Just asking ...

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Thu Aug 22, 2002 5:44 pm

Has anyone heard a plausible reason why any newspaper runs George Will? I run across his column in the men's room once in awhile. His incoherence borders on self-parody.

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Thu Aug 22, 2002 6:24 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
Has anyone heard a plausible reason why any newspaper runs George Will? I run across his column in the men's room once in awhile. His incoherence borders on self-parody.<hr></blockquote>I'm not sure a "plausible" reason for this exists, and i'm guessing yours was a rhetorical question, blanp. Here's my thought:Many papers have seen Will as their "conservative" columnist for years. He's been polite -- not as pretentious as Buckley, nor as scary as Cal Thomas or the younger, combative "conservatives." Some people find his bow tie and allegiance to the Cubs endearing.I quit reading him many years ago.Too many years of column writing, or a lack of talent or effort, reduce many to empty strings of words and seeming self-parody.

Rio · **Posted:** Fri Aug 23, 2002 12:58 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
Has anyone heard a plausible reason why any newspaper runs George Will? I run across his column in the men's room once in awhile. His incoherence borders on self-parody.<hr></blockquote>I've often wondered the exact same thing about Molly Ivins.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Fri Aug 23, 2002 1:04 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
I've often wondered the exact same thing about Molly Ivins.<hr></blockquote>Much of what Ivins writes is Texas-specific. I have often questioned whether her column is good enough for a national audience.
However, it is usually understandable, which George Will's column rarely is.
My objection to Will is not from ideology; it is pretty much impossible to figure out what "ideolology" he might embrace. Rather, it is to his atrocious--simply atrocious--writing.This is the column I saw in the men's room: George Will, Aug. 22.[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: blanp ]

tommangan · **Posted:** Fri Aug 23, 2002 9:37 am

Gad, that was dreadful. It's disengenuous of him to say the Times is taking sides... there are entire factions of the Pentagon who want nothing to do with Iraq, guys & gals who sat out the boom, wore unstylish uniforms, did nasty & occasionally dangerous work and accepted minimal pay, while the Bush clan was gorging itselt at the bull market trough.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Fri Aug 23, 2002 12:07 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by tom mangan:
[QB]Gad, that was dreadful. It's disengenuous of him to say the Times is taking sides... /QB]<hr></blockquote>So that's what he said.

Guest · **Posted:** Fri Aug 23, 2002 4:23 pm

Recently I watched a video -- "Saturday Night Live: The Best Of Dana Carvey" -- and one of the funniest sketches on there was called "George Will's Sports Machine," a "Jeopaardy"-type show in which George Will had on guests from baseball answering questions about the sport from the hubris-heavy Will perspective on the American pastime. On this sketch, Carvey, playing George Will, had former Philadelphia Phillie Mike Schmidt and L.A. Dodgers managerial legend Tommy Lasorda as guest contestants, asking them questions such as "The line that divides the infield from the outfield can be likened to ---?" Mike and Tommy would look quizzically at one aanother until Will said, "The correct answer is being and nothingness, best articulated by John Donne in his seminal series of seventeenth-century sonnets." And so and so on ... I've never seen anybody do such a skillful job of exposing how un-endearing Will's stuffy, pompous, pretentious passion for baseball is -- that is, since Will himself in his nearly unreadable book, "Men At Work," in which his heavy-handed soliloquies and metaphysical interpretations of a FREAKING SPORT drain all the joy out of watching men at play.Will, in my opinion, exists primarily for readers who desperately need to believe that they aren't smart enough to come up with cogent opinions on their own. He's the equivalent of Martha Stewart and her symbiotic relationship with homemakers of low-self-esteem. Or people who need to believe in a god. They appeal to people desperately afraid to think for themselves.

Rio · **Posted:** Fri Aug 23, 2002 11:48 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Jim Thomsen:
Will, in my opinion, exists primarily for readers who desperately need to believe that they aren't smart enough to come up with cogent opinions on their own. He's the equivalent of Martha Stewart and her symbiotic relationship with homemakers of low-self-esteem. Or people who need to believe in a god. They appeal to people desperately afraid to think for themselves.<hr></blockquote>Now, wait, wait, wait a minute.Those who believe in God are afraid to think for themselves?On the contrary, believing in God these days takes plenty of guts and self-esteem. Especially with so many, ahem, holier-than-thou agnostics and atheists telling them what a bunch of low-esteem morons they are.

tommangan · **Posted:** Sat Aug 24, 2002 10:42 am

Don't go there, people..... only pain and hate and general feelings of loathing can result.

Rio · **Posted:** Sun Aug 25, 2002 1:46 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by tom mangan:
Don't go there, people..... only pain and hate and general feelings of loathing can result.<hr></blockquote>In other words â€” business as usual in Testy Copy Editors! :)

Testy Copy Editors

Just asking ...

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links