« Crazies at Kos | Main | Jehlen's Senate campaign website goes live »

May 11, 2005

Bye bye Boston Globe

Here is the letter that I sent to the Globe's editor and ombudsman today.

To the editor:

I was shocked to see that you allowed James C. Dobson's op-ed ("Vote 'em up or down") to appear in the Boston Globe.  The lies and misrepresentations it contains are too numerous to list, although several of them are debunked in the editorial ("A Plot Against the Senate") on the facing page.  Suffice it to say that the op-ed's scurrilous accusation against a United States Senator (Charles Schumer of New York) - that he undertook "a barely concealed attack on [nominee William] Pryor's Catholic faith" - should have been more than enough to keep this garbage out of the newspaper.  That is not "opinion."  It is character assassination.

I have cancelled my subscription to the Globe today.  I would bet that I am not the only one.

And that, as they say, is that.

Posted by David at 10:07 AM in Massachusetts | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bye bye Boston Globe:


Encourging us to cancel our subscriptions to the famously liberal Boston Globe!? Clearly you are a Republican operative!

Posted by: sco | May 11, 2005 10:52:46 AM


Posted by: David | May 11, 2005 10:55:12 AM

Wow. Man I can't stand Dobson. Nonetheless, I'll still read the Globe. Just keep working them, keeping crappy headline-grabbing commentary from their papers.

Posted by: stomv | May 11, 2005 11:27:32 AM

My take.
The Boston Globe has been doing its best to drive a wedge between catholics, especially ethnic catholics and liberals for as long as I can remmebr. pre- busing days. also between minoirities and white ethnics (mostly irish, Catholics)

"What!" you say. "Troll, we know your a screw ball, but now you are turning into a certified nut."

I do not know this writer. But i assume he is a right wing nut. The Globe has chosen him for the right wing point of view. (You know, how Rush always puts a moron caller on to defend contrary position.) In it this nut takes some words out of context so he can accuse a propminent liberal tied to Hillary of being anti-Catholic.
What does the accomplish in the Globe. First of all it does not effect Kerry's and Kennedy's position on the filibuster. And it pisses off Catholics. Especially old timers. The more conservative ones, who then show contempt for dems buy sprouting off this garbage that they read in this column. Drives them away and further divides the people like you progressives and others who should be your natural allies. Except for abortion and gay rights there is commonality with both. But these issues can be addresed. Old time conservative dems may not feel right about either, but they know there are valid reasons, and as far as abortion they can promote the choice of having the baby) These are not as hot button as you think. But they are devisive issues and elitist like the Globe use it to divide so smart white and black kids from the projects and smart do gooder liberals with mnoney will not connect. triangulasion. (i'm not spell checking that word, but i know it is wrong)

This is what globe and others did during busing. Most people in East Boston, West Roxbury, Charlestown, Roxbury, Dorchester, South Boston, Roslindale and Hyde Park did not want there kids bussed across town. The neighborhoods biggest identifications internally were there schools and especially high schools. Those were where long lasting friendships really began. Not just sports. Reunions were and still are huge for pre-busing classes. The schools were one of the biggest things that brought these neighborhoods together and gave them identities.
Black neighborhoods sucked. Blacks wanted better schools because they knew they were getting screwed.
So the whole city is portrayed as a bunch of thigs. More then 95% of whites, mostly cathoilic who lived in and were part of the neighbporhoods where the viloence occurred were apallled. Not surprised because they knew their neighborhoods and knew the knuckleheads. In densly populated neighborhoods you get knuckleheads.(Surprise) But mostly you get decent people.
The Globe played on these knuckleheads to further drive a wedge and cause further hostilities between the poor working class whites and the blacks who were getting screwed.
Now don't come back and say, "Troll, you mean the Globe should not have covered the viloence?"
No, they should have. But like a film crew that focuses on a protest march close -up and doesn't put story in context by panning back, the Globe covered thje Busing situation like that in the70's and helped contribute to the hostilities.
My point is. We do not have to look at the grassy knoll to say the Globe is anti-catholic.
They want to destroy any link to the past irish catholic powewr structure of this city. These power structures originated in the neighborhoods. So to destroy the Catholic rule of this mostly Catholic metropolitan area it helped by destroying those neighborhoods with busing.
This has always been benefit of Boston Globe's
Of course you will say i am looking at the grassy knoll.
But this is what was happenting when most of you who read this, i believe, were in diapers.

Posted by: The troll | May 11, 2005 12:56:44 PM

So there is no mistatke the above does not just apply to old time dems but many in their 30s and 40s

Posted by: The troll | May 11, 2005 1:21:18 PM

The above also applies to the wedge the globe helps drive between working class irish catholics and jews.

Posted by: The troll | May 11, 2005 4:48:06 PM

Actually, (this should be unsurprising by now) - you're wrong.

First, the "lies" and "misrepresentations" are, in fact, not so much. Oh, they might be slightly hyperbolic, but the reflect the underlying argument.

That is, Orthodox Catholics, like conservative blacks and latinos, who have strayed off the plantation of the Democratic party platform, are explicitly targetted for derision and termination in the MSM and by the party, it has historically been Congress, but recently, since the wingnuts and mental patients are driving the agenda, it's crossed over into the Senate.

It _is_ about religion, since to be a faithful Catholic - and, arguably, a faithful Christian - requires taking positions different from that which derive from post-modernist, marxist, materialist philosophies, on which the Democratic party's platform is presently based. I know this sounds devisive, it is. It's the split between 'us', and the 'people of the world'. Um..."See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ."

