Editor’s note: The North Korea comment mentioned in the below letter is part of the editorial “Mullis Center treated unfairly” that was not intended to be published, an apology for which is published to the right.

Editor’s note: The North Korea comment mentioned in the below letter is part of the editorial “Mullis Center treated unfairly” that was not intended to be published, an apology for which was published in the July 31 edition of the paper as well as online.

Number one tactic in the liberal playbook, when you can’t provide a cogent argument for a point of view, is to create a “straw man” that no one would support (and was never advocated) and then associate that with the people or point of view that you’re “resisting” against. In this case, absolutely no one on the pro-Pledge side has ever suggested, advocated or even thought of making the Pledge mandatory. So, why does Mandi Johnson characterize Pledge advocates as supposedly wanting to make it so? She cites a 1943 court decision that schools “could not make the Pledge of Allegiance mandatory.” Fine, but that’s totally irrelevant to this controversy. In fact, the Mullis Board made NOT saying the Pledge mandatory. Just like Saul Alinsky’s tactics in his book ‘Rules for Radicals,’ Ms. Johnson ends her argument by equating the pro-Pledge advocates to the hateful, murderous regime in North Korea. That’s in Alinsky’s playbook too: label your opponent with contempt and ridicule, painting him or her as the same as the created and hated “straw man.” Nice try, but the tactic has been over-used and it won’t work any longer.

Daniel Schwartz

San Juan Island