WARLOCKS, CARLOCKS, VAPOR LOCKS, LOCKJAW, LOCK OUTS: THE EDITOR'S IN BOX IS CLOSED.
After noting the Herald Whig gave two days in a row to Mr. Jim Carlock to tee up Tom Dickerson in "Letters to the Editor", I wrote a reply. Of course, by the time I saw Mr. Carlock's second published letter, the deadline for letter on theLocal (District 172) School Board Election had passed. In keeping with their own rules (fair enough), the Whig did not publish even one third party letter standing up to Mr. Carlock on Mr. Dickerson's behalf. Here is what I wrote:
To the Editor:
With some surprise, I note the Herald-Whig gave a Mr. Carlock use of its space for two consecutive days for the apparent principal purpose of attacking Mr. Tom Dickerson.
Since this is obviously a hot topic, your readers might be interested in the views of a practicing attorney who regularly takes cases opposing District #172.
First, public discourse is never aided by the use of inflammatory terms such as Mr. Carlock’s “bogus” and “insanity.”
Further, District #172’s tort fund expenses have been subject to
extraordinary court review. The context for current safety expenses is clear. Columbine, Jonesboro, the World Trade Center and Ft. Hood have all happened. The tort fund tax is no more going back to a nickel than gasoline is going back to
Mr. Carlock proposes we educate children for “… their chosen field.” Most of us choose our fields after a broad-based, functional education. Mr. Carlock’s approach has been tried in Western Europe. It is called “streaming” and can result in late bloomers and special needs students not reaching their full
potential. Hopefully, we educate our children to optimize American opportunity.
Finally, in specific reply to the attacks upon Mr. Dickerson: Despite opposing Mr. Dickerson in legal matters and often disagreeing with him, I will proudly support him because of his honesty, diligence and fundamental sense of fairness.
That last trait, fairness, is exactly what Mr. Carlock’s attack pieces lack.
Anthony B. Cameron,
I understand having a deadline and sticking to it but here it had the effect of giving Carlock two bites out of Dickerson with no possibility of third party rebuttal--because you can't rebut what you haven't seen.