...since the Wingnut mentioned him. And by the way, you should know that he's not held in the universal esteem you cons think. But still. That actually links up with the issue of stem cell research, though not regarding his administration. Remember Nancy Reagan herself campaigning for stem cell research, because if it had existed in time Ronnie might not have suffered from Alzheimer's as he did?

But that's the real Reagans. You're more than happy to use them as totems, but you couldn't care less what the real Reagans might have said in the flesh if you asked them. Instead, the GOP simply dismissed her input.

So, what about that?

...not a single reader of this site is interested in reading, yet again, right-wing talking points. The point of this column was to try to understand something about the way Republicans think, because we find it far more than odious--we find it baffling and irrational, and would like to at least understand what rationale is IN their minds for all this. None of us will be converted--we just want to know where they're coming from, that's all.

But the columnist thinks, judging by his utter non-answer here, that converts might be gotten. The mention of Reagan, which they think is at least one con liberals respect(no, we don't and we never did) is a clue to this, as somehow he's "respectable" now, they think. He also seems to think he's created a node to spew more talking points through. And thus he's not even trying to serve the purpose of the column.

My question is, given he has nullified any usefulness in this publication's context this column might have, we are left with...a place we can see the same talking points we will on any right-wing website or by turning on Fox. We have places we can see and hear these things, if we want to, already.

It's true that his refusal to actually address the point honestly does in itself say a lot about GOP thinking. But we knew this already and it's one of the things about them that's so hard to understand and something this column could have cleared up. But as with the GOP always, garbage drives out what's good and noise kills signal.

Explain to the columnist the point of the column again, and that his side lost.

>>I mean, you really think liberals opposed ‘Star Wars’ missile defense because they are anti-science? I always opposed it because it was a fabulously expensive boondoggle perpetuated to keep the Pentagon’s funding at Cold War levels forever.

What this reader mentions is particularly interesting. Do cons think the mere exercise of science, thus acknowledging it exists, should be enough(a la the exercise of faith), and that those against ANY exercise of it must then be "anti-science?" This would be an insane but interesting revelation. As they think science and faith are the same type of thing, this wouldn't surprise me. They think science is equivalent to religion. To prevent someone from praying is a violation of freedom of religion, think they.

So this is the possible lunatic picture: con uses an atomic bomb, and then defends it because he was using science. We're not anti-science, are we? He's defending scientific freedom! How dare we repress his exercise of science!

Which would mean: let them nowhere near science, please, because they don't understand what it is.

I mean, if it's only those comparatively few episodes you want, they can be seen for nothing(legally) on Joost:

http://www.joost.com/09401ty

Unless you really want to give Paramount more of your money.

And here I thought Paglia would devote a little thought to the ostensible subject of this installment of "Let's Babble Aimlessly With A Has-Been." Instead, she remarks on the "radio rage" thing in passing, then quickly moves on to Obama, then this, then that...it's ADD in column form! I mean, this is a series of blog posts, not a column. Come ON.

And the point of reading this? I'm still trying to figure that out. I think this time you folks made it seem like Camille had a real subject she was writing about to trick all of us who've gotten bored with her into clicking. Hmm?

Wasn't he that guy who used to stand for something and then sold his soul to the Bush administration to help his career, and now busies himself drinking to death and getting his balls shaved and having people feel them at parties?

For those of you who think that last one's a joke, no. Look it up:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/11/christopher_hitchens_waxed_sac.html

Go on, read that, try to take him seriously ever again. Having trouble? Okay then, imagine a similar article about Orwell, his hero.