Answering the concerns of an unhappy reader.

One of the many things that has always appealed to me in regards to being a columnist is the great respect this profession has among the general public. When trying to consider whether or not I ought to take it up as an avocation, it was the thought of my name being spoken of in reverence and awe that tipped the scales, so to speak, and got me into the habit of producing a weekly product for the edification of all who regularly consume the content of my epistles.

Okay, it hasn’t quite worked out in the manner I once foresaw. When I journey forth on errands of everyday life, if I am recognized, the recognition comes about much the same way that it did for George Costanza. Costanza, the friend and confidant of comedian Jerry Seinfeld on the TV show of the same name, found himself with the opportunity of helping to create a proposed fictional NBC show in which Seinfeld was to be featured. Being what he saw as a contributor to a television show gave Costanza the idea that he could use that fact to win friends and influence people. So, while waiting for his order at a bar one night, George struck up a conversation with a young lady, and informed her that he wrote for a “sitcom” on NBC. Then he stood back, and waited for the adulation.

Unfortunately for him, the adulation never materialized. Instead of someone who had admiration for sitcom writers, George found himself face-to-face with someone who loathed the content of that medium, and told him so in no uncertain terms. George, having learned his lesson, tucked his tail between his legs, and slowly left the stage, thoroughly humiliated.

So it has been with me. I once anticipated fan letters, signed by those who understood and completely agreed with my assessments of the world in general. Instead, I find that those who are in the mood to comment on what I have had to write, find it easier to use, not the Letters to the Editor section of the Appalachian, but the Speak Out section, that their witticisms might be published anonymously, thus allowing them perhaps, to be more pointed in their objections.

This is the case with a writer who had some opinions published in the November 16, weekend edition of the paper, whose musings were penned under the title “Unhappy with Mike Phillips”. At first, I mistook this for a club that I have always fancied existed, but whose existence I could never quite prove. Turns out it is someone who wants me to answer a few questions they have about how I formulate my opinions, and to this person, let me say, I am happy to oblige.

Firstly, this writer shows concern about my health. They are concerned that I am not getting enough rest, as they say that I “must stay up late every night trying to come up with ways to degrade Republicans. “ Let me put their mind to rest here. When the GOP, which had unquestioned power from 2000-2006, and during that time gave us, among other things, the Iraqi war, which in turn helped produce an economy that… . Well, we all know about the economy, don’t we? So, no, to answer that one, it isn’t necessary to lose sleep when trying to find ways to degrade certain Republicans. Most of the Republican politicians I regularly dis make a task such as this quite easy.

Next, the writer asks if I couldn’t save time by simply admitting that “I hate…”, and then came up with a list of prominent Republicans. First, I have never panned Member of Congress Hal Rogers, and second, I failed to notice Senator Jim Bunning's name. Perhaps this was an oversight on the part of the contributor, but Jim Bunning has worked long and hard on a number of the misguided efforts of the Republican Party, and has earned a right to be cited, too. I think this person owes the good Senator an apology for having failed to include him in this august company.

Next, this critic opines that I could, if I wanted, “say positive things about Democrats with out (SIC) saying negative things about Republicans.” Well, sure, I could do that, but that’d be like having a cake with no icing, or a birthday party with no presents, or a date with a pretty girl with no good-night kiss to see you home. When it costs no greater effort, why not have some jelly with your peanut butter? After all, life is short, so enjoy it.

Okay, I’ll admit it. I’m being facetious. So, sue me. It’s fun. But if you want, I'll be serious when I address the following statement: “Maybe he has some innovative ideas about how to solve the problems Democrats and Republicans both face without whining about it being the fault of all past, present, and future Republicans.” I would like to point out that I have had some innovative ideas, and some of them might have “saved everyone time”, both Democrats and Republicans. One of these ideas, penned in a letter to the Editor in early 2003, was that we needed to think long and hard before we attacked Iraq, the main idea behind this “innovative idea” was that war is, in general, a dirty business, and that, where it is not absolutely necessary, it ought to be avoided.

It was the Bush administration that insisted on this war, and it was the GOP that saw to it that the war would go forth when there was absolutely no good reason for doing so, and further saw to it that the war’s critics would be marginalized. These critics have included, by the way, former Georgia Senator Max Cleland, a Vietnam War veteran whose service to the country left him a triple amputee. Yet before the war started, in the 2002 election, Cleland’s GOP opponent, Saxby Chambliss, had no compunction even then in comparing this hero to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in order to win his election.

Considering that these type of GOP tactics were never isolated incidents, I don’t think I’ll be apologizing to the GOP anytime soon. They have had no problem bad-mouthing the other party, especially when it came to getting policies enacted that should preclude a lot of them from ever serving in any elected capacity again.

And when you look at the gains the Democrats made in Congress in 2008, I’d say a majority of Americans agreed.