I was not a huge fan of the piece. While it was entertaining and I did appreciate the point it was trying to make, I found it offensive. Not because of Savage's views at all, but because of his utter disregard for everyone who is Republican. He makes sweeping generalizations about everyone in the party, as well as basically mocking every gay or lesbian person who is afraid or has not come to terms with their homosexuality. I wouldn't call this homophobia; I would call it humanity. It's a scary thing for people to come out of the closet, no matter how progressive our culture claims to be. They are signing themselves up to make their lives a statement. That can be exhausting and lonely. The piece as a whole was written for entertainment, not quality, in my opinion. I found a few typos, and I wasn't even looking. In short, it was sloppy. I feel that it was included in the book as propaganda to push the author-- or editor's-- own political agenda, and not as an example of good writing. In my opinion, even editorial political writing should be done with a basic respect, not necessarily for the ideas, but at least for the people of the opposing view. When you start with this, your argument will be much more effective. All that being said, it was a very interesting read and exposed some very disturbing truths about the Republican party and their meetings... if they were true. However, Savage's mocking, sarcastic tone diminishes his credibility for me. I wonder if he's exaggerating, and therefore the repulsive things he reports don't carry as much weight.