DEAR EDITOR:
Cynthia Walker brings new meaning to the term
”
Bully Pulpit
”
by using hers like a bully would to beat me with accusations of
engaging in name calling and
”
hate speech.
”
DEAR EDITOR:
Cynthia Walker brings new meaning to the term “Bully Pulpit” by using hers like a bully would to beat me with accusations of engaging in name calling and “hate speech.” I have scoured the letter I sent April 21 and previously using my best homeschooling skills, and failed to find where I was calling Cynthia Walker ANY names. I didn’t call her a “right-wing bigot,” a racist, or even a McCarthyist, though I am convinced that all of those ideologies are advanced through acceptance of her opinions.
On the contrary, instead of “short-circuiting debate” and “squelching free-speech” (hers only I think), I am trying to open it back up from the shadows of rumor and innuendo. All I really did was challenge her authority as a moral and patriotic icon and on the accuracy and veracity of statements she made in a column attacking local educators.
This, apparently, is never to be done because it makes her simply furious. I suppose it could be argued that I called her a liar. However, please recall (as Cynthia was unable to) that I said she was lying IF (if and ONLY if) the stories weren’t true, or if they’d suffered from “embellishment.”
Lying, as we all know, is that situation which occurs when a person wants you to believe what isn’t really true. It doesn’t matter how that is brought about: straight out fabrication, clouding of issues or misdirection. Cynthia Walker is making out that I have said things I didn’t say on subjects I didn’t address. But a thorough inspection of my words will reveal not one name called by me. Not one.
This accusation bothers me, not because it maligns my character but because Ms. Walker portrays herself as a person of extremely high moral and ethical standards.
She has often regaled us with tales of her impeccable patriotism, her unwavering reverence and religious decency.
However, I remain unimpressed. It is difficult to see her misdirection in this matter as anything but a cover-up. A way to shift attention away from the unfairness of her attack of “patriotic correctness” on educators. Ms. Walker maligns people, and indeed, whole professions while giving no opportunity to defend against the alleged actions. She then, without detecting the darkly comedic contradiction, has the temerity to call it “open political debate” (you know, double-speak like “war is peace”).
But consider this: I too used Howard Zinn’s (the vile communist’s actual name) People’s History of the United States as a text in a college course. That course had SEVEN assigned textbooks. The book was included so that students could COMPARE political perceptions and bias in historical research.
Important and legitimate analysis skills. Is THAT what the Gavilan professor is doing? Because when the way she TELLS the story seems to imply a CONNECTION between communism and the professor’s teaching agenda. I also had Mein Kampf assigned to me in a History of the Holocaust class. Was my professor a Nazi? See how context matters?
Next, I asked for verification about the GHS teacher because the story was nearly identical to one told by Rush Limbaugh about five years back on his radio show. Specific details like the student’s proud answer and the teacher’s satanic-smug-liberal “very good” were almost word-for-word.
Please pardon my suspicion. But there is a huge body of “anecdotal evidence;” urban-legends shuffled around out there told to prove that your children’s teachers are evil socialistic hate mongers. It reminded me of Ronnie Reagan’s famous “Welfare Queen” anecdote, where some woman, presumably black, had bilked the country out of over $300,000 (or more depending on the day he told it) by becoming a “baby machine.” It was an out-and-out lie.
Created from the same whole cloth as the story he told for YEARS that he was with the battalion that liberated Auschwitz (he was actually in Hollywood editing FILMS of the event.) But, he told his lies for the purpose of advancing a political ideology. This too is apparently OK to some folks as long as the ideology is right and Godly.
Well, it ain’t right and it ain’t godly if you have to hurt innocent people to get it across. Wait. That reminds me of something. Oh never mind. Better not get me started on THAT.
Bill C. Jones, Gilroy
Submitted Sunday, April 27 to ed****@****ic.com
