I agree with Annonymous that she's homely, and would add that he's not attractive either. Got to refer to the "winners" by gender as I don't care enough to remember—or even go back to look up—their names. The beard makes him look like a potential Unibomber. Or Zodiac suspect. Yech.

Why not just reference Thompson's run and the possibility (which seems to be the point) that he might be an effective bipartison politician, not always jumping on the Republican bandwangon, if elected. Why pretend this is an article on a difficult to find, expensive to procure, political memoir? It just makes Salon look sneaky. What good is that?

Granted, the basic argument is flawed because it doesn't take into account the reasons the book was written in the first place, nor does it give a good reason why we should trust Thompson's character. But that's Shapiro's issue.

Don't complain about Republican dishonesty or diversion in a dishonest, diversionary article.

Lost his job, hiding out on the golf course, and probably both trying to figure things out and avoid a painful issue. I understand being angy, and feeling like all the responsibility is devolving on you. But try to help him out. Men aren't always great about confrontation or opening up so "Are you scared about your future?" may not be the best way to approach him. But try to help him in this difficult time. This doesn't mean you deserve to have all the housework and breadwinning on your shoulders.

What the hell? I thought maybe we'd get the Harball episode, or highlights. Instead we get this? Big deal, she looked up the soldier's name. Does the soldier care if Fleisher knows his name? Doubt it. The soldier supports the war. This accomplishes nothing.

is that I can't watch video clips at work, and I waited all day, curious as to how Walsh held up on the show, what points she made, and how she responded to the opposition. This is what I waited to see? Way to make me lose respect for, and lower my expectations of, both Salon and its editor.

By the way, when you produce the next contentless commercial, make sure not to stammer through that one, too. The less content, the more polish necessary. Reagan taught us that.

I was boiling as I read this column's letter. Cary's advice helped cool me down. But the responses here are what made me happy. I'm a true middle-of-the-road person, conservative in some respects, liberal in others, and never make political choices on the basis of party affiliation (I'll never be able to vote a straight ticket for either party).

I also grew up in Texas, among political and religious conservatives. It always hurts me and frustrates to hear these people attacked and belittled. They are not Nazis. They are not even Nazi sympathizers. They may be wrong. But "wrong" and "evil" are not synonymous.

Thank you Salon letter writers. You brighted my day.

If we had a whole bunch of them, it would be chaos, too many specialized groups voting for their own. I should specify it could be any two groups. I don't think either party at present is really representing the people. But two parties allows each to focus on defining itself opposite a specific agenda, and allows voters a clear definition of what political stance they wish to take.

strikes me as a more accurate description than "the perfectly entertaining 2002 novel."

Like The Devil Wears Prada, it's got a ridiculously giving and innocent heroine up against a big-moneyed Manhattan female. Who of course is evil, though the heroine is generous enough to note the psychological pressures responsible for this. Why do people read this crap?

Very shallow, very obvious. If you've ever read about yuppie Manhattanites, you'll know what your in for. I guess you could call the writing "slick." It could almost be a series of articles for Madamoiselle or something.

Christopher Hitchens has commented on how he could have penned The Satanic Verses and it would have caused no outcry. That a Muslim wrote such a book is what caused a death threat to be levelled. We can't and don't have to do a thing to antagonize radical Islamists. Just by existing, that's done. And we won't score any points through this sort of censorship. They don't care what we do or how we approach them. We are infidels.

But holy moley, Joan Walsh, how does an editor come to be so lame at making political points? First that bizarre "Video Dog" clip, now this obfuscating response to Opus. You really think it's a parody of shallow American "seekers"? No quiet derision of extreme practices, whatsoever? Is that how you read Berkeley Breathed? Hate to hear what you think Gary Trudeau is up to.

That strip was largely received as an attack on Islam, and apparantly B.C creator Johnny Hart (recently deceased) was something of a right-winger, who used the strip for his political ideologies more blatantly in his later years. I have to say this all conjecturally, because I haven't read the strip in years, and know about the incident only at second hand. But your casual dismissal does seem to be offbase.