Is there a reason you feel the need to attack me?

I have known about, read about and been interested in the sotry of Sarah Baartman for a while. When I said I googled the "Hottentot Venus" it was not because I had never heard of her (in fact, how I could google someone I'd never heard of is beyond me) it is because before I posted something on here I wanted to double check dates, facts, etc. My point is that it would be great if everyone did that before publishing. It is easy on my screen the google search tool is up there waiting to be used. And, since I usually only devote 3-4 minutes to each letter and look at some of the googled material of course I can't claim any intellectual or scholarly rigor for my letter. I know I've barely scratched the surface.

I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I put myself out there as some sort of expert. (I doubt there are many realy experts writing letters on Salon - I don't mean this to be snarky but because they are busy working in their areas of expertise.) I do not think that I did and clearly I am not. But do I have to be an expert to analyze and comment on a subject? Do I know everything about this issue? No - I maybe know .001% of what there is to know. But I have a reading list that I am going to take on my weekly library trip and read more. I never intend any of my letters to be PhD thesis proposals. Although it would make interesting reading for someone to look at the story of Sarah Baartman with post November 5, 2008 eyes - add another chapter or more to this story.

One final thought:

I recently had the insight that the four most important words are:

"I do not know."

Followed by: "But I am open to learning."

I am making an effort to always remember that "I do not know" and to try to find out before I act or speak. It isn't easy because we've all been taught that the quick response is the correct response.

because they thought it was 2004 and that their wingnut (so-called) base would put them over again. So much for the political genius of Karl Rove, et al. I do think that the Republicans need to do a lot of soul-searching and yes, they should dump the wingnuts. I think it is very important to have a "loyal opposition" in a democracy. The problem over the last several years is that we've had the dis-loyal, ultra-partisan opposition. And they drove the bus off the road and we've been stuck in the mud. I would like to see a reasonable Republican party - give and take, synthesis is key to solving problems. I like that Obama is someone who will consider all (reasonable) views. Which is why he did not meet with the nutty narcissist Nader - the gall of the man, and then he sinks so low and calls Obama an "Uncle Tom" and when called on it, by Shepherd Smith of all people, he refuses to even consider that it was heinous. But, I digress, big time. Anyway, I hope Kathleen Parker and others continue to speak out. Nothing focusses one's thinking and shape's ones ideas like a reasonable, intelligent opponent. And that goes for both sides - the Dems have not done anywhere near enough to be strong opponents to the other side. And, instead of ignoring the wingnuts and marginalizing them (as they should have) they have done as much pandering as have Repubs.

You are very silly people. What? Did someone hold a gun to your head and force you to read this article? There are plenty of substantive stories in Salon for you to read but somehow you gravitate to this one. So, you could have gone to War Room or Glenn Greenwald and not read this one. Do you get off on being annoyed and pissed off? I liked this article - it was fun and frivolous. Please explain why fun and frivolity are to be scorned. The attitude reminds me of people from the 70s who bragged that they never watched TV or, even better, did not own one. Get over yourselves. And, lighten up! Enjoy!

OMG, yes! Clive Owen! Yes, yes, yes!

Huh? This Henninger character is Deputy Editor of the WSJ? Granted the WSJ is not to be treated w/much respect these days, but, sheesh, this is an insane piece. Shouldn't the DepEd of WSJ have at least some understanding of economics, business and how the real world works? Obviously not.

Grinch? I think not. Your post was not only mean sprited but also very confusing - are you sure you meant to respond to my post? I was addressing the dunderheads who were annoyed and offended by this article. Please re-read my post.

Just once more?

Do you think that maybe that's the real game? Nomination to SCOTUS? I wonder if this isn't a bit of smoke and mirrors. Stevens will resign soon, I have no doubt. By the time he does Bill's stuff will have been vetted and it might then be a fairly easy nomination to get through. Maybe they offer her State next week and she turns it down. Once Stevens resigns she gets the nod? This is all pure speculation on my part and time will tell.

I happen to think SCOTUS would be a far better fit for her and I'd much rather see her there than at State. Has for how she'd rule on issues such as gay marriage, etc. is anyone's guess. You can't necessarily judge by political pronouncements in a campaign.

Anyway, I really do not understand why she is qualified to be SoS. I think it would be a huge mistake to appoint her.