Thursday, March 31, 2011


 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
a quarter.

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.


At 2:12 PM, March 31, 2011, Blogger pravoslavniye said...

Well done, sir.

At 2:15 PM, March 31, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nothing against Mr. Carlock who does have some interesting, useful ideas and expectations (yes, and some less so).

It is his touted "bluntness" that is problematic, and which I believe will simply add fuel to the fire we have seen in the last few years on the school board.

I hope, for all our sakes (and especially for the students in District 172) that if he is elected he learns just a wee bit of self-restraint and a bit less "bluntness".

You do indeed catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

At 8:08 AM, April 01, 2011, Anonymous Tookie said...

If I was actually more involved here I would have run the single dirtiest campaign against Tom . But I will note vote for him . I would actually vote for Pol Pot , Phil Hare , or Spring's mustache over Tom Dickerson .

p.s. : The Whig has an editorial page ? Been a long time since I looked

At 9:05 AM, April 01, 2011, Blogger UMRBlog said...


Back from the daid! I thought you moved to Jamaica, mon!

At 9:15 AM, April 01, 2011, Anonymous tookie said...

Just doing a LONG commute these days . I still loath Dickerson and I still hold Tort against him .

At 5:52 PM, April 03, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tookie, will you be getting released anytime soon?

Mental health cutbacks are a bitch, aren't they?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home