Let me make it simpler for you.

None of my complaints are especially about Camille Paglia in particular. My comment is that too much focus in the media is on trivia. CP is simply an example of that trend. I'm tired of it, it's what made it possible for the jackass we have in the white house to be there.

<<So in the end, you object to her writing because it doesn’t happen to appeal to you personally or serve your personal agenda.>>

Because she's yet another example of wasted space. There's very little of substance, and there's tons of trash. How much more do you want, when will you be satisfied? I think I'm not out of line to ask for more substance, and I'm far from the only one.

<<As far as I can tell, ALL you’re doing is objecting that Paglia and the rest of the news media aren’t talking about what you’d like them to talk about. Instead, they’re saying what’s on their minds, and communicating with their actual, non-theoretical audience….like me. People who care about both John Edwards’ take on the future of Social Security AND his hair.>>

Bully for you. Looks like you've got just the media you'd like. Trivia is king. Feel free to dine at the king's table, but if you actually give a damn about where we're headed and where we are, perhaps you should spend a little time thinking about WHY we're where we are. The overemphasis on appearance, trivia and the non-essential play very large parts in where we are and are going. You're apparently thrilled with that. I consider that satisfaction to be very shallow, if indeed that satisfaction describes you.

<<You also claim to know what “the news media’s” job is, and what they’re getting paid to do, as though you’ve read each of their contracts personally. That’s pretty arrogant. Salon is clearly paying Camille Paglia to be Camille Paglia.>>

It's not arrogance, it's simple common sense and logic. We have plenty of entertainment options without the news ignoring real news to be a part of the entertainment world. If the real news media doesn't do its job, then all we have is a propaganda machine.

<< I get that you’re all pissed that she doesn’t talk about what you think Kids Today need to hear and you’re frustrated that America is blithely skipping after these “airheads” and ignoring the “real” issues.>>

I never mentioned anything about kids, but since you put that in there, I think it's your way of trivializing what I have to say. And you've got the point backwards, America is blithely skipping after these airheads because that almost all that's offered to them. Even most of the more serious news outlets have serious problems with credibility and do poor jobs of researching issues.

<<I hear that you’re really pissed at the state of the media in this country because the poor dewy-eyed innocent public doesn’t know any better than to swallow whatever pablum the REAL grown-ups (ie: the media) spoon-feed them. Paglia’s your whipping girl on that complaint.>>

Whatever.

<<However, I absolutely, completely 100% disagree that Paglia provides nothing of substance.>>

You can disagree, but you've not proved your point at all. And at this point all you've made are assertions.

<<And before you call me stupid again, please understand that I fully grasp that YOU find no substance in what she’s saying, and you believe me to be shallow for finding what you don’t. Again, I'll disagree. This is America, and unfortunately for you I’m here too and I’m actually NOT stupid or shallow. It’s not that simple.>>

Whether you are here or not isn't the point. You have the right to disagree with what I'm saying, but you've not actually supported a single thing you say, other than to assert that you find her writing valuable, thought-provoking, or whatever. Well, that's just wonderful for you, but you're not convincing in any way.

-- Ron Robertson

I have to commend Salon for bringing in Mr. Greenwald. In my mind he does more than balance out the inanities of Camille Paglia. I have to wonder why they gave such a fanfare for her and not him. He's far more cogent and effective in his writing than CP. Plus, he's actually responded to some of the letters here. Now THAT'S what I call being interactive, and truly progressive.

--Ron Robertson

I'd love to see one of the endangered NE Republicans switch to being a democrat (I'm sure the democrats would offer them one helluva deal to do so). Since the 2008 elections are likely to increase the democrats hold on the senate, in my view the longer he waits to make his switch, the better, because that's less time for a republican majority to further enable the Bush crime family and their plans. Anyway, if a republican would switch, then in one fell swoop Joe "Lie"berman would lose everything for being such a sycophant and liar, and the Republican coming in would be able to finally vote their conscience instead of having to make excuses for the insanity of the current GOP.

I wonder if all those people who fooled themselves into voting for JL are happy? Also, since Joe promised that he would caucus with the democrats to get himself elected, if he switched, isn't that fraud? Couldn't he at least be censured by the Senate or something? I know he can't be recalled because he's a federal politician.

At any rate, he makes me sick. I have a difficult time deciding who is more sickening, him, being such a craven power-leach, or Bush, Cheney, Rove and other creeps on the so-called "other side."

--Ron Robertson

If you've downloaded music from iTunes, they tell you upfront that you can make a CD of it, a lossless one at that, so that it's no lower in quality than what you bought. You can load that CD onto any MP3 player out there (I don't think there's any at this time that won't allow you to put CD music on it, at least no major player).

Also, you're making a lot of assertions about Job's motives or thoughts that don't really hold up. Why assume he's lying? He may (or may not) have other agendas going with what he wrote, but he made a strong case for getting rid of DRM, and for that he should be praised. Instead, you heap scorn and vitriol. I find that counter-productive.

And, why does it even need to be a brave defiance? Why can't it simply be sensible and logical? Why add all this drama?

Besides, why would any company want to spend the money being spent on creating and maintaining DRM, as the main record companies REQUIRE, if they weren't required to do so?

Incidentally, it probably does only take 3 minutes to "break" the DRM. You can do it legally. Burn a CD of it. Voila, no more DRM. The DMCA can't go after you for that, you're expressly given the option to do just that. What you're not given the right to do is distribute that to others. That'd be true whether or no DRM existed.

So basically, your whole diatribe amounts to a bad-faith criticism, because I really doubt you're unaware of all of this. If you are that unaware, I'd say that's even worse, since you are likely paid to write this piece, and it does the opposite of inform.

--Ron Robertson

PS: Maybe you're friends with Camille Paglia? If not, perhaps you should be.