If an alien came to earth and read Mr. Parker’s latest diatribe, I doubt he would look to Mr. Parker for advice on how to be happy. He is an angry man, and one hopes all of his invective spewing in these pages has some kind of therapeutic effect.

One also wonders why Mr. Parker, and almost all liberals, seem to hate being called “liberal.” Mr. Parker claims it is a debate stopper, akin to calling someone an anti-semite or racist.

But I hardly think the word has such power. Instead, I think liberal reaction to the word stems from a basic dissatisfaction with the underlying philosophy. I mean, I am a right-wing conservative nut, by some measures, but I don’t mind be called such. I am perfectly willing to be called what I am. Indeed, I embrace it.

But liberals hate being called what they are. Is it because of a fundamental dislike of being categorized? Is it a naive and silly belief that we’re all just too darn original and individualistic to be labeled so crudely (unless you’re conservative)? Whatever the case, please get over it and let’s focus on the issues.

Speaking of issues, Mr. Parker, as usual, has many. Mainly, he’s angry at Bush for establishing a dictatorship, reintroducing the Inquisition, shutting down dissent, and launching a war without debate or opposition.

Hyberbole? A bit. But this is what happens when your party, which had been in power for more than half a century, is reduced to minority status. Things may change, but, my goodness, aren’t the Mr. Parkers of the world bad sports?

It’s ironic that he uses the oh-so-clever device of quoting Herodotus to accuse Bush and his cronies of dismissing democracy, when it was the democratic process that brought Bush and the Republicans to their majority.

He pleads at the end of his letter for people to reclaim our country and hold the scoundrels to account. What he doesn’t realize is that’s exactly what happened when the populace woke up and voted the Dems out of power.

I guess what bothers me about Mr. Parker the most is his insistence on utterly demonizing his opposition. In Mr. Parker’s view, Bush didn’t just make a strategic or intelligence mistake; he willingly and knowingly lied and sacrificed thousands of Americans and Iraqis for ... oil, I guess. It’s an accusation that is as unprovable as it is juvenile.

I don’t like how things have turned out, either. But we’re in a very difficult situation, dealing with an enemy who lies, cheats, steals, and kills without remorse or regard for human dignity. It makes for a difficult slog, to say the least.

Bush may have made an error when going into Iraq, but it was an honest mistake, done in the service of a larger cause which is definitely worthwhile. It’s similar to what FDR did when he buddied up to “Uncle Joe” and gave away Eastern Europe to 50 years of Communist oppression.

Did that mean FDR was evil and without merit? No, of course not. He just made a rather large mistake, something easy to do when the stakes are so high.

Anger is understandable in this day and age, but it’s sad when it becomes impotent rage. Obviously contradicting Mr. Parker’s assertions of a 1984-like clampdown on dissent, he and his fellow travelers, like Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi, have been engaging in the kind of irresponsible calumny, name-calling, and fear-mongering reserved for the very tyrants Mr. Parker claims to be fighting.

God bless America and Mr. Parker.

Trey Hoffman
Peachtree City, Ga.