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.

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.
  

• 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.
  

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 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:

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...

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....

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.

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.

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.

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...

American Thinker has a good article entitled Your Energy Future Under the Democrats by Larrey Anderson, but in addition to the critical look at Democrats energy plans, there was another thing that caught my eye. In a quote of a statement from the DNC website, writer Anderson had to point out that the bad grammar in the statement was not a typo on his part, but that the offending grammar exists in the source statement.

From their official website, here is the summary paragraph (including the bad grammar) of the Democrat plan to solve the energy crisis:

"We will create a cleaner, greener and stronger America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop energy alternatives, and investing in energy independent technology."

This shows a disturbing tendency I have been seeing more in more in younger people, especially those on the left. The "intelligentsia" of the liberal left seems to have given up on the discipline to precisely and correctly communicate. And their ideology is buried so deep in their psyche that nothing is just plain black or white or right or wrong. Feelings becomes fact, and actual facts are secondary to feelings. Details like conjugating a verb or communicating in complete sentences are secondary, as long as the point gets across.

What kind of slackers are our colleges graduating these days? The white collar work place is full of fresh faced young graduates who have been indoctrinated in the liberal mind-set at their respective universities. They spout high-minded ideals, and swagger with the smarm and confidence belying the intelligence their sheepskin confers upon them. Except that they can barely spell. Universities nowadays are more concerned with teaching children what to think than how to write or communicate decently. And it shows.

The irony of this is that they so deeply believe that they are the intelligentsia, and that conservatives are the clueless automatons who have been brain-washed by the Bush administration and aren't intelligent enough to vote in their own interest. But we are the ones who pay attention to details, and string facts together into intelligent arguments. And we are the ones who can conjugate a verb.

This morning in my Sunday paper, I came across an advertisement that made me stop and consider its content. The ad, reproduced at right, is for Kool-Aid. It depicts young black children in various "gangsta" poses.

This is wrong on so many levels. The ad was in the Sunday magazine section, so its obviously aimed at parents. I could be wrong, but I don't think people are going to coo and go "Oh look, they're little gangsters. How adorable!" At least I didn't. I immediately thought about how course culture has become when this is an acceptable depiction of children. Start your kids on the road to being a gangster early, so they can screw up their life later!

Then there's the racial component. The "angry black" image coming into everyone's homes in an ad for Kool-Aid? This merely reinforces a negative stereotype that is hardly constructive. Blacks as well as whites should find this ad to be objectionable.

What are the folks at Kool-Aid thinking? They must be drinking their product...

Carly Smithson was cut tonight on American Idol. Now, I usually don't blog about such things, but I just have to comment on this. Syesha Mercado was also in the "bottom two," and her performance, I'm sorry, was abysmal. So many wrong notes. Syesha is not half the singer Carly is. That's not to mention far worse performances from Jason Castro or sappy forgettable performances like the one by puppy dog David Archuletta.

America Idol voters, you are tone deaf. Syesha was off key throughout. Smithson did not hit a wrong note. Why am I blogging about this? Because quality and substance no longer matters. It's all just a "popularity" contest. That's why H. is still in the Presidential race.

The conservative blog world is abuzz about the Absolut "Reconquista" ad. While Absolut claims they meant to offend no one, the insincerity of this ad is surely evident. It was run only in Mexico, but isn't that a bit like Reverend Wright damning the USA only in his church?

Of course, Absolut is made in Sweden, but I don't think the Swedish understand the United States market. I'm sure we buy more Absolut here in a month than is sold in Mexico in a year. Of course, I could be wrong. In any case, I was an Absolut drinker (when I drink vodka), but now I'm switching my brand. There are plenty of fine distilled spirits out there that don't offend me.

Many web sites are featuring their own versions of the ad. Michelle Malkin has some, as well as some excellent response to to the ad, and another Photoshop is here.

Here's my contribution:

I have watched H. make the rounds of talk shows this week. After returning from vacation, he has gone to "soft" publicity outfits to further regain some of the poll points he lost due to the Reverend Wright controversy. It's interesting to see liberal media figures, who have unapologetically skewered President Bush with scathing innuendo and out right lies, fall all over themselves to make apologies for H. and his association with Reverend Wright. The double standard is blatantly transparent.

