David Cook is a gifted writer whose leftward drift scuttles many a column. So it was with "To mourn, with no answers." Cook begins, "It was too soon for him to die ... The world was such a better place because of him ... Why? Why?" Robin Williams, right? I've read enough of Cook to foresee where this was going. "Why did a young black man named Michael Brown have to die." Of course. Later in the column, he does indeed bemoan Williams. For Cook, every tragedy is equal. He states, "Yes, Williams was brilliant and beautiful, yet dead celebrities ... should not bring out more grief than the police shooting of unarmed black men." Really? It turns out Michael Brown was a bit of a thug, who used his height and bulk to strong-arm a small Asian convenience store owner en route to stealing $50 worth of cigarillos. This does not justify his shooting, but neither does it justify mobs of angry blacks looting stores. A new 50-inch TV does not bring back the dead. Cook's error is he must Say the Correct Thing. This despite the fact Robin Williams entertained and edified tens of millions, while Brown stole tobacco.
STEVEN W. SHRADER
Webster's dictionary implies the word "commentary" to mean a written composition based on fact. Yes, fact! Therefore the conclusions of an article marked "Commentary" should be based on facts and not on the "feelings" or "beliefs" of the author, unless clearly stated as such. Commentary articles not based on fact should not be printed. House Speaker John Boehner very clearly stated the Republican Party had no interest in impeaching Barack Hussein Obama. When Maureen Dowd ("A Modest Proposal," TFP, page F4, Aug. 8) writes the Republicans "race(d) back into session and try the president for the high crime and misdemeanor," she is not factual. Being false, how can we believe anything else she says or iimplies? The Republican Party should not be defiled because Ms. Dowd wants to delude readers to support her emotional non-factual viewpoint(s). If Ms. Dowd had said that emotionally she editorially believes such and such, that is one thing, and would be acceptable. Clearly that is not what Ms. Dowd has written. I believe the Times Free Press should fact-check all articles that are not truly editorials. I suggest in the future Ms. Dowd's compositions should be banned from our newspaper.