@Billdog " Anybody and ever body had the ability of running for this office." Are you serious, Bill? You make Michelle sound like an underdog, somebody who struggled and worked her way up the political ladder- In truth she's married to a political insider- an integral part of the Democrat Machine that has run (and ruined) Mahoning County for as long as I care to remember. She had the job handed to her on a platter, let's face facts; all she did was play ball and get along (Pillow Talk may have played a role) - I wouldn't call that heroic or requiring much effort.
As far as you denigrating DeSouza- "Since Bert starting writing his opinion column, I've never seen anything positive or inspiring come from his hand/mind." Well, he's writing about machine politics in the Mahoning Valley- so what are you expecting- Pollyanna? There's no way to address the political scene in this valley- I hate to say it- in a simplistic up-beat manner. There's just too much crap to deal with. I mean I don't have to go into detail, except mention a few names- Traficant, Philomena, Kerrigan, Chance, Polivshak, Sciortino, Cafaro- not to mention Lenny Strollo and "Champ" Saadey. That's just off the top of my head- I'm sure I left more than a few out - So that's what Bert does- he writes about the "low life's" representing the major part of the political history of this area. Bert's a "Muckracker" and I'm happy he's doing it because he tells us things we need to know. Sure, he could spend all his time writing about Boy Scout Camps and Church Picnics- "positive and inspiring" stuff- and we'd all love him for it (a kind of Esther Hamilton in trousers) but the Muck has to be dealt with too because if you don't clean it out it has a bad habit of festering.
January 21, 2015 at 2:43 a.m.
Nice Column Bertie, I agree 200 per cent if that's possible. Here's what I wrote about the wonderful Hagan Family on another thread: "The Hagans are just a bunch of Pigs at the Public Trough that's all they are. Bobby is the Chief Sow- the Big Pig- Michelle right next to him- Oink! Oink!- is the Mother Sow and pretty soon there's going be a bunch of small Hagans- the Piglets- to keep thinks going. But, hey, can you think of a better way to spend your tax dollars than to support the Hagan Family? Oink. Oink."
Also, Richard Lewis proved himself, again, to be the "Dick" he really is with his opening comment. What he did- in my humble opinion- is Beneath Contempt. In your column you served the public interest by telling people what they needed to know about their elected representatives- their salary background in this case- and that's all. You didn't write anything which would be an invasion of the Hagan's privacy or potentially threatening to them- like their home address- which no responsible journalist would have done.
"Dick" Lewis, on the other hand, goes by a different code of ethics. For Shame.
P.S. I don't know why the Vindy Computer didn't block his comment as being a kind of veiled threat against you. Maybe they should, still not too late. I don't know why it is but of all the Vindy writers, DeSouza seems to be the one that generates the most hateful responses- I've noticed that again and again: Maybe, it's an endorsement he's doing something right.
P.P.S. If you go by a handle like "Richardlewis" I think you should consider yourself to be living in a "glass house" and adjust your comments accordingly, or go by a different handle- something neutral and hard to defame- like Kurtw!
January 18, 2015 at 8:13 p.m.
Uptown, read your comment #34- should have read it before I discharged my salvo- my apologies. I've got to work on my "sarcasm radar"!
January 16, 2015 at 11:09 p.m.
The whole Charlie Hebdo " who's not afraid" and "who's afraid " to publish a cartoon critical or defamatory of the Islamic Prophet reminds me of the "game of chicken" that adolescents used to play with their hot rods in the sixties: You Race toward Each Other and Whoever Veers Aside First is Chicken. There, and if nobody pulls over you have a Head On Collision. And, What Have You Proved? (except that you're both dumb). Nothing, nothing whatsoever.
The Right of Free Speech ought to be reserved for important stuff: Not gratuitously Insulting somebody Else's Religion for Cheap Laughs. It's terrible what happened to the Charlie Hebdo people, but there is such a thing as asking for it. The Islamic Religion is a good 500 years behind the rest of the world in development- until they catch up it makes sense to treat them with "kid gloves".
January 16, 2015 at 10:40 p.m.
Well, Ok, point taken, Uptown. I should read the threads more carefully before I jump in. I like that line " Perhaps, your sarcasm radar needs a tune-up" Well said.
January 16, 2015 at 10:23 p.m.
@uptown: "Oh Kurt w--what a bummer of a thought. Time to retire and leave the Mahoning Valley."
I have thoughts like that all the time- my family considers it part of my charm. I'm already retired and where do you suggest I go? (Obviously you're a chum of the Hagans so, naturally, you spring to their defense. My language only makes graphic their behavior... but, I guess, if you like the Hagans what I said is a "bummer". Bummer.)
January 12, 2015 at 1:29 a.m.
@Snark " clicked on the link you posted and guess what?... not a single one of the controversial Charlie Hebdo drawings appeared with your editorial. No chuzpah, as I said earlier"
I clicked on the link too and I don't agree with the Vindy Editorial Writer's take on this (might have been Berty he's a big Ist Amendment guy). I don't see any Free Speech benefit or advantage in gratuitously attacking, mocking, or ridiculing anyone just for cheap laughs- especially a major religious figure. It's just part of the left-wing anti-religion agenda except from a self-preservation standpoint they would be better off to stick with just attacking Christians or, say, Buddhist's- they're easy targets and they don't fight back. On, the other hand: You don't mess with Islamic's- and ridiculing the Prophet is Just Asking For It.
January 12, 2015 at 12:56 a.m.
Actually, the reason I got on this thread was because of Todd's column: "Rethink Pink". I never thought I would find myself in agreement with a Feminist, but Ms. Mullins may have a point. Most of the research seems to indicate that gender roles are determined in the womb based on hormones, so, if you accept that as true, it means that most of the parental efforts in that direction- Kitchen Sets for the Little Girls, Tommy Guns and Plastic Bowie Knives for the Boys- are unnecessary and may be destructive: creating a caricature of what it means to be male or female and pushing the sexes away from each other- making communication between them that much harder.
Maybe parents should just relax and raise their children in Uni-sex fashion- clothing them both in coveralls- very cute for both little boys and girls and much cheaper- and letting them play as they will- on the assumption that Mother Nature will work out the "Boy- Girl" part on her own.
Sage advice on child-rearing from a guy who never had any! But, getting back to my other two comments, an interesting column and a lot more relevant in a Youngstown, Ohio newspaper than a re-write or re-hash of stuff already exhaustively reported elsewhere.
January 12, 2015 at 12:35 a.m.
Obviously, I think the terrorist attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices was despicable- an assault against civilization- but the Cartoons that provoked it were also despicable- they should never have been published and to try to justify them on the basis of "free speech" is wrong. Just because you have the "right" to say something doesn't mean you should say it. I think it's wrong to attack or denigrate somebody's religion just for cheap laughs (and highly dangerous). And, let's face it, there isn't much in Charlie Hebdo's work that's going to be remembered by posterity- other than the violence it provoked.
January 11, 2015 at 11:45 p.m.
Regarding Snarklars first comment calling for the Vindy to cut back on its local coverage in favor of National and International News, there's an old expression highly apropos: " Why take Coals to New Castle? It's a waste of time and money because you're bringing in something already in abundant supply."
Why should a local newspaper waste it's resources- news print costs money- bringing it's readers a superficial rehash of stuff already exhaustively reported by National Media like the Charlie Hebdo attack? Coals to New Castle. I've spent hours since the initial attack digesting all phases of it reported, analyzed, re-analyzed, and then analyzed again by the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Megan Kelly, Greta van Susteran, and Sean Hannity- and if I want more I can turn to National Publications like National Review, The New York Times and Time Magazine or Newsweek- also there's all kinds of information on-line- Why, for God's Sake, would I expect a local newspaper to give me that kind of coverage? Coals to New Castle... It would make no sense for them to try to do so- even if they could (how much do you reasonably expect to pay for your subscription?).
And as far as Publishing one of the scurrilous cartoons defaming a religious figure sacred to over one Billion of the Earths People- why don't you do it, Snarky? Get the Ball Rolling and put a life-size copy of the Cartoon in Your Front Yard. Only thing, how's your Fire Insurance? Paid up to date, I hope. Taunting Islamic Extremists is like waving a red flag in front of a Bull. Dangerous work and for what achieved end?
January 11, 2015 at 11:22 p.m.