Dear Editor,
Tuesday morning (1/25), after picking up a Dispatch, I turned to
the opinion page to read
”
The Gilroy Crusader’s
”
column. I was amused to find that the Crusader was unveiling
a
”
new
”
feature in his column for our reading pleasure, which he has
titled
”
Comment that needs a reply.
”
Dear Editor,
Tuesday morning (1/25), after picking up a Dispatch, I turned to the opinion page to read “The Gilroy Crusader’s” column. I was amused to find that the Crusader was unveiling a “new” feature in his column for our reading pleasure, which he has titled “Comment that needs a reply.”
The intent of this feature is to expose his fellow columnists who are using poor reasoning skills. That might have had positive note if it was not for the fact that the feature was inspired by his anti-liberal bias, which had blinded him to his own careless use of “faulty logic and fuzzy thinking”.
Therefore, it was no surprise that Mr. Dennis Taylor took the first hit. In order to heighten his criticism of Mr. Taylor’s support for the government’s role in subsidizing the public transportation system, the Crusader called upon the so-called expert testimony of Mr. Joe Thompson. In order to jointly prove their point, he used Thompson’s suggestion that “it would be cheaper to offer free limo service to Cal-train riders … ” then to subsidize a money pit of “fiscal waste.” Maybe I’m just naive, but when did they stop subsidizing “free?”
Since Mr. Taylor’s column was about “public transportation” not just about the single issue of Cal-train subsidizes, when did part of an argument become the whole argument?
The Crusader’s next move is to follow the latest trend – “when you have nothing to prove, imply that they are closet Socialist.” The Crusader makes use of this method of attack in the form of a straw man fallacy, suggesting that Mr. Taylor might also agree to the government subsidizing gainful employment.
The second columnist to annoy the Crusader, was one of the young columnists from Mustang country, Mr. David Bress.
This young man is also being unfairly called “on the carpet” for a line at the end of his (1/8) column. Schools must prepare students to be “good, honest citizens.”
What Mr. Bress wrote was nothing new, in fact parents have been making that demand on the educational system for decades, that the teaching of moral responsibility is a priority, because the schools must act “in loco parentis” (in place of the parents) while the student is at school.
It is for this reason that some believe that the schools must meet the parent’s religious and moral expectations. However, such demands are, and rightly so, limited by law.
Disagreeing with this view, the Crusader suggests that it is the responsibility of the parents not the educational system.
But what about those parents who want to put the whole responsibility on the schools and their children end up reflecting the self-serving moral hypocrisy of their parents. Is that the result of a failed educational system? Just because the parents are the end product of the educational system’s moral failure themselves?
Ironically, that is also the Crusader’s stand on a public educational system that has embraced what he refers to as “John Dewey’s philosophy of moral relativism and has discarded all standards of absolute right, wrong, good, or bad … ” But what about the issue of parental responsibility over that of the system?
Also there was that reason for his rejection of socialism, the loss of personal freedoms, that is in fact the same sacrifice that is required when one adheres to absolutes.
Harold Williams, San Jose
