Camille has reached a new low with her opening 500 word bloviation on Palin. It is pretty apparent that the Camillster she has completely lost her ability to reason logically or rationally process evidence. I’m no psychiatrist so I’ll refrain from commenting on whatever psycho-sexual bullshit that may be going on with Camille and her twisted fascination with Palin but I will comment on just a couple things she said that are just plain stupid.

Camille: “Whether Palin has a national future or not will depend on her willingness to hit the books at some point and absorb more information about international history and politics than she has needed to know in her role as governor.”

First of all I would argue that she did need to know more in her role as Governor. Second, wouldn’t it be better to run someone for the highest office in the land that already had this knowledge of international history and politics first? It appears pretty ass-backwards to pick someone for office and then try to educate them on what’s needed for the job later. It’s kind of like choosing a new President for a University and then helping them get their GED before they take office.

Or how about her silly observation that, “…as I know from listening to talk radio. Callers coming fresh from her rallies are always heady with infectious enthusiasm.” followed up by accusing Vanity Fair of “faux objectivity” for writing a sepulchral piece on her. So Vanity Fare is faux objectivity and right wing talk radio is hard hitting journalism?

There is not reason to keep this unhinged moron on the payroll of Salon.

Dear Editors,

Over the past couple of years over 95% of paid subscribers who write letters ask you (some even politely) to give Camille the axe. We all know the real reasons that you keep her around but I just want to ask you if it is really worth it? Is getting a few more hits really worth looking like a bunch of assholes? Is a few more hits really worth alienating your paid readership over? Is a few more hits worth giving some ignorant has-been an open forum that could go to a serious, interesting or thoughtful writer (of which Salon has many but could always use more).

Just asking.

ctttt:"How anyone can not find Paglia both truthful and hilariously amusing is beyond me. Have these people never heard of Gore Vidal or Pauline Kael?"

Vidal and Kael would both bitch slap you for making that comparison if they could!

I think that one of the tasks of a good editor of a magazine like Salon is to weed out the writing that does not reflect the aesthetic or philosophical mindset of your readership. This does not mean that we shouldn’t be given contrarian or differing views—just that those views should be tempered by reason, critical thinking and sound scholarship. Case in point: whether or not you agree or disagree with Joe Conason, David Sirota or Glenn Greenwald, you know that you're dealing with heavyweights when you read them. They back up what they say and exhibit the restraint and authority one expects from professional journalism.

On the other hand, Salon has Camille Paglia; a writer that the majority of Salon’s readers have shown contempt for by repeatedly and mercilessly excoriating in the letters to the editor. Paglia is a writer who throws ten-dollar academic terms around to cover up the vacuousness of her thinking, lacks the critical thinking skills to be considered a serious journalist (or philosopher) and whose writing is a paean to personal prejudice. Salon once referred to her as “Our fave pop philosopher”; and epithet that I hope to never see in print again.

To keep a writer like Paglia around when so many of the readers have spoken up so articulately on the matter demonstrates an attribute of a bad editor —hubris and contempt for your readership.

A fair percentage of the models that grace the covers of today's fashion rags are in her age range. Why single her out? I think the reason is because people actually know her age. The truth is a lot of the covergirls that grace adult fashion mags are as young as 14. They were just made to look older which gives men a chance for a guilt free drool. Yet when they 'slut up' little Miley, who people are accustomed to seeing as wholesome--like their own daughters,they freak out.

It's all a part of the great American double standard.

A cap and traded system is better than nothing but we would be better off with a direct carbon tax. However, a carbon tax is not as easy to get past the corporate controlled congress because it provides less chance for big business to profit from it. The simple fact (and call it cynical if you will) is that the only reason that a cap and trade can even pass the legislative houses is that corporations have already figured out a way to milk the scheme to their advantage.