<<Erik

Your response to Dana's posting typifies the hateful ignorant bias of many of you on the left. YOU are the best evidence that Cammile Paglia is right about your ilk. Name calling is your only defense when the facts get in your way. Try some constructive critisism next time you inuredite cretan!

-- Todd Houck>>

Or maybe it's dead after all. Tedd Houck's response actually made me laugh. But then I had to wonder, maybe he was serious?

--Ron Robertson

<<Erik

Your response to Dana's posting typifies the hateful ignorant bias of many of you on the left. YOU are the best evidence that Cammile Paglia is right about your ilk. Name calling is your only defense when the facts get in your way. Try some constructive critisism next time you inuredite cretan!

-- Todd Houck>>

Or maybe it's dead after all. Tedd Houck's response actually made me laugh. But then I had to wonder, maybe he was serious?

--Ron Robertson

I'd had no idea until recently that there were so many people who despise (or at least seem to) Anne Lamott. I'd also wondered why she didn't have any articles on Salon anymore, but didn't take time to find out why, and apparently I completely missed the really controversial essay about slapping her son. Nonetheless, what I have read by her I've actually enjoyed. It struck me as being quite honest and a serious attempt at getting to the truth, and to me, getting at it the best way she knows how. I think that's an important thing to do for everyone, and I like to read how other people work at it, even if it's completely different than anything I'd do (for instance, I couldn't care less about being a Christian, since I ended my interest in being one many years ago)--so long as it's an honest attempt.

That's where she seems so different from Camille Paglia, who reminds me of so many of the so-called conservatives of the day, CP doesn't seem very honest or insightful, or even to really care about what the truth is, she seems only to care about being shocking. Shock-value as a primary value get tedious very quickly, since one usually doesn't learn much of value that way. In other words, it's usually a waste of time. Anyway, the viciousness of attack on Miss Lamott made me question whether my own sharp comments about Camille Paglia were as appropriate as I'd originally thought. After all, I'd thought I'd sure hate to have someone write about me what I wrote about her. But then, I don't do things that Camille Paglia does to get in that situation.

So, while I have no problem with serious invective being used against Camille Paglia because she is a waste of valuable public space, I do think it's inappropriate to be so vicious towards Anne Lamott (admittedly, I might feel differently if I'd read that one article mentioned above, but even with that, I've read enough of her other articles that I'd probably mitigate that one as an outlier). Ms. Lamott seems to be laying her heart out in a very vulnerable way to get at the truth--I think when someone does that they don't deserve to be treated cruelly. Paglia is just mouthing off for the publicity, and so doesn't deserve the same consideration.

--Ron Robertson

I previously said I'd enjoyed her writing, perhaps I'm susceptible to emotional writing (perhaps because I don't read that much of it). Still several have made some pretty compelling points here, and if she writes again, I'll have these points in my head in refining my personal judgment about her writing.

As another poster said, the vitriol here is nothing compared to other places. Yet, I tend to think like one other writer said: her writing isn't so dramatic (I'm paraphrasing) as to warrant the strong attacks on her. In the end, it's still important that people have the ability to write what they think, and I especially appreciate those who back up what they say. Hopefully, Salon is not going to mess much with the letters section, as this is one of the things great about the internet, being able to respond immediately to what's been written.

As for Hillary, I think her war vote was a big mistake, but it's not an insurmountable one in my view. I think she's a very smart candidate, and I've always been impressed when I've seen her speak or be interviewed. Contrast her with the craven fool we have in the White House now, and she's hands-down a gigantic improvement. No, she isn't the perfect possible candidate, but I don't think one is out there. Even Gore, who I'd support enthusiastically is not someone I'd call perfect. Whoever came out with the wise phrase of "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" couldn't have come up with a phrase more applicable to politicians. So, I hope people will be wise in this election and vote for the better, electable choice (obviously a Democrat, LOL, thankfully I don't have the horrible choice of having to vote for someone truly egregious, like Lieberman).

Anyway, thanks all you who are thoughtful writers, pro and con, it's great reading what you have to say. The silly sweeping writers that make arguments like "all liberals...", well, your thoughts aren't terribly illuminating, or for the most part, informed. You have the right, of course, to say what you like, just don't be surprised if people don't have respect for your views.

--Ron Robertson