If superficial analysis of Time cover stories is an art, then Camille Paglia is a virtuosity. It was nice of her to finally admit--with the phrase "I know nothing of Cheney's family history" that she doesn't know what she's talking about. The sneer is facial paralysis, it has nothing to do with what a murderous prick he is. Also Paglia's assertion that the media is dominated by a liberal perspective would be laughable if she were not writing for the marginalized liberal publication called Salon. And what smug hubris to think that the rest of Americans are as cloisterd and ignorant as she is and don't know the name of the most famous music mogul in the history of recording, David Geffen. There is no shortage of idiots out there, cut this one loose.

Hi, already wrote a quick letter on this lady, but then looked back an interview she gave Salon some years back and felt I needed to put a little emphasis. Paglia sort of reminds me of the kid in the family who everyone has deemed the smart one, and so at Thanksgiving dinner they are asked their opinions on all manner of world events that they really don't more about than anyone else at the table; whether she knows something about the topic or not, Paglia has to have an opinion on it. The preface of the interview lauds her for having voted for Clinton and then turning against him. Wow. She then avers that Clinton was not strong enough militarily, that this is what led to 911, and that a multi-state force would be a good way to get Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. She also wonders aloud about who toned down Bush's post- 911 rhetoric--"I don't know who got to him" and then avers, "his father or the elders around him." Good God! Could she be more ignorant of how modern politics function? You still let her write for this rag?

There are few people who read the daily paper less insightful than Paglia. If I want superficial analysis, I'll talk to the guy who sells me the paper. I just bought a subscription to Salon yesterday; please do not let her write for this website anymore. I doubt there are very many women writers out there who don't think for themselves, who don't have complex opinions, who have don't have doubts about modern feminism and the progressive laundry list, but don't make that the entire sum of their identities or writings. Give one of them a chance.

In answer to one recent reader response--I don't think that the large negative response to Paglia is a shocked plea of "you can't do that, you're supposed to be liberal and feminist". More to the point, I think people generally get upset when they witness a talentless hack hog limelight, while talented, insightful people who can actually move others to make a difference in the world languish in obscurity--without even a signature caricature for their column. What has impressed me about Salon is its willingness to take on progressive doctrines in an intelligent thought-provoking way. I would much rather see more column inches along the lines of the great interviews Salon has had on the hysteria on both sides of the intelligent design debate and more "How