Some of the posts about this show would appear to mirror the unfortunate debate currently going on in the Democratic party about whether or not it should even try to compete in the South. Leaving aside for a moment the wisdom of abandoning a whole region to the Republicans (for the record, I think it's profoundly stupid), such discussions encourage the shallow thinking of "red states vs. blue states" without bothering to ponder the complexities of politics examined by region, county, urban vs. rural, etc.

I'm a native Southerner who now lives in Minnesota, and I can tell you that there's no shortage of Bush-supporting, nativist, fundamentalist nutjobs up here. Kerry only won by three percentage points here in 2004 - in the state of Humphrey and Mondale no less. Not only that, we just reelected a Stepford-like, incredibly reactionary Republican governor who's expert at affecting the wholesome Mr. Midwest Niceguy persona while taking this state backward at an alarming rate.

Northern right wingers are even worse than their Southern counterparts because they know enough to be politically correct while still pursuing their horrible policies. One interesting statistic: Minnesota has the greatest gap between white and black educational and economic levels than any state in the country. White people like me tend to do very well here, black people not so much. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of this state's politics.

I'm not trying to slam my adopted state. I like living here and wouldn't stay if I didn't. I'm merely pointing out that maybe there isn't such a great difference between us and our Southern cousins. It simply wouldn't have taken that much to tip us into the Bush column in either 2000 or 2004. Then where would all these holier-than-thou liberals be?

Yes, the South has a lot of problems, which is ultimately why I left. But it also has a lot of charm and graciousness on a personal level, something that's often lacking in the North. We're all one country. Aren't liberals supposed to want to bridge divides, rather than build them?

Though I am in no way a global warming denier or otherwise ostrich-like, I never fail to get more than a bit peevish when celebrities, including the former vice-president, take it upon themselves to lecture us peons about its dangers. First of all, every one of these people consumes more energy, in the form of their large (and multiple) homes, their large (and multiple) automobiles, and their constant (lavish) travel, than even the tackiest suburban-living, SUV-driving "average American". Maybe they should look in the mirror before they start preaching to the rest of us.

And what they usually won't just come right out and say is that the habit of consumerism in all its forms is what's defiling the earth. No, that wouldn't fly with the corporations who sponsor them. The best conservation is... conservation.

Great, Al. You made a documentary about a serious issue. Now go tell the Chinese why they shouldn't have cars and big houses just like Americans. Good luck.

For Ms. Miles, religion seems to be her way of finding her own identity - one that's separate from, but perhaps not completely incompatible with, the humane, though atheistic, values of her parents.

Her frame on the whole question of religion would likely be very different if she'd grown up in an environment similar to my own - in a small Southern town full of Baptists and other fundamentalists. Although the church I grew up in would be classified as mainstream Protestant (not fundamentalist), the general experience of being surrounded, from a religious perspective, by narrow-mindedness, intolerance, hypocrisy and self-serving interpretations of the Gospel has probably driven me away from church and any kind of organized religion forever. I simply saw too much of that in my youth to place any trust in any religious institution. It's the nature of institutions to serve themselves first, and that includes many of the liberal ones.

Although I greatly admire the moral teachings of Jesus, I find today's retail, consumerist version - the "personal Jesus" - to be profoundly offensive and narcissistic. I wouldn't necessarily accuse Ms. Miles of propagating that, but the greater problem of all religious fervor lies in the very notion that one should believe in something with no evidence. When extrapolated to other parts of peoples' lives (and, in my experience with religious people, it invariably happens), that mindset is fertile ground waiting to be exploited by all manner of charlatans, bigots, shrewd manipulators and plain old crooks. Ultimately, we surrender our critical thinking habits only at a great price.

Any one of them would deserve 100 times the media coverage this event has consumed. And it hasn't been easy to find out what's going on in the world, given that CNN (a supposedly reputable source), has been all-Anna, all-the-time for the past 24 hours.

I think the reason reaction here on Salon has been so strong is that this dubious event embodies what many of us hate about the U.S. media and U.S. culture. Here we have the death of woman whose only apparent talent was for notoriety of the most salacious sort. Yet this so-called mourning is not limited to the celebrity tabloids or gossip pages. Rather, valuable time on public airwaves is put to use for the idiotic ramblings of "cultural critics," whose cliche-ridden eulogies for a person of no public consequence are not worth listening to for one second. With all due respect to Anna Nicole, why should anyone but her family care?

That so many people "feel connected" to this attention-obsessed, golddigging woman says a great deal about us as a people, and none of it is flattering.