To the Editor:
In response to Ms. Schroeder’s recent letter rebuking me for being condescending, intimidating, attacking, etc.
After checking what I wrote in my original letter which questioned Ms. Schroeder’s statements and facts, I am at a loss. I feel that at no time was I condescending. I was discussing issues and/or policies and I backed my position with verifiable facts.
I sense that Ms. Schroeder believes any opinion that differs from hers should not to be allowed. Why? As she makes obvious in her bid for censorship when she says – “Newspapers would be wise to set standards that would spare the deprecators and the ‘demonizers’ from the embarrassment that results from their demonstrated lack of respect for civility.”
Spare me the feigned indignation. If truth be told, when you read Ms. Schroeder’s response you wonder at her lack of meaningful dialogue and her wealth of disparaging word usage- “modern secular humanists/progressives/socialists,” “many members of the left show hate and disrespect for the values of their neighbors,” “they attack, intimidate and bully,” and on and on. I leave it to the reader as to who is out to “demonize.”
Ms. Schroeder ends with “The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.” And calls Mr. Laadt and me to take heed of this admonishment (while an opinion piece by Selwyn Duke dated May 6, 2009, included this alleged quote from Orwell, he did not give it as a quote and did not attribute it to Orwell).
What is telling in Ms. Schroeder’s letter, is she doesn’t dispute any of my facts. Regardless of who wrote the above quote, what Ms. Schroeder fails to appreciate is that it’s the consensus of this nation that it is the far right body politic which “hears what they wish regardless of what is expressed or what is factual.”
Take, for example, the GOP’s utter disbelief in Romney’s loss. They couldn’t even bring themselves to believe their own polls.
“Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible,” wrote Orwell in a biting critique of the desperate euphemisms used by politicians of his day defending Stalinism.
“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
And those on the right seem to have a “lock” on “double speak.” I wince when I hear Republicans want to “fix” reform, modernize, or protect and strengthen” something. Because, as when I take my dog to the vet for a “fix” I know something will be “cut” – Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, tax deductions or any of the innumerable other “cuts” that always seem to impact the middle class taxpayer.