Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Sunday, July 13, 2014

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

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Class act

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Mason, This isn't about a woman's right to birth control. No one is denying that right to anyone. It is about who will pay and the drug in question is not a contraceptive it is a drug that is used after the act of sex. If a women believes she has the right to abort a fertilized egg than she surely has a right to pay for it herself.

John said...

Wow, that was a lot of words to say nothing !

Anonymous said...

What a wind bag, I think he just likes to hear himself talk, or read himself talking. Big celebrity writing for the Daily Dump. They exploit his ignorance with his publishing's they pay nothing for, master writings from the outhouse of Maryland.

Jim said...

well said

Anonymous said...

He needs to clarify his position by simply admitting he is indeed a "retired Wicomico County teacher" that would explain quite a bit and give a basis moving forward from here.

Anonymous said...

This guy really is a wind bag that is full of himself. He says "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."
Seriously? Is this guy 6 yrs old and just wants his name in the paper? Anyone with any brains knows that it's a rag liberal paper and they only published the liberal view. Don't pat yourself on the back there George Porgie it is not really an honor. They get something for free and you waste your time listening to yourself talk.

As far as Hobby Lobby goes. Seems like Hobby Lobby is Pro Choice. They want the CHOICE in what they pay for. They are still paying for birth control. They will not pay for the abortion pills and devices. They are not denying their employees access to this they just refuse to pay for them. Just like my insurance does not pay for some things that I think I should get. If the employee is not happy with this they can take a job at Walmart making about 1/2 the pay and they probably still wont have free access to these drugs.
Go back to the daily rag Georgie and spew some more of that liberal hate.

Anonymous said...

Class act my Ass! You can tell the Trolls are out in full force.

Anonymous said...

Well spoken English language may be difficult to read for some folks...but ...you must give him his due for being a class act and responding in an intelligent polite manner. The fact is that there are a few that respond on this blog by putting their mouth (fingers) in motion before engaging their brains. That is ok...because this is suppose to be a free country where anyone can speak their mind...no matter how uneducated it may be. Unlike the Daily Times...this blog gives that freedom to anyone with a keyboard and the ability to type. There are good and bad elements to each. But sometimes..as in this letter...a point is made so clearly that it demands respect. I may not agree with all the context, but I applaud you for speaking out. Bravo.

Anonymous said...

P.S....thank you Joe for this site where everyone is free to speak.

Anonymous said...

There remains one clear problem with the Daily Times articles...I keep seeing the same faces time and time again. This is a popularity contest to write for them...or just whoever posts the content that the editor agrees with most? Thanks for this free forum Joe. Yes...some of your posts are verging on uneducated drivel but...this is a free forum.

Anonymous said...

Windbag is right. The hypocrisy is astounding as well. He must have "little else to do" and found this to be "just one more opportunity for snarky comments" as he accused those who comment on this blog of doing. He did exactly the same thing.
Interesting how he did not address how he misled with his original letter. That is what is important. Once again, and let me BE CLEAR-this isn't about limiting anything for anyone. These is nothing preventing any woman from still obtaining these products. This is no different from many insurance plans that limit other drugs for men and children as well, including those offered by the ACA.
The attitude displayed by many on this blog is the result of people like Mr Mason who believe it is totally expectable to mislead the public.

Anonymous said...

3:47 yes, class act.
And yes the trolls, like you are out in force.
You are the epitome of what he described. The most hysterical part of it all is that you are too stupid to even realize he was talking about YOU.
Sadly, everything he said is true.

Anonymous said...

I agree 11:09 and would like to add both types of products are intended to get "rid of a mistake" someone has made, so to speak. This leads to the idea that no one is responsible for their mistakes anymore if someone else is covering for them.

Anonymous said...

I thought the guy respectfully disagreed with Joe's take on the matter. One need not agree with the sentiment to appreciate the civility.

He made his point, did not degrade Joe in anyway, and called no one an "idiot" or "libtard" or any of the other popular adjectives spewed about on this blog on a daily basis.

I also appreciate how Joe has let the comments be posted without interjecting his own views. Seems rather ""fair and balanced" to me. Call me a sly fox!

Anonymous said...

The comments are typical of what we always see posted here...Nice letter from George to state his position. He didn't say any of us had to agree just stated his position for Joe's questions. GOOD JOB!

Anonymous said...

