As a born rabble rouser with a natural disposition towards stirring up any conveniently placed hornet's nest, far be it from me to rush blindly to the defense of the News & Record. But in this particular instance I think their willingness to print both Charen and Pitts on their editorial page is a laudable policy. Diametrically opposed on most issues? Sure. But they both make for good reading.

If you are offended by the presentation of opinions you don't agree with perhaps "Preaching To The Choir" monthly would be a more economically valid investment than a subscription to the GNR.

I don't know, I lean toward agreeing with the lte writer. I don't have a problem with the N&R printing liberal and conservative opinion pieces but the article she is referencing is really bad. If they are going to print conservative opinions, they should print those that make sense and are quasi logical.

Jan, love your sense of humor...you are a hoot.

I agree that all sides should be presented. As I read the mentioned article, I have to wonder who decided this writer was a writer. "Liberals Gone Wild" started me off on a bad foot as to accepting her views. "Teacher Gone Wild" would have made more sense if she disagreed with the teacher.

Okay Carol, I'm blushing, but as a word of advice don't encourage my natural inanity.

It can be a nerve wracking beast when unleashed.

Personally speaking I WANT to see a variety of opinion in the editorial pages, the idea of being repeatedly fed the same perspective holds no appeal for me whatsoever. News can be informational and can affect an existing opinion, but I feel no need to have my own interpretations constantly validated. Editorial pages should be for OPINIONS, not philosophical reaffirmation.

If it was beneficial to society for us all to foster perpetual agreement on all issues, to our detriment we'd not only still think the world was flat we'd all be standing in line to buy a Micheal Jackson CD.

I shudder at the thought.

I love to see both sides of an argument, as it either changes my thought or firms it up. Yeah, we have some real stupid pieces in the N&R sometimes, but variety is the spice of life. I think those who are afraid that reading another side might "shake" their own faith or reasoning, are not secure in their own thoughts anyway. So true with religion. I heard people say, "I'm not going to read or see Da Vinci Code, as it might weaken my faith". Obviously they didn't have MUCH faith to begin with. The same is true in shaping your own opinions.
The old line about minds and parachutes---both only work when open!

When conservative columnists are forced to find subject matter in a ninth grader's backpack, perhaps it's time for the political pendulum to swing back to the liberals. I was shocked to learn that society's deconstruction is being orchestrated by a ninth grade health teacher in Plymouth, NY. Who knew? While my definitions of family dysfunction would probably be different than the teacher's, that handout doesn't quite measure up to Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto or the Satanic Bible, now does it? Also, while I admit on the surface the handout seems pretty weak, we have no idea of the context in which it was presented to those students, which is not exactly fair. And let's be honest; those ninth graders probably paid no attention, or if they did, they probably didn't remember any of it past the next test. Why shouldn't people write in to complain about such a lame column? I'm interested in their opinions too. It was not long ago that there was a constant howling about Molly Ivans. I seldom read Ivan's columns, but from the few times I did, I remember she presented more coherent arguments than the aforementioned drivel. Perhaps that anti-Ivans crowd could also use some application forms for that "Preaching To The Choir" monthly that jan recommends.

While I did not read the article, I like what Scott Free write above in referencing it. Jan and DD as well make some valid points to consider when reading ANY article.

Carol's suggestion seems more reasonable in referencing the title. It is time that such "labels" be removed from article titles. Thereby, more people will read without preconceived ideas/notions.

I have enjoyed reading the comments after having been away for a few days. Sadly, some of the same pandering remarks continued. Maybe we who post could learn lessons from what is suggested regarding the Charen column.

Shalom

I did read the opinion of Ms. Charen regarding the "page on dysfunctional families" and thought she was completely over the top on this issue. While I have no problem with her or anyone else sharing their thoughts, the least one could do, especially if they are a "journalist", is retain some rationality. Ms. Charen went into some kind of strataspheric trance but remained at her keyboard and kept typing without thought or reason. All imho.

It seems to me that Ms. Charen did not actually understand the 9th grade worksheet that she feels so free to tear apart. As a teacher, when I read Ms. Charen's explanation of the class handout, I understood the "liberal" statements that offended her to be controversial talking points, not propaganda. I'm guessing that the teacher would have brought up the ideas like, "Children should never question their elders, even when the elders are wrong", and "girls should always be nice and quiet" and then asked the class to comment. Those statements were all points that you could use for an interesting class discussion exploring gender roles, family dynamics and morals.

In other words, the statements that Ms. Charen so exuberantly lambastes were not meant to be taken at face value, but to be discussed, challenged and explored. I'm sure every 9th grader in the room understood that concept, but it appears that Ms. Charen doesn't possess a high school level understanding of how to look at both sides of an issue. Sadly, her knee jerk reaction shows that she didn't take the time to research her topic before writing about it. Even a 9th grader would know that that's a mistake.

Fortunately, the 1st Amendment gives her the freedom to be a complete idiot, but that doesn't mean the News & Record has to stoop to her level.