This page was last updated on April 18, 2017.
Recent letters tend to overlook the facts; Thomas M. Finch; Beaver County Times; February 22, 2017.
The BCT has published at least 47 letters from Mr. Finch (TMF) since December 2004. At least 31 of these letters were anti-Bush and/or anti-Republican and they never disappoint. Here is one example. You can find the remaining Finch letters I critiqued in the critique archives. As usual, this letter is little more than a string of leftist talking points. I wish he could get a regular column in the BCT. I also wish he could get at least five minutes per day on a local radio and/or TV station. The most recent letter I reviewed was “Does Trump want a crisis to boost his ratings?”
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“‘Right-wing Trumpers’ will take exception to my comments, but we ‘lefties’ get our say as well. Regarding recent letters:”
[RWC] “we ‘lefties’ get our say as well.” What’s TMF complaining about? Does TMF want his readers to believe lefties haven’t been getting their say? In addition to the other lefty letters, this is at least the sixth TMF letter published by the BCT since the election, and the third in February alone..
“I suggest letter writer Renee Antkiewiicz re-evaluate what it means to be a Democrat then versus now. In the 1800s, Republicans were the party of Lincoln, with overwhelming support of blacks -- if any actually made it to the polls to vote. Democrats of that time were openly racist segregationists, but that changed during FDR’s Democratic administrations, largely due to his wife Eleanor’s work for civil rights. (By the way, Woodrow Wilson wasn’t president in 1902; he served from 1913-1921). Democrats are still the champions of the working class, which deserted the party this past election because too many believed the unending GOP lies.”
[RWC] TMF wrote, “Democrats of that time were openly racist segregationists, but that changed during FDR’s Democratic administrations.” Not exactly. While it’s good TMF recognizes “Democrats of that time were openly racist segregationists,” the remainder of that sentence is more like wishful thinking.
Segregation of our military continued through the FDR regime and didn’t end until 1948 when President Truman ended the practice.
Wasn’t FDR the guy who – with the acquiescence of Congress and the Supreme Court – used an executive order to send German, Italian, Japanese, and other Americans to World War II internment camps simply because of their ancestry?
LBJ was responsible for watering down President Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Act. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress during this time. Then-Senator Johnson was worried the bill would prove divisive for the Democrat party. As we learned in 1964, his concerns were well founded.
In 1957, Democrat Governor Orval Faubus used the Arkansas National Guard to block black students from attending a Little Rock high school. Republican President Eisenhower sent the U.S. Army to enforce the kids’ civil rights.
Democrats, who had significant majorities in both houses of Congress, filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Republicans delivered the votes for cloture. In the Senate, only 69% of Democrats voted for the act while 82% of Republicans supported it. Of the “nay” votes, 78% were by Democrats. In the House, only 61% of Democrats voted for the act while 80% of Republicans supported it. Of the nay votes, 74% were by Democrats.
In this letter’s discussion thread on the BCT server, an anonymous commenter wrote, “Wow, another essay from Robin and yet she still found no opportunity to mention the good ol’ Dixie-crats who had enough of the Democrats sidling up to those coloreds and went right off into the welcoming arms of the GOP.” This gal/guy knew I addressed this topic in another discussion. Here’s what I wrote:
“Mr./Mrs. Zippy, as you know, I covered this topic a week ago for the letter “Democrats contributed to slavery, segregation” and you commented as well. Below is an excerpt from my comments:
“Lefties want us to believe Democrats who switched parties were racists and the ‘good’ Democrats stayed Democrats. Since Republicans were historically and are currently stronger on civil rights than Democrats, why on Earth would segregationist Democrats think the Republican Party would take up their racist policies? After all, as mentioned above, Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act more than Democrats. If racist Democrats became Republicans in hopes of furthering racist policies, the strategy was a horrible failure for them. What policy opposed by Republicans but supported by Democrats truly helped minorities? (Note: Yeah, I know, everything Republicans do is racist, but I had to ask. <g>)
“It’s true Strom Thurmond became a Republican. It’s also true Robert Byrd (D-WV) and J. William Fulbright (D-AR) remained Democrats. Mr. Byrd - a former KKK member - filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act and was the only senator to vote against the nominations of both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Mr. Fulbright was a segregationist and filibustered and voted against the 1957 & 1964 Civil Rights Acts, voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and so on. Despite that behavior, our tax dollars support a scholarship named in honor of Mr. Fulbright.”
“Democrats are still the champions of the working class?” If this was ever true, it stopped a long time ago. During a speech Leo Gerard gave from the back of a truck, the truck sported a banner saying “Solidarity Has no Borders – Comprehensive Immigration Reform Now.”
[Note: While commenting on another letter on the BCT website, I mentioned the “no Borders” banner. An SEIU operative responded, “As to borders- taken out of context. Unions have no borders, we universally support workers on either side of a border. As to comprehensive immigration reform, that would pass in Congress but it has never gotten to a full vote.” “Out of context” or not, someone apparently thought the photos were inconvenient and they disappeared within 14 hours.]
If you’re a thinking person, you may wonder why labor union management would support “no Borders,” amnesty for illegal aliens, et cetera. As recently as at least the 1970s, labor union management fought against illegal aliens and lax immigration law. The reason was simple. If your primary concern is for working Americans and unemployed Americans (includes all legal residents) who want a job, you don’t want an uncontrolled flood of undereducated and unskilled immigrants who can’t speak English to enter the U.S. job market. It’s commonsense and simple high-school economics.
What happened?
The primary business of labor unions devolved into political advocacy/lobbying for leftist politicians and policies/programs. At the same time, labor unions became less relevant as private-sector membership over the years plummeted to 6.4% for 2016. I couldn’t find private-sector membership prior to 1983 (16.8%). Representing employees is now simply a fund-raising chore labor union management must endure to provide funds for its lobbying and political activities. Heck, AFL-CIO CEO Richard Trumka conceded as much when he said, “I got into the labor movement not because I wanted to negotiate wages. I got into the labor movement because I saw it as a vehicle to do massive social change to improve the lots of people.”
I love it when someone with TMF’s letter-writing body-of-work complains about the alleged lies of someone else.
“Letter writer Paul Strano’s ‘Faux News’ rhetoric about travel bans, complete with jabs at the ‘petulant liberal crowd’ and his basketball analogy, doesn’t hold up. There was no true defeat because the majority of this country’s citizens didn’t vote for Trump. No matter how much Trump says it ‘isn’t so,’ it’s just another lie, so accept it.”
[RWC] Mr. Strano’s (PS) letter didn’t say anything about Fox News.
An excerpt from the Strano letter reads, “The faux outrage over this not-so-out-of-the-ordinary temporary travel ban is nothing more than sour grapes coming from the petulant liberal crowd who still can't believe that Trump beat their full court press, and slam-dunked over their best player to win the game.” Isn’t that what happened? Wasn’t Hillary Clinton their “best player” and didn’t Donald Trump defeat her?
“That brings me to letter writer Mike Neely’s attempt at a logical argument by saying ...’a democracy that honors individual rights ... is impossible and self-destructive...’ He labels ‘the right’ as ‘individualism and libertarianism’ maintained by ‘responsible, moral people, who observe the Golden Rule.’ Sorry, but no GOP conservatives observe the Golden Rule ... they only care about serving their corporate masters. Treason? Let’s consider illegal deals with China and Russia instead.”
[RWC] The Finch and Neely letters are bad enough separately, but together they are a train wreck.
© 2004-2017 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.