Grand Junction, CO – Public conflicts, regardless of their specific topics, are consistently leveraged by individuals with power and money to further their own interests, according to Craig Hall, owner and publisher of The Business Times. Hall argues that such ongoing societal friction is not a bug in the system, but rather a feature, enthusiastically embraced by those who benefit from it.
He suggests that the general public often serves as a means to an end in these conflicts, used to maintain disputes until the powerful achieve their goals. The advent of social media, Hall notes, has only served to make these protracted battles seem eternal.
To illustrate his point, Hall references several high-profile situations. He discusses the ongoing Lindsay Clancy case in Massachusetts, where he observes the defense attorney engaging in what he calls "gamesmanship," attempting to sway public sentiment toward a "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict. Hall contends that such an outcome would result in millions for Clancy through pending civil suits and significant wealth for her legal team. He states the attorney could then market a reputation as "the murderer’s best friend," while litigators involved stand to gain millions by suing on behalf of both victims and defendants. He further suggests that judges also find power in these "trials of the century." Hall concludes that the Clancy case, at its core, is "all about power and money," rather than the victims.
Another example cited by Hall is an expected trial at Cornell University. He points out that the central issue of this case is the behavior of all involved, asserting that there is no dispute over what occurred two years ago. Instead, the contention revolves around how inebriated behavior should be weighed on the scales of justice. Hall highlights that a substantive investigation only commenced after a lawsuit was filed, transforming the issue into one driven by money, which he believes will eventually uncover truth and abuses of power. He also anticipates a major conflict concerning the issue of consent, noting that the defendants will likely employ the same argument. Hall expresses a critical view of the environment that allowed such a scenario, referring to it as a "drug-and-alcohol-induced, Only Fans world," and implies that power and money influenced the initial handling of the situation.
On a more minor, yet "inane," note, Hall brings up the WNBA and the Indiana Fever. He identifies a significant problem within the league, which he says permits coaches, players, and even fans to label Indiana Fever supporters as racist. He also notes a focus on whether a particular player, A’ja Wilson, receives preferential treatment in calls, claiming she does, even to the extent of threatening fans. Hall attributes such behavior to a lack of accountability when rules no longer apply equally. He concludes that those in positions of power and wealth overseeing these situations only care about them if they perpetuate conflict, as they are not concerned with rules, laws, or civil order. Hall suggests that simple solutions exist—the unbiased and equal application of rules and laws—which would lead to different outcomes, such as Clancy serving time, productive study groups at Cornell, and the Fever advancing in playoffs. However, he questions, "where’s the power and money in that?" reinforcing his central argument that conflict serves the interests of the powerful and wealthy.