One notable stop was on ABC's "The View." Before H. came on stage, the ladies were actually a bit critical of H., but right before he took the stage, Barbara Walters uttered a proclamation absolving him of any responsibility for the issue:

"Barack Obama... has condemned those remarks. He has in no way supported them, advocated them, stood behind him, or praised his Reverend. There are still questions which we will ask him, about whether he should have gone further, whether he should still go further, but we cannot let it stand that these are.. any statements or any sentiments of Senator Barack. That's all I want to say."

In lighter news, Ray Romano made an appearance on Craig Ferguson's show last night, and one could not help but notice the new hairstyle. Comb-over alert! The future is not far behind...

Heather Mills was awarded less than half of the amount she was seeking in damages in her divorce settlement with Paul McCartney. Paul originally offered her approximately $35 million to settle out of court, but she instead chose to fight him, seeking about $125 million. The final amount came to about $48 million. Plus, when you think about it, the final amount is much smaller, because you have to minus from the amount she was awarded lawyer fees, two years of courtroom appearances, and what else... oh yeah... her DIGNITY!

Happy St. Patrick's Day Sir Paul!

Hitting the newsstands today is the new issue of Rolling Stone, featuring a cover photo of none other than Barack Hussein Obama. Such an endorsement is not a surprise, but the blog world is abuzz with discussion of the Star Wars reference ("A New Hope") and the reverential treatment signified by the ethereal glow they have given the candidate. Darth Barack is clearly smoking hot after doing battle with the forces of Republican evil. Or is he emanating a white smoke similar to that seen expelled from the Vatican chimney after the election of a new pope? It's too bad they ran the photo so high on the page, it cut off the halo that would be clearly seen floating above his self-righteous noggin.

I haven't had a chance to read the article yet... I wonder if they mention anything about him belonging to a church which has awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award to Louis Farrakhan, and which some believe is a racist cult? Or that it took a couple of Saturday Night Live skits to finally embarrass the national news media into taking a harder look at the candidate? Or if they examine his Senate voting record, where he has been virtually non-existent as any kind of representative in the Senate for the people of Illinois? Somehow I doubt it...

Jane Fonda is unrepentant in her recent use of the "C-Word" on national morning television. When questioned about the incident, she matter-of-factly stated that she was just describing a true situation in which she was asked to participate in the Vagina Monologues, and that was the particular monologue she was asked to do. So, in her eyes, it was completely appropriate to say the name of the particular monologue, despite the fact that she was on a nationally televised morning show which may have been watched by children and adults who do not care to hear such language.

Standing next to her at the time of her "explanation" was none other than Eve Ensler, the creator of the Vagina Monologues, who further interjected that saying the C-Word was about "taking it back" - in other words, to make it more acceptable to say in mainstream society, and to remove the stigma about it, much the same way black people have tried to remove the stigma of the N-Word by taking it and using it themselves. She intimated that she was fighting a war to reclaim that word, and similar words, and that is what the Vagina Monologues is all about.

Now that may be all well and good, but why does she and Jane Fonda think it is appropriate to drag us into their battle? The audacity of their position is unfair to those of us who do not share her views, or at the very least, do not want this battle waged on national TV during family viewing time. If they want to fight their battle, they should pick a more appropriate venue to make their initial stands. In warfare, you don't parachute right into the center of a country without at first making some initial gains on the periphery. Similarly, they should choose to fight their battle in an adult venue, and if eventually the adults have decided to side with their position, then they can start involving the rest of the family. To spew forth with what a majority of Americans think is vulgar language on a daytime TV show is simply not appropriate, no matter what battle you think you are waging.

In addition, the self-righteous nature of their behavior is beyond audacious. Jane Fonda and Eve Ensler care little or nothing for anyone who does not agree with them. The fact that someone may be offended by their behavior does not bother them at all. They are self-centered limousine liberals who believe they are smarter than the rest of us and do not have to answer to you and I. Let's show them that their are two sides in every battle, and that we will fight back by refusing to acknowledge their position, and by taking the other side in the battle of decency versus common vulgarity. Their shallow disregard for how others may feel is transparently obvious. Let's show them that we feel the same way about them.

Previous:
Jane Fonda Drops A C-Bomb

Jane Fonda said the "C-word" on NBC TV on Thursday - how ironic. That's the word I usually think of when I hear mention of Jane Fonda.

All kidding aside, I think it's ridiculous that she said that word on national TV. A few weeks ago, Diane Keaton made a similar slip when she let slip the f-word on Good Morning America. But unlike Fonda, Keaton's utterance seemed more like a genuine mistake, for as soon as she said it, she seemed flustered and looked like she realized she made a mistake. Fonda let loose with her profanity in an almost calculated effort to shock.

