The Judge Conner Witch Hunt
Dear Mr. Marrison,
Editor of the Dispatch,
I’ve read that during the Salem witch trials one of the accused was tried by a judge and jury and found innocent. However, the crowd outside the courtroom strenuously objected, and the judge required the jury to reconsider the verdict – which they did.
As a result, the verdict was changed, and the victim was executed.
So much for a “colony of laws.”
I am grateful that the Dispatch has taken a somewhat enlightened view of the Judge John Conner rhubarb. It is the canary in the mine, symptomatic of a much larger aberration within the soul of the nation and the world.
Both you and the paper’s related editorial come down within the “reality based community.”* You both point out that regardless of your personal opinions, the judge acted within the law, and that voters – regardless (I would say) of the rationality of their opinions – can vote Conner out in the next election if they so choose.
It’s clear to me that you and the “powers-that-be” at the paper were as shaken as I by the implications of this mob mentality, by its immediacy, by its intensity, by the involvement of national demagogues like Bill O’Reilly, and by its threat to “the system” (at least the one on paper).
Thank you for speaking up. As I said, this issue is bigger than Judge Conner and pedophilia. It cuts to how we as a people are going to perceive and address the world.
It’s been eighty-one years since the Scopes Monkey Trial, and we are still experiencing threats – serious threats – from the “non-reality-based community” over Mr. Darwin’s theory. To its credit, the Dispatch has objected to these attacks. In this matter the paper sides with rationality rather than emotion. But has the Dispatch done enough, has it lived up to its responsibility, or does the paper pick and choose just like the fundamentalist Luddites do?
The Bush administration has cozied up to God from the start. It has declared its independence from the “reality based community.” We must support them or we are supporting the terrorists. God has sent the president on a “mission” - and our God is bigger than their God. We are at WAR!! We MUST support the Commander in Chief!!! And elections are to be determined by fear, prejudice, hatred, and manipulation rather than on the issues.
There is no room for rationality in any of that, and the same irrationality is mixed up in the gubernatorial race. We have the Republican “God” candidate fighting the faith-based culture wars, promising to return the state to the days of Cal Coolidge, and polling ahead of the colorless, un-godly candidate. I think we both know why Jim Petro got involved with the present witch-hunt.
How low WILL we go? How powerful IS superstitious mumbo-jumbo? Who will be its next victim? What will be the consequences of its ascendancy? How much damage will it do?
Putting our faith in Bush rather than evaluating him with reason has already caused grievous damage to our nation. It seems to me that the Dispatch was awakened by this recent absurdity to question the future of the state as well. Is it too late?
Where has the Dispatch been in challenging Bush & Co.’s demands for faith-based allegiance – not only to God, but to the President, the generals, the policies – to anything and everything? When Blackwell wins the Republican nomination, will the Dispatch endorse him?
What other major media have seriously taken on the know-nothing/faith-based/ feeling/opinion/ I-want-what-I-want/to-hell-with-gays-and-abortion warriors? Why should the virulence demonstrated in the Judge Conner episode be surprising to anyone, particularly the media?
This has been going on and increasing in strength for years. It has been accepted, overlooked, supported, and even modeled by the so-called “opinion leaders” – including the Dispatch.
The paper’s editorials periodically trot out and revere the notion of “the rule of law.” That notion is at play here too; and that is proper. Another valued notion mentioned here is the “separation of powers.” Obviously, if the legislature or executive can beat down the judiciary for emotional/political reasons unrelated to the judiciary’s behavior, a destructive travesty will have occurred.
The Dispatch seems to see that - in THIS situation. I can’t say the same for the school-funding issue. There, the paper did worse than look the other way when the legislature repeatedly ignored the legal orders of the Supreme Court. In fact, it attacked the court – not unlike those attacking Conner today – and praised the legislature for the disrespect it showed the “rule of law” and the “separation of powers.”
The chickens are coming home to roost. What will the Dispatch be doing about it?
- Uke Man
* Reality-based community
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Reality-based community" is a popular term among Internet bloggers that is an example of political framing. In the fall of 2004, the phrase "proud member of the reality-based community," was first used to suggest the blogger's opinions are based more on observation than faith, assumption, or ideology and that others who disagree are unrealistic. The term has been defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from [their] judicious study of discernible reality." Some bloggers have gone as far as to suggest that there is an overarching conflict in society between the reality-based community and the "faith-based community" as a whole.
The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush:
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Bloggers who use this term generally oppose President Bush's policies and by using this term imply that Bush's policies are out of touch with reality. Others use the term to draw a contrast with the perceived arrogance of the Bush Administration's unilateral policies, in accordance with the aide's quote.
