Monday, May 3, 2010

What were you thinking, Patricia?

image source:

I came across Patricia Evangelista's latest column on Richard Gordon entitled People Call Me Dick.

I would not have wanted to question her piece since, after all, it is her column, her opinion. Yet, she wrote mere shilly-shally about Gordon, her arguments founded only on half-baked judgments about the man without digging deeper and tackling substantial points spot on.

I'd think of what she wrote as the shallowest piece I've come across from her because she wrote about someone she doesn’t know, despite her own brand of conviction. She failed to intelligently point out her reasons because she didn't think enough.

I’m putting my pro-Gordon leanings aside here. I would like to think Pat may have wanted to get readers to make more careful and calculated decisions when it comes to choosing the next president but I just could not see any depth in her piece except sheer brashness (not feistiness) and a lack of understanding. Really, what was she thinking anyway?

So she's mentioned she's not voting for Gordon because she thinks he's an ass. Fine, that's her opinion. But not voting for a candidate on the basis of dislike is worse than going for someone who is ‘likeable’.

Patricia must have forgotten that choosing the right leader is not primarily about charm or personality – it is about a candidate’s platform of governance, performance and track record. A personality-based criterion only happens in entertainment searches, Patricia. This notion only misleads readers into making decisions that are ignorant and irrational.

Whatever attempts Patricia might have to get readers to think well, I just didn’t see it. She didn’t think enough in the first place.

To write something biased about someone or something you only know of or have little knowledge about would only make your musings a waste of print.


  1. hate her now after reading her column. bitchy ang dating niya, as if she knows a thing about politics.

  2. BAlimbing ^^^^^^^^^^6