Letters to the Editor

Inspired by the Achievements of our Potential Best Seller

Letters to the Editor

( Ten years of letters to The New York Times and Wall Street Journal, several of which were published.)
Fact checkers and opinion writers are charged with the responsibility of monitoring the ebb and flow of news, however, who monitors the fact checkers? I have found the perspective of opinion writers to be as flawed and jaundiced as the people and events they write about, thereby, demanding further scrutiny of their proffered opinions. Quite often opinion writers become so entrenched in an ideology or prejudicial view that one need only read the byline to predict the content. Whereas “Opinion Essays” were traditionally relegated to the opinion and editorial section, some news outlets (NY Times in particular) have introduced the disingenuous format wherein opinion articles disguised as hard news (e.g. ” News Analysis or “Fact Check or “News Memo,”) are now strategically placed on the front page as well as being scattered throughout the newspaper.

I Opine
by Albert Repicci
Letters To The Wall Street Journal

TO THE EDITOR WSJ

TO THE EDITOR WSJ 2/17/21

“Commission To Probe Capitol Riot”(front page, February 16)

It was not lost on many Americans that the occupation, riots, bedlam, burning, battering of police officers, and the pelting of them with clubs, rocks, ice water bottles last summer was nothing more than a template for how to host an insurrection with little or no consequences. The Democrats and the media essentially turned a blind eye as buildings were torched and court houses were spray painted and desecrated while Trump sent in federal troops …and was chastised for it. Now he is chastised (rightfully so) for not sending troops into the Washington melee. As far as not doing enough, I remember Biden being asked to intercede in the riots out in the West Coast and he demurred with the notion , that he was merely an ordinary citizen and didn’t have a public title so he had no authority to intervene . Talk about walking away from responsibility! He was only the Democratic presidential nominee! Not having a formal political title never stopped the opportunist, Al Sharpton from thrusting himself into every public conflict, misguided as he may have been more often than not.

Would it have been asking too much for the self-righteous Democrats and media to have shown the same outrage and compassion for the folks in Portland and Kenosha as they did for

the misguided Capital incursion but then again, I suspect their political calculus suggested they act otherwise. Hypocrisy is triumphant!

TO THE EDITOR

TO THE EDITOR: WSJ Feb 2021

In the same way that Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina saved the candidacy of Joe Biden, former baseball commissioner Fay Vincent may have saved America with this op- ed letter decrying the weaponization of sports and in particular baseball. The sports arena has tragically become the stage upon which faux racism is being muscled into every conversation. Vincent reminds us of the outrage that surrounded the false Duke lacrosse accusations highlighting the knee jerk reaction that has infected media and corporate America assigning guilt before the facts are known.

In an effort to reconcile racial inequities I fear that in many quarters there has been an over correction such that now reactions smack more of pandering then seeking justice and truth. Many Americans invariably feel impotent in the absence of a voice strong and loud enough to call out the forces bent on hijacking the country by overplaying the race card and gratefully, Fay Vincent has demonstrated the courage to throw down the gauntlet.

To The Editor: WSJ 7/20/21 (Published)

Apropos of Lance Morrow’s parable concerning “TheHedgehogs of Critical Race Theory” (July 20) wherein the single-minded ideology of critical race series sees racism in every white face, let us also be reminded of the darker elements in our psyche that suggests that for self-gratification to be achieved It is not enough that we should succeed, but that our friends should fail.

In the 1970s the clarion call was “Black is Beautiful.” It appears now that for many it is not enough that black should be beautiful, but more importantly that whites be deemed ugly. As Mr. Morrow states, “Truth changes shape as it coalesces into political movement and gets a taste of power.”

To The Editor: WSJ 9/9/21

Is the USTA trying to out- woke the NFL.? Is there no end to the preaching. The image of a brooding Billie Jean King exhorting the masses to follow her lead on diversity strikes me more as an evangelical minister reminding the congregation that she is closer to God than they. Why is it that every time a sports entity or celebrity stands before a camera these days they feel obliged to resort to self-righteous virtue signaling purporting themselves to be “Open“ while the unwashed masses are wallowing in racial enmity.

Messaging is not just about using a bull horn to broadcast your thoughts but it’s value is measured by whether or not the message has the desired effect on its audience. Does it inspire or does it repulse. The heavy-handed proselytizing seemingly intended to keep the race issue In the forefront of every conversation has been reduced to redundant bumper sticker catchphrases which have not only lost their verve but have, in fact, become off putting .

The ”We Are Open” promotion, though perhaps well intended, has missed its mark in two areas. First the public is weary of having racial issues thrust in their face

at every turn and secondly the recurring image of the Black Lives Matter masks belies the organizations dubious virtues. If the intention of this campaign was to serve up an ace, sadly it was more likely a double fault.

TO THE EDITOR WSJ 10/30/21

“The Views That Made Me Persona Non Grata at MIT” (Opinion Oct 30-31) captures everything that’s wrong with today’s obsessive and narrow-minded rush for diversity.

By now It has been well publicized that Professor Dorian Abbot (who was to have given a lecture about climate science) was disinvited from MIT because of faculty complaints that Mr. Abbot had voiced the opinion that race and ethnicity should not be factors in college admission decisions. This is a position agreed-upon by 62% of black adults.

Many in the academic world were appalled at MIT‘s censorship decision including faculty members at Princeton University who subsequently extended an invitation to Mr. Abbot to present the same proposed lecture at Princeton.

This reminds me another enlightened moment by a Princeton faculty member, Albert Einstein, who, as the apocryphal story goes, for years had taught his students that the universe was static yet in time reversed himself and posited that the cosmos was in fact expanding. A confused student is said to have asked Einstein how he could give them one concept one day and reverse it the next. Einstein was presumed to have replied, “That’s because I learned something new today!“

Tragically for the MIT faculty there will be no epiphany as they sequester themselves in their silo reassuring each other of their self-righteousness and moral certitude. But alas, unlike Einstein, by silencing Mr. Abbot, they have denied themselves an enlightenment opportunity and like other censors will, therefore, learn nothing new today.

Albert Repicci DMD

Formerly a faculty member at University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine

To The Editor: WSJ 11/25/21

I applaud your decision to re-print your traditional Thanksgiving editorial ( Nov 24) which maintains a link between the perspective of our forefathers who actually lived through those primitive times and our own self-absorbed generation that would denounce anything that does not subscribe to their myopic vision.

To The Editor: WSJ 1/1/22

“ The Conformity Crack Up of 2021” (Opinion/ Review and Outlook Dec. 31) was a sorely needed appraisal of the state of affairs in the US media today.

Progressive news outlets need only look at themselves for perpetrating the national rancor created by narratives that reflect their biases, undermining trust, rather than reporting the news. These shenanigans do not go unnoticed and this act of dishonesty smacks as an insult to those who see right through the charade. This affront is not only an outgrowth of shoddy reporting but just as importantly, from perspectives that are intentionally omitted. What chance has comity amongst citizens when a large segment feels they are being manipulated by an agenda driven press that would rather inflame than inform. This is especially true when knee -jerk judgments are proffered before facts are fully uncovered.

I applaud the Wall Street Journal for indicting the Washington Post, Bloomberg, the Financial Times, the New York Times, Atlantic, and more for having betrayed their obligation to publish the unfettered truth of a story having now, sadly, segued into promoting prejudicial “narratives” as news.

TO THE EDITOR: WSJ 3/21/22

We question China’s support of the cruel and repressive regime of Putin but given China’s past support for the Khmer Rouge why would we expect anything different. That is who they are! Accept it!

To The Editor: WSJ 4/11/22

David Bernstein’s, “Teach ‘1619’ and ‘1776’ U.S. History,” (Opinion, April 11 ) fails to acknowledge that in the present conversation, “1619’ is more than a date in history but also a manifesto filled with inaccuracies and distortions as identified by a host of scholars. 1863 has historical significance (signing of the Emancipation Proclamation) as does 1920 (ratification of women’s right to vote). Similarly, 1619 may be recognized as the year slaves were brought to America’s shores. But we must be wary of conflating a date with a proposed curriculum bearing the same name which stretches beyond historical objectivity into an area of misguided subjectivity and has been ardently challenged by much of the scholarship community.

To The Editor: WSJ 10/13/22

Whereas in Iran they suffer under the oppression of the morality police, we in United States have hitched our wagon to an equally corrosive overlord who’s cult-like orthodoxy gives them unlimited powers to destroy lives and careers ferreting out racists and unconscious bias from under every rock. These are pseudo scientists use McCarthy era tactics to neutralize and silence contrarians in the universities and in the workplace. Its insidious tentacles are likewise spreading into nearly every area of American society including the military. They tend to conflate racism with racial awareness which is merely the act of recognizing our differences and articulating them without prejudice. There is gender awareness and nationality awareness which is a product of observation and innocent humor but not necessarily promulgated by some misogynistic or xenophobic underpinning. To put an ugly spin on all these realities is the product of a power lust creating oppressors and victims that perpetuates a constant state of social turmoil and burnishes the careers of the Diversity Specialist. How we bought into this canard is baffling. That we are willing to subject ourselves to Soviet style mind control is unconscionable. The sooner we eliminate diversity specialists and their accusations of unconscious bias the better. Better yet, teach universal moral behavior in social studies class and dissolve the puritan finger-pointing morality police.

To The Editor: WSJ 3/29/23

Two seminal articles appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, March 28. The first titled, “Poll Shows Shift in What Americans Value,” by Aaron Zitner pointed out where, as a nation, we have lost our way.

The second was an opinion article, “Some Crazy Ideas Are Deadly Serious” by J. Budziszewski, which helped explain how,

as a nation, we have lost our way.

Growing up in the mid 20th century our core values embraced the notion of God, country, and family. This was our nation’s time honored revered trinity. The poll in the first article suggests that, regarding this present generation, that value system has basically been rejected. Apparently patriotism is misguided, religion is an unnecessary abstraction and having children is not a high priority.

The second article, “Crazy Ideas…” describes how the old trinity of God, country and family has been replaced with the woke trinity of diversity, equity and inclusiveness, an ideological triad characterized by sanctimonious posturing, that encourages others to cede moral authority to apostates who have sold this ruse to half the population.

DEI, however, promulgated as an exalted virtue is flawed in as much as diversity is trumped by competence, equity is trumped by equality, and inclusiveness is trumped by fairness. We have seen DEI at work and the myth surrounding its virtue is falling apart. In the name of diversity, many unqualified individuals have either been nominated or appointed to critical positions only to be rejected by Congress, or to have brought disgrace to their agency. Equity implies that all people share the same wealth, as one would expect in Socialism, yet that notion has no application in a capitalistic society. Equality, however, which strives to give everyone an equal opportunity is already fully enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Inclusiveness, is so flawed that many states have outright rejected it as has “World Athletics“ which governs international track and field events. World Athletics recently stated that they, “decided to prioritize fairness and the integrity of the female competition before inclusion.” Why did we need World Athletics to tell us that biologic girls should not have to compete with biologic boys? Or for that matter, why boys should not be sharing a shower room with young girls?

