Recently, Esther Vergara wrote to question my sense of patriotism and my reputation as a teacher (I’ve been retired for five years). It was a unique letter in one respect. I don’t recollect ever reading a response to an editorial that concentrated on the writer, without mentioning what was written. I’m surprised such a personal attack was printed.
Ms. Vergara posed (“How did he teach?” Sept. 10 Tracy Press) a rhetorical question: “Did his students just succumb to his logic”?
Since Ms. Vergara didn’t advance any ideas of her own, we are left wondering about her motive for writing. It may be that she simply resents the fact that a scold like Mickey McGuire occasionally replies to blatant falsehoods in other people’s letters.
Shouldn’t people have the right to say what they wish, whether true or not, without having to worry about whether someone will notice? We have all heard from a group of writers, particularly but not exclusively on the political right, who read sloppy and unreliable sources. They figure that if they repeat a falsehood, their source is to blame.
Others follow a different standard. As a matter of integrity, they believe that the veracity of everything above their name is their responsibility. One need not double-check every fact. Just read and quote from trustworthy sources.
Here are two examples of why good sources are important:
In these pages, Frank Aquila recently claimed (“McNerney is no moderate,” Aug. 20 Tracy Press) that the national debt has doubled in less than two years under the Democrats. Rhonda Theisen went further (“What I’ll remember in November,” Sept. 10 Tracy Press). She said that the “Democrats quadrupled the debt in 18 months.” Actually, it’s not possible to double or quadruple the national debt in less than two years.
If such outlandish claims go unchallenged, won’t people begin to believe them?
Ms. Vergara is right about one thing: People who read what I write may indeed be in danger of succumbing to logic.
From my research. Housing prices are starting to double dip in Dublin, CA and other areas around our Congressional District.
Mabye when the other person wrote an article saying "doubled" they meant "double dipped"?
Don't be so quick to attack others until you can walk a mile in their moccasins.
"I don't know why the price of gold is rising...I'm puzzled by it"
Yer an economist? Didn't know that. New ya were a retired teacher that taught economics, political science an history subjects ta high school students but didn't know ya were classified as an economist as well. Whare did ya establish those credentials?
My guess is that there are people out there with their finger on the pulse of America. How can you have your finger on the pulse of the American economy when you are counting beans?
It's like the forest from the trees. Take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Only then can you begin to understand the problems our congressman and women are causing.
If I recall correctly someone wrote a letter about OUR congressman's healthcare debate and described it as a "phoney meeting". I suggest you go and read that letter to better understand what is going on in the American economy. You will probably be surprised to find out that Congress may not be listening to the people who elected them.
Since you're an economist, I'm curious as to what your take is on the magnitude of the changes implied when you have a government moving from taking 3% of GDP before the Depression to the 30% (and lately increasing extremely rapidly) of GDP that it consumes now.
Or what your take is on what happens to an economy when the producing part of the economy, the private sector, is being absorbed by the government, which produces nothing but only consumes. (or do you think the government produces anything real, and if so what of value that anyone would buy? can we export it?)
As an economist, unless you are one of the state-paid variety carefully trained not to ask or even think about certain questions difficult for the pro government position, you would know that production is ultimately the basis for employment. Then, should not government encourage production rather than obstruct it and force it to go overseas where tax, regulation, and just plain government arbitrariness are so much less.
As an economist, do you not find it odd that it is many times easier to start and run a factory in communist china than it is here, in a supposedly free country? Or have you been drinking the cool-aid too long?
I would like to know, again since you're an economist, what your take is on what happens in a government command economy like the one we increasingly are getting, when real needs never get percolated up from the "bottom" where real people live, but instead government decides what people need from the top down. Only in this kind of screwy arrangement could you get a stupid transit building sitting EMPTY and unused, wasting significant resources that surely could have been used elsewhere in our town.
Maybe as a government economist, these questions have never even entered your mind.
I'm not so sure any of the comments were intended personally. I think I addressed the writing style and content as did others. And I'm pretty sure the original article was also a question of teaching style. And looking issues from all sides. Is that incorrect?
While I will give ya points that not all people should be attackin th credability of th writer, you in this case, thair are a lot more who know ya at a more personal writer.
Now afore ya denegrate me fer my style of writin, remember ta focus on what I am sayin an not how I say it. Ya had that problem with me in yer classroom an it appears, in that respect, not much has changed from yer perspective.
I was gonna comment on yer discreditin attempts directed towards Esther but see RHCP has already done it. So, about th best I can do is look at yer closin sentence.
"People who read what I write may indeed be in danger of succumbing to logic."
Ya seem ta be thankin pretty highly of yerself here. Let me ask, do ya know what a narcissist is? I wonder cus that statment shore seems ta be narcissistic ta me.
We're only usin logic if we read yer letters? Sorry friend but I am not buyin that load of BS. Ain't it best ta look at both sides of th picture, gather all th facts an then make a logical determination don't ya think?
An because I know ya don't like ta respond cus ya find my writin so difficult ta understand, don't feel obligated ta respond unless ya really want ta. I've said what I have ta say an even though ya might not comprehend all of it I am shore that others readin it can understand it well enough.
In answering this question, one would not like to answer with only a particular person, or a particular part of the political dialogue in mind. Rather, there should be a common standard of fairness and good manner that are observed by all. A good start, as it is for all good manners, is the Golden Rule. How would we like to be treated?
The letter I responded to was written by someone whom I believe I have never met. Nor was she one of my students. Even if I had, should it still be o-k to say such outrageous things about someone's career as a teacher? How would you feel if you were in the same position?
Here's an opportunity to have an adult discussion about standards, fairness, and expectations that effect us all.
Please don't discredit attempt to discredit a source you are using as a method to discredit another writer? In the academia that flaw would be more akin to labeling by "association". I think you just fell pray to using one of Rush's old tactics, which I'm guessing you would abhor?
Also, when one tries to USE a source (not in a good sense of the word use) that says McNerney is no moderate. I'd question your logic, itself.
If you really wanted to do that, it's fine, but I'd have to guess the only source you could find to back you claim, is simply another Liberal.
I saw no need to make a public statement about it though.