HIs letter is peppered with "snarky" (to use his own adjective) remarks. Examples being- "You have put too much importance on you and your blog"

and
"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"
and
"that is not the case here when they have hoods over their heads, so to speak."

His response is full of insults.

Very much degrading and uncivil.
Anyone who thinks this response is civil clearly doesn't know the meaning of the word. You can not be insulting or attempt to be insulting and civil at the same time. This is not something that is debatable.

Anonymous said...

"He made his point, did not degrade Joe in anyway"

Yes he did 9:09. "You have put too much importance on you and your blog"

If this is not an attempt to degrade then I don't know what is.

Anonymous said...

8:14 Anyone who thinks someone whose goal is to mislead the public is a "class act" has some major character flaws themselves.
Never once in his response did he address that matter. He tried to turn it back around to those who comment on Sby News. This because he got called out for lying. Typical liberal tactic. Get caught and publically humiliated and immediately turn it around and blame the truth tellers of being uncivil.

Anonymous said...

11:18
Well said , sounds to me he is feeling a little guilty .
Our Bill of Rights and Constitution says it all.

Anonymous said...

If one honestly believes that an individual overvalues his/her perceived role in life does one advise the individual or does one remain mute? Does on take a stand or let it slide?

Some posters appear to take the gentleman's comments personally. Why can you not just agree to disagree?

Anonymous said...

I re-read several parts of this long-winded letter , but still am not sure of the meaning of the content. Like sitting on top of a fence.

Anonymous said...

He made no point , however he did not degrade Mr. Albero . He had no reason to degrade him. Yada , yada , yada , . Typical left wing response to an already lost issue.

Anonymous said...

11:09 you need to understand that this is Supreme Court case that has consequences beyond the actual case. Yes Holly Lobby case was about only 4 types of birth control but the ruling applies to ALL birth control an employer wants to object to.

Anonymous said...

Joe -

Kudos for helping to expose Mr. Mason for the liberal ignoramus that he really is.

Unfortunately, those of his ilk have given us Obama, OweMalley, Pollitt and Ireton, among others.

Anonymous said...

You are wrong 11:37. This does not have other consequences. The decision was based on the well known Christian faith belief that abortion is wrong and life starts at conception. While you may have other sects within the Christian faith that believe certain medical practices are wrong, it not a widely held belief. Since the belief is life starts at conception, only emergency contraception (morning after pill) and IUD's (abortifacient that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting)are affected. Birth control used to prevent fertilization aren't an issue.

Anonymous said...

11:37, This is 11:09 and your remarks underscore your complete misunderstanding of the ruling and how narrow any ruling of the Supreme Court can be interpreted.
For more edification please Google "Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision".
Once again it doesn't prevent a women from birth control or abortion, it only applies to who has to pay for it.
Even though it wasn't part of the decision and had no bearing on the outcome please note that the drugs Hobby Lobby objected to weren't contraceptive (birth control) they were abortive (which some believe to be murder).
Also please note it is Hobby not Holly and all Court decisions (no matter what Court) have consequences beyond the actual case. That's how precedents are set.

Anonymous said...

I would say to Mr. Mason, that while I seldom agree with your letters in the newspaper, I am 100% in agreement with every word of this letter. I admire your willingness to sign your name when you know the kind of crap that will be thrown from those very people of whom you speak.
Thank you for writing, and thank you to Joe for printing this.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Mason puts too much importance on the daily times.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Jim said...
well said

July 12, 2014 at 1:13 AM

Ummm... What is well said? The letter or the comments?

Anonymous said...

I think most of the "class act" comments are from George T. Mason himself. And yes he did make several snarky comments about Joe. What a joke George is.

Anonymous said...

By anyone's stretch of the imagination can this letter be described as civil.
The overall tone is complete sarcasm, attempting to degrade both Joe and those who comment.
There is no degree of civility. Either one is civil or they are not. If you are almost civil, then you are not civil.
It reeks of hypocrisy as well. He lectures others about "snarky" comments, while including them in his lecture as well.
Typical liberal. Open mouth, put foot in it. Unfortunately the average democrat voter, being inferiour intellectually, thinks just because someone slops a bunch of words together, whether they are meaningful or not, is some kind of Einstein.

Anonymous said...

Snarky really ??? Who says this anymore. Must be a white hair posting lol. Is that you little Jimmy I.

Anonymous said...

George T Mason used "snarky" in his letter to Sby News 10:36. That's why it's being used in the comments.