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

<<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

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.

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