The above poster, referencing the Globe's positions on splitting Catholics, is wrong too. It's only the 'orthodox' Catholics must be discredited and destroyed, according to the Globe editorial framework. Which is why they must give unproportionately focused attention to Voice of the Faithful and such groups long on criticism and short on fidelity to the notions of absolute Truth for which the Church Militant stands, and the Church Triumphal has died to protect.

Posted by: jrp | May 11, 2005 5:23:41 PM

Hey david, this guy is good. And I don't think he agrees with you often. He does a much better job then I could, but I agree with you alot.
But, he's good.
I say , "What he said"
thank you jrp.
I think I am half right though, not wrong jrp. You just narrowed down my group. But that is what i guess I meant. Catholics like Tom Finneran or Marion Walsh (who is pro gay marriqage by the way)and not Ted Kennedy or some other Catholic state legislators. But is you say I am wrong then so be it.
Perhaps another time a better example of acts by globe to divide, demonize and alienate certain types.

Posted by: The troll | May 11, 2005 8:08:30 PM

the notions of absolute Truth for which the Church Militant stands, and the Church Triumphal has died to protect.

And if someone happened not to share those notions of "absolute Truth" ... ?

to be a faithful Catholic - and, arguably, a faithful Christian - requires taking positions different from that which derive from post-modernist, marxist, materialist philosophies, on which the Democratic party's platform is presently based.

OK, you're scaring me now. I will say only this: I'm guessing there a lot of folks who consider themselves "faithful Catholics" and "faithful Christians" who don't see these issues quite the way you do. To those people, I wonder what you have to say.

Posted by: David | May 11, 2005 11:11:26 PM

I am a faithful cafateria catholic who agrees with the Globe on many things. But I strongly believe they are anti irish cathlic. It took me years to understand and think this, But I believe.
There are other examples that come to mind.
Perhaps the naming of the Zakim Bridge or the proposed football stadium in southie. The Globe used these issues to help further drive a wedge between these 2 irish catholic neighborhoods and the boston jewish community.

Posted by: The troll | May 12, 2005 6:42:46 AM


To those people I say: it's okay, I understand. I've been there myself. Being in error on points of doctrine and still strugging to be faithful in this day, age, and place is probably inevitable without a rare specie of special grace.

I would tell them that one's individual error in dissenting from doctrine very likely arises from some level of misapprehension - possibly at a deep level - and that understanding - also at a deep level - is a special gift of the Holy Spirit that it is perfectly licit to pray for (it should be required :-).

I would tell them that error turns mortal when they hold it fast, stubbornly, when they turn from others on account of it, when they seek out similarly minded people which causes a certain hardening of position and can lead to public heresy, scandal or schism. It is the stubbornness in the face of truth that creates the sin from the error.

Another way of expressing it is that a 'cafeteria Catholic' should come to the Church with his questions - and not his answers.

Parallel things can happen on both 'liberal' and 'conservative' sides of the fence, and both sins are rooted in, I think, hubris: in the first, it's frequently a sin against truth (placing own's own malformed conscience against the universal truth), in the second, it's frequently a sin against charity (the splinter-in-the-eye thing). Both are bad in themselves, both can be grave when they harden the heart and mind against God.

To both, because I have faith in the rational mind's ability to clear the brambles to the heart for metanoia, I would tell them to study good theology (don't start with anything written in the past 100 years), Aristotlean philosophy, the lives and writings of the Saints. Seek for an 'adult' faith, rather than the child-faith you were given. Pray and take more frequent confession, even for venial sins. Try to live the teaching of the Church even if you don't fully believe - you _will_ find they have unexpected benefits.

That's what I would say. Still scared?

Posted by: JRP | May 12, 2005 3:16:32 PM

That's what I would say. Still scared?

Depends on how many more like you are out there, I would say.

Posted by: worldcitizen | May 12, 2005 5:36:25 PM

JRP, I very much appreciate your thoughtful and heartfelt comment. It is an honest answer to the question I posed, which is all that I can ask for.

That said, it does seem to me that we are talking past each other in some sense. Perhaps that is inevitable - I suspect it's fair to say that our world views are rather different. But on the issue that started this thread - the procedure by which federal judges are confirmed (or not) in the US Senate, which is what Dobson's op-ed was about - it's important to keep one's eye on the ball. Federal judges are constitutionally required to swear their oath not to God (many add "so help me God," but it's optional), but to support the US Constitution. And, at this time, the US Constitution as authoritatively interpreted by the US Supreme Court confers some rights that are, shall we say, controversial.

Now, I don't like some of those interpretations, and you don't like some of them. But the point is this: if you want to be a judge, you have to live with them and decide cases according to them until the Supreme Court overrules them or the Constitution is amended. That's the rule of law. And in my view, when a judicial nominee's public statements, whether based on moral, ethical, philosophical, religious, or any other beliefs, reasonably call into question that nominee's willingness to do that, it is fair to question that nominee's fitness to serve as a judge. I'd be interested to hear your take on that view.

To return to the op-ed, I am quite certain that Sen. Schumer was not criticizing Pryor because he's Catholic. And I am quite certain that the Democratic party is not out to purge the courts of "people of faith." Both parties contain many faithful adherents to many religions, including of course Catholicism. A Senator's "advice and consent" role legitimately includes ensuring that a judicial nominee will uphold the rule of law even when the nominee's personal beliefs might run in the other direction. To transmute that inquiry into an attack on someone's religion, as Dobson has attempted to do, is not fair and not accurate.

I've blabbed on enough for now. As I said, I very much appreciate your thoughtful comments, and I hope we can keep this sort of mutually respectful dialogue going.

Posted by: David | May 13, 2005 10:01:08 AM

Hey David, tell him to piss - off!

Posted by: The troll | May 13, 2005 1:02:23 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.