To be a DEI officer is to become unassailable and their impact on society is no different than Iran’s Morality Police. Sadly, out of fear or ignorance many people from our most revered institutions in government and business, have been seduced by this canard, while in academia, faculty and elite students alike have abandoned civility and given in to arrogance and intolerance. One can only hope that in time this puerile experiment will eventually devour itself. Used as a political sledgehammer it has contributed more to perpetuate hostility, and divisiveness than it has to heal the wounds of social injustice. It just may be time to revisit some of the values of the past.

To The Editor: WSJ 9/25/23

Immigration Debacle:

During the Trump years, Democrats told us they had a wonderful alternative to the border wall. They said they could use drones, electronic surveillance, overland vehicles, and more border police. How has that work out? Democrats had control of all three branches of government during Biden’s first two years in office with an unfettered opportunity to show how to secure our borders yet they still blame the Republicans for being obstructionists.

They claim the wall is inhumane, but how humane is it to put hundreds of thousands of immigrants who come from tropical climates onto the frozen streets of Boston, New York, and Chicago, etc. to beg and shiver their way through the winter. How humane is it to reallocate resources for the homeless, the helpless, and the destitute of thousands of Americans, who already crowd our shelters. Biden claimed that his years in office would be transformational for America, and according to the mayors of our leading cities, he is right. He has destroyed our cities and engineered the “Slumification” of America. Immigrants are now living in conditions in America not unlike the conditions they fled… and Americans are now living with them side-by-side.

If there were any hope of democratic regime change in Venezuelan, those chances are now all but nonexistent with hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan dissenters and opposition voters foregoing their voting privilege by fleeing to United States ensuring Moduro’s grip on the presidency.

The wall, as a border control adjunct, is not by itself, inhospitable, but rather preserves the American Dream immigrants seek and reinforces the notion that all are welcome as long as they come through the front door.

To The Editor: ESJ 11/2/23

Re “ The Left Is Tearing Itself Apart Over Israel” (news, article , Oct. 31):

Molly Ball has very articulately exposed the rift in the Democrat party but beyond that progressive schism lies a hypocrisy spawned by years of elitist and sanctimonious posturing. In the wake of the threats to American Jewish students, whatever happened to that ”woke” notion of establishing a “safe place.” While preoccupied with micro -aggressions, these same progressives commit physical and threatening macro-aggressions against Jewish students. They make accusations based on abstractions like unconscious bias, while themselves, committing aggressive acts of bigotry. They attempted to force feed society with their notion of DEI, which more accurately identifies them as divisive, enraged and intolerant. They call all contrarian speech “hate speech” as a strategy to invalidate any opposition while at the same time exhibiting hateful actions. Elitist have also tried to control speech by designating certain words as being insensitive and threatening yet they heap invectives on Jewish students with careless abandon. Sad as it is, you know the veil has been lifted when their faux virtue is put to the test, and they begin to devour their own.

To The Editor WSJ 12/19/23

Why should we be surprised when the presidents of our elite universities equivocate over the definition of antisemitism, when at the same time a female justice on the Supreme Court cannot define a woman. Talk about systemic racism… how about systemic wokeism!

The following covers 10 years of observation and commentary on the NY Times and others.

To The Editor: 1/14/11 NY Times

Re “As We Mourn” The New York Times( Editorial January 13, 20011):

Your editorial page very correctly points out President Obama’s call to ideological campaigners to stop vilifying their opponents. He rightly focused on the lives of the victims and your desk most admirably repeats the call to stop demonizing their political opponents.

Before the editorial concluded, however, your desk could not resist the temptation nor restrain itself from doing exactly what it called upon everyone else to do by rambling on demonizing Sarah Palin. The blatant cynicism and hypocrisy was not only reprehensible but very telling. This dishonesty has again caused me to cancel my subscription. Soon, I fear, your only subscriber will be Keith Olberman.

To the Editor: Stamford Advocate 10/8/17

Political Flip- Flop (A Virtue)

I recently attended a dinner party which hosted guests from a wide variety of backgrounds, including one gentleman who, as it turns out, was a rabid political strategist. Being unable to restrain himself, midway through the evening, he violated a cherished social axiom by introducing political ideology into the conversation. His comment referenced his target as being a “flip -flopper” and, therefore, lacking in integrity. Wisely we all let the trial balloon float in the, now, chilled air while his wife threw him a frozen stare. Nonplussed or unaware of the silence that followed his first volley, the provocateur repeated the thrust and left it to hang out there like a noxious weed. Restrain myself as I might, I felt obliged, now that he had launched the second barb, not to allow my own silence to suggest tacit agreement with his charge. I quietly proffered, what some perceived as a tension breaker, that, “ To me, flip-flopping is a virtue which I strongly admire.” I then asked for more potato chips and drifted away.

Although the hot air came out of the subject and we moved on, I remained puzzled that people find some red badge of courage attached to the presumption that one is to be admired because they never changed their position over their lifetime. Am I to admire a guy who puts his thumbs in his suspenders, and claims never to have changed his position since being elected in 1962.” No Siree Bob—no flip-flopping here. Every thought or position I ever had sticks to me like a barnacle.”

But, flip- flopping is a way of life. Talk to people from Philadelphia who were starved for a baseball championship and chafed under the power of Cincinnati’s Big Red Machine. Pete Rose, while still with the Reds, was vilified in Philly, but when he was traded to Philadelphia and brought them a World Series championship, two million people flip- flopped. A quarterback flip- flops every time he sizes up a defense and calls an audible. Where would we be if Copernicus and Galileo had not flip -flopped on the presumption that the earth was the center of the universe? What if Pasteur had not flip- flopped on the washing of hands before surgery because of bacterial transfer? What if Attila the Hun, hell bent on destroying Rome, had not flip -flopped after meeting Pope Leo I at Rome’s gates and spared the city? Where would Nelson Mandela be if FW de Klerk had not flip- flopped on apartheid? Even Lincoln, who was by no means an abolitionist, flip -flopped with the Emancipation Proclamation, an act many see as having been closer to political expediency then altruism.

So who are some of the stalwarts who never flip- flopped? Adolph Hitler never flip -flopped concerning his hatred and death sentence for Jews. Rwanda’s Hutus never flip -flopped on their commitment to annihilation and genocide of the Tutsi. The Supreme Court never flip -flopped on its Dred Scott decision condemning blacks to an eternity as chattel to be bought and sold. Bin Laden, Hussain, Charles Taylor, Stalin, and Pol Pot, likewise, could not be accused of flip-flopping.

A story I have, perhaps mistakenly attributed to Einstein captures the essence, nonetheless, of flip -flopping and its nature. When a student challenged the aging Einstein as having changed his position from a static to an expanding universe from as recently as the day before, Einstein’s advised his student that –he had just that morning learned something new. Discovery!

So, who are the most guilty of us all when it comes to this ignominious affliction? Not surprisingly, at least to those who have taken the journey, it would be…all parents, feinting and plodding their way along in a series of never-ending adjustments. Flip -flopping is the soul and essence of parenting. I don’t mean in terms of strongly held core values but in terms of how we accommodate, teach, learn, grow, struggle, search, pray, agonize, laugh and cry our way through this labyrinth hounded by Scylla on one side and Charybdis on the other. Parenting is a series of never-ending modifications and changing strategies. There may be no flip- flopping concerning the desire for a healthy outcome, but the road map may be filled with plenty of detours, and some dead ends.

So, if ultimately flip -flopping equates to enlightenment, discovery, and accommodation I can only respond to a charge of being a flip- flopper by tipping my hat and saying–thanks for the compliment.

To The Editor : Greenwich times 9/9/13

Political Flip- Flop (A Virtue)

To the Editor: NYTimes 12/5/13

To the Editor,

Given the recurring tragic cycle of mass murders and gun violence in America it behooves every citizen to use their imagination, that we may finally come up with some solutions that offer realistic hope in harnessing this national tragedy.

I was recently struck by the notion that many people who have limited funds, must present a co-signer if they nope to satisfy a banks expectations of responsibility. Obviously the co-signer shares the burden of responsibility relative to repayment of the loan. The co-signer would therefore be cautious and circumspect before agreeing to share the burden of responsibility. I believe this concept has great application to those purchasing guns in that a co -signer must feel comfortable that the purchaser is law abiding and in stable mental health. The co-signer, in actuality, shares responsibility for the gun owners action.

Furthermore, whomsoever co-signs for a purchase should be notified when additional purchases are made even if they are not the co-signer on that subsequent purchase. This will alert any former co-signer to the trail of multiple purchases. If they perceive themselves as being drawn into a potentially dangerous situation with themselves being an accomplice by way of their co-signature, they may, therefore, be inclined to notify the authorities.

The concept neither bans guns nor does it glorify them. It does, however, add a wary publics personal oversight of those individuals purchasing guns. I believe this is serious new starting point for a different type of discussion on the safe management of guns.

To The Editor ; NY Times 1/8/16

Re “Our Shared Responsibility” by Barack Obama (Op-Ed, Jan. 8, 2016):

President Obama is right. Given the recurring tragic cycle of mass murders and gun violence in America it is the shared responsibility of every citizen to use their imagination, that we may finally come up with some solutions that offer realistic hope in harnessing this national tragedy.

I was recently struck by the notion that many people who have limited funds, must present a co-signer if they nope to satisfy a banks expectations of responsibility. The same requirement should be true for those purchasing a gun. Obviously a co-signer shares the burden of responsibility relative to repayment of the loan. The co-signer would therefore be cautious and circumspect before agreeing to share the burden of responsibility. I believe this concept has great application to those purchasing guns in that a co -signer must feel comfortable that the purchaser is law abiding and in stable mental health. The co-signer, in actuality, becomes the first mental health gatekeeper and ultimately shares responsibility for the gun owners action.

TO THE EDITOR: NYTimes 1/12/16

Ref “The True Lessons of True Crime” (Op-Ed page Jan. 12)

Professor Lisa Kern Griffin would have better served the public if she had exposed the Netflix pseudo-documentary, “Making a Murderer” as the ruse that it was.

Like so many similar documentaries purporting to expose a hidden truth, this documentary failed to present much of the key evidence that pointed toward Steven Avery’s guilt in the murder.

Certainly, Ms. Griffin’s point concerning the miss management of due process by law-enforcement has to be closely scrutinized, but this must be measured against the opportunism of would- be outside investigators who knowingly deceive and inflame the public by cherry picking the evidence they present in a documentary.

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 4/16/16

“The Love of Catholic Guilt”, by Timothy Egan

(Op-Ed, April 16)

It is unfortunate that you failed to identify, as you usually do, the person and credentials of Timothy Egan at the bottom of his essay. I presume Timothy Egan and Cardinal Egan are one and the same person. It is a fact very likely lost on anyone outside of the New York area.

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 1/2/17 (Published)

Re “Lessons From Media’s Campaign Failures.” (Opinion Nickolas Kristoff, Jan.1):

Mr. Kristoff and his colleagues are doomed to making the same analytical mistakes as long as they continue to talk to themselves and disregard FOX News as a viable news source. With all the hand wringing concerning how the media got it wrong, and attributing the the success of President-elect Trump primarily to mystical angry white middle-class workers, it belies the fact that there are millions of people who have found a kinship with perspectives presented by Fox news and their commentators while feeling the condescension heaped upon them by the media, entertainment industry and intellectual elites who have given short shrift to their sensitivities. The election was a repudiation of all the above. Columnists who lace their commentary with prickly barbs toward FOX News do so at their own peril since it sends up a red flag exposing the bias of the reporter prompting the disengagement of the reader.

The “fourth estate” Mr Kristoff calls for to bring balance to the news already exists except, however, in the minds of “mainstream” reporters. Denial is not just the name of a river in Egypt.

TO THE EDITOR: NYn Time 1/12/17

Re ” Trump, Sex and Lots Of Whining” (opinion, Jan. 12):

Gail Collins gives lip service to the notion that the election is over reminding us for the 1 millionth time of the “news flash,” that Clinton got nearly 3,000,000 more votes than Trump, but by the rules we live under, she lost. “End of story.”

Unable to restrain herself and betraying the notion that the media is prepared to move on, two paragraph later she concludes with another reminder, “that there are about 66 million “Clinton” voters who have a right to be angry, too.

I would suggest that as Ms. Collins accuses others of whining, she should pause and take a look in the mirror.

Has not the reality of Trumps victory sunk in with the media yet? Concerning the election outcome, Ms. Collins proffers…”End of story?”

Sadly, I think not!

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 1/30/17

After failing for eight years to protect America by enforcing the immigration laws at hand, former President Obama has a lot of nerve speaking out against President Trump’s well-intentioned first step to protect our borders.

Obama is not only no longer president, but neither is his surrogate, Hillary Clinton, who professed the same philosophies.

He should take a page from President Bush’s demeanor and defer to the new president. Fomenting more anger and demonstrations belies his presumptive image as a uniter.

Obama may be unaware of this; however, he no longer lives on Pennsylvania Avenue.

TO THE EDITOR:

Re “Can Democrats win back Catholics” (OP-ED, March 27):

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 4/5/17

Re “O’Reilly Thrives as Settlements Add Up” (Front page April 2):

As reprehensible as Mr. O’Reilly’s behavior may have been, for “The Times” to have published the assertion that one claimant presumed him to be masturbating during a phone call is nothing short of scurrilous.

TO THE EDITOR:NY Times 7/15/17

Re “Soviet Veteran Says He, Too, Met Trump Jr.”(Front page article, July 15):

At this point your Russian entanglement stories have become as compelling as a Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston tabloid scoop. If you continue to stretch the “link” concept, in one way or another you can link all of us to the devil. Let the special prosecutor handle it while you get back to printing the news rather than attempting to create it.

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 10/2/17

RE ” A Child’s Life Forever Altered” (front page, sports Monday Oct. 2):

I am sickened that major league baseball waited for another spectator ( a one-year-old little girl ) to incur life altering severe facial trauma before extending protective nets along the baselines at major league ballparks. This lack of protective screening has been an ongoing problem and danger for years and has not only been ignored, but justified by corporate baseball in order to sell top dollar field box tickets.

While baseball management hides behind their disclaimer that spectators attend a ball game at their own risk, they are no less culpable then those who make children’s clothing out of flammable material.

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 12/23/17

Re “When #Me Too Goes Too Far” by Bret Stephens (column, Dec21):

It is one thing to champion a moral imperative, but quite another to exhibit unrestrained zeal by painting every transgression with the same broad brush. The moral posturing and demand for zero tolerance as proposed by Senator Gillibrand relative to sexual harassment may bolster her image as a crusader, but risks the blemish of McCarthyism. Memory still lingers of Senator Joe McCarthy, brandishing his saber with thoughtless equanimity decapitated a lot of innocent people in his quest for national purity.

TO THE EDITOR: NY Timew 1/6/18

Re “More Laborers See Pay Gains As Jobs Climb” (front page, Jan 6, 2018):

For a president who presumably does not listen to anyone as chronicled by author Michael Wolff in his tabloid book “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House”, it would seem from the robust increase in pay and jobs for blue-collar and service workers that of the 16 presidential candidates and most of the media, Trump was really the only one that was listening.

Dear Mr. Brooks, NY Times 1/8/18

Your op- ed articles in The New York Times are always most transformative in large part because you appear to be true to the “self” as described in your thought provoking book, “The Road to Character“. I admire the perspective you have adopted… “What is expected of me?”

Unfortunately, your op -ed colleagues in the New York Times have resigned themselves to such predictable anti-Trump rhetoric that I can tell who the author is without even reading the byline. Barely an opinion article is published without its author using the four deadly sins, racist, bigot, misogynist and xenophobic as though they were given names for President Trump. Perhaps they think if they use them often enough something will stick. But what really sticks, however, is their obvious over- riding commitment to destroy President Trump…nothing more.

“The Decline of Anti-Trumpism”, however is probably the most insightful op -ed article I’ve read in a year, even more so than your recent op- ed article concerning a nation under siege. I will, however, take issue with your pejorative reference to FOX News as a lowbrow news source, which implies that everything else is highbrow. Presuming, however that it may be, “lowbrow” they remain an absolutely necessary counterweight to everything else. FOX News was not born in a vacuum, but rather became the only counterpoint to the constant drumbeat of the other news outlets. For all its flaws, I would even suggest that it is the conscience of the other news outlets who, without Fox never felt compelled to look at their own reporting with a critical eye. This week’s coverage of the book “Fire and Fury” by CNN, MSNBC, the Today Show, Good Morning America, CBS Evening News, Meet the Press etc. suggests a strong complicity to elevate tabloid gossip to the highest reaches of credible journalism when it suits their agenda.

The more the press feeds into an anti-Trump narrative with disingenuous sensationalism, the more it reinforces the reality of the siege mentality. Us against them. This is the same set of circumstances that pit the black community against the white community in the OJ Simpson trial. How many times does a segment of the population have to be ignored, treated unjustly or condescended to by the smarmy elites before they just tune out the noise. I can’t understand why it has been so difficult for all of us to understand why OJ got off and why the black community was content with the verdict.The Trump situation is no different.

I concur that Sean Hannity is an overzealous circus barker, but it always surprises me that he is singled out and no reference is ever made toward Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Lawrence O’Donnell and half the crew at CNN. Why have they all remained immune to any criticism. If there were no Fox News, would you have felt obliged to even comment on the disparity between the fantasy of “Fire and Fury” and reality or was that a reaction to Fox’s challenge regarding the books credibility? Fox challenges us to look beyond what everybody else is saying and questions the veracity of their reporting. More often than not it has exposed the mainstream media as being not only flawed, but intentionally dishonest as evidenced by this attempt to collectively pass off scurrilous and shabby tabloid journalism as gospel. Needless to say, all the outlets were talking to themselves and patting themselves on the back and feeding into late night talk show material. For many of us who did not and would not vote for Trump, the mainstream media has only succeeded in pushing us further and further away by way of their own style of deceit which I’m finding more intolerable then much of what Trump represents. To hate Trump is understandable, to sink lower than him is deplorable… and strangely the deceit has prompted many of us to give Trump some slack. For the record, however, I seldom if ever watch any cable news or panel discussion since they have all devolved into the night time version of ” The View” with their sole purpose being to incite the emotions of their audience.

All this being said, there is no columnist whose work is more valued for its insightfulness and integrity than your own and for that reason alone I continue to subscribe to the New York Times.

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 1/21/18

Re “Trump Voters, One Year In” (letters Jan 18):

“The Furor Over a Forum For Trump Fans” (letters Jan 19):

I applaud the New York Times for validating the reality that there is in existence a positive, if not guarded, perspective on the Trump presidency other than the doomsday drum beat espoused by the majority of The Times editorial staff.

Two letters caught my attention. One letter from a Trump supporter pointed out that the unrelenting negative spin and scurrilous reporting on everything “Trump” has probably been the most significant reason many are drifting closer and closer to his positions, albeit not his demeanor.

The second letter is from “The Furor Over a Forum for Trump Fans “ (Jan. 19) wherein one writer pleads with The Times, “Please don’t ever do that again.”

That statement alone strengthens the perception that The Times readership expects the espousal of an anti-Trump and anti-Republican ideology and that this outlier collection of conservative retrogrades should have no voice in a forum staged by The Times.

And one wonders why FOX News and talk radio thrive?

NY Times 2/2/18

TO THE EDITOR NY Times 02/02/18 PUBLISHED

Re“ The Abortion Memo” (OP-ED, David Brooks Feb. 2, 2018)

David Brooks was spot on in his revelation that those who believe in abortion restrictions find the Democratic Party’s unyielding position on expanded abortion services anathema to their visceral moral outlook.

As a lifelong Democrat with a brother who ran for Congress as a Democrat in upstate New York, I identified with many principles within the Democratic Party. By 1990 the rallying cry for the Democratic Party became abortion on demand. The lack of human decency that would fail to protect a baby in the last few months of gestation was so offensive, that other positive traits of a politician no longer mattered . This barbaric mentality disqualified them from office in my eyes.

In 1992 at age 52, I therefore switched to the Republican Party where I will remain until the Democrats show some sign of detachment from their strident political base and dare to put a baby’s life before political prerogatives.

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 2/9/18

Re “If Trump’s So Innocent, Why Act So Guilty? by Nicholas Kristoff ( column Feb. 8):

In the Pope’s recent letter on fake news ( to paraphrase) he states that the positioning of facts to lead readers toward a wrongful conclusion is in itself dishonest. Kristoff’s rehashed litany of Trump’s “links” to the Russians exposes his yearning for a guilty charge for collusion in the absence of indictable findings. Most of the revelations about Russian links are spacious at best and although it may make for interesting reading it bypasses the truth seeking process set in place by the special counsel.

After a year of relentless, yet unverifiable charges of collusion by the press, I could foresee Trump challenging Kristoff’s question with a question of his own, “Why in the absence of a special prosecutor’s indictment, do you insist on my guilt?”

