What a joy it was to read Stephanie Zacharek's tribute to Leonard Cohen. Sounds like the film out now isn't quite worthy of Cohen's genius, but then what is? I've been a fan only for a few years now, and some of his work is hard to warm up to (e.g. his use of chintzy-sounding synthesizers and arrangements that don't complement his amazing voice), but when he gets it right, I feel the world fall away as if there's nothing else more important in that moment than listening to his song with an open heart. The themes of love, loss, war, betrayal, and fantasy expressed in his work are timeless. His voice is deeply affecting. May he live long and continue to share his gifts with the world.

Joe Conason gets it right overall as usual, but I'm dismayed to see him fall into the same rhetorical sinkhole in which the mainstream media wallows. The phrase he uses to describe what would better be termed "right-wing radicalism" is "conservative extremism," an oxymoron if ever there was one.

How can that which is extreme still be conservative? It's time we dropped the fantasy that there is anything--be it military (see Iraq), economic (see huge deficits), or energy (see polar ice melting) policy--that the G.O.P. wishes to "conserve." Let's call the Republicans what they are: demagogues driven seemingly by a hatred of poor people, nature, and anything standing between them and power.

I share Andrew O'Hehir's rage at the Bush/Cheney policies on torture, but I found it chilling to read the writer's punishment fantasy: "...if this country had any fucking stones we would drag these people out of Washington, strip them of their citizenship and their clothes, and drive them white-baby naked across the Rio Grande to fend for themselves in the Sonora desert."

If the point of the article was to decry torture, O'Hehir sabotages his argument with such disturbingly ironic imagery. On the one hand, he argues eloquently about the need to see our "enemies" as more than just faceless villains deserving of no mercy. In the next breath, he details his cruel version of justice for the perpetrators of the abuse.

I'd be as happy as anyone to see the current occupants of the White House impeached and publicly shamed for their many misdeeds. Just please don't torture them.

Thomas,

I have to hand it to you, your letter (http://letters.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/11/gore/permalink/64a3453a3a65f27d01e0da650de7b32e.html) prompted me to sit up and take notice. Admittedly, I sat up in sheer amazement at the level of hatred you so openly expressed toward some of the things I hold dear--Earth, for one; but also Europe, public transportation, recycling, peace among nations, and even decent weather. Reading your diatribe made me feel that I had a brief glimpse into the inner workings of Dick Cheney's mind. The pure viciousness of your attacks was startling enough, but ironically what I was shocked most by was your optimism. You seem to believe the United States is immune to the diseases of empire that have afflicted all other dominant global powers throughout history. Do you really think this government, the one that "planned" the Iraq debacle so well, is adequately preparing for wars three centuries in the future? And how exactly are these "domed cities" you expect your grandchildren to be living in supposed to work? Will we be able to leave? Where will the fresh oxygen come from when we've poisoned the air outside? And last, but certainly not least, you seem to trust that the Starbucks chain will still be serving Americans up lattes while our enemies, many of whom probably live in coffee-producing nations, will be starving. Just how do you expect coffee to grow without a stable climate? And how will Starbucks obtain coffee beans? Or will we just fight more wars to get fuel for our bodies the way we fight now for our beloved Hummers' gasoline? As you can see, your letter opens up many more questions than it answers. You may deride my "nostalgic attachment to nature," but I've actually found clean air, water, and soil to be pretty useful.

At least they weren't working as a band during that decade as James Hannaham seems to indicate: "Jones and the Dap-Kings sound like a band from the '70s in part because they lived through the '70s without changing their style, even after it became passé." Actually, during the 1970s, Jones was not involved with the Dap-Kings, who only formed in 2000. And prior to 1996, Jones hadn't even done much professional work as a singer, working instead as a prison guard on Riker's Island at one point. In fact, Dap-Kings' original members Leon Michels and Homer ‘Funkyfoot’ Steinweiss were only born in the late '70s, so Hannaham's error looks all the more foolish to someone who actually knows the band. I write all of this not to be pedantic, but rather to encourage the author and Salon to be more rigorous in their fact-checking. If you're trying to argue that Amy Winehouse isn't authentic, you might want to get your story straight.

Good assessment, Joan. I think you hit most of the key points, and got it right overall. One item you omitted that I believe was pretty egregious was when she talked about the "huge blunders" the Bush Administration has made (fine) which she related to the "huge blunders that all administrations make." Uh--WHAT? Have we set the bar so low that it's now acceptable for our elected officials to screw up royally? Sarah Palin seems to think so.