A hate-filled col­umn

Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette - - VOICES -

Paul Krug­man’s July 1 col­umn was typ­i­cally bit­terly hate-filled and, in my view, lack­ing com­mon sense. Talk­ing about health in­sur­ance he says: “… the evils of the GOP plan are the flip side of the virtues of Oba­macare. … GOP ba­si­cally con­sists of ca­reer ap­pa­ratchiks who live in an in­tel­lec­tual bub­ble, and those Rea­gan-era stereo­types still dom­i­nate their pic­ture of strug­gling Amer­i­cans. … Repub­li­cans start from a sort of base­line of cru­elty to­ward the less for­tu­nate.”

Con­trast Krug­man’s di­a­tribe to Peggy Noo­nan’s col­umn that day in the Wall Street Jour­nal. Sug­gest­ing a bi­par­ti­san ef­fort on health care, she writes: “Is it fair that both par­ties must fix a prob­lem cre­ated by one party? No, but it would be wise and would work. … Show some class, help the coun­try. When it’s over, use what­ever words you want: ‘We forced Democrats to ad­mit the bill [Oba­macare] was flawed and dy­ing.’ ‘We forced Repub­li­cans to back down.’ Amer­ica won’t mind the pro­pa­ganda, they’re used to it. Just make a bad thing bet­ter.”

If you choose to dis­con­tinue Krug­man’s col­umn, I would be pleased. GE­ORGE MOBBS

Lit­tle Rock in the short time we have been here. I con­sider ad­dress­ing any woman in that man­ner to be quite dis­re­spect­ful.”

The wait­ress seemed nei­ther stunned nor of­fended but said, “You know, they did a sur­vey on that and found out that quite a few peo­ple feel as you do about that.” Of course, I couldn’t help but won­der, if she knew that, why in the world would she con­tinue to use that term.

I am not sin­gling Cracker Bar­rel out as a spe­cial of­fender in this mat­ter, nor that par­tic­u­lar wait­ress. The prac­tice is so wide­spread that sel­dom are a mixed cou­ple ad­dressed any other way. To com­pli­cate mat­ters, this par­tic­u­lar wait­ress was ad­dress­ing a 78-year-old man and a 73-year-old woman. If noth­ing else, our ages de­mand a lit­tle more re­spect than that.

Hav­ing said all of that, I have a ques­tion to ask. Why is it that I have never heard a mixed cou­ple ad­dressed as “you gals.” I won­der why that is. Is there any dif­fer­ence in call­ing a mixed cou­ple “you gals” as op­posed to “you guys?” While the of­fended woman qui­etly ac­cepts the of­fen­sive name, if a man was re­ferred to as a “gal,” I sus­pect he would prob­a­bly ex­plode. I know I would. Think about it!

BILL DAVIS

Rogers

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.