TO THE EDITOR: NY times 2/2/18

Re “Budgets, Bad Faith, And Balance” (opinion Feb. 16, 2018)

After reading Paul Krugman‘s article today I can only conclude that he has become totally irrelevant. I feel like I have read this article 15 times before. His work is becoming stale and predictable and is therefore losing any credibility. I have grown to wonder if he just changes the title of his opinion piece and then recycles the same weary -some and redundant animus week after week. As a bit of a diversion today he extracted a page from the Nancy Pelosi playbook which we have already heard over the airwaves a dozen times, referencing “crumbs.”

Mr. Krugman, it’s time for a new schtick!

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 2/24/18

Re “I Get AR-15s. I Still Support a Ban,” by Brian Mast (column, Feb. 24):

With all the soul searching for a strategy to not only reduce the impact of gun violence in the schools, but to also inject a sense of confidence that our legislators are putting public safety before political expediency, no argument put forward so far captures the core angst of our school children and parents as does former bomb squad officer and present Congressman Brian Mast’s call for a ban on AR-15 type assault weapons. We can dance around age limits, psychological profiling, use of gun toting security guards and teachers in the schools but none of these offer the sense of comfort that would be derived from banning that military style weapons from the general public.

For the most part, mass murderers expect to die while massacring as many kids as possible in the shortest time possible. A teacher with a handgun is neither a deterrent nor a match for an assailant with an assault weapon. Further, it has been shown that many who carry a weapon are disinclined to flail it about during a melee for fear of being misinterpreted by the swat teams as being one of the assailants and thereby killed by friendly fire.

In the same way that wolves are one genetic pool too savage to be domesticated, so to the AR – 15 as a weapon of mass destruction is too lethal to be in the hands of the general public.

I encourage all legislators to subscribe to Congressman Mast’s appeal to ban the AR – 15.

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 3/2/18

Re “How The Left Wins The Culture War,” by David Brooks (Op-Ed , March 2):

In David Brooks opinion piece he suggest that there are two monolithic entities , conservatives and progressives/liberals who’s adherents march in lockstep to the tune of the strident voices of its leadership.

The focus of his article deals with the NRA and gun access and references Planned Parenthood supporters, amongst others, as being on the opposite side of the issue calling for more gun restrictions. The reality is that the National Rifle Association a.k.a. NRA, and national abortion rights organizations A.k.a. NAR, operate out of the same playbook.… Resist everything no matter how reasonable restrictions might be.

Can a conservative NRA member call for greater restrictions on abortion with any degree of credibility while denying any restrictions on guns? And likewise can a liberal Planned Parenthood devotee call for restrictions on guns while resisting any restrictions on abortions? It’s this contradiction in attitude which belies the position of those who purport that restrictions only apply to the other guy.

Rather than strictly adhering to a tribal mentality I would like to think that there are many crossover individualists who seek restrictions on any entity whose excesses are deemed immoral.

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 6/27/18

Re “ Liberals Clash Over Steering Off High Road”

(Front page , June26)

Maxine Waters thoughtless and dangerous charge that the general populace start getting in each other’s face is tantamount to endorsing an uncivil war. This would invariably lead to violence based on the assumption that if you can’t get satisfaction at the ballot box then punch your neighbor in the face. Sadly, that’s more frightening than anything I’ve heard come from Trump who, incidentally, I did not vote for.

TO THE EDITOR: NYUM Times 10/31/18

Re “Trump’s Visit Divides City Mourning Victims of Hate”

(front page, Oct 31):

The New York Times seems to have an affinity for throwing gasoline on the “hate narrative” by frameing each national tragedy as being linked to President Trump or, for that matter, to any of his supporters. The reporting of the tragedies that unfolded with the bomb maker in Florida and the deadly massacre in Pittsburgh are cases in point and this bias does not go unnoticed.

I did not vote for Trump and I was not one of his supporters, however, I have been pushed in his direction in large part by the dishonest and disingenuous drumbeat of hate and disinformation emanating from spitefully liberal news agencies and I fear it is now too late for them to assume the highroad with any credibility

Those who report facts and truths in such a fashion as to deceive the reader into believing an untruth are basically telling a lie. The year and a half of spurious reporting linking everything and everyone under the sun to the Russian collusion exposed a campaign of avowed hatred that went beyond seeking the truth. With that issue having now abated this new lurch to attach everything hateful and sinister to Trump is glaringly apparent. When you ask the president to refrain from hateful commentary, I am reminded of the old adage… “It would be wise to take the log out of your own eye before addressing the splinter in the eye of others.”

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 2/15/19

Re “Amazon Scraps New York Campus” (Front Page, Feb. 15)

It is ironic that progressive activists and politicians such as Senator Michael Gianaris and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who are responsible for Amazons departure from New York along with their 25,000 jobs, should refer to the company as being greedy for seeking tax breaks. Every time these same activists who use Amazon themselves, bypass the local brick-and-mortar stores to make a purchase online at Amazon they are doing the exact same thing as

Amazon. How can they, in good conscience , call Amazon greedy yet use their service to make a saving and basically screw local mom-and-pop stores who sell things for nickel more.

Now that Long Island City Queens has lost 25,000 jobs it takes a mountain of hubris to suggest that Amazon has been taught a lesson. It is more likely that the constituents of these politicians who had the hubris and arrogance to drive this windfall opportunity out of the city will now teach these very politicians a lesson and drive them out of office.

TO THE EDITOR NY Times 3/23/19

Re “Mueller Submits Trump inquiry Findings” (Front page March 23):

After two years of knowingly force feeding a false narrative by the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC concerning collusion and obstruction of justice only Fox, and the Wall Street Journal have emerged as fair and balanced.

It is the silo mentality of the mainstream media that has more than anything else pushed never Trumper‘s to become his supporters. Perhaps you should consider adopting more even handed reporting and opinion content, unless of course you want to elect him again.

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 3/29/19

Re “Trump Got Booed. Can I Smile?(op ed by Jennifer Weiner)

Why do people watch baseball? Obviously, in large part to escape the harangue and negativity that is so pervasive in every aspect of our lives. We watch baseball to compartmentalize our experiences isolating those short moments of enjoyment from the constant drumbeat of outrage and political correctness. The rude booing that took place during the World Series directed toward the President of United States sullied the game, turned away baseball fans and obviously filled the op ed author with delight. That is indeed a very sad narrative… Probably deserving of some booing itself.

As soon as the booing began several of us “Baseball Fans” watching the game on TV from different locations began emailing each other in utter disgust, and although all of us were National’s fans, we immediately turned our allegiance to the Astros. I went one step further and turned off the game.

If it’s bloodletting you like…go to the Roman Colosseum and cheer for the lions. Baseball isn’t called the American past time for nothing. It’s a time when we should celebrate the best in our athletes instead of reveling in the expression of our basest instinct. Shame on those who allow their political biases to contaminate and besmirch these cherished events. And shame on those who rejoice in such behavior. Keep the ugliness of politics out of baseball!

TO THE EDITOR: 12/17/19

Re “Trump Has Weaponized the Inspector General.” ( Sunday Review Dec 15 News Analysis by James Stewart):

There is a children’s book titled, “Choose Your Own Adventure”, which apparently inspired Mr. Stewart to ascribe his own creative spin to the subject of weaponizing.

As a counter to Mr Stewart’s myopic article, did not Trump’s enemies weaponized the FBI as was clearly pointed out in the Horowitz report? Did they not weaponized the special counsel/Mueller report? Did they not weaponized the IRS seeking Trump’s tax returns? Did they not weaponized the courts to reverse every executive order and pursue personal issues before he was president? Did they not weaponized the Democrat controlled California legislature to keep Trump off the primary ballot? Did they not weaponized Congress which denied him witnesses in the impeachment hearings and stacked three constitutional specialists against his one representative? Did not the main stream news media relentlessly drive the impeachment narrative from the day he was elected? Has not The New York Times editorial page and news analysis hyped every leaked fragment of hearsay giving it the weight of incontrovertible truth. As with all ideologues, you exonerate and indict according to the narrative you choose to trumpet. Without a blush, you accepted the FBI conclusions that Hillary was fully exonerated due to, “lack of evidence”,however, you draw no analogous conclusion relative to Trump regarding the Mueller’s report debunking of the collusion charge and which found nothing to prosecute relative to obstruction.

I did not vote for Trump and, believe me I dislike him very much but, I have greater distain and animus towards those of you in the media who with slight of hand broadcast a contrived and ever so predictably distorted narrative assuming the rest of us are uninformed cretins living under rocks. Your capacity to insult most of America is boundless.

You sir, with your bias innuendo and the duplicity of your ilk is precisely why I will support Trump during the next election.

Advertisements

https://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.7/html/safeframe.html

Report this ad

TO THE EDITOR:

Re “A Global Chorus of Responses, Without Harmony or a Conductor.”(news analysis, March 12)

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 3/12/20

Your penchant for editorializing (New Analysis) on the front page and your relentless drumbeat creating a narrative of incompetence on the administration’s handling of the coronavirus is obviously aimed specifically at President Trump and is nothing short of vile, reprehensible, seditious reporting. You do America a great disservice by undermining confidence in the president and the administration which merely speaks to the fact that your disdain for the president takes priority over advancing a balance of calm and reality during this crisis.

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 3/27/20

Re “ A Quiz For The Coronavirus” by Gail Collins (Op Ed, March 26)

Sadly, Gail Collins seems unable to resist being smarmy, smug, and puerile In her flailing rants against Trump even while we’re struggling to get a grip on a life or death situation. I suggest she self-quarantine for two weeks and allow the insipid vitriol to dry up in her pen.

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 4/7/20

Re “Trumps Narcissism Could Cost Us Our Lives,” by Jennifer Senior (op-Ed, April 6):

You would think that after nearly four years of unrelenting pejorative articles concerning President Trump on the op-Ed page of the “New York Times” that finally an imaginative writer would unshackle themselves from the silo mentality that pervades your newspaper during this crisis and offer a hopeful if not, at least, a neutral assessment of the president.

You have just squandered your opportunity to offer a dollop of hope to help us all through this crisis alas, instead you opted to waste your four columns in the April 6 edition portioning out the same cynicism we’ve grown used to reading …and ignoring on a daily basis.

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 4/14/20

Re “ Trump Uses Virus Briefing to Defend Record and Attack News Reports“(Tuesday April 2020):

The continued negative mischaracterization of Dr. Fauci’s comments relative to the presidents timing for intervention exposes your calculated intent to undermining the president’s credibility and of creating a rift between the president and his scientific advisors. Reporters always stand behind the purported “truths” they publish , however, truths advanced in a manner that suggest a false narrative is sophistry at its best and inherently a lie.

Another letter to the editor today likewise exposed your obsession with Trump negativism as displayed in the front-page Sunday Times article (April 12) by Maggie Habberman et al. who seem to delight in feeding their readers red meat concerning President Trump. Despite cautionary letter concerning redundancy, The Times apparently could not restrain itself from again advancing the same tainted narrative. Alas, be warned that after an unrelenting diet of raw flesh, sooner or later it all starts to smell like baloney.

