Keith Burgess-Jackson

I leave you this fine evening with a column by Camille Paglia.

1-9-88 . . . I had a talkative, energetic woman next to me on the airplane. She’s from the east (New Jersey) and was headed for Phoenix to attend a company seminar. It didn’t take long for our conversation to get personal. She told me about her husband and son, the latter just a few months old, and even went into detail about their relationships. I was interested in the problems raised by a two-career family, so she, well, told me about them. “The housework doesn’t always get done”, she said, “we have to eat out a lot, and our sex life is kaput—virtually nonexistent.” Needless to say, I didn’t expect this much candor from a stranger. We went on to discuss careers generally, the feminist movements (I use the plural because there is more than one feminist movement), and family life. I enjoyed the discussion, but could barely keep up. She obviously loves to talk. When we got to Phoenix, she and several other passengers let out an “Oooh!” when they saw the palm trees at the airport. A long eastern winter will do that to you. I bid her farewell and searched for my luggage.

Hi Keith:

A couple of days ago you published one of the NYTimes letters from somebody named Sy Dill. It claimed that poverty leads to terrorism. You rightly dumped on the idea. But note that he said that “Saudia Arabia is one of the world’s richest nations.” This is drivel. If one googles on world GDP per capita, there are different listings including that by the CIA . . . but none of them place Saudia Arabia above 50th place in the world.

The NYTimes . . . doing its best to spread ignorance and folly.

Best,
Paul

I’m glad I checked Michelle Malkin’s site just now, or I might have missed tonight’s televised Republican debate from South Carolina (Fox, 9:00 Eastern Time). Here is her post. Which questions would you like to hear answered this evening?

To the Editor:

Hillary Rodham Clinton, although an excellent presidential candidate and a hard-working campaigner, will, if she becomes the Democratic nominee, accomplish one thing that bears highlighting: she will energize the Republican Party, which has otherwise been rather lethargic.

Unfortunately, having a second Clinton presidency in which Republicans again spend all their time and our money on trying to bring down a president is not “change.” Real change comes from someone who can energize us as a nation more than it energizes the Republican Party.

Patricia A. Weller
Emmitsburg, Md., Jan. 9, 2008

Note from KBJ: I keep hearing that Barack Obama would be a more formidable general-election candidate than Hillary Clinton. How many of you agree with that, and why? How many disagree, and why?

Here.