Whether it's a mistake or not, people swear all the time, but most of us know when to keep it in the back room or to do it when you are with the appropriate people. One of the reasons there are no comments on this blog is that the general tone of discourse on the Internet nowadays has grown increasingly vulger, and I'm not going to pay for web space and have it filled up with people who contribute to that. If you have an opinion about what I've written, put it on your own web server, and you can use all the expletives you want, but I'm not going to publish it.

Many people feel that the reaction to celebrities using vulgar language on national TV is overblown, that people use these words all the time and we're making to much of it. Maybe so, but I don't have to agree. To me, it is evidence that many of today's celebrities are so self-centered that wherever they are, they believe it is all about them, and the rest of the world be damned. It also shows a lack of intelligence when you can't find a balance between expressing yourself and using a careful and appropriate choice of words for the venue you happen to be in.

The Grammy redux; Herbie Hancock wins album of the year, and Usher slaps down Kanye again with this line, just before the announcement: "remember, there are no losers," and directs it to Kanye West. Do you get it Kanye? You are officially a joke.

Ha HA.

pBlakeney.com is beginning to expand beyond politics, and in that interest, I would just like to salute Vince Gill for his put-down of Kanye West at the Grammys. After Kanye's self-indulgent, mentality of a 5-year old boasting after receiving his Grammy, Vince Gill was presented with a Grammy from Ringo Starr. Gill, acknowledging that he was being presented with a Grammy by a Beatle, smacked Kanye down with the line, "have you done that yet, Kanye?" Good for him, and no good to Kanye, who is an egotistical hack whose music will hopefully fade faster than a cheap pair of jeans.

Garrison Keillor's column this week is about the conviction of Jose Padilla. Like many other liberals, Keillor bemoans the fact that Padilla was convicted for conspiracy to commit murder, among other things. It is his contention that Padilla was convicted on the flimsiest of charges, and that if Padilla could be convicted, he could be next. Well, worry not, Mr. Keillor, I doubt that you have done anything to warrant similar attention by our legal system.

Padilla was held as an enemy combatant before being officially charged and subsequently convicted. Unlike Mr. Keillor, Padilla is obviously an enemy to our country, despite being a U.S. citizen. Padilla stands out as a soldier in the service of the enemy — indeed, if we were engaged in a more traditional war, Padilla would likely have been wearing the uniform of the enemy. His conviction on conspiracy charges, while falling short of what the prosecution would have liked to see him convicted of, will keep a dangerous enemy off the streets and keep him from further plotting actions against us.

Mr. Keillor, on the other hand, is not guilty of any such thing. Freedom of Speech guarantees his right to speak freely, and if he is worried about the columns he has written, he should put those worries aside. We know that the only thing Garrison Keillor is guilty of is writing columns extolling the virtues of his liberal viewpoint, as well as performing some silly skits and songs designed to take advantage of the fact that heartland residents of his generation do not realize that their Democratic Party has been hijacked by a younger, more misguided sort of liberal. We know that he is not plotting a dirty-bomb attack or some other form of terrorism; he is simply an old curmudgeon who has succumbed to the "Hate Bush" syndrome which is so prevalent on the left.

So, write on Mr. Keillor. Continue spreading your liberal propaganda disguised as charming musings from an old heartlander. There's no law against writing silly, misguided columns.

I caught Tommy Chong's appearance on Fox's "Your World" with Neil Cavuto this week, and took note as he called President Bush a "moron." In addition to calling Bush a moron, he then called former president Clinton a "genius." In his drug-addled world, I guess he thinks anyone who can pull off getting a blow job in the White House is smart. It is indicative of how liberals think anyone who talks smooth and is well-liked is smart, regardless of their actions. And it also shows how pot can magnify your feelings on an issue, so that Clinton is no longer (in his mind) just smarter than Bush, he is a genius to Bush's moron.

This is especially ironic coming from someone who contributed less than a third of the total talent to the comedy duo known as Cheech and Chong. We wouldn't even be listening to him on this program had he not ridden to fame by hitching his wagon to Cheech Marin's much more talented horse. Let's see, what have they done since? Cheech - a top-rated TV show, a Children's book, and several well received Hollywood movies. Chong - sold bongs, got himself arrested, and now is on TV calling Bush a moron.

I guess it takes one to know one.

Or maybe not...