The Editor: NY Times 4/19/20

Re “ A Household Divide: Which News Channel To Tune Into Each Day by Sarah Lyall, April 19,2020

It is astounding that after nearly 4 years of trying to understand those who find comfort and place their faith in Fox News that you keep missing the point. This article gives short shrift to the Fox viewers painting them as mindless seniors blindly following the drumbeat of right-wing conservative commentators. I suspect the Fox’s audience would claim the same to be true of MSNBC’s viewership in their own alternative universe.

It is my observation that Fox evolved in a vacuum left by the main stream media whose reporting failed to strike a chord with a large segment of the population. Fox tapped into that visceral sensitivity and presented an alternative to the perspectives heralded by main stream media outlets whose positions ran contrary to many people’s observations and sentiments.

For the past four years MSNBC, and their ilk have inundated the public with an endless stream of negativity concerning the president. Certainly, no one, including the president is beyond criticism but when news outlets bombard you with a relentless blizzard of skewed perspectives the message comes across as nothing more than noxious noise.

To The Editor: NY Times 7/8/20

Re “Take Down the Jefferson Memorial” by a Lucien K. Truscott IV (Op-Ed, July 7): In reading this opinion piece the author confirms the adage that when good ideas are coupled with over reaching bad ideas the good idea loses its veracity. As noble as it may be to create a place in history for Harriet Taubman it is irrational and short sighted to otherwise conclude that the Thomas Jefferson‘s monument be dismantled. If the sins of an historical figure person are disqualifying factors for recognizing the greatest contributions to humanity then this mindless idolatry would leave us with no heroes , no context for our own history, and no visuals to tweak the memory of those who built the bridges before us. The careless dismantling of our culture based on faulty rationalization and ephemeral passions creates the foundation for usurpation of any guiding framework and opens the floodgates of whimsical relativism.

To The Editor: NY Times 7/15/20

(Perspective: In her resignation letter, Bari Weiss, editorialist for the NY Times calls out the tunnel vision and pressure brought to bare by NY Times on columnist who deviate from the progressive ideology. )

Finally, an honest look in the mirror. Bari Weiss’s resignation letter said it all and long overdue.

TO THE EDITOR: NYnTimes 11/1/20

Re: “Foiled Once, Giuliani’s Team Peddles More Dirt” ( front page November 1):

Such irony and hubris that Ms. Habermann and the New York Times should chide Giuliani for peddling dirt one more time after themselves having shamelessly and unapologetically peddled dirt on a daily basis for four years about the debunked collusion.

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 11/16/20

Re “Savanna Guthrie Feels Lucky,” by Katherine Rodman (front page November 15, 2020.)

What Ms. Rodman purports to be the humiliation and humbling of President Trump by Savana Guthrie was viewed more as a rude and contemptuous attack by nearly half the voting population or at least the 73 million American citizens who voted for President Trump. Challenge his policies if you will but to humiliate, blindside and embarrass the President of the United States is to humiliate

and embarrass us all. The seemingly gleeful celebration of Ms. Guthrie’s petulant inquisition shows once again how mainstream media Is willing to dismiss half the population as being a dimwitted subspecies. That attitude alone almost got Trump reelected.

TO THE EDITOR:

Re “Savanna Guthrie Feels Lucky,” by Katherine Rodman (front page November 15, 2020.)

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 2/17/21

“Impartial Panel Will Investigate Capitol Attack, Pelosi Pledges,” by Emily Cochrane (Feb. 16)

Would it have been asking too much for the self-righteous Democrats and media to have shown the same outrage and compassion for the folks in Portland and Kenosha as they did for the misguided Capital incursion but then again I suspect their political calculus suggested they act otherwise. Hypocrisy is triumphant again!

To the Editor: NY Times 8/19/21

It is quite ironic that in the Trump era his name would be mentioned daily in the editorials and opinion columns in the New York Times, yet here we are today with our greatest international crisis in a generation and President Biden’s name is not even mentioned anywhere by your editors or your stable of opinion columnists. Did Biden die or did he flee the country like the president of Afghanistan?

Likewise, your “News Analysis“ and “Fact Check” columns seem to have disappeared as well. You sure are trying to get Trump reelected!

To the Editor: NY Times 8/20/21

It is ironic that in your August 20 News Analysis column, “Critical of President, Trump and Pompey Face Their Own Attacks” you have six columns critical of Trump and Pompeo and never once mentioned Biden’s name who in fact owns the debacle. Who are you people if not just a shill for the Democratic Party.

Advertisements
https://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.7/html/safeframe.html

Report this ad

To The Editor: NY Times 8/22/21

Re “Three People I would Interview About Afghanistan,” by Thomas Friedman ( Opinion essay, Aug 24):

One has to wonder what hallucinogens Mr. Friedman was taking when he conjured up his farcical interviews with President LBJ, Chinese President Xi Jimping and Mohammad Zahir Shah. LBJ may have wished he had given a speech to get out of Vietnam but he would’ve cringed at Biden’s disastrous and amateurish speech defending and convoluting the notion of an exit with the process of executing the evacuation. It is unlikely that there is a statesman anywhere in the world that found Biden’s speech in the least bit laudable, let alone intelligible

Further, it strains credulity to even presume that Chinese President Xi would be heartbroken over America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, a place where American air power could better keep Chinese expansionist ambitions in check.

As for Mohammad Zahir Shah, he was likewise dependent upon American and Soviet aid to keep his country afloat during his 40 year reign from 1933 until deposed in 1973. It was only the American entry into Afghanistan in 2001 which allowed him to return from 28 years in exile. He would more likely be the first begging for the stability America could give the country given the fanatical disposition of the Taliban who did not even exists when he had last ruled.

To the Editor: NY Times 8/23/21

I may be missing something here but it seems that you have abandoned the “Fact Check”, column but then again why wouldn’t you since everything that comes from the Biden Administration is gospel truth.

To The Editor: NY Times 8/26/21

It is ironic that the predictably acerbic Paul Krugman and snarky Gail Collins who demean all things Republican, have been so glaringly absent from the conversation on President Biden‘s management of Afghanistan.

To The Editor: NY Times 8/27/21

It was my understanding that your fact checkers would be deployed to scrutinize every utterance of President Biden as they had done with President Trump but it seems they have completely evaporated along with Maggie Haberman who festooned her career in negative reporting on Trump but now seems unable to capture a byline. Where are these “truth seekers” now?

To The Editor: NY Times 8/28/21

Re “Why Biden Hasn’t Faced a Second Coming of the Tea Party” (The Upshot, Friday August 27): Mr Philbrick’s “The Upshot” comparison between the Tea Party revolt of the Obama years, which occurred while Obama was in office, and the “Resistance“ revolt, which began prior to Trumps inauguration, fails to acknowledge the simple difference that the Tea Party was driven by policy disillusionment while the resistance was driven by abject hatred stoked by a media which relentlessly fanned the flames of hostility.

To the Editor: N Y Times 9/1/21

We are long overdue for a fact check on Biden’s dishonest and contrived narrative concerning The Afghanistan debacle.

To The Editor: NY Times 9/9/21

Messaging is not just about using a bull horn to broadcast your thoughts but its value is measured by whether the message has the desired effect on its audience. Does it inspire or does it repulse. The heavy-handed proselytizing seemingly intended to keep the race issue in the forefront of every conversation has been reduced to redundant bumper sticker catchphrases which have not only lost their verve but have, in fact, become off putting .

The ”We Are Open” promotion, though perhaps well intended, has missed its mark in two areas. First the public is

weary of having racial issues thrust in their faceat every turn and secondly the recurring image of the Black Lives Matter masks belies the organizations dubious virtues. If the intention of this campaign was to serve up an ace, sadly it was more likely a double fault.

Advertisements
https://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.7/html/safeframe.html

Report this ad

To The Editor: NY Times and WSJ 9/18/21

Is the Durham Report not considered compelling enough news to not have been included anywhere in today’s New York Times publication? Given that your reporter, Maggie Haberman, sullied your front page with Trump collusion innuendo and misinformation daily for two years, one would’ve thought that the Durham Report would have been germane to putting the whole Trump investigation in perspective.

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 10/29/21

Re “The Self Isolation of the American Left” (opinion page, October 29) To make his point David Brooks highlights the decision by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to disinvite geophysicist Dorian Abbot (who was to give a lecture about climate science) because of faculty complaints that Dr

Abbot had voiced the opinion that race and ethnicity should not be factors in college admission decisions. This is a position agreed-upon by 62% of black adults.

Many in the academic world were appalled at MIT‘s censorship decision including faculty members of Princeton University who subsequently extended an invitation to Dr. Abbot to present the same proposed lecture at Princeton.

This reminds me of another enlightened moment by a Princeton faculty member, Albert Einstein, who, as the story goes, for years had taught his students that the universe was static yet in time reversed himself and posited that the cosmos was in fact expanding. A confused student asked Einstein how he could give them one concept one day and reverse it the next. Einstein was presumed to have replied, “That’s because I learned something new today!“

Tragically for the MIT faculty there will be no epiphany as they sequester themselves in their silo reassuring each other of their self-righteousness and moral certitude. But alas, unlike Einstein, by silencing Dr Abbot, they have denied themselves an enlightenment opportunity and like other censors will therefore learn nothing new today.

To The Editor: NY Times 11/10/21 (Published)

Re “Why Wokeness Will Fail” (Opinion Bret Stephens, Nov 10):

Bret Stephens brings clarity and a rational perspective to this issue and it is long overdue. While loud, angry, and sanctimonious progressives on Twitter and in the media have commandeered the microphones there has been, until recently, a dearth of voices exposing the seditious underpinnings of those who basically require that others bow to “oath taking” to save themselves from being cancelled. Thank you, Brett Stevens, for exposing the cult- like nature of the woke ideologues and for opening the road for a return to sanity.

To The Editor: NY Times11/16/21

Re “The Steele Dossier Indicted the Media” by Bill Grueskin (opinion Nov.16) was years overdue but thanks to the Durham report the truth is beginning to trickle out.

Mr. Grueskin applauds the mea culpa by the Washington Post which felt compelled to deleted large sections of its false reporting during the Trump years. Although he singularly references MSNBC and Rachel Maddow’s penchant for giving oxygen to a false narrative she certainly was not alone. The media thoughtlessly and dangerously piled onto what has been viewed by many as a seditious coup attempt to drive Trump

from office. Left out of the article, however, was any reference of contrition or retraction from the New York Times and it’s Pulitzer-winning team spearheaded by the Maggie Haberman. Perhaps the Times should take their lead from Sinclair Lewis who in 1926 refused to accept the Pulitzer for his novel “Aerosmith“ explaining that amongst

other things, it prompted writers to “Tickle the prejudices of a haphazard committee”, thereby, betraying their integrity to satisfy the expectations of the Pulitzer board .

