Then I looked at the comments. There were a number of good ones. What was Mr. Lessenberry's response? He invoked the Spelling Defense (sister tactic to Godwin's Law):
Ms Kelle, I did not say you are unqualified. however, you spelled both invoked and argument wrong, and have inadvertently helped prove my point
So I guess that if I were to assert journalists aren't qualified to write then his lack of punctuation and capitalization would prove my assertion?
Then someone points out, "you should have at least spoken to some public school teachers, or met some homeschooled kids, before penning your article."
Mr. Lessenberry provides this howler in response:
I sleep with a public school teacher, every night, and have for 31 years. I remain convinced that, if anything, I was too kind to the homeschoolers.
Talk to one public school teacher and you've talked to all public school teachers, eh? I'm mean, they're all connected to the mighty Mother Brain, right?
From his profile:
Jack has always said that the thing he loves about journalism is the fact that it's all about people-about connecting with and learning from them.
"I want to create intelligent dialogue about the problems we face. I think we need to think about and talk about who we are as a country and people, and explore those things."
I call bullpucky. His essay is by someone who has decided he knows enough. Someone who's given up on curiosity and settled on pontificating. His comments to those who try to engage in an intelligent dialogue show he wants no such thing.
So why did I shelve the big long post with point-by-point rebuttal? Mr. Lessenberry did all my work for me. In two comments he revealed his ridiculous leaps and sloppy attitude to research and learning better then I ever could have.
UPDATE: Doc did the research I, and Mr. Lessenberry, didn't in this excellent post. She takes his essay apart quite nicely and introduces the wonderful term, edutard.