- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

« News Home

Why the double whammy?

Published: Mon, December 23, 2013 @ 12:00 a.m.

Why the double whammy?

Any responsible newspaper must publish the work of writers with different values, perceptions and recommendations for beneficial change. We need to read the views of columnists we may not agree with — as an old saying puts it, our goal must be to “eat the fish and spit out the bones.”

That said, I feel called to question the decision to put diatribes by both George Will and Cal Thomas on facing pages in The Vindicator of Dec. 13. Either would have been enough to remind us that the far right detests President Obama and that some columnists think that they can read his mind.

Cal Thomas consumes the first half of his piece telling readers how much he was paid between ages 14 and 37, in a futile attempt to undercut issues relating to staggering inequities in the U.S. today. He wastes our time with this unsupported 36-word sentence: “Income ‘inequality’ is a part of the greed-envy-entitlement philosophy promoted by liberals who want to addict more people to government and entice them to vote for the party that is effectively buying their loyalty.”

George Will shows once again that he has the art of the verbal sneer down pat, by opening his essay with this self- righteous sentence: “The education of Barack Obama is a protracted process as he repeatedly alights upon the obvious with a sense of original discovery.”

Will often begins his pieces with a largely irrelevant paragraph that seems intended to show readers how educated and worldly he is. In the present work, that objective is met with some words in the fourth paragraph about sauropod dinosaurs.

I could have learned more about the real world by flipping back to the comics page and reading Zits.

Robert D. Gillette, Poland


1formerdemliberal(182 comments)posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago

In his letter, Mr. Gillette "wastes our time with this unsupported 26-word sentence", "Either (opinion writer) would have been enough to remind us that the far right (?) detests President Obama and that some columnists (?) think that they can read his mind."

Where are your facts to support your generalities about the far right and some columnists, sir? Aren't you spewing the same type of generalizations about others that you criticize in your letter?

Could it be that some people simply disagree with President Obama based upon his policies, rather than his personal characteristics? Who are you to presume the thoughts of those who dare to have divergent views of the presidential actions.

Perhaps some savvy national political observers are experienced enough to adhere to the old adage "Actions speak louder than words" regarding hypocritical politicians from either party. In the president's case, his words without his trusty teleprompter would be as confusing as his actions.

If two liberal columns supported the president and bashed those who disagree with his agenda for this country in the same Vindy edition, I'm guessing that you wouldn't be crying like a lost schoolgirl because two conservative articles in one day appeared in the Vindy. Boo hoo. It's just not fair!

But of course, I can't read your mind as well as your "understanding" of the motivations of the "far right's" beliefs.

Suggest removal:

2cathylukasko(116 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Totally agree Eivo. Gilette epitomizses the Krugmans and Robert Reich Liberals who want to equalize all Americans via redistribution of wealth! NOT what our Founding Fathers came to this contry for and instituted in the Constitution!

Suggest removal:

3SheDevil(120 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Interesting how the commentors above attacked Dr Gillette personally, and had little to say about the message.

Suggest removal:

4WilliamC(10 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

And object to making making any progress in the Middle East.
Negativism must be a life-style for some. How sad.

Suggest removal:

5Elf2(75 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Comprehending readers will recognize that Dr. Gillette was questioning the need to have multiple ("double") attacks.
Intellectually challenged readers, not so much!

Suggest removal:

6Elf2(75 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Commenter #11:
Still Trolling ??????
You make no sense, your comment is unrelated.

Suggest removal:

7doubled(210 comments)posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Sure thing eivo, I mean why in the world would anyone think that the tea party is filled with intolerant bigots? What in the world could have been said or done by tea party reps in the past few years that would lead anyone to come to such a radical conclusion as that??? I think you need to learn the difference between the intolerance reasonable people have for bigots and the intolerance bigots have for anyone who is not like them. Here's a hint - it's not the same. So please stop equating a fight against intolerance and racism with intolerance and racism. You're embarrassing yourself.

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport