letter to the editor

Letter to the Editor: Not a Fan of Kopp’s Column

Editor:

Why is the commentary of an aged politician allowed on a monthly basis?  I know there are persons who will protest that the monthly commentary represents alternative opinions to “leftist” extremism, but seriously, what value or substance comes from these monthly scribblings?  What if any insight is gleaned from the smorgasbord of red herrings and straw man arguments sandwiched by choice quotations from cherry picked political agents in highly partisan media organs or out of context from the original quotation?

His recent cute quotes that begin and end his latest commentary is a perfect example. “An election is coming. Universal peace is declared, and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry.” So stated George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans) in 1866. This was followed at the end by another quote: Walt Whitman once wrote: “I know nothing grander, better exercised, better digested, more positive proof of the past, the triumphant result of faith in humankind, than a well-contested American national election.” That inspires me to recommend voting for supervisorial candidates  … blah blah.

 

In between these quotes were a bunch of paragraphs supporting or not supporting various propositions.  Quick fly by hits that really don’t help anyone understand, and are also somewhat suspect in context. Regardless,  can anyone explain what these quotes have to do with the wording that was in between?  He cries about California being a one-party state, but never explains that this has occurred due to the utter hollow corruption of the entire Republican party.  If that last sentence bothers you then you haven’t been paying attention. When your baseball team is bad, when your debate team is bunk, don’t lay down a subtle hit on the other side that has done the homework and has SOME INTEGRITY.  This is the reason why elder Republicans (like the commentary individual) are now scurrying around trying to say they are “independent,” meanwhile saying the same things and spewing the same unsupported ideology.  Zombie ideas just need a new political party, right?

Persons who support this kind of tripe want to use tired monikers of leftist and conservative, but those descriptions don’t describe the tawdry emptiness that is actually in these monthly commentaries.  Arrogant slanted phraseology that does not evince any fair assessment of the issues is not a conservative opinion.  Copious usage of cherry-picked statements and quotes are like cheap ornaments on a christmas tree, and are not remotely close to a cogent analysis of ideas and policy choices.  The evidence is there every month.

Giving this charlatan a podium from which to spew nonsense is giving the label of conservatism a bad example.  The smug language and dismissive attitude characteristic in every single article is blatant.  And every single article that is pieced together by this inept firebrand speaks for no one except the clan.  The rest of us get to have our sensibilities and intelligence insulted because we want to read the commentary in our district monthly newspaper, but instead get to experience convoluted jargon which speaks only to true believers.

All that aside, in all his years as a politician, the only claim to legitimacy that I see is jumping on the political bandwagon of getting BART to connect with SF Airport, as if this politician actually did all the heavy lifting to make that happen.  Some might call that statesmanship.

Some might deflect the legitimate criticism by describing others as leftist.  However, that is the only criticism.  Call something else a name in order to justify your own inability to understand the legitimate criticism being presented by multiple people.  Nice.  Funny thing though —  that is the only criticism of what is perceived as the “other” side.  No breakdown or analysis of the argument is presented at all.  Just call it leftist, and the debate is over.  Therefore the rest of us have to accept the illogical, borderline reactionary writings of someone who is not convincing, and has given ample ongoing evidence of his own inability to overcome his own biased prejudices.

Gino Napoli

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s