RANDS LETTERS
A SITE FOR FULL DISCUSSION ABOUT POST STREET TALK AND LETTERS TOTHE EDITOR
SEND COMMENTS TO : RAND@RANDSLETTERS.COM
RANDS LETTERS
A SITE FOR FULL DISCUSSION ABOUT POST STREET TALK AND LETTERS TOTHE EDITOR
SEND COMMENTS TO : RAND@RANDSLETTERS.COM
June 18 LTE Regarding Judge Cannon's Recusal in the Trump Documents Case - Rejected by BT
Judge Cannon’s selection
The June 17 Street Talkers’ comments about Judge Cannon’s recusing from Trump’s case evoke some questions and comments.
65% of Talkers voted for her to recuse. But their comments can belie their votes. Folks demand a fair trial. Cannon was selected at random for the case. What is more fair than random? Is judge shopping unfair when done by the defendant, but fair when done by the prosecution? If the pool of judges is to be culled before selection, who is to do the culling? And who is to judge their neutrality?
Folks suggesting recusal should consider the criteria for recusal. First, if there is something for the judge to personally gain based on the decisions rendered, then recusal is in order. But what has Cannon to gain? If she rules in favor of Trump, she will be reviled by about 50% of the population, if she rules against him, she will be reviled by the other 50% of the population. If she rules in favor of him, he cannot extend her already lifelong appointment, if she rules against him, he cannot shorten her lifetime appointment.
So, an expectation of personal gain is a nonstarter.
Another reason for recusal is her believing herself incapable of making an unbiased decision. That is a judgement that she and only she can make. The rest of us can only speculate, but regardless of the degree, direction, or intensity of speculation, only she has the true answer, and she is faced with that decision knowing that whatever it is, she will be equally praised and excoriated by it for the rest of her career regardless of the verdict.
Given those circumstances, a reasonable argument could be made that she has been placed in a lifelong lose/lose situation. That doesn’t make her a hero, it is a position that all judges risk when deciding to rule over other people’s lives as a profession. It also makes suspect the suggestion that she owes Trump anything for her appointment.
But a jury, not Cannon, will ultimately decide the case, and juries can and often do detect bias in a judge if it exists, and have the right to consider that in its decision.
If Trump loses, he will appeal – guaranteed, and he will make his string of appeals last until he dies. If he wins, the left will almost certainly find another, and another reason to file lawsuits against him until he dies. Either way, that reality will overcome bloodlust; the likelihood of Trump serving jail time is pretty slim.
On another topic, readers who missed Catherine Flowers’ June 16 Post column “Some words about words” are advised to read this excellent commentary on the state and use of the English language. Bravo to her!
RandsLetters@gmail.com
6/17/2023
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
June 10, 2023 LTE Regarding Mike Baker's Misquote of Lennox Comments - rejected by BT
No hair to spare
After reading some of the recent LTEs responding to my “The Indictment” letter of June 12, I want to pull out my hair, But, alas, there is not enough left up there to spare any on such an apparently futile cause.
The June 15 Strongsville “Debating Good Faith...” LTE writer notes the continued response. He is, indeed, correct in that assessment, but the reasons for that response deserve a look-see.
In his June 13 “Civil Discussion” LTE, a Barberton writer attributed to me a statement of his own regarding an equivalence between Hillary’s and Trump’s government document transgressions.
I responded the next day emphasizing that his description of the equivalence was his own, not mine, and clearly, repeat clearly, stated that the sole extent of any equivalence to which I referred was that the government accused both Hillary and Trump of “gross mismanagement of government documents.” Period. Full stop. I again put forth that the statement is true, and that any interpretation of that statement are the words of the interpreter, not mine.
But the very next day, the Strongsville writer makes a similar personal interpretation and extension of my statement, attributes his own words to me, and proceeds to discuss them.
I would be less inclined to pull out my hair if the Strongsville writer were not one who typically presents thoughtful and cogent argumentation. Nonetheless, I remain perplexed as to why he and certain other writers take the time to look back into American, WWII and even ancient history to defend their arguments but seem unwilling to look back 24 or 48 hours into previous Post editions to verify and quote other writers correctly.
I’ll repeat my June 14 opinion that civil discussion means debating what people actually say and write, and precludes condemning them for one’s own assumptions.
