Well, I suppose it (see subject) shouldn't because I knew when I applied to this school (UW-Madison) that it was a bubble of irrational though personified.

I would like to write a scathing letter to the editor of the Daily Cardinal (one of two student newspapers) but can't because their last issue of the term was yesterday. My letter wouldn't get printed.. So I'm venting here. Yes, I do have a point...

Have any of you heard of Molly Ivins? Some of you probably like her. You're entitled to your opinion; I don't have a problem with that.

But I do have a problem with Molly Ivins. For those of you who don't know her, she's a liberal columnist. Again, I can deal with that. I disagree with liberals in general, but most are rational people. I can respect them because they are respectful. Not so Molly Ivins. I have yet to read a column of hers that has more than an iota of factual basis. She was the last speaker in the Distinguished Lecturer Series here at UW-Madison. I wish I had my hometown newspaper on hand because they print her regularly, and I would have a lot more of her phony wisdom to put in here, but this is one of the things the columnist covering her speech had to say:

"Ivins also rallied the crowd against a powerful conservative agenda that she says seeks to return to the McKinley era by repealing the income tax, New Deal legislation and Roe v. Wade." I love how the paper says this in a way that assumes ALL people are in favor of the decision during Roe v. Wade, that only backward ninnies are pro-life. But this isn't Naomi's persuasive paper on abortion and how it takes advantage of women and lies to them and never ever tells them about what they may go through after they have an abortion. No, I'll continue.

The thing about Molly Ivins is that she is clever--even funny (sometimes I laugh even as she's making my blood boil). She's able to disguise her lack of supporting evidence with biting sarcasm and an excellent command of the English language. Alas, I have no way of supporting this statement since I can't quote her (I could quote from the column some more, but I wasn't at the speech, so I would be taking things out of context), but I am familiar with her articles. An internet serach would probably turn up some of hers if you're really interested.

What is really unbelievable to me isn't that they printed this story. She irritates me, and I think she's wrong about most everything, but she is a fellow human being who has as much right to rant and rave as I do. What bothers me is that the tornado story--a definite tragedy--was relegated to the second-to-last page of the paper, just before the sports. The column (you can find it at the link below) went beyond reporting a summary of a speech that happened. It should have gone on the opinion page, and it certainly shouldn't have made the front page.

I know not all of you will agree with me, and I like that. The thing I've noticed about this place is the level of respect everyone has for others even as they disagree with them. So I would like to hear your thoughts on the Daily Cardinal's [poor] choice specifically and Molly Ivins in general. Look her up. You may or may not see what I mean.