Editor of the Dispatch,
I’ve read that during the Salem witch trials one of the accused was tried by a judge and jury and found innocent. However, the crowd outside the courtroom strenuously objected, and the judge required the jury to reconsider the verdict – which they did.
As a result, the verdict was changed, and the victim was executed.
So much for a “colony of laws.”
I am grateful that the Dispatch has taken a somewhat enlightened view of the Judge John Conner rhubarb. It is the canary in the mine, symptomatic of a much larger aberration within the soul of the nation and the world.
Both you and the paper’s related editorial come down within the “reality based community.”* You both point out that regardless of your personal opinions, the judge acted within the law, and that voters – regardless (I would say) of the rationality of their opinions – can vote Conner out in the next election if they so choose.
It’s clear to me that you and the “powers-that-be” at the paper were as shaken as I by the implications of this mob mentality, by its immediacy, by its intensity, by the involvement of national demagogues like Bill O’Reilly, and by its threat to “the system” (at least the one on paper).
Thank you for speaking up. As I said, this issue is bigger than Judge Conner and pedophilia. It cuts to how we as a people are going to perceive and address the world.
It’s been eighty-one years since the Scopes Monkey Trial, and we are still experiencing threats – serious threats – from the “non-reality-based community” over Mr. Darwin’s theory. To its credit, the Dispatch has objected to these attacks. In this matter the paper sides with rationality rather than emotion. But has the Dispatch done enough, has it lived up to its responsibility, or does the paper pick and choose just like the fundamentalist Luddites do?
The Bush administration has cozied up to God from the start. It has declared its independence from the “reality based community.” We must support them or we are supporting the terrorists. God has sent the president on a “mission” - and our God is bigger than their God. We are at WAR!! We MUST support the Commander in Chief!!! And elections are to be determined by fear, prejudice, hatred, and manipulation rather than on the issues.
There is no room for rationality in any of that, and the same irrationality is mixed up in the gubernatorial race. We have the Republican “God” candidate fighting the faith-based culture wars, promising to return the state to the days of Cal Coolidge, and polling ahead of the colorless, un-godly candidate. I think we both know why Jim Petro got involved with the present witch-hunt.
How low WILL we go? How powerful IS superstitious mumbo-jumbo? Who will be its next victim? What will be the consequences of its ascendancy? How much damage will it do?
Putting our faith in Bush rather than evaluating him with reason has already caused grievous damage to our nation. It seems to me that the Dispatch was awakened by this recent absurdity to question the future of the state as well. Is it too late?
Where has the Dispatch been in challenging Bush & Co.’s demands for faith-based allegiance – not only to God, but to the President, the generals, the policies – to anything and everything? When Blackwell wins the Republican nomination, will the Dispatch endorse him?
What other major media have seriously taken on the know-nothing/faith-based/ feeling/opinion/ I-want-what-I-want/to-hell-with-gays-and-abortion warriors? Why should the virulence demonstrated in the Judge Conner episode be surprising to anyone, particularly the media?
This has been going on and increasing in strength for years. It has been accepted, overlooked, supported, and even modeled by the so-called “opinion leaders” – including the Dispatch.
The paper’s editorials periodically trot out and revere the notion of “the rule of law.” That notion is at play here too; and that is proper. Another valued notion mentioned here is the “separation of powers.” Obviously, if the legislature or executive can beat down the judiciary for emotional/political reasons unrelated to the judiciary’s behavior, a destructive travesty will have occurred.
The Dispatch seems to see that - in THIS situation. I can’t say the same for the school-funding issue. There, the paper did worse than look the other way when the legislature repeatedly ignored the legal orders of the Supreme Court. In fact, it attacked the court – not unlike those attacking Conner today – and praised the legislature for the disrespect it showed the “rule of law” and the “separation of powers.”
The chickens are coming home to roost. What will the Dispatch be doing about it?
- Uke Man
* Reality-based community
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Reality-based community" is a popular term among Internet bloggers that is an example of political framing. In the fall of 2004, the phrase "proud member of the reality-based community," was first used to suggest the blogger's opinions are based more on observation than faith, assumption, or ideology and that others who disagree are unrealistic. The term has been defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from [their] judicious study of discernible reality." Some bloggers have gone as far as to suggest that there is an overarching conflict in society between the reality-based community and the "faith-based community" as a whole.
The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush:
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Bloggers who use this term generally oppose President Bush's policies and by using this term imply that Bush's policies are out of touch with reality. Others use the term to draw a contrast with the perceived arrogance of the Bush Administration's unilateral policies, in accordance with the aide's quote.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home