Photo journalist and 1969 Pulitzer winner Eddie Adams had similar misgivings about the Pulitzer. His photo of a Vietnamese general who justifiably executed a ruthless Viet Kong prisoner, gave the impression that the general was a callous savage when in fact the man he executed had just brutally killed the wife and children of his aid. That polarizing split second snapshot, however, of the general squeezing the trigger left an indelible imprint in the minds of all Americans suggesting that we as a nation were aligned with a ruthless regime. The general was subsequently vilified in the American press and after the war spent his life as a refuge in America as a pariah. Eddie Adams later lamented winning the Pulitzer stating that, “Two people had died in that photograph. The general killed the Vietcong; ”I killed the general with my camera.”

For the past four years the media has attempted to undermine an election and assassinate Trump. For this they got paid with a Pulitzer. It’s time for restitution.

To The Editor: NY Times 12/13/21

Re “Can the Press Stop a Trump Restoration” (opinion Dec 11):

Ross Douthat’s poignancy should not be underestimated when he suggests that there is a journalistic obligation to the truth that cannot be set aside for the sake of certain political results however desirable for democracy those results may seem. Journalism that conspicuously changes the truth or tries to hide self-evident realities for the sake of some higher cause will inevitably lose the trust of the people.

Advertisements

https://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.7/html/safeframe.html

Report this ad

Regardless of one’s support or opposition to President Trump it often appeared that the media’s manipulation of facts became more an expression of a reporters narrative than of the facts themselves. The media’s interpretation of truth frequently aligned itself with the negative perception that the glass was half empty while the view that the glass was half full was regarded as a lie. Interestingly we don’t hear the word “lie“ attached to President Biden when his pronouncements deviate from reality,

but we rather hear softer terms such as “overstated” or “aspirational.” Seemingly with Trump out of office, the days of cold hard fact checking have disappeared and Pinocchio has gone into retirement. Even the “News Analysis” section which excoriated Trump for four years now treats the crises that face the Biden administration as being more one of unfair perception than failing policy.

The absence of this nuanced reporting does not escapes the readership and elections have very much become a vote for or against either a trustworthy or dishonest media as much as it is for a candidate. If it is deemed that the media is dishonestly manipulating a voter, he or she may cast their vote against the media which they view as jaded and subversive and subsequently against their anointed candidate who becomes equally culpable by association. So, a dishonest media may not stop a Trump restoration but it may, in fact, unwittingly help restore him.

To The Editor : N Y Times 2/15/22

It is both shameful and tragic that Charlie Savage in his (Feb. 15, News Analysis) “Court Filing Starts a

Furor on the Right” is so tightly married to the Russian collusion

conundrum that anything that questions that narrative should be brusquely dismissed. Had The Times Analysis in the past been as questioning and incisive when analyzing the years and reams of misinformation and innuendo trumpeted by the likes of the The Times Pulitzer award winning team, not to mention Congressmen Schiff and Nadler’s endless prevarications, one might have been inclined to otherwise give this analysis an iota of credibility. Alas, the prevailing strategy at the Times suggests that when guilty of fostering false perspectives, summarily deflect and obfuscate any new information that may countermand the preferred narrative.

Perhaps Mr. Savage’s myopia would benefit from reading

the Wall Street Journal editorial February 15, “Trump Really Was Spied on.”

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 9/7/22

(Re “Two Performers, One Hero” Maureen Dowd (Sunday Review March 6):

Seemingly, Maureen Dowd dipped into her idea bag for Sunday’s column and found it empty so she dug out an old Trump meme which has been the knee jerk reflex for unimaginative journalists. I guess, when you have pitifully little to say, throw Trump into your column and pray it creates a

wake; but sadly, these repetitious Trump default fixations create nary a ripple and portend that Ms. Dowd’s best writing days are behind her.

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 3/14/22

Re: “The Price of ‘Cheap Speech,” by Richard Hasen (Opinion guest essay, Sunday Review, March 13): It is unfortunate that Mr. Hassan, as do many others, when listing a litany of offenses relative to misinformation and disinformation fails to include the complicit role of the media as it created narratives in place of factual news in an attempted to delegitimize the Trump election and presidency. Until the media acknowledges the reality of their own missteps, the message of the dire effects of “cheap speech” fails to resonate with half the population.

To The Editor: NY Times 5/22/22

It is ironic that the pages of the New York Times are heavily laden with articles about everything Trump (no matter how spacious) without there being one mention of the testimony by Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager this week revealing that she personally approved the publication of the false narratives concerning the Steele dossier.

The great divide in this country is due to the way the media manipulates the news and it is apparent that the New York Times is nothing more than a shill for the Democratic Party.

To The Editor: NY Times 5/27/22

For three-quarters of a century the United States has campaigned against international nuclear proliferation based on the fear that these weapons of mass destruction would bring the world asunder if they fell into the hands of and were used by rogue nations ruled by unstable or evil leaders. As it stands, already, the world is on edge with North Korea’s nuclear capability while the threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons is palpable… not to mention Russias threats in the Ukraine. Should we then not likewise conclude that assault rifles as domestic weapons of mass destruction be restricted because of the indiscriminate carnage they create in the hands of unstable or evil people?

To The Editor: NY Times 7/29/22

It was most refreshing to see the opinion page pundits collectively offer mea culpas in last Sunday’s (July 24) opinion page wherein they shared some regrettable positions they now consider to have been misguided. From the likes of David Brooks to Thomas Friedman to Bret Stephens and Paul Krugman as well as other opinion writers all displayed admirable, albeit rare, flashes of humility…that is to say, however, except for Gail Collins whose hubris skirted the opportunity at critical introspection and opted instead to offer the smug and shallow assessment that she may have errored in judging the degree of boredom that characterized Mitt Romney and his dog. Ms Collins should revisit the assignment and give humility a try.

To The Editor: NY Times 8/7/22

Re: “Chinese Show of Force Serve Both Propaganda and Military Roles” By Vivian Wang, Sunday Aug. 7. ( NY Times International).

Not since Helen of Troy has another woman’s face prompted the launching of 1000 ships yet Nancy Pelosi‘s ill-conceived journey and her hubris has done just that and we can only pray that the 10-year Trojan war is not replicated in Taiwan.

To The Editor: NY Times 9/20/22

Re “Democracy Challenged “by David Leonhardt” Front page September 19.

Although Mr. Leonhardt correctly identifies the riot of January 6 and the election denial that followed as dangerous and shameful occurrences that contribute to an undermining of democracy in America, he sadly, as has been the wont in the media, only told half of the story. The Russian collusion gambit that tried to deny Donald Trump the presidency followed by a protracted effort by a complicit media to delegitimize his term in office was the spark that initiated this threat to democracy. Scrutinizing only one of two similar back-to-back incidents of election denial is like analyzing the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima without acknowledging the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Fortunately, while on one hand recognizing the tragedy of the January 6 riot and its aftermath, for the historical record, let us not to pretend that the attempt to delegitimize Trump’s ascendancy to the presidency had never occurred but rather remember it as having been the preemptive salvo in this attack on democracy.

To the Editor: NY Times 10/10/22

Re: “The Expletive Anti-Blackness of Kanye West” by Charles Blow ( opinion Oct 10.)

For someone who did not want to write a book about racism Charles Blow appears to have become so obsessed with racism that his opinion column is as wearisome and predictable as a seminar with a botanist who specializes in mushrooms; every utterance is certain to be about fungi. Although Mr. Blow cannot restrain himself from issuing another race baiting diatribe in his Kanye West profile might not Mr. Blow’s final comment be turned back on himself as the ever-suffering black man spewing white supremacy rage, “releasing it under a new label: the tortured black genius.”

To The Editor: NY Times 10/11/22

Re: Habit of the Storyteller in Chief: Spinning Yarns That Unravel by Michael D. Shear and Linda Qui (News article Oct 11)

Whether it’s the avuncular Joe Biden burnishing his résumé by virtue stealing the lives of others portraying them as his own or the irascible Donald Trump fabricating stories concerning the stolen election, the diagnosis for both men is the same. Either

To The Editor: NY Times 11/4/22

Re “In The Political Talk Show Race, Outrage Is Winning” (opinion, Nov. 3) Tressie McMillan Cottom seems to have missed the point. Nobody has a corner on the market when it comes to outrage so it is not so much that outrage is winning in

Advertisements

https://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.7/html/safeframe.html

Report this ad

the right versus left ideological tug of war as much as it is that smug is losing. Sadly, the hubris of late-night talk show hosts suggests the notion that I am smarter and more virtuous than you and I have 100 sycophants in the audience to prove it. Over the past 20 years, rather than using evenhanded satire that allows us all to laugh at ourselves, they have opted to specifically ridicule and shame half the population while appearing to carry the water for their preferred left leaning political party. Their material has become predictable and wearisome although their shrinking audience still reacts in slavish adulation. One underlying reality remains, however, and perhaps this is the greatest cut of all …They just are not funny … and advertisers are taking note.

To The Editor: NY Times 12/5/22

Re “Justices Face A New Clash On Gay Rights” (front page Dec 5):

This seemingly implacable dilemma keeps re-servicing as though the outcome will be cataclysmic no matter what the decision. The tug of war between gay couples seeking equal treatment from businesses open to the public versus artists who choose not to violate their moral convictions may not be as irreconcilable as the media purports. Might not the controversy be avoided If artists post a disclaimer that they service a specific

portion of the public based on their moral convictions? Would it be any different if the owners of a gun shop decided they would only sell weapons to people who use them for target practice but felt morally opposed to selling guns for hunting/killing? Buyers of either guns or the product of someone’s imagination would be forewarned while at the same time the sellers will have agreed to pay the price of limited clientele to be spared violating their convictions.

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 1/6/23

Re: “ Making America the Opposite of Great“ by Paul Klugman (opinion Jan. 6):

While the inability of the fractious Republicans to select a Speaker of the House is indeed an embarrassment, it is interesting that Mr. Klugman considers the Republican House Member’s reticence to vote in Mr. McCarthy as being the ignoble act of “resentment.” He opines further that Democrats would not stoop to such a base reaction and rather express their displeasure more honorably as an act of “grievance.”

My question is, was Mr. Klugman on a spaceflight that I was unaware of between the years 2016 and 2020, wherein, he missed four years of investigations, two impeachments’ trials and an unending assault by the press on President Trump -much of which occurred before Trump was even sworn in. I would

have to assume that resentment played a very big role and ultimately shaped the Democrat’s strategy of implacable resistance.

