Letters to the Editor
Margalis
Published Letters: 614 Editor's Choice: 16
-
Of course it is not genuine...
[Read the article: Camille's back!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As others have pointed out, Camille is now a dollar short and a day late. She weighs in on Anna Nicole after it is old news, with the same fake emotion as everyone else. Another non-friend that is for whatever reason incredibly saddened and shaken by the death of someone they didn't care about at all. I call bullshit.
The truth is Anna Nicole had very few friends, which is part of the reason she was such a mess. Where were all these people when she was alive?
The entire Anna Nicole affair has been a shower of crocodile tears from egomaniacs looking to turn the story into one about themselves. (As Camille did) Now the story of Anna Nicole is the story of what Camille ate for dinner.
If you want a true cultural critic, look at the response of Jack Cafferty:
"So..is Anna Nicole still dead?"
Wolf Blitzer: "Yes...our coverage will continue after -"
"Can't wait for that!"
Finally someone said what most of us felt.
---
This is an interesting read:
http://privat.ub.uib.no/BUBSY/playboy.htm
More mentioning of her partner, more about Sandra Bernhard and Modanna, more on football - the same tired subjects over and over again. It looks like it was printed yesterday, when it is from 1995 - that's how little Camille has changed. She claims to be into pop culture but is hopelessly mired in the 80s forever. Anything she says at this point is blank repetition.
I enjoy the fact that the interviewer is far more rational than Camille.
Speaking about AIDS:
I believe that nature rewards things that are in its best interest and punishes things that are not. Homosexual promiscuity is not in nature's best interest. Certainly not anal sex. Nature wants us to procreate.
For someone claiming to be an adherent of science (which is hard to swallow, given that she has never demonstrated even the slightest understanding of anything science-related) this is appalling - wrong on so many levels.
Nature does not "want" anything. It does not have "interests" or "punish" things. That is a silly anthropomorphism and a childish understanding of natural selection. Strike one.
AIDS is spread by heterosexual promiscuity as well. In much of the world, that is the primary form of transmission. Is nature "punishing" heterosexual promiscuity then? What about AIDS transmission from mother to child? How does that fit into this inane theory? Strike two.
With heterosexual sex, more partners is more procreation. If nature "wants us to procreate" shouldn't the *least* promiscuous be the most punished, rather than the most? Strike three.
Being homosexual has the same effect on procreation regardless of promiscuity. If you fuck one guy or a thousand you aren't making babies either way. If nature wanted to punish something it would be homosexuality at all, not homosexual promiscuity which is irrelevant to procreation. Strike four. (Camille plays in little league so she gets lots of strikes)
Anal sex is irrelevant to procreation. Anal sex does not produce babies but neither does taking a shit, wearing pants or raving like a madwoman. Is nature against those too? The presence of anal sex is irrelevant - all that matters is the presence of vaginal sex. (More or less) You can fuck your girlfriend in the ass six ways to Sunday and still make babies as long as that isn't all you are doing. Strike five, you're out.
---
That's more logical errors than sentences! This from a science-minded person? Har har...
Of course, Camille will never, ever, respond to substantive criticism like this because she is a coward who knows her ideas cannot stand up to anything beyond shallow examination. To engage in a substantive debate would expose her.
Let me say that again - someone who throws out extremely poor logic and never bothers to defend it is a coward and a fraud - nothing more.
-
What a tar baby!
[Read the article: How Obama learned to be a natural]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ha ha...here in MA Mitt Romney got in trouble for calling some situation a tar baby - but at least that term has some legitimate meaning and he was using it to descibe something like The Big Dig, not a black guy. Uppity in our vernacular is used almost exlusively in a racist context.
Quite a week for Salon. Let's review:
1. GK posits that Salon readers and letter writers are idiots.
2. Salon refers to Obama as uppity in an amateurish piece, then changes it without any real explanation. Clearly it wasn't a typo! Further calls for clarification and explanation go unanswered.
3. Salon publishes breathless, credulous interview about street families that panders to outdated stock stereotypes and includes absurd hyperbole. (Street families as dangerous as hardcore gangs? No!)
4. Camille Paglia returns to universal scorn, Salon not only refuses to respond to reader outcry but cherry-picks the Editor's Choice letters to make it look like Camille has been given a warm welcome!
---
Poor judgement, sloppy writing and reporting, contempt for the readership.
Can a publication that actively despises its readership survive?
The internet has become much more interactive - I would humbly suggest Salon attempt to engage the readership rather than simply insult and ignore it.