I’ve heard that you should never get in a letter-writing battle with a man who buys ink by the barrel, meaning that you should not do battle in writing with a man who owns and/or edits a newspaper. Of course country boys might say never get into a urinating contest with a skunk. The editor and owner of the Monroe Watchman is Craig Mohler, a very amiable man who I happen to like on a personal level. When he was fresh out of veterinarian school, I took my vet business to him. I have enjoyed visiting with him on several occasions where we have common interests.
However, having said that, from a worldview standpoint, I see Craig in the enemy camp. I’ve written several letters to him as editor of The Monroe Watchman over a period of several years. His handling of those letters falls into three categories, (1) he prints them (2) he doesn’t print them, but usually sends me an e-mail with a lame excuse as to why he did not put my letter in his paper. I became so aggravated with this action that I finally put a special category on another website called “Censored by the Monroe Watchman.” (3) He prints and then writes a rebuttal. He did that this past week. His rebuttal with intent to discredit me was so intense, I consider it a censorship of sorts.
Although I felt a little bit bad because my letter was so long, he wrote a rebuttal, printed immediately following my letter, that was LONGER than my letter. While reading his rebuttal, I laughed out loud more than once. I no doubt destroyed one of his buttons when I pushed it. My immediate comment to my wife after reading his response was, “That sounded like an infomercial for big government.” It was typical pollyanna liberal-speak about how great our government has been and will certainly remain that way in spite of right-wing critics.
Let me point out what is wrong with a newspaper editor who writes such a response to one who sends a letter to that editor. (1) it shows his bias, not kosher for a editor. (2) it can intimidate anyone else who dares write something that is contrary to that editor’s obvious bias. It would essentially shut down free speech, especially for anyone who never wrote a letter to the editor, but was thinking about writing their first one. In fact, because of his censorship in the past, I have been intimidated enough to refrain from naming any Democrat I criticize, because I have been afraid he would not likely print such. In fact, in my letter last week I put in a quote by Obama, but didn’t say who made that statement. I heavily criticized Harry Reid, but made no mention that he is a Democrat.
Here are other conclusions I have made. Mohler didn’t have the confidence that one of the Watchman’s readers would write a rebuttal to my letter, so he took it upon himself to make sure there was a rebuttal, and it is safe to say I would come out second best if I chose to battle the guy who buys ink by the barrel. It would be a no-win situation for me. He knows that, I know that, and he knows that I know. Incidentally, I have had feedback from some people who expressed their disapproval of his writing that rebuttal. One came indirectly from a man I have never met.
Briefly, here are the key take-aways from my letter last week. (1) I don’t trust the Feds to tell the truth, (2) I don’t want to give the Feds anymore claim on my life and property than they already have, (3) Since the Feds have put our country so far in debt, I think “we the people” should refrain from seeking money (piling up more debt) via grants to fund some local project like the Gap Valley Historic District, and (4) Our enemy is the State. Of course we all know we can add one more enemy, any media that spews State propaganda.
Here are some tidbits. (1)Mohler never addressed the fact that the BLM was armed but made a point that protesters were. He never countered my claim that Senator Harry Reid is a crook, and likely a major player in the actions of the BLM. (2) He said nothing about the $17 trillion of debt the Feds have placed at the feet (or wallets) of taxpayers, their children and grandchildren. Of course we expect a pollyanna liberal to ignore such insignificant, bothersome facts. Facts should never get in the way of an otherwise perfectly good theory of a big government liberal. (3) And that is my rebuttal to the editor’s rebuttal. This post and the Part 1 post will go in the censored file, and appear later at HisSheepTracks.com. The reason is simple. Not printing a letter is censorship. Likewise, an editor’s deliberate attempt to torpedo one’s letter is also censorship.