Arthur Saginian’s letter, “The Ping-Pong Match” (Oct. 7) scolds Maggie Bowman and me for what he calls “volleying” arguments — as if civic dialogue were just a noisy game. The irony is that Mr. Saginian’s own writing style is built on the very format he criticizes.
His recent letters follow the same pattern. In “Preference vs. Truth” (Aug. 6), he redefines “truth” to make Phillip Wasserman sound simplistic. “Where Does the Money Come From?” (July 19) replies to Ben Mullen’s letter with broad generalities about greed and influence. “A Definition of Politics” (June 26) reframes politics as conflict rather than cooperation, and “What Was He Trying to Accomplish?” (Sept. 26) reacts to commentary on Charlie Kirk’s death with moral speculation. That’s his trademark: rhetorical jousting and clever reversals — reaction for reaction’s sake. His pieces are sharp on the surface but once you look for substance — data, sources, or solutions — there’s almost nothing there. Rarely do his responses provide the same factual or advocacy-based essence of what he now calls “ping-pong.”
By contrast, my exchange with Maggie Bowman had purpose. My letter defended Moms for Liberty against the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “extremist” label, which discourages parents from speaking about their children’s education. Moms for Liberty exists to restore parental involvement and keep classroom materials age-appropriate.
Mr. Saginian’s “both-sides” framing may sound fair, but it blurs reality: One side defends children and parents, the other defends a national brand that profits from outrage. This isn’t ping-pong — it’s a fight over who shapes what kids learn.
Nancy Fairbanks
Valencia
