BY DAN VALENTI

PLANET VALENTI NEWS AND COMMENTARY

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, THE WEEKEND EDITION APRIL 23-5, 2021) — People are quick to place THE PLANET into their little, ideological boxes. Our work as a columnist, talk show host on radio and TV, and now blogger has been going on long enough where many make the mistake of thinking that because they know our work, they know us. That’s the downside of being a public figure. We not only accept it, we understand it. It doesn’t necessarily mean we embrace it.

THE PLANET is not, never has been, and never will be ideological. THE PLANET is a polemicist and a provocateur in the best tradition of our First Amendment freedoms, particularly freedom of speech and press. The point is not to push a particular point of view but to generate discussions, deliberations, and debates on matters of public interest, to help best sift some grains of truth from the drifting sand dunes of rhetorical vitriol.

In Massachusetts, arguably America’s most liberal state, only two kinds of animals win elective office: Hard-core Democrats plus a handful of nominal “Republicans.” Our local, state, and national reps are so blue they make cobalt seem like crimson. Under those circumstances, we share views that local lame stream media blocks. If the Commonwealth were redder than a Cook Island sunset, we would be Paul Mauriot blue.

As for Dan Valenti’s personal views, you would have to get to know the actual guy, not the long-fictionalized public image.  The real person is not to be confused with the public avatar. The real DV would surprise and maybe shock you, pleasantly, most likely.

As for “truth” in public events, you will never find it. It doesn’t exist.

In the Floyd-Chauvin case, for example, there are two radically different versions. In the Absolute, neither is true or right. Averaging them out to the middle makes no sense. That would be like saying that Ted Williams and Walt Alston averaged 260 MLB home runs (actually, 261 for Ted and only 260 for Walt). It’s a “true” statement, but Ted hit all 521.

The closest we can get to the truth on this good earth is a statement that includes ALL versions, dumping the arcane notion of logical incompatibility. The only True statement is: “George Floyd died needlessly at the hands of a murderous cop AND Officer Derek Chauvin acted correctly in his arrest of George Floyd, with death the byproduct of Floyd’s actions.” That statement incorporates the whole judgmental universe of the case. If you take sides, you step into the relative world, and maybe that’s all we humans have in this life.”

That said, we present this column, first published in The Washington Examiner.

———- ooo ———-

‘It Wasn’t Even Close for Chauvin’

By Eddie Scarry

Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was found guilty in the murder of George Floyd, so let’s pretend for a second that, like liberals, I don’t trust the criminal justice system. Here’s how I might react: I might take to the streets to riot, maybe throw things at cops, and bash some windows. If I didn’t do that, I would instigate others to do it for me and then justify it or, at minimum, excuse it.

I would do this for days, weeks, and months. I would make anyone who disagreed with me uncomfortable for doing so. I would never shut up about how unfair and unjust our criminal justice system actually is.

Fortunately, for me and small-business owners, landlords, and my friends and family, I’m not a liberal. I’m a critical thinker, and I trust the system. I disagree with the verdict, but I trust that the jurors deliberated honestly and came to what they believed to be a fair conclusion.

It appears that it wasn’t even close for Chauvin. The jury returned within 24 hours of deliberation to render guilty verdicts on all three charges — second- and third-degree murder, plus manslaughter.

But how could it be? The entire year of 2020 saw the media build up a narrative about a racist white cop kneeling on the neck of an innocent black man. It wasn’t the truth, but, hey, there was an election at stake. Journalists believed that then-President Donald Trumpneeded to be taken down. Riots across the nation would only help with that task.

And when more information came to light contradicting that narrative, the media not for one second backed down. And leading Democrats only grew more bold. President Joe Biden on Tuesday, hours before the verdict, said there would only be one “right” verdict — a conviction. Days before that, Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters took to the streets just miles away from the trial setting to agitate Black Lives Matter activists, telling them to get “more confrontational” if there was no murder conviction. Former President Barack Obama last week called Chauvin a murderer.

This is the new American justice. We call it “social justice.” It’s no longer about reasonable doubt and due process. It’s narrative and intimidation.

Chauvin will certainly appeal, and the judge overseeing his trial has already said that Waters’s comments alone could be enough to see the trial overturned on appeal.

Good. That’s the justice system I still believe in, but I’m not a liberal.

———- ooo ———-

Chauvin had no shot at a fair trial. For a year, social media, BLM “protesters,” and liberal politicians set up a powder keg where “guilty” on all counts was the only verdict possible. Chauvin’s defense called seven witnesses. All received death threats. One had a severed pig’s head dropped on his doorstep. What do you think was going through the minds of jurors?

Have a great weekend, everybody.

————————————————————————————————————————-

“When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully” — Writer Samuel Johnson.

“OPEN THE WINDOW, AUNT MILLIE.”

The views and opinions expressed in the comment section or in the text other than those of PLANET VALENTI are not necessarily endorsed by the operators of this website. PLANET VALENTI assumes no responsibility for such views and opinions, and it reserves the right to remove or edit any comment, including but not limited to those that violate the website’s Rules of Conduct and its editorial policies. PLANET VALENTI shall not be held responsible for the consequences that may result from any posted comment or outside opinion or commentary as provided in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and this website’s terms of service. All users of this website — including readers, commentators, contributors, or anyone else making use of its information — hereby agree to these conditions by virtue of this notice. When PLANET VALENTI ends with the words “The Usual Disclaimer,” that phrase shall be understood to refer to the full text of this disclaimer.