In regard to the Nov. 19 letter to the Phoenix entitled “Response to Nov. 15 edition of the Phoenix,” the writer asserts that character cannot be confirmed. Perhaps not, but borrowing a phrase from a past U.S. Supreme Court Justice commenting on a different issue, “(we) know it when (we) see it.”  

In that regard, here’s a simple test: 1. Is character cheating on three different wives? 2. Is character boasting about grabbing women inappropriately? 3. Is character lying over 22,000 times (Washington, Post—in pre-Trump days, one of the most reliably trustworthy publications in America)?

4. Is character attempting to steal an election lost by over 6,000,000 popular votes and a 306 to 232 electoral vote margin? 5. Is character being the only sitting president in modern times refusing to allow a peaceful transfer of power? 6. Is character being a poor loser?

7. Is character lying to the American people over and over about the most dangerous health threat of our time? 8. Is character spending time golfing as the Corona Virus continues to decimate the country of which you are president?

If we can agree that the answer to each of these questions is no, then perhaps we can agree that though character may not be confirmable, it may at least be discernible.

The writer also bemoans the fact that the Phoenix expressed an opinion in its editorial. Perhaps the writer needs a tutorial in basic journalism: an editorial is, by definition, opinion. In fact, the Phoenix flags its editorial/ letters page in extra large letters (perhaps for the myopic) as OPINION!

The writer then reiterates a fully debunked Putin/Russian-inspired and promoted conspiracy theory/propaganda point debunked by the FBI, CIA, and the entire United States of America’s security agencies system involving Joe Biden and his son Hunter in the Ukraine — a piece of propaganda that even Fox News has given up on.

The writer states that that which is based on personal opinion is “hence, baseless and worthless.” Interesting, since on page 4 in a review of books in the “East Bay Life” section of the same edition of the Phoenix, the same writer’s byline appears as the writer’s opinion of two books.

Why bother to either write or, for that matter, read that drivel since, by the writer’s own logic, it is opinion, “hence, baseless and worthless?” The writer finally ends the Nov. 19 letter with an opinion “hence, baseless and worthless,” of other people’s letters.

Jim Manchester
Bristol