The damage Paglia and others do is the message that gets to the public at large. True progressives rarely get heard, instead they put Paglia-like people who are simply controversial just to stir up ratings. So the message that gets out to the public at large--most of whom pay little real attention, yet still vote based on fragments on TV--is the stupid, pandering message that the Paglias get out, such as: Kerry is too effeminate, McCain is masculine, Giuliani is strong, Gay men deserved got what they deserved (in so many words), etc.

You'll note that she plays into the national meme that declares all democrats are weak, all republicans are strong. You see that meme played out on Tim Russert's show, Chris Matthews, and most pundit foolishness. And it doesn't even take Paglia being on those shows, because the guests read her crap, are taken in by it, and it gets to a national audience. Do you see now how her cheap shots damage liberal/progressive positions? Notice how you can say anything about a democrat (most especially if your last name is Clinton), and it'll get national coverage via these talking-head shows, which feeds the print media, which feeds the broadcast media, on and on.

So, I'm tired of this crap, and it's time to call people on this garbage. Just taking a controversial view doesn't make one think unless it's backed up by something other than opinion. That's why she and those like her do not make me think, except how much she makes the world a worse place for her invective and stupidity she spreads. The Nancy Grace's and O'Reilly's are the types that quote her trash, or quote others who quote her trash because it plays into the trash they want to spread.

One other thing, I'm tired of the trivialization of important issues, Paglia going on about Edward's hair is a way of trivializing everything about him. He has some important things to say, yet precious, nationally read space is being wasted on critiques of his hair, just like the mindless critiques of Gore got Gore's jackass opponent and coterie in the White House. The world would have been far better off if the media had paid attention to the issues instead of pimping false stories about Gore's Love Story Connection, Internet Inventiveness, Earth-toned clothes, and the nearly endless number of other trivialities that ended up having the election go as it did.

I really don't see how that's not obvious. Salon is a nationally read website, it gets quoted on nationally broadcast media and in print media.

--Ron Robertson

We're complaining because CP is part of what's wrong in our country now. She's an apologist for the right-wing, yet claims to be a liberal. She constantly trashes gay people, particularly gay men, and yet she's a lesbian. THAT gets her far too much airtime, just like it does for Andrew Sullivan. So, the so-called left is constantly being undercut by fools like CP, and the causes even most of her fans seem to be for are being undercut by her. She gets airtime because the media, and apparently Salon, who many of us pay to read, think she's just precious, or whatever mindless accolade they want to assign.

She's not a contrarian, whatever that's really supposed to mean, she's just a professional offensivist. She only exists to offend, not to enlighten, she does not make one think, she just offends with her malevolent tripe, she does not have original thoughts, she just looks for a view and spouts whatever the opposite of it is, often while saying she's part of that view!

Having your position damaged over and over by people like CP, the media that's still full of "he said/she said" equivalencies for every position, and a pundit class that is largely made up of fools is a reason to be angry, because that's one of the main reasons we're in the place we're in today.

Like it's been said many times before, if you're not angry, you're not paying attention. And that's putting it overly nice.

--Ron Robertson

OK, I've read 21 pages of commentary about Camille. I knew from previous postings by her that she drew a lot of letters, but I'd chosen not to read either her articles or letters after getting enough of her shtick years ago (I've subscribed to Salon since the beginning of subscriptions).

I decided to see how other Salon readers were taking the CP resurrection, and to my relief, they're hugely against her being given this venue. She truly doesn't, and never has deserved it, judging her purely on the quality of her "work."

One thing I've noticed in many of the letters praising CP and disparaging her many detractors is they claim (in so many words) that there's no substance to the complaints (richly ironic, that). Well, let's just play along and say that was true. Where then, are the quoted examples of her worthy writing, genuine insight, or simply accurate prognostication? They must be there, I've heard even a broken clock is right twice a day (I've often wondered, could that be true if both hands are missing?). If her detractors are required to give satisfactory explanation for their views, fairness dictates that her supporters do the same, or at least the ones who complain should.

And no, I feel no need whatsoever to read her again, she proved too long ago with her blame-the-victim writings that she is beneath contempt.

For Salon: please exhibit more sound judgment in the future. Just like that monstrous hit-piece you did on the late, great Mediawhoresonline.com which I won't forgive until you apologize, you tread very thin ice when you waste resources on stupid bloviators. Thankfully the wonderful writings of Joe Conason and others greatly outweigh your stupidity with CP, or I'd be adding my voice to the chorus of no-longer-subscribers.

Learn to differentiate quality from web-hits.

--Ron Robertson