Mr. Mason Responds

Dear Mr. Albero,

It was interesting for you to include here on your blog my writing in the Sunday Times on the Hobby Lobby case. I would like to answer some of your assumptions and perhaps we could say misunderstandings.

To quote you: “First of all , I’m confident Mr. Mason stated this came from Salisbury News but the Daily Times more than likely asked him to change it to a ‘local blog’.”

The Times did not ask me to change it to “a local blog.” I thought that using “a local blog” was the appropriate way to proceed. You have put too much importance on you and your blog. It was not about you and your blog. It was about the quote and conservative thought in general on this subject. In retrospect there was probably no need to say anything about your blog at all. There is no reason to think this quote on your blog is original to your blog. It appears to be viral on the web.

To quote you: “It’s a shame Mr. Mason also went to the Daily Times rather than sending the same letter to Salisbury News, as I would have certainly published it.”

I know it is difficult sometimes to understand what is going on by just reading online. I don’t know if you read the actual paper or not. Many of your followers claim they do not and would not. You, Mr. Albero, did not ask the question which the Times did ask, so there would be no reason to send an answer to you. The question the Times asked was: “What does the Hobby Lobby ruling mean?” Seven people each wrote 250 word answers and had their answers published online. Three people, of which I was one, this week, were published in the printed Sunday Times paper. Each week anybody who wants to do so decides individually how they would answer that week’s question. The editor than decides who among the writers gets in the print edition. It is a little contest. Everybody wants their letter to be chosen for the print edition.

There is also the matter of who your most faithful followers seem to be. There is little reason to write for a cloistered community who behave as anonymous internet trolls who frequently have nothing of merit to add to the conversation. They even turn on each other and I have watched them turn on you, Mr. Albero. Sometimes they have begged your forgiveness. I am sure in these peoples’ real lives many of them are decent people who are intelligent, kind, and want to be thought well of, but too frequently that is not the case here when they have hoods over their heads, so to speak.

To quote you: “…there are many articles we publish on a daily basis I personally do not agree with, yet we feel it is important enough to spread the word.”

In addition to attempting some variety I believe that you pander most often not to the better angels of your readers’ natures, as when they are helping to find lost dogs, but to their most debased thoughts for it is there that their emotions most often get the better of them allowing for many hits and comments. For this reason alone it is understandable to me that you would not agree with everything you publish.

To quote you: “Perhaps Mr. Mason and the Daily Times should refer to this article I also published the very same day.”

I saw the pictures with the heading, “Things That Make You Go, Hummmmm?” the day you published them. I didn’t consider a heading and two pictures to be an article at that time and I don’t consider them to be an article now. It is just more opportunity for snarky comments among those with little else to do.

To quote you: “Update: Mr. Mason said, ‘It fairly well explains the ignorance and hard line conservative male opposition.’ Mr. Mason the article was actually published by a woman.”

Once again I don’t consider two boxes with quotes inside them to be an article. I don’t know that either quote was the original work of the woman who submitted them to you for publication on your blog. I am assuming they were viral quotes she found online.

It should be obvious to you, as it is to me, that there are women with conservative minds just as there are women with liberal minds. It is to be expected that among conservative women at least some will talk and behave the same way on preventing childbirth as some conservative men. In the Hobby Lobby case it was all conservative male judges who made the difference, not conservative women.

In closing I believe you know we should not use words in the class of never, always, all, and similar terms when referring to a group of people no matter if they are conservative, liberal or have something else in common. A group of people cannot be depended upon to completely think exactly alike but instead as individuals within some perimeter in the group. For example, some conservatives approve of birth control and some do not believe in God. The same is true for liberals. For example, some don’t approve birth control and some believe in God. For this reason we should not demonize a whole group of people without reservation, as your followers so frequently do.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer your concerns and express myself here on your blog.

Sincerely,

George T. Mason