Silence isn't golden
I have read with some interest the e-mail from Justin Robinette (Johnny Neihu's Mailbag, March 10, page 8) and find her issues to be pointless and trite. Justin's assertions obviously come from a Leftist Liberal viewpoint, which normally means "don't write about anything unless it is something I believe in." If you write about anything that might make her think or challenge her ideology, she just might implode.
This situation is quite prevalent stateside: You cannot challenge anyone of her ilk lest the "drive-by media" take a journalistic pot shot at you. Their idea of free speech is saying anything you want to say as long as it fits their ideological beliefs and to hell with discourse or meaningful discussion.
Keep up the good work and write under any pseudonym you want.
Johnny replies: Sam, I'm not convinced that Justin Robinette was writing from any particular point on the standard political spectrum. I think he/she was just interested in giving poor old Johnny a smack. I can't understand why; I'm such a lovable little rogue. Anyway, it seems to me that there are people on both sides of the political spectrum who would permanently silence annoying voices if they thought they could get away with it.
Beware of the pearls
We all (should) know that you talk about things that need to be discussed. However, when I read your column, I'm not only enlightened, I'm also in stitches. A letter to Johnny Neihu's Mailbag (March 10, page 8) is a fine example: "I would urge you to write under your real name, or not write at all. NAME WITHHELD BY REQUEST"
PS: OK ... maybe I can't give you full credit for this one. But I must be careful when reading your column because picturing things like China's leaders doing a (Ministry of) Silly Walks ... or Shih Ming-teh (
Johnny replies: Make sure it's pearl milk tea, dear fellow. That will give you a nasal experience you will never forget.