However, due to a significant fear of inducing another strong bout of compulsion to pull out my increasingly sparse supply of hair after being misquoted, I will refrain from further interaction on this topic. Seems that people persist in believing what they want to believe.
That’s just the nature of opinion writing.
And it’s a primary reason why truth is elusive.
RandsLetters@gmail.com
6/15/2023
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
April 6, 2023 Post Street Talk and Letter Sections -- Comments
Another leading and nonsensical Street Talk question that does not provide the one answer selection that makes the most logical sense, which would be “it depends on who his opponent was.’
Scott Brown sends in another word scramble and presents more meaningless statistics to prove fallacious points.
For example: In citing the Biden vs Trump job statistics, he again forgets to mention that The Trump had achieved the lowest unemployment stats in history, but the string was interrupted by the Covid pandemic. Biden also continued to lose jobs for the same reason, but when the pandemic eased, the jobs came back. But just as neither Trump nor Biden was at fault for the job losses, neither was either creditable for their return. Nonetheless, Brown faults Trump for the losses and Biden for their return. Further, Brown’s ignores that Trump has actually created jobs as a private businessman and Biden has created none as a private businessman. To mix job creation and overall employment statistics is disingenuous at best.
And, how about comparing the number of lawsuits against Trump vs Biden before they were in politics? Trump spent all but the last seven years outside politics, but Biden spent virtually his entire career in politics. All of which means a lawsuit comparison is misleading, or more specifically, stupid.
Enough about Brown, any honest reader can see through his April 6 LTE as well as most of his drivel. One wonders why the Post continues to print what are obvious lies and distortions.
Speaking of lies and distortions, Rick Lutton again submits his non-stop outright lies about Republicans with a few truths mixed in to create the impression of veracity.
It is hard to imagine how so much hate and delusion can exist in one person, and how that person is not embarrassed to write the same lies and distortions week after week apparently without thinking that intelligent readers won’t recognize his hyper bias.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
March 23, 2023 The Publisher’s Advantage - LTE Rejected by BT
After nearly 50 years of writing LTEs to various publications, I have learned that each publication has a commentary line that one must not cross if he wishes his opinion to be printed. The line differs by publication and individual editor and can vary based on the topic and the writer. I believe this LTE approaches, if not crosses the Post’s line and whether it is printed will be interesting. In it, I refer only to LTEs.
Capitalism says, and I fully agree, that if you own the paper, it is entirely your prerogative what to print or exclude. But in opinion dialogues, that gives the publisher a significant advantage over the submitters and readers because only the publisher knows the whole story and is not obliged to tell it. Some examples:
If ten letters are printed, nine in favor and one opposed to an issue, what can the reader conclude? Only that the publisher chose nine in favor and one opposed. He does not know how many were submitted or in what ratio.
If a letter is submitted and rejected, the writer has no idea why it was rejected, and the publisher has no obligation to tell him. Does the publisher just disagree, or was there just not enough space available. It’s like taking a spelling test, getting a “F” on it but not being told which words were spelled wrong.
Publishers have editing rules, but they are unknown to the writers, so relevant commentary can be rejected for benign rule violations. Further, not knowing the rules precludes determining if they are being applied equally to all writers, and the publisher has no obligation to do so.
All this creates a publisher’s advantage over its subscribers. It is abundantly evident that the Post strongly defers to free speech in its Street Talk section. But that judgement is not as easily made about the LTE section. And I am not making one here, I’m just pointing out that, given the publisher advantage, the writers have no way of knowing where the line is. So, wise readers consider what is published as input, but draw no general conclusions.
This thought has been on my mind for a long time, so, why bring that up now?
In his February 23 “Publisher’s Notebook”, Mr. T. criticized an LTE writer with whom he disagreed (I don’t mention his name for fear of violating a rule). I believe if that criticism as written had come from a regular LTE writer it would have been rejected. Thus, the Publisher’s Advantage.
IMHO, the writer in question usually presents reasonable and nonjudgmental comments that promote introspection on various topics, including examining the extremes as part of decision making - as opposed to making emotional, knee jerk decisions. Of course, I agree, and have espoused the same for years – and have received my share of criticism for it.
So, hang in there, writer, and keep writing.
Examining and evaluating change is not treason.