In this and in many regards the parties are one and the same. That there should be rancor in the ranks was equally displayed this summer as the Democrat’s Congressional Progressive Caucus was forced by a severe backlash by other Democrats to retract a letter calling for President Biden to open direct negotiations with Putin. Let us not let our biases blind us.

To The Editor: NY Times 2/4/23 (Published)

Reference “Cheering News for Free Speech on Campus” by Pamela Paul ( opinion February 4) and Nicholas Kristof‘s “Inclusive or Alienating. The Language Wars Go On. “ (opinion February 1):

These two articles exposing the alienating nature of language manipulation by white liberal elitists who appear more engaged in performance art driven by a power lust than a desire to make our discourse more meaningful. The fact that some of our most highly regarded academic institutions have been forced to withdraw these vacuous treatises from their website portends well for a return to a sense of normalcy, but it is sad that these institutions had to be shamed into “corrective mode“. Perhaps

this is what prompted the quip that when it comes to common sense issues, we should have more faith in our blue-collar peers then the faculties of our elite institutions.

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 3/2/23

Re, “ DeSantis’s Apocalyptic Attack on Higher Education”, by Michelle Goldberg (Opinion, February 28):

I am not from Florida nor have I been paying close attention to every utterance by Governor DeSantis but I would like to thank Michelle Goldberg for unwittingly endorsing Governor DeSantis’s positions especially the placement of guard rails on education which protects our children from inappropriate and explicit material at an early age and the dismemberment of DEI programs. Further, from the article, Governor DeSantis is justifiably skeptical of the abstract reasoning that goes behind the formulation of school curricula which is being victimized by ideological fervor. Ms. Goldberg has unintentionally convinced me that Governor DeSantis is on the right track to dig us out of this morass beset with spacious “sensitivity” policies. Five years from now we will look back with clearer heads at the subject matters being proposed, whether it is CRT, DEI, or theories on transgender management and say to ourselves … “What the heck were we thinking!”

Advertisements

https://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.7/html/safeframe.html

Report this ad

To The Editor: NY Times 3/27/23

Re “De Santis Is a Bush-Chaney Republican,” by Jamel’s Bouie ( Column & Commentary March 26):

In his criticism of Governor DeSantis’s military service, Mr. Bouie gives a graphic description of forced tube feeding, which he claims Lt. DeSantis endorsed, describing the process, whereby, a tube is placed in the nose of Guantánamo detainees, followed by the administration of two cans of protein drink. This is inherently purported to be torture which, as described by Mr. Bouie, erroneously implies a direct correlation to waterboarding which actually is a form of torture.Tube feeding, however, is a lifesaving ethical medical procedure, providing nutritional support for babies who suffer from failure to thrive (cannot suck) newborns with cleft palates, patient in a coma and suicidal patients who are considered irrational and incompetent.

If a distressed and mentally disturbed detainee who wants to commit suicide by starvation is deemed incompetent and irrational, forced feeding could be ethically justifiable and considered an act of compassion. Forced tube feeding on a competent and rational patient who has rejected nutrition, on the other hand, could constitute a violation of the patient’s autonomy and may be considered torture.

If, however, erratic, patient behavior obfuscates a crystal-clear diagnosis, the caretaker has the means but fails to intercede on behalf of a despondent patient attempting suicide, legally, the caretaker could be considered complicit in the patient’s death and be subject to the legal consequences. DeSantis may have had this in mind, amongst other things, , when he endorsed the procedure that saved detainees from self-destruction.

To The Editor: NY Times 4/7/23

The subtitle for front page article April 7 by Katie Rodgers that claims the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan was Trump’s fault would be considered insanity if it were not so risable. I understand that news outlets try to appeal to their core readership, but a front-page statement like this further destroys your credibility and confirms that the New York Times is first and foremost a shill for the Democratic Party rather than being a reliable news source.

To The Editor: NY Times 5/10/27

Reference “Telling Early America’s Whole Story“ (Arts section Tuesday, May 9):
In her description of upgrading the history of Colonial

Williamsburg, Jennifer Schuessler discusses the aim to make Williamsburg better align with history. Having unfailingly visited Williamsburg every spring for the past 50 years, I have grown to regard it as a place of reverence and serenity which I do not violate by playing the radio, television, or speaking loudly. It is the place to escape from contemporary rancor and reflect on colonial life and yes, with all its warts and marginalized inhabitants. But nowadays, it seems as though no subject or history is spared some reference to LGBTQ. Is that an issue that drove colonial history or is it a footnote within it? Are we to expect that the history of the Mayflower crossing, the history of baseball or the history of the building of the Hoover dam would be incomplete if it had not included an LGBTQ perspective. We seem to be losing our sense of relevance while incorporating pet subjects into every venue. In that vein, I would think that the plight of gypsies in Colonial Williamsburg would make for no less of a compelling story.

To The Editor: NY Times 4/13/23

Re” Cleopatra Was Black, but Not How You Think “ by Gwen Nally and Mary Hamil Gilbert (Opinion, May 11):

The conclusion, drawn by the two professors that one can identify as a particular race based on their cultural history and subjugation to oppression glaringly shows how the more educated our faculties become, the more contrived and obtuse

their thinking. In this age of relativism black could be white, white could be black, boys could be girls and girls could be boys and we have now introduced some doubt as to what constitutes being a man or a woman. That the authors suggest that these traditional markers are mere abstractions and not what you think they are is the ultimate in sophistry. The presumption that you could consider yourself black because you have been abused or further, if you are black, you invariable have been abused, begs the question that if you are white, are you, by their criterion, an oppressor or if you are an oppressor might you easily be identified as white. This troupe is both dangerous and flawed. Further, if we can identify race by our cultural associations then half of black Hollywood can consider itself white while inner-city workers and volunteers could just as easily identify as black. If cultural association is all it takes to establish one’s own identity, then Mowgli most assuredly is a wolf.

To The Editor: NY Times 5/1723

Re “After Years of Political Hype, the Durham Inquiry Failed to Deliver” by Charlie Savage (news analysis, May 17):

Theoretical physicist, Albert Einstein, underwent a conversion when he went from believing in a static universe to an ever-expanding universe. The apocryphal story is told that one of Einstein’s students was alarmed when Einstein offered his changed opinion to which Einstein explained, “I learned something new today“.

Obviously, this is not the case for Times reporter, Charlie Savage, who having invested himself so deeply into the Russian collusion, cannot abide by any challenge to that miss placed conclusion. Intellectually and morally it would serve him well to read “Why the Durham Report Matters“, (Editorial opinion, Wall Street Journal, May 17):

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 6/17/23

A letter to the editor published on Saturday, June 17 headlined “Sex and the GOP“ begins with the phrase, “Today’s Republican party is obsessed with sex.” This is a perfect example of Rorschach deductive thinking. You see what you want to see. Republicans, (or conservatives) have merely taken on a reactive role relative to sexualization as a response to the proactive role Democrats have played. It was a Democrat who proclaimed gay pride month so now for 30 days a year one’s sexual proclivity is celebrated with flag-waving and parades. It occurs at ball parks, government, buildings, TV commercials, live theater venues, retail stores, etc. such that there is no escaping sexual displays. It was not the Republicans that introduced inappropriate sexual literature in the schools. It was not the Republicans who championed hormonal drugs or disfiguring surgery on young children with the psychiatric disorder, gender dysphoria. It was not the Republicans who found difficulty in describing a woman, or making a distinction between a boy and

a girl. It was not the Republicans who insisted that transgender males share a locker room with young girls. It was not the Republicans who insisted that transgender men participate in women’s sports, which ultimately denied many women an opportunity to be successful. It was not the Republicans who under the guise of diversity and inclusion created a litmus test by gender and sexual orientation when making political appointments. If anything, the Republicans have been trying to introduce some rational thinking to slow down this runaway train. And for this, they suffer the opprobrium of being called haters, bigots, and homophobes. Give me a break!

To The Editor: NY Times10/7/23

Missing in action. Where is the ubiquitous news analysis or political memo column relative to the change of policy on the border wall or is it only used as a cudgel against Republicans policy.

To The Editor: NY Times 10/15/23

Re: “Democrats Need to Replace Judges Much Faster, ” by Erwin Chemerinsky (column, Oct.13):

If anyone is still wondering what is wrong with America, this

opinion piece by the dean of the law school of the University of California, Berkeley, could not have put the issue into sharper focus. Not only is it unseemly that the dean of a law school should expose himself as a political operative for the Democratic party, Mr. Chemerinski further implies that if you do not align with his conjectural ideology, you are not suitable for the court. This strident philosophy invariably carries over to the indoctrination of students who must subscribe to the manifesto of “correct thought” to graduate from the University of California, Berkeley Law School. Nowhere in his appeal does the dean seek a judge who displays wisdom, compassion, or prudence, but rather that they espouse the Democrat progressive playbook. This further lays bare the grip progressives have on academia and their intentions to perpetuate their power by infusing their ideology into their curriculum. Is it any wonder then, that a visiting conservative judge was recently harangued and heckled by progressive law students (with the dean’s approval, ) at Stanford University.

At these same DEI laden institutions, faculty applicants must undergo a lengthy review of their history of micro aggressions or tainted cogitations and likewise pledge allegiance to the abstract meanderings of the progressive morality police. Invariably there are political realities associated with the selection of judges and, indeed, politicians should debate those

issues but for such a prejudicial admonition to come from the dean of a law school is both frightening and appalling.

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 12/12/23

Re “ Censorship Can’t Help University Presidents“ by David French (opinion Dec. 31):

Mr. French. Insightfully points out how campus administrators “constructed a comprehensive web of policies and practices intended to suppress so-called hate speech and support students who find themselves …distressed by speech they find offensive resulting in network of speech codes, bias, response, teams, safe spaces and glossaries of micro aggressions.” All of this translates into a power lust by those who wish to control every aspect of our lives propagated by a toxic stew of sanctimony and arrogance. As a graduate of both Penn and Columbia University it is sad to acknowledge that our esteemed Universities (as well as corporations) have been so seduced by this miasma of abstract reasoning that it would suggest that, rather than artificial intelligence…intelligence of a superficial nature has emerged.

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times12/29/23

I purposely refrained from commenting on Paul Krugman’s incredulous column, “The Biggest Threat to America’s Universities” (December. 15) wherein he deigned to proffer an opinion from out of left field suggesting that universities are at risk because of the wide-spread ideologies and controlling influence of the political right. It is interesting, however, that the one letter to the editor validating Krugman’s opinion came from an equally obtuse former teacher at UCLA and Berkeley. That’s like having Herman Goring favorable critique an essay by Joseph Goebbels.

Advertisements

https://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.7/html/safeframe.html

Report this ad

TO THE EDITOR: 12/31/23

It is interesting that one of the most lucid opinion pieces recapturing the culture wars of 2023 should have come from the (Children’s Book section, Dec. 29,2023

“Year -End Reflection: Judgement Calls” by Meghan Cox Gurdon.

