Thursday, October 15, 2009
Right, left and in between
Editorial commentary
Recent contributions
- Can we be a two-trolley town?
- Striving for civility
- School funding no fantasy
- Pesticide board's work will continue through merger
- Commentary archive
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Frederick Fuller
Fuller, of Roanoke, is a retired teacher from Roanoke City Public Schools. He contributes to Voices of the Valleys.
So many people write to The Roanoke Times excoriating the editorial staff for being leftist, whatever that means today in our multi-defined world where, as Humpty Dumpty said in "Through the Looking Glass," words mean exactly what we want them to mean. Thus socialism is communism that is equal to fascism, which supports the antichrist.
But I read many opinions and op-eds that are definitely rightist, whatever that means, also. Now what's with that? The Times is either leftist or rightist, correct? Could it be, just to proffer a silly suggestion, that The Times is fair? All views get printed relative to space available?
So, I present a leftist rant that, I hope, diminishes the accusation that The Times is an evil, sinister rag whose only intent is to make the world, or at least the Roanoke Valley, socialist, or communist, or fascist, or opposed to Christianity.
The Roanoke Times leftist? Publishing Cal Thomas, George Will, and clearly right-challenged letters and op-eds from people who sincerely believe the president is a socialnazicommunistantichrist? I would say The Times is rather broad-minded.
Its editorials, which do represent what the staff supports, are slightly left, even though they pulled the plug on Creigh Deeds when he lied about Bob McDonnell in a TV ad. (Gee, that's really left wing, hey!)
I am happy they publish Thomas and Will. Thomas is hilarious; his stupidity makes him an immovable, ludicrous, asinine conundrum. He portrays himself as a born-again Christian, then expounds opinions that are pure fear-mongering, and supports war. (We all remember how Jesus supported war.)
Indeed, Thomas begrudges helping people who are poor and downtrodden ("Are the poorhouses closed?" Scrooge asked), resents illegal aliens getting medical treatment paid for by his, and our, taxes. (Jesus, of course, made sure all he healed were upstanding, practicing Jews who believed in him. Those gentile dogs could die in the gutter, he would say. Right?) And obviously Thomas believes President Obama is another Black Plague, no pun intended.
But it's good The Times publishes him so the world can know what a blockhead he is, in my flawed, humble opinion.
And Will: All he is, in my humble, obstinate opinion, is excessively verbose and a poor writer, one who tangles obtuse ideas around complicated words and is the epitome of "sound and fury, signifying nothing." I never miss reading him; he reminds me of what an intelligent person can do with nonsense. (I'm positive many will say the same about me, and this article, except for the intelligent part.)
To be sure and fair, many liberal writers miss the mark, too. Ellen Goodman gets tangled in verbosity often and is difficult to understand. Some of her attacks on men are not warranted.
The Times editorial staff goes off at times on tangents that seem unimportant and silly. For example, I disagree with its stance on Standards of Learning and educational testing. Having been a teacher, I know from experience that given the stress and pressure of being mandated to bring pupils up to some prescribed standard by politicians who have no clue about teaching and are only looking for votes, educators, wrongfully, will often cheat. Most are not caught like William Fleming's principal, et al.
I might add that for the most part, The Times' editors don't have a clue about teaching either, unless they've been in the classroom teaching day after day. Every profession has its moccasins in which to walk.
Well, that's my rant for today. I look forward to being challenged.
