To the Editor:
Second Opinion. Fact Check.
There are a lot of significant issues out there. I hate to waste a column on corrections like this, but last week's Editorial cannot be overlooked.
You say, “Only facts matter.” Let's make it a mantra, Martin. The “facts” and conclusions that you presented in your last "Realities," addressed to my column, are astounding, even fanciful, when you compare them to my actual statements. I can't see the point in writing a column which is then largely misrepresented, as was Second Opinion, "God, Guns, and Verdicts."
I did not mention or refer to “race” at all in the Rittenhouse case. I am not responsible for what other sources say. I mentioned that the victim in the Arbery case was Black and the jury was “mixed.” That was it. You’re the one who ran with “racist.” I stated that the president withdrew the “white supremacist” remark (thank you for that correction), as he should have.
My column said nothing about the WI police killing Jason Black. I said, “Shot and paralyzed.” You got that somewhere else.
I said that Rittenhouse was acquitted, and I supported the verdict because it was rendered by a jury. I made no mention of the races of the victims. My column objected to the fact that all lesser charges were dismissed, wrongfully IMO, so that it was an “all or nothing” decision, designed to protect the defendant.
I was amused by your vehement dispute of my statement that poor Kyle “had no training.” But, he was a lifequard! (in case the river should rise). And he knew CPR! (like every big-city waiter, and for which purpose he carried a gun?). I fear that this kid, once the adulation has settled down, will be selling “treasures” on Old Route 66.
If you have a legitimate source "debunking" the June 1, 2020, events at Lafayette Park, please make it available to me.
Your devotion to the innocence of young Mr. Rittenhouse is confounding. He went looking for trouble with an AK-15 and he found it. When you volunteer to take the law into your own hands, without lawful process, you are in fact a “vigilante."
You have read Don Quixote! I have only read a translation. You point out correctly that the poor man was “confused.” Exactly. Also, the Man from LaMancha also inserted himself into events which he misunderstood and which were not his business, and made himself ridiculous (though not deadly) to many. We are agreed, then, that Rittenhouse qualifies as a junior-Don Quixote.
In summary, many of your assertions in last week's editorial on my column were substantively inaccurate. Raising "racism" in that column was unfounded and was your choice, Martin. I did not raise the issue except to chastise the president for doing so.
I agree that we cannot have “a meaningful debate” if facts are not part of the discussion. While you are, of course, entitled to write anything in your editorials that you wish, if you just want to rant over things you have read elsewhere, go for it. You do not need me to do that. But please do not attribute to me things which I clearly have not said. No need to be "woke." Accurate will do.
Kelly Scoles,
Fillmore