She points out that for all the sanctimonious outrage over the banning of books the reality is, there are no books banned in the United States. Referencing books as being “banned“ as opposed to being “curated for appropriateness“ is a “ coordinated falsehood spread by progressive authors who style themselves as

standing on the side of truth.” This is propaganda at its most insidious since children will not know they are being manipulated by abstract, progressive ideologies. Pseudo-enlightened adults given to virtual signaling, misappropriate, “banning” when in fact, we are talking about ”restrictions“ as to where and when our most vulnerable are exposed. Notably, cigarettes, alcohol, and porn, although not banned as illegal, are subject to age-appropriate restrictions as well.

Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2024

To The Editor:

As previously reported in the Wall Street Journal a Nikkei study purports that , “China is the undisputed champion in artificial intelligence research papers … far surpassing the US.” . Is it any wonder that this should be the state of affairs given that China prioritizes academic excellence and competence while the NIH, as noted in the WSJ opinion March 28, “ Why I’m Saying No to NIH’s Racial Preferences,” prioritizes racial diversity to determine funding distribution. Tragically, many universities are using the same retrograde strategy when reviewing applicants for faculty research positions. If this continues, we won’t only be behind China but behind the likes of Uruguay and Burkina Faso as well.

TO THE EDITOR: Wall Street Journal November 12, 2024

Re “ Why I Voted Against the Democrats “by Anne Bauer (Opinion Friday, Nov. 8):

It is most revealing to read the lamentations of pundits after an election as they, predictively, ask the rhetorical question, “How did we misread this?“

Ann Bauer eloquently exposes the glaring flaws in the Democratic platform that should’ve been obvious to everyone. The response I hear from most left-leaning analysts is that they failed to do enough preaching. They claim they didn’t preach loud and hard enough about abortion, about Trump‘s character, his policy failures and the potential loss of democracy. Their real flaw in the campaign, however, was not that they didn’t preach enough…but that they failed to listen. Astonishingly, they paid little or no attention to the migrant crisis and treated it as if it were the elephant in the room. They abetted the imposition of progressive philosophies of self ordained university gate keepers who fed us their sanctimonious positions on speech, pronouns , gender orientation, race, and LGBTQ ideology all baked into the hoax of DEI. They failingly never sensed that their opposition felt they were surrounded by an amorphous secretive“ morality police“ as characterized in Iran, where apostates are ear- marked for scorn because they challenged the woke and progressive ideology.

When corporate entities like the NCAA boycotted North Carolina over their gender specific bathroom rule, and major league baseball withdrew the All-Star game from Atlanta over their voting laws, the American people were beginning to feel the squeeze of this outlier ideology. It was not until Governor DeSantis in Florida said “Enough” when the Disney corporation challenged Florida’s laws relative to age-appropriate literature in grammar schools. With this pushback corporations began to rethink their role in abetting the proliferation of the woke ideology in public affairs.

Needless to say, the media were duplicitous in all of this as it shaped its narratives to suit their ideology. Lest they forget, as Pope Francis has said, narratives which intensionally cause people to draw false conclusion…are lies.

To The Editor:

Re: “George Clooney Wakes Up to the Biden Grift” opinion by Holdman Jenkins, (July 12).

Hollywood celebrities may choose to pretentiously refer to themselves as “ A-Listers” “in their own world, but in reality they are pretenders. They put on make-up, adopt a wardrobe, and read from scripts to try to convince a fawning audience that they are bigger, better or at least other than themselves. Biden is a hand-maiden in Clooney’s fantasy world where, after he was rejected in the first series of Democratic primaries was eventually sequestered in the basement as the presidential nominee and began the charade reading scripts as do all pretenders. Like his Hollywood sycophants , he has acted out the chimera in his own mind although it is obvious that Winston Churchill and Atticus Finch he is not. History will surely be forced to ask, “Joe, who really are ye”?

Nov. 17, 2024

To The Editor:

Re: Why We Got It So Wrong (opinion, David Brooks) November 15:

The answer to David Brooks lamentation lies in his opinion piece written after the 2016 election which likewise shocked the elite and media class. The answer is still “ arrogance” which clings to the notion that pundits, major news outlets, university professors, and Hollywood celebrities can manipulate conclusions drawn by most Americans.This election shows that they could not have been more misinformed. The American people are neither fools nor little children that would have blindly swallowed the canard proffered by the elite class.

Condescension offends all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike as we sit and wonder who these amorphous gatekeepers are who purport to be the morality police dictating politically correct language, advocating for obtuse gender ideology, challenging appropriate reading material for our children and reduce all discussions down to race and gender (wherein the white majority of society are oppressors and the rest are victims). The now discredited woke notion of DEI became the sanctimonious battle cry of the intolerant progressive. I credit Governor DeSantis of Florida, who stonewalled DEI and neutered the drum -beat of corporations dictating their version of cultural ideology. Given that the NCAA boycotted tournaments in North Carolina because they did not approve of their bathroom policy and major-league baseball yanked the All-Star game from Atlanta over their interpretation of Georgia’s voting laws, followed by Disney challenging Florida’s laws relative to appropriate classroom material for young children, I think everyone at that point was beginning to feel the heavy handed intrusion of corporations on cultural issues and Governor DeSantis appropriately said… “enough.”

University protesters then displayed the same type of intolerance that gave the pro-
Palestinian protesters the green-light to attack Jewish Americans, who, we must remind ourselves, are in fact not Israelis but American kids. We began devouring our own. Shamefully, both of my alma mater‘s, Penn and Columbia acted most egregiously in the course of these events.

Aside from the cultural issues the country was unnerved by the Democrats anti-democratic threat to pack the Supreme Court, offer statehood to the Democratic stronghold of Washington DC, eliminate the filibuster, and allow non-citizens to vote and to use taxpayers money (as though it were part of Biden‘s campaign war chest) dolling out billions of dollars in loan forgiveness to students for votes. They totally ignored illegal migration, which was the elephant in the room and built their whole campaign on the sanctity of abortion. To answer Mr. Brook’s question, this is how you got it so wrong…again!

December 26, 2024

To The Editor:

There’s an old saying that the only person who suffers when you hate someone is yourself. Bret Steven’s “Done With Never Trump”(column, Dec 18): speaks to that human disposition and is obviously suggesting we move beyond that mindset and make the virtuous attempt to remain positive and hopeful.

The three published responses (Letters, Dec. 26): from your readers suggest that none of them were prepared for reconciliation or notions of positivity. One writer admits to having an inclination to do so under normal times, but I presume normal times means when an incumbent president is subject to a coup designed to deny him access to his elected office by means of a Russian hoax. Another rails against Trump’s anti-democratic policy and sites his resumption of a guarded immigration policy without acknowledging that Biden‘s AWOL immigration policy had turned America upside down financially and culturally with the addition of millions of undocumented immigrants.

The third writer laments Trump not being a role model for his son, but after having been disappointed by politicians, athletes, movie stars, etc. the writer would be better served if he acted as a role model himself for his son and not count on public figures.

The Memoir Destined to Change How You View Your Role in History.

This blockbuster-ready memoir pulls you from the comfort of mid-century Americana straight onto the front lines of global history.

Follow a relentless dental student who drops everything for JFK’s funeral vigil, launching a forty-year odyssey across fifteen countries, healing hidden pain, confronting cartels, and proving that real power belongs to those who step forward.

Letters to the Editor

Inspired by the Achievements of our Potential Best Seller

Letters to the Editor

I Opine by Albert Repicci Letters To The Wall Street Journal

TO THE EDITOR WSJ

TO THE EDITOR

To The Editor: WSJ 7/20/21 (Published)

To The Editor: WSJ 9/9/21

﻿TO THE EDITOR WSJ 10/30/21

To The Editor: WSJ 11/25/21

To The Editor: WSJ 1/1/22

TO THE EDITOR: WSJ 3/21/22

To The Editor: WSJ 4/11/22

To The Editor: WSJ 10/13/22

To The Editor: WSJ 3/29/23

To The Editor: WSJ 9/25/23

To The Editor: ESJ 11/2/23

To The Editor WSJ 12/19/23

To The Editor: 1/14/11 NY Times

To the Editor: Stamford Advocate 10/8/17

To The Editor : Greenwich times 9/9/13

To the Editor: NYTimes 12/5/13

To The Editor ; NY Times 1/8/16

TO THE EDITOR: NYTimes 1/12/16

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 4/16/16

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 1/2/17 (Published)

TO THE EDITOR: NYn Time 1/12/17

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 1/30/17

TO THE EDITOR:

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 4/5/17

TO THE EDITOR:NY Times 7/15/17

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 10/2/17

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 12/23/17

TO THE EDITOR: NY Timew 1/6/18

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 1/21/18

TO THE EDITOR NY Times 02/02/18 PUBLISHED

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 2/9/18

TO THE EDITOR: NY times 2/2/18

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 2/24/18

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 3/2/18

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 6/27/18

TO THE EDITOR: NYUM Times 10/31/18

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 2/15/19

TO THE EDITOR NY Times 3/23/19

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 3/29/19

TO THE EDITOR: 12/17/19

TO THE EDITOR:

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 3/27/20

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 4/7/20

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 4/14/20

The Editor: NY Times 4/19/20

To The Editor: NY Times 7/8/20

To The Editor: NY Times 7/15/20

TO THE EDITOR: NYnTimes 11/1/20

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 11/16/20

TO THE EDITOR:

﻿TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 2/17/21

To the Editor: NY Times 8/19/21

To the Editor: NY Times 8/20/21

To The Editor: NY Times 8/22/21

To the Editor: NY Times 8/23/21

To The Editor: NY Times 8/26/21

To The Editor: NY Times 8/27/21

To The Editor: NY Times 8/28/21

To the Editor: N Y Times 9/1/21

To The Editor: NY Times 9/9/21

To The Editor: NY Times and WSJ 9/18/21

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 10/29/21

To The Editor: NY Times 11/10/21 (Published)

To The Editor: NY Times11/16/21

To The Editor: NY Times 12/13/21

To The Editor : N Y Times 2/15/22

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 9/7/22

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 3/14/22

To The Editor: NY Times 5/22/22

To The Editor: NY Times 5/27/22

To The Editor: NY Times 7/29/22

To The Editor: NY Times 8/7/22

To The Editor: NY Times 9/20/22

To the Editor: NY Times 10/10/22

I Opine
by Albert Repicci
Letters To The Wall Street Journal

TO THE EDITOR WSJ 10/30/21

TO THE EDITOR: NY Times 2/17/21

To The Editor: NY Times 2/4/23 (Published)

To The Editor: NY Times 5/10/27