From a reader who identified himself as ‘Aaron Burr’ — his remarks in black, my replies thereafter in blue.
John,
I couldn’t agree with you more concerning Steve Spear. If you are
correct that he has applied to get his old job as municipal judge back,
that is appalling. Under no circumstances should he be placed back in
this position.
I take strong exception to some of your comments about Jim Stewart and
the whitewaterbanner.com. Of course, it is more of an information
source, rather than a true journalistic source, and yes, having an
archive and some stronger navigational tools would make that site
stronger. However, it is unnecessary to take aim at him for his
cheerfulness or optimism. It is nasty to compare him to the boy
searching for a pony in a pile of manure. You insult all of us with
that comparison. I ask that you retract this portion of your blog
immediately. The civil thing to do would be to then privately apologize
to Jim for such an offensive comparison. That, obviously, is your
choice.
Most sincerely yours,
“Aaron Burr”
P.S. I have no problem with you knowing my name, as that is easily
ascertained from my e-mail address. However, I am most serious that you
have crossed the line in your attack on Jim Stewart. Please pull this
back! (And no, despite my pen name, this is not a challenge to a duel).
Adams: Spear’s an example of much that’s wrong with our small town, and the unwillingness of officeholders to speak against him — while they always had every legal right to do so — is one of the sad failures of nerve in our small town.
On the Banner, I’ll offer a few remarks. Neither a retraction nor apology is in order. You very much misunderstand the quotation from Reagan. Reagan used the anecdote throughout his career, in different versions, and often applied the story of the boy as optimist not only to others, but also to himself, sometimes favorably, sometimes self-deprecatingly. It was, by many accounts, his favorite anecdote. Your request is overwrought. If my slight remarks on Stewart lead you to expect an apology, I can scarcely imagine that you’re able to pick up a daily newspaper anywhere in America without demanding daily at least several public (or private) apologies.
I would be the first to say that Stewart, as publisher, has a First Amendment right to publish his perspective as he wishes. I don’t doubt that he loves Whitewater, as in my way I do (no less than he does).
His optimism, though, is hardly an unalloyed good, or a pure benefit to the town. You write of Stewart as though he were the actor Jimmy Stewart: a community treasure above reproach. I see him differently — as a publisher and politician, whose website is as legitimate a subject of criticism as a newspaper would be. A disposition to optimism is beneficial only when the fundamental conditions of a place are sound. If one believes, as I do, that there are fundamental challenges facing Whitewater — beautiful thought it is — then Stewart’s optimism is both an occasional distraction and impediment to problem-solving and reform.
Stewart’s not just a publisher, after all; he’s a member of the Common Council, too. There’s a way in which his ultra-optimistic website is an extended campaign advertisement for the status quo, and an endorsement of his incumbency, and that of others. Stewart is free to publish as he wishes, but he can hardly hold himself out as an apolitical, unaffected citizen. He’s involved in many of the subjects that he covers, and his news items often include topics on which he has, or will, vote as a Council member. (Most readers likely know of his political role, and he includes his own name in many stories about Council votes, etc., of course.) Still, he’s often writing about himself when he writes about city government, as it were.
Stewart’s not unwilling, now and then, to venture from innocuous descriptions of local charity events and high school sports into more controversial topics. Recently, he trumpeted the conviction of a local businessman in a controversial police action by hyper-linking to a story using the words of the businessman’s plea. Nice touch, for those who saw the plea as vindication. (I would have respected Stewart more if he just wrote that he believed the effort was justified, but he was willing to send that same message without writing so in his own words.) His coverage of the proposed creation of new Tax Incremental Districts — on which he will vote — had been occasionally sloppy and uninsightful. (I’ll write more on the Tax Incremental Financing and TIF districts this week.) His optimism, such as it is, wanders into endorsements of incumbency — his and others.
You take exception to my application of Reagan’s remark for Stewart, but I thought that it was, on balance, less critical than my comment that the city might just as well adopt Stewart’s website as its own. That latter comment cuts — as it was meant to — two ways. The city’s website’s not that good, and Stewart’s publication is sometimes a valentine to incumbency and the status quo.
As for dueling, I am fortunate that I did not choose the pseudonym Hamilton, as I would have been a better and easier target for you.