Why do I keep reading and getting so worked up by all this election garbage? Well, because I really do agree with Edmund Burke:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."So I'm going to keep plugging away. I think I can make it for another 77 days. Here's a small attempt. In yesterday's Atlanta Journal-Constitution was a letter to the editor:
"Clintons' donations self-serving""I see in the Clinton's 2015 tax return that they gave a $1 million charitable contribution. On the surface, that sounds generous and benevelant. However, when one looks deeper at their contributions, 96 percent went to their own Clinton Foundation in which it is reported that only 10 percent of the Foundation's spending is for real charitable work. The other 90 percent pays for the Clintons' and their entourage luxury travel, hotels and meals while they are supposedly out gallivanting around fund-raising, back-slapping, campaigning, etc. What phony generosity -- at the tax payers expense. -- P.D. Gossage, Johns Creek
==========Here's the letter that I wrote to the editor in response. My rate of getting letters published in the AJC is about one in five; but I thought it's worth a shot. We'll see.
"To the Editor:
"A writer incorrectly states that "only 10 percent of the [Clinton] Foundation's spending is for real charity work" and that the rest goes for their luxury travel, fund-raising, campaigning, etc. ("Clintons' donations self-serving," Aug. 23).
"This false claim was made during the Republican primary campaign and has been thoroughly debunked by FactCheck.org and by CharityWatch, an independent philanthropy watchdog group, which puts the charitable-use figure at 89 percent, not 10.
"This misunderstanding began from the fact that, unlike many charitable foundations that pass on donated funds as grants to other charities, the Clinton Foundation uses most of its donations for hands-on projects with its own staff working in partnership with like-minded groups throughout the world. The smaller number represented pass-on grants; the 89 percent is the total portion of contributions to the Foundation that actually are used to carry out charitable projects to improve global health, economic opportunity, the effects of climate change, and equal opportunity for women and girls worldwide.
"It's unfortunate that, in the heat of political battles, the sensational gotcha point is preferred to the truth supplied by fact checkers, even when conservative news organizations like NewsMax have reported this correction."
-- Ralph Roughton
I am dismayed that the AJC allows such thoroughly debunked, distorted political talking points to be published without an editor's note to correct the facts. The facts are easily available online. I understand that letters to editors are expressions of opinion . . . and free speech. But wouldn't an editor's note stating the facts have still preserved the letter writer's rights? I don't think they have to rebut opinions. But when damaging misstatements are published as if they are fact, doesn't a serious newspaper have some obligation to the truth? If not, then why don't we just all sink to the bottom and get our news from tabloid papers at the grocery store checkout? That's about the level of some of the garbage coming out of the anti-Clinton crowd.
But take heart, folks. Latest polls show Clinton winning all the battleground states -- and even tied with Trump in Georgia and Missouri !!! But it's going to get really ugly before its over. Trump's only hope it to discredit her, and his trash-talkers have no limits and no shame.