I'm just dreading the coming Post-Vigoda era myself.

Ouch... another example of the lower-than-middlebrow pseudo-intellectualism of Paglia. Has any cultural commentator ever staked their claim on less deserving land than the crappy, confused, populist-muddled Star Wars Prequels? Reading this column is like experiencing a strange collision between late '90s geek blog culture and early '90s counterfeminist culture. Actually, now that I make that connection, I see the link between Paglia and Lucas... both are silvery-haired, unapologetic embracers of the moral and emotional blur enabled by decades of unfettered Campbell and Jung worship. Please continue to publish Paglia's commentary.. it's a fascinating glimpse into the guilty liberal soul of the post-70s repentant canyon crowd.

In Shaginaw, in Shaginaw

I went to Shunday Shule;

The only thing I ever learned

Was called the Golden Rhule,—

But that’s enough for any man

What’s not a proper fool.

- love Roethke. And I'm from the torrid South. Imagine :)

This is absoultely f%^g ridiculous. People are paid to write this stuff? The media is truly has too many and not enough actual reporters who will go out and get the news.

But this fact isn't news in itself, it's common knowledge... and only Glenn Greenwald is ranting about it on a daily basis.

I just think this Wolff dude should get together with Camille Paglia. Together, their utterly pedestrian insights could find a whole new audience of irrelevancy. (Unless, of course, she's too old and haggy for his taste. Maybe Ann Coulter....?)

Or how about a subset of Fox News, one run by Real 50-something Gray-haired Men with Sufficiently Manly Names. They could have Wolf Blitzer, Michael Savage, Michael Wolff, plus special appearances by Rainier Wolfcastle and Chuck Norris.

And just to clarify my letter, I was criticizing Wolff, not Walsh... didn't realize how many posters actually found fault with her analysis of the article...

Don't blame Joan Walsh for simply describing the twisted armchair Freudianism of Wolff. And yes, I will concede that sex, and other emotional factors, play as large a role in choosing our leaders as intellect (if not a bigger role). But the equation of McCain = virile, vs. Obama = pussy whipped?!

Let's just say that view... isn't shared by everyone, male or female, to say the least :)

Personally, I still think Jah Wobble is a better bassist than Breast Wobble.

"I'll start with a few simple pointers for how to do it: Don't call them racist. Or old and irrelevant. And don't say Hillary Clinton has to do all the work to heal the breach; Obama has plenty he can do himself."

OK Ms. Walsh... I'm with you. But I have just a couple of 'simple pointers' for Hillary's supporters as well.

Don't call us (all) sexist. Or young and moony-eyed.

And don't say Barack Obama has to do all the work to heal the breach; Hillary's camp can learn to meet us halfway.

Compromise works both ways.

And, as a liberal Democrat (yes, male/38, just for the sake of demographic full disclosure) who knows his party is all-too-easily divided by identity politics, I just implore that we FIND A WAY TO DO IT. This may mean both sides will HAVE to cut down on nitpicking and ax-grinding, and start to emphasize the COOPERATION part.

Yes, and some of us will have to learn to take occasional rash comments in stride, rather than to heart as insults. We are all learning how to talk to one another, and it's hard to do that in a minefield.

And when you wield words like "sexist" with aplomb, don't be surprised when some voters rankle at your blunt admonition "Don't call us racist."

We can't let our differences turn us into another set of fragments fluttering ineffectually into the Bush/McCain whirlpool. For the sake of humanity, let's find our common ground and join to defend it.

I agree with Burton here, especially on the philosophical point: just what is "unique" anyway? In other words, what does this "line" consist of, the one that supposedly makes us such a separate entity? Last time I checked, we humans still eat, breathe air, procreate, and eventually die. Sounds like an animal to me.

When and if the day comes that we become fully liberated consciousnesses of pure energy that consume nothing and take up no space, I will happily concede our "uniqueness". But by any common-sense definition, it ain't true now, and it's a meaningless question anyway. Why waste time arguing about semantic fuzzy lines that have no scientific basis?

(like the question of whether Pluto is a planet... like somebody's keeping track out there?!)

If the issue is a moral one, on the other hand, then why do we need a scientific definition? Is Gazzaniga saying "we aren't really animals; therefore, we don't need to treat animals fairly/humanely/etc."? That's another argument. But it shouldn't hinge on a spurious i.d.ing of ourselves as a separate class of entity. That's just intellectual dishonesty put into the service of a ridiculous ego boost.

.. I don't see how one could say that "focusing on Beatie's genitalia" is just a "salacious detail" in the news coverage of this episode.

After all, he is a transsexual, and that role is largely defined by the fact that one wishes to change his/her genitalia, is it not? Then how is it a "salacious detail?" It seems (in my opinion) instead a rather essential detail of the story... especially in this case, it basically is the story.

You can't really blame the audience, when presented with the scenario, to ignore all the inevitable curiosity...

And if you blame the media and their audience for gawking like freak-show spectators, just remember who took the first step in this game... when a person offers their private life for a news story or TV willingly, they have to be prepared for a few inelegant questions from the crowd.