issue facing the country today, and I believe it was the practice of treating terrorists as criminals rather than enemies of war that enabled Al Qaeda to proceed from the first World Trade Center bombing to the second.
McCain has an admirable record of service to this country, both in war and in the U.S. Senate. He has experience in foreign policy that far exceeds his opponent, and I believe a McCain presidency will benefit our country much more than his opponent.

Once again, I will elaborate more on the positives of a McCain presidency as the election draws near, and if he is elected, I will do my best draw attention to these positives. In addition, I will try to be open-minded and point out the faults as well. No president is going to be perfect, after all. The final point of the letter seems to suggest once again that I dislike minorities, and once again infers that I am racist. I believe Reverend Wright is a racist and have called him so. I do not believe my criticism of him in my numerous posts shows me to be a racist. I am not attacking him because he is black, I am attacking him because I believe he offers a dead-end for the unfortunate members of his church who are posited by him as victims, rather than as self-reliant individuals who can take positive steps to further their own futures. As for Syesha Mercado, she can't sing that well. It has nothing to do with her being black; I just can't take that screechy voice. And the other minority mentioned is R. Kelly, who was found not guilty in his recent trial. Once again, I have no problem with him because if his race. I have first-hand accounts, which of course would be considered hearsay in the eyes of the law, that he has engaged in exactly the types of acts he was accused of. Although I am not at liberty to reveal my sources, I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of these claims. In addition, I have also learned that he treats his dogs poorly, one time leaving one locked in a hot car for hours. So I dislike and distrust him because of his actions, not his race. I think it is unfair to suggest that I dislike minorities by cherry-picking criticisms of them and ignoring the many other people of all races that I have criticized. What about my posts about William Ayers, Allen Colmes, Jane Fonda, and the far more numerous other caucasions I have given the same treatment in my posts? By that logic, I must dis-like all races. I do not believe that minorities are off limits to criticism because of their race. And if I criticize them it is not because of their race. In the end, I hope this answers some of the concerns this letter writer had. I appreciate his positive comments on my writing, and do thank him for taking the time to read some of my posts, and further, to communicate his response. I look forward to other readers doing the same. I do not allow comments on my site because I do not want to have curse words appear on my site, nor do I want to provide space for "hate bombs" by trolls. Nor do I want to deal with the spamming that inevitably comes with open comments. I do invite readers to send me an e-mail with their thoughts, and I will do my best to address them, as I feel I have done here.

Nancy Pelosi's Not-So-Best Seller

2008-08-05T17:01:56Z

Nancy Pelosi's book is tanking, and Michelle Malkin has posted a Photoshop sent by a reader with a funny parody of the book cover. Here's my take:

Be Afraid... Be Very Afraid...

2008-07-31T22:08:44Z

H. keeps making statements that suggest the Republicans are going to play the race card, but he continually is the one who is playing it himself. The typical liberal tactic of demonizing your opponent is evident in his statements. Is he saying that McCain is racist? That doesn't seem to be the case, but he is suggesting that, in general, Republicans are racist. Meanwhile, the Republicans haven't brought up his race at all, other than to respond to him bringing it up. That's a bit ironic, dontcha' think? In addition, he claims the Republicans are going to try to make people afraid of voting for him, because "he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." Well, here's some news for Barack Hussein Obama: many of us are afraid of him being the president, but not because of anything having to do with his race. I'm afraid that if he's president he will:

weaken our national security by cutting the budget for the military;
weaken our national security by treating terrorists and their acts as criminal cases, rather than acts of war, which is what they are;
weaken our national security by being a naive player on the world stage who thinks that if we could just make other countries like us, our problems will go away;
weaken our national security by appeasing our enemies rather than by standing up to them;
weaken our economy by raising taxes and redistributing the money to the "less fortunate," or in other words, take money from responsible people who create wealth and move it into the hands of irresponsible and/or lazy people who create no wealth or benefit to society;
punish those who create jobs, via the aforementioned raising of taxes;
and institute reforms that make people more dependent on the government rather than on their own self-reliance.

Other reasons to fear his presidency include:

he is completely inexperienced for the job;
he claims to be embarrased by his own country-men;
he associates with very questionable people and/or known terrorists, such as Reverend Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, William Ayers, Hatem El-Hady, Tony Rezko, and Ludacris, just to name a few;
and his complete misunderstanding of the values of Middle America.

And that's only a partial list. So you see, Mr. Obama, we have many reasons to fear you being president that have nothing to do with race. So perhaps you should stop playing that card and address the very real issues that we are afraid of. Will he do it? I doubt it; the race card is easier.

Obamanation World Tour 2008

2008-07-22T00:28:13Z

Michelle Malkin has asked for designs for an Obama World Tour t-shirt, and has been publishing some of the better entries. I'm a bit late on this, but I can't believe I didn't think of it sooner...

Is The New York Times Biased?

2008-07-21T22:39:07Z

In honor of The New York Times apparent bias towards H., including this most recent example, we decided to update their front page in a way that accurately reflects their position....

Welcome To the Seventh Century

2008-07-20T18:56:17Z

9 people convicted of adultery are going to be stoned to death in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It's just amazing that in the 21st century, 9 people, guilty of nothing more than innappropriate behavior, are going to be executed in a brutal 7th century punishment, thanks, of course to Muslim Sharia law, the law that keeps on killing. How is it that a country that was once one of the most progressive societies in the entire Middle East has reverted back to the stone age in their matters of civil prosecution? I have to thank Jimmy Carter, the former president who undermined the Shah, and encouraged the rise of an Islamic theocracy. While president, Carter demanded the Shah step down and hand over power to the Ayatollah Khomeini, and undermined the Shah's position by telling the Shah's military advisers to acquiese to the Ayatollah. Of the Ayatollah himself, Carter said he was a "religious man," and believed he would better represent the values of the Iranian people. He was right about the Ayatollah being religious, but didn't quite comprehend that the religion of the Ayatollah was a stone-age abberation called Islam. And in addition to this he fails to understand the consequences of his actions while president. The rise of the mullahs in Iran was the first "shot" in the jihad against the "great Satan," the United States of America. The connection between the events of 1979 in Iran and the 9-11 attacks is a string of events that were borne by that first failure of the United States under Jimmy Carter, which spurred Islamic fascists to ever increasing resolve in their effort to defeat and destroy us. Jimmy Carter, how can you sleep at night?

Unpatriotic And Dangerous Radicals

2008-07-17T19:32:30Z

Myrlie Evers-Williams, widow of slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers, has accused the news media of a political lynching of H. The Obamas are being painted as "unpatriotic and dangerous radicals," and she even used the term "lynching." I have nothing against Mrs. Evers-Williams and am sorry for the loss of her husband 45 years ago, especially because of the circumstances of his death, but her particular viewpoint does not justify giving any person an immunity from criticism. Did it ever occur to her that H. is being painted as "unpatriotic," or as a "dangerous radical," because many people feel that he may just be one? I have a lot of questions about H. and his carefully crafted short-list pedigree, a resume padded with dubious accomplishments and a lot of failed exposition that makes nothing clear about who he really is. Is he unpatriotic? He was a member of a church that regularly bashed America for twenty years, and is on record nodding his head in agreement when the pastor called our country the "United States of White America." Is he a dangerous radical? He has been known to associate with the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, as well as people like Hatem El-Hady, former official of the Hamas-linked charity Kindhearts, closed by the Justice Department. Questioning H. about these associations, or drawing attention to them is not a "lynching." There are honest questions and concerns about his patriotism and his radical terrorist ties. To many, though, if you ask these questions or draw attention to thse associations, it is some sort of unfair attack. Why is this? George W. Bush has been unfairly castigated from all sides, and nobody cries that he is being lynched. Why the outrage when people ask honest questions and draw probable conclusions about H.? The key is the word "lynching," The use of this word has a racial context, and if one uses it, one knows its connotations. Now, Mrs. Evers-Williams has lived through racism in a way that we could never understand, as her husband was killed purely because of his race. This was truly a hateful act, and once again I will reiterate that I am sorry for her loss. But just because H. is black does not mean that he is immune to criticism. It is understandable that Mrs. Evers-Williams would make such a statement, but it is a statement designed to use race as a wedge. The choice of the term "lynching" was carefully chosen and used to communicate the idea that we are making these specific criticisms of H. because he is black. Conversely, it implies that if we criticize H. at all, it is because we are racists, not because we have honest questions or are uncomfortable with factual evidence surrounding the candidate. The hyper-sensitivity to racial issues has created an environment where actual communication is subverted to questions of racial intent. Take for example, the recent kerfuffle in Dallas involving County Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield, Commissioner John Wiley Price, and the infamous "black hole" comment. An honest and correct scientific reference by Mayfield was blown up into a racial issue that caused Price to demand an apology, because of Price's hyper-sensitivity to bigotry. Perceived racism curtails the freedom to speak in certain situations, and it is this card that many people want to play in regards to H. Clear-thinking people will reject these tactics and will feel free to make valid and thoughtful criticisms of either candidate regardless of their race. Of course, actual racist comments should be rejected outright and subjected to the scrutiny they deserve, but we will not be silenced from drawing attention to the questionable actions and associations of H. To many, it is perfectly valid to have questions about H.'s patriotism, and to consider his very real ties to unrepentant and dangerous radicals. And by examining these issues, we just may find that H. is unpatriotic, and is a dangerous radical as well.

The Wind Blows Both Ways

2008-07-14T14:57:40Z

When I saw the cover of the new issue of The new Yorker over the weekend, I was a little surprised. At first I wasn't sure what to think. The left is in a tizzy over this malicious "slander" of H. in the name of satire, and many on the right probably think that maybe someone is finally realizing that H. has some dangerous problems as a presidential candidate. Thankfully, Michelle Malkin puts it all into perspective.

Indhimmipendence Day

2008-07-10T19:25:33Z

Let's hope the left eventually wakes up...

The Question Of Patriotism

2008-07-07T16:54:09Z

I hope everyone had a nice and safe Independence Day this past July 4th. On the occasion of our nation's 232nd birthday, I watched fireworks, ate barbecue, and was thankful for the opportunity afforded by my country to pursue such happiness. I'm sure many others did the same in their own patriotic way. That's right, I said "patriotic," as in "patriotism." Why the big deal in pointing that out? It seems that patriotism has become somewhat of a hot-button issue these days, mostly in regards to the upcoming presidential election, but also because of the differences in the "support Bush/hate Bush" factions of our society. Take the ubiquitous flag lapel pin, for example. One side wears the pin with pride, the other says that merely wearing a flag pin is not patriotism, it is more akin to jingoism; if you don't wear a flag pin, they say, it does not mean you are not patriotic. Fair enough. I don't think whether you wear a flag pin determines whether you are a patriotic American, but I don't think someone should be criticized for wearing one. And I do think advertising your support for your country and publicly honoring the flag of your country by wearing a flag pin is decidedly patriotic. But now, a new wrinkle is being folded into the discussion. The issue of the use of the word patriotism is now being called into question, taking this argument of being patriotic one step further. As reported by see-dubya on Michelle Malkin's website, NPR journalist Daniel Schorr has now stated that patriotism has been "corrupted by misuse." He states that he has "come to suspect most assertions of patriotism, and most accusations of unpatriotism." He further states that "patriotism is not a matter of lapel pins, or flags in your front yard. And you get to define patriotism for yourself." He has asked that politicians "declare a moratorium on references to patriotism." Of course that's just plain silly, but it does suggest that one's patriotism is a gray area that is not so easily defined. In some cases, that may be true, but in other cases, I think it's quite clear cut whether an action is patriotic or unpatriotic. Here are a few examples. Patriotic - Joh McCain being captured by enemy forces, being held for many years as a captive, and refusing an offer to be released because he knew it would be a proganda victory for the enemy. Unpatriotic - H. sitting in the pews of a divisive America bashing church for twenty years, and nodding his head in agreement when the pastor calls his country "the United States of White America." Patriotic - Col. George Everett "Bud" Day offering maximum resistance when he was captured by the Viet Cong, escaping and being recaptured and giving the enemy false information while being subjected to "maximum punishment and torture" by Vietnamese guards. Unpatriotic - Michael Moore making movies that slander his country with lies and innuendo, sending these films to other countries for personal profit, and going himself to speak and berate his homeland on foreign soil. Patriotic - Football star Pat Tillman giving up a lucrative football career to go to Iraq and fight for his country. Unpatriotic - Cindy Sheehan meeting with enemy dictators like Hugo Chavez and praising them while calling our president a terrorist. These are just a few of many possible examples, but as we can see, sometimes it is pretty clear what is patriotic and what is unpatriotic. It seems that those who want to "declare a moratorium" on the word patriotism are the ones who are being called unpatriotic. So let's keep the word patriotism alive. And let's have it be something to aspire to, not something to hide from.

Glengarry Glen Ross

2008-06-27T23:23:27Z

"These are the new leads. These are the Glengarry leads. And to you they're gold, and you don't get them." The preceding quote is a line from the classic David Mamet play, and subsequent film, Glengarry Glen Ross, a story which is pivoted around the sale of real estate. The Glengarry leads are sales leads for a new property, and to the agents who are trying to sell real estate, they are gold. The new property is valuable, and the leads are fresh; they are the names people who are interested in spending money, and would likely bear fruit and net the agents actual commissions. The problem is, the agents can't get those sales leads until they sell off worthless property to a bunch of dead sales leads. Does this sound familiar? If you've been following the current oil crisis and the debate about offshore drilling, and drilling in Alaska, it should. The oil companies have a bunch of existing leases which are not very promising in the prospect of actually obtaining any oil. Democrats in Congress are insisting that they will not open up any new land to oil exploration and drilling until the oil companies drill on the land they already have. It doesn't matter that the actual leases the oil companies have are poor prospects, and the actuality of recovering any oil is negligible. Rather than letting them drill in areas where we know there is oil, they want to punish the oil companies by making them spend their profits in a search for fool's gold. Nobody wins. The continental shelf and Anwar are the new leads. They're the oil-rich leads. And to the oil companies (and the Amercian people who would like lower gas prices) they are gold. And the oil companies (and the Amercian people who would like lower gas prices) don't get them.

The Audacity of Liberal Democrats

2008-06-22T17:37:18Z

H. has appropriated the official Presidential seal and has made a parody of it for his own use. The fact that he does not understand how offensive that is to many Americans calls into question his overall judgment once again. What is really ironic is that his appropriation of the image shows a complete lack of respect for the office he is seeking. If one believes that the Presidency is truly a special office of ultimate sanctity, one does not make MAD magazine style parodies of the official icon of that office. Obviously this is the work of a promotional expert who believes that perception becomes realty. By placing H. with something that looks like the Presidential seal, it plants an image of H. looking like the President. But this just shows that H. is not a new kind of politician at all. It betrays the fact that he is a packaged politician like any other. This is pure Madison Avenue, not Pennsylvania Avenue. I'm surprised they haven't come up with a jingle. What really burns me is the way the apologists look down their noses on those who do find this offensive. To them, it is a "non-issue," and they keep telling us so. If you find this to be the issue, you should get over it and focus on the Chicken Little mantras of the liberals, such as the sinking economy or the "mess in Iraq." if you think this is important, you're wrong. This Presidential Seal thing is not an issue, you should focus on this other stuff. It's funny that they keep having to deflect attention from issue after issue by saying that it's not really important. You would think they would get the message that maybe these things are important. Actually, they know that these are important issues and the only way they can deal with them is to remind us that we're wrong. I saw Susan Estrich on Fox News this morning, another in a line of "What's The Matter With Kansas," liberals reinforcing the view that this isn't an issue. After hearing her spew the same tired old issue redirection, I was compelled to send her an e-mail:

On Jun 22, 2008, at 10:50 AM, pBlakeney wrote: Dear Ms. Estrich, I heard you on Fox News this morning, and I am increasingly offended by you and other liberals calling things that may be important to us as "distractions" or "non-issues." You seem to insulting a large segment of Americans with your dismissive derision. Who are you to tell us what issues we should find important? Issues such as the underlying core sense of patriotism of the presidential candidate is an important issue to many, and just because you don't see it that way, you need to understand that others do. The judgment as to how delicately the candidate handles his campaign in regard to the very valid patriotic feelings of millions of Americans is an issue. Of course, other issues such as the economy and international relations are important to us as well, but that doesn't mean that it is to the exclusion of issues of patriotism and respect for the symbols and icons of our country. Your attitude reflects the viewpoint and enforces the perception that liberals are elitists who look down on those who don't agree with them. pBlakeney

We decide what's important to us.

Thank You For Quoting Us - Now Pay Up!

2008-06-18T16:32:39Z

The AP has gone over the top with their scheme to bill bloggers for excerpting their news stories. Throwing the concept of "fair use" in the trash, they are trying to charge bloggers, or anyone else who quotes one of their stories on a website, $2.50 per word. Of course, that's ridiculous, and I'm sure most bloggers are going to ignore their request completely. They've even gone so far as to set up a shoppingt cart with a calculator so you can pay for your quote and be "in compliance." Michelle Malkin has more complete coverage and a lengthy list of trackbacks, so I suggest you visit her site to learn more. I do have a question, though. It appears that in Michelle's post, she quotes some AP stories that contain quotes from her website. That got me to thinking - under AP's scurrilous pricing plan, is Michelle Malkin expected to pay AP the per word rate when the words in the AP story she's quoting are from her own website? I suspect they would expect payment, and that just shows how completely ludicrous this is.

R. Kelly Acquitted - But Still A Vile, Disgusting Pig

2008-06-14T01:21:31Z

The verdict is in -- the jury has acquitted the pustule known as r. Kelly in the perverted singer's child pornography trial. I was a bit aghast when I heard the news, and will continue to believe that the jury did the wrong thing. If there is anybody that should be put in jail for his sick and degrading crimes, it is r. Kelly. The most interesting thing to note about the jury's comments on their verdict is that they acquitted Kelly because they said there was "no victim." They agreed that r. Kelly was the man on the tape urinating on and raping a 13 year old girl, but they couldn't positively identify the child, so they felt they had to acquit. Yes, you heard right - they all agreed r. Kelly was raping a child, but they voted not to convict him. What a miscarriage of justice. From the CBS 2 Chicago website:

CBS 2's Dorothy Tucker reports the jury said Friday afternoon that they did believe Kelly was the man on the tape, but could not be sure the alleged victim was the girl on the tape, because she never took the witness stand, so they felt they could not convict Kelly.

So does this mean Kelly should be considered innocent? Not in my book. We know that he raped a child and urinated on said child, so as far as I'm concerned, he should be put away for life. Never forget, the jury consensus was that he was the man on the tape. And what was the man on the tape doing?

The graphic, sordid video shows the female dancing and urinating on the floor in the man's direction. The man then has sex with and urinates on her.

That would be enough for me to convict him. R. Kelly should be driven out of show business, his records should be boycotted, and no one should cheer and look up to him again. He may not be considered guilty by the state, but according to my reading of the jury's comments, he certainly appears to be a child rapist and sexual deviant pervert. No one should ever respect him again. Of course, he can never be prosecuted for this particular incident ever again (except for maybe a civil suit). But it is my guess is that this isn't an isolated incident. There's got to be more video tapes floating around. If anyone ever finds one, they should turn it in immediately. There still may be a chance to nail this pervert...

pBlakeney's Cartoon 06-06-08

2008-06-06T23:56:13Z