I have to say I'm not very happy about the way this column is sliding off its original path. This little paper has always been, and will continue to be, open to all without threat of canceling. I especially invite those who strongly disagree with my personal opinions.

However, my liberal attitude here has some minor expectations, one of which is that I not be misquoted or grossly misinterpreted. I try to keep things simple to facilitate this objective.

But people do make mistakes, and I'm sure my immediate concern this week involves such a mistake.

These remarks are addressed to both Mary Scoles and Pedro Bazan.

Pedro: Your characterization of the Texas bill is false. No space for detail here, but a little Googling will reveal the truth. No, Texas has not banned schools from teaching about MLK’s speeches or KKK’s history with white supremacy.•8 hours ago. Facts do matter.

"Many of the curriculum requirements in HB 3979 are already a part of TEKS. For example, in a ninth grade U.S. history course, TEKS requires schools to teach students about MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech, the civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement and Native American history." But I don't intend to waste time restoring the truth about this bill here, when everyone can get it online there.

Mary (Scoles): I know you're outspokenly liberal, but still, I'm surprised at your carelessness in reading my reply to Pedro's letter. I did not ask Pedro (misquote) "Are you saying that there was nothing good about the KKK?" No, Mary, that is NOT what I said. Pedro's statement "...and the ways in which it [KKK] is morally wrong." My response was sarcastic. I said: "I have to ask, is there a way in which the KKK was ever morally right? (Emphasis mine). Get it? Most people know the KKK is evil. Because you know my moral standards this mistake was unwelcome.

My comment about Pedro's inflated respect for law school theories was an exercise in deflation. The creators of CRT are scholastic pee-wees undeserving of the rave reviews they have received from their radical liberal friends. Who exactly anointed them to re-educate the entire American student body? A failure of peer review. Let the courts rule from case law, not law schools from their fevered moot court personal opinions!

Frankly, I'm totally fed-up with all of this racism BS. If a man (by Democratic Party authority) can change his sex, why not his race? Maybe even become God? It's just a little chromosomal juggling, right? And the Democratic Party always follows the science - right?

White guilt? That's a Democrat thing. But, I'm Irish.

On slavery, again. You question "the color of the enslaver's skin". Interesting. In Greece it was probably olive colored. In Rome, maybe white, unless by a freedman, then who can know? In Egypt, darker brown. In China a yellowish hue (check out their million-man Uyghur slave camps). In India, light brown? North American "Indian", ochre tint? Aztec? maybe coffee colored. And, in all Africa, of course, black, until we come to Arabia, where most "enslavers" were - are - darker brown. Scandinavian (Vikings - great slavers), mostly white. With a sort of "skin scrutiny" system it might be much easier to identify those white supremacists, in every era.

To do justice in describing ubiquitous "enslavers" skin color (a curious undertaking) we would need a professional paint company's color hue slider. You know, like when buying house paint. Then we could assign numbers according to the color shade in question, and date it all to the correct millennia, (when we're in for other mandated stuff). Those numbers (for example) New York albino white (10) to Mozambique Ebony (1,000). Suntans should be unlawful as attempts to confuse one's scale setting. In this way we could identify and rate the most enterprising slavers over time. Imagine the Reparations!

BUT: There is a troubling problem presented here by our scientific scheme. In our attempt to assign guilt by identifying the skin color of all the "enslavers" we would find that every skin tone on our scale of "enslavers" shows equal guilt, at different times. The great enslavers, like the ancient Athenians, Romans, Middle Easterners, New World Aztec, and Huns, Franks, Vandals, Saxons, and Visigoths - etc. are all guilty as sin. After Noah, slavery has always been the reserve currency of the dominant classes. We would each recognize our own skin color within our "enslavers" color slider mechanism. The words of the philosopher Pogo, "We have met the enemy and they are us" rings true.

Let's remember that only America forced her "enslavers" to stop - at the cost of 600,000 souls, our bloodiest war. I can think of no other country so determined to Let Freedom Ring, except perhaps Israel.