DEAR EDITOR:
Mr. Meier, I would like to comment on some of the blatant
distortions of fact in your essay on truth, but first a little
personal background.
DEAR EDITOR:
Mr. Meier, I would like to comment on some of the blatant distortions of fact in your essay on truth, but first a little personal background.
Many years ago, while still a good little liberal freshly minted by our state schools and my pro-union, New Deal democratic family, I took an interest in reading history. Shortly, I began to notice that the newspapers did not agree with the history. There were some misrepresentations of historical fact, but, more importantly, the fundamental assumptions about how the world works and what is important and what is not were different. I didn’t know what it was, but it was there, like a splinter in my mind.
Partly as a result of general dissatisfaction with the news, and partly an interest in what the nutzo conservatives were saying, I subscribed to a couple of conservative newspapers. My reaction was much the same as yours, what a bunch of kooks! Like you, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Mitchell, and the staff of GUSD, I had spent my entire life in mainstream schools, mainstream books, and mainstream news media and had never been exposed to any other viewpoint. Diversity just ain’t in it.
After the shock, a few interesting differences in conservative reporting appeared. The stories generally contain more factual information and less opinion. The worldview is firmly rooted in historical precedent. In the first rush of a new story, conservative and mainstream liberal reporting are opposites, like night and day. As the story develops over time and the facts fill in, the mainstream usually backtracks if they cover it at all; conservatives more often get it right the first time.
In time, my assumptions changed and I became a conservative.
Back to truth. Mr. Meier, your statement that there are no liberal shock jocks is wrong. Liberal shock jocks like Mr. Taylor are far more abusive and furious and tell bigger lies than I have ever heard from Savage, O’Reilly, or Limbaugh. You are unable to see the abuse, outrage, and lies because you agree with their assumptions.
You say that the only difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives are willing to be obnoxious. I disagree. The fundamental difference between us, in my opinion, is that conservatives are loyal to the United States and the American people while liberals are loyal only to themselves.
Your opinion that the California initiative process is frivolous, destroys accountability, and undermines checks and balances is just plain silly. Direct participation by the electorate in setting state policy is called democracy. It ain’t possible to get any more accountable. Given the initiatives that have recently been nullified by the courts, what usurped checks and balances did you have in mind?
Your statement that the Patriot Act gives “unchecked powers of surveillance and detainment” to “a shadow group in the government” is wrong. If you happened to read Cynthia Walker’s column a few months ago where she read the Act and reported on it and you therefore knew the truth, you lied.
Stuart Allen, Gilroy
Submitted Sunday, Jan. 11 to
ed****@ga****.com
