Letters to the Editor
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe
Published Letters: 29 Editor's Choice: 1
-
The Reason the Turn-Out Was Low
[Read the article: From tears to cheers: Huckabee's surprise second in Iowa]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A lot of the people commenting on this article seem to think its a big deal that the turn-out declined this year. What they don't seem to realize is that 2007 was the first year ever that Iowa Straw Poll participation required an Iowa state drivers license or ID card. Had that not been the case, we would have seen the most agreeable result of Ron Paul coasting by Huckabee, and just maybe beating "Mitt" Romney too. Which is probably why the rules change was made.
That 401k guy is right about abortion, by the way. Its just one issue among many, and the pro-Life and pro-Choice positions are both entirely reasonable. The ludicrous notion that people who oppose legal abortion are all part of some nefarious plot to "control women" is paranoid, and frankly a little embarassing. Its the sort of hyper-partisan drivel that's liable to turn off the sort of swing voters (like myself) that you're going to need (well, if I didn't live in such a solidly blue state like California, anyway) in order to actually win this election. I'm probably going to vote Democratic myself next year (unless Hillarious is the nominee, in which case I'll start shopping for a Third Party candidate; I happen to think Edwards is going to be the nominee), but it sure as Hell isn't because I've accepted some left-wing goofball notion that people like Mike Huckabee want to "control women," whatever that even means. I mean, like, come the fuck on.
-
Most of you People Make me Sick
[Read the article: Art movies: R.I.P.]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't really have time to say very much, so I'm just going to mention the obvious: A lot of you people hate Camille Paglia because she's a liberal who doesn't endless and implausibly praise every aspect of liberalism, and in particular the Democratic Party & its candidates. A lot of the comments I read here on Salon are frankly embarassing in their doctrinaire DNC talking pointedness, so to speak (although its not quite the Stalinesque drivel one reads over at Daily Kos). While I intend to probably vote Democratic in 2008 myself (although if Hillarious gets the nomination, I'll be looking at 3rd party candidates), the willfully ignorant, ultra-partisan atmosphere I see around here tells me that things probably aren't going to improve much once Bush leaves office; we'll just be trading a Protestant gang of horrid, materialistic, yuppie thugs for an Atheist one.
-
Leave Camille Alone!!!
[Read the article: Blood-and-guts politics]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]OK, that was a joke, but seriously, every time I read the responses to Camille Paglia's columns, I come away with the impression that I'm pretty much the only Salon reader who actually likes her. Now the thing is, I don't have a problem with people disliking her, but you guys are just pansy-ass ninnies about it, like she's under some moral obligation to agree with each & every little aspect of your privileged, bourgeoise, upper-middle class, grad school, Democratic Party political worldview, and if she does not, well, then she's just a rotten person, isn't she?
I'm a freakin' National Anarchist, which means I probably disagree with Ms. Paglia about, oh, I don't know, say, several thousand percent more than any of her detractors here do. The ideological difference between most of you people and Ms. Paglia is so slight, as to be almost laughable. You guys agree on 97% of everything, but because she has this three percent maverick streak, you all deride her in page after venomous page of inane, pompous remarks (all of which simply underline the point that she is the obvious, overwhelming intellectual and esthetic superior of at least nine out of ten of you, yet seemingly none of you posses the self-awareness to realize it), as if she'd just announced she intended to cast a write-in vote for David Duke or something, when all she really did, for one example, was state that she's not convinced mankind is responsible for the present bout of global warming (which, by the way, is where most of the scientists are too). Its really quite pathetic. The image it calls into my mind is that of a beautiful, noble white stallion being assailed, albeit to no avail, by a hideous pack of degenerate goblins.
The problem with you people is that you're part of this ultra-privileged class of baby boomers & post-baby boomers who have little or no genuine experience in ever having anyone disagree with them. Your so used to being showered with praise from the mainstream media, who flatter your thoughts, opinions, preferences, and prejudices at every turn (and why not? They are you, after all), that when someone like Camille Paglia shows up, an ally who occasionally doesn't parrot the script like some robotic Deputy Campaign Manager for Hillarious Clinton, you imagine her to be your enemy. You people don't deserve Camille Paglia; you should be forced at gunpoint to read only articles penned by Bob Beckel and Bill Press.
Me, I love Camille Paglia. I don't need her to flatter me by always agreeing with everything I think in order to enjoy reading her interesting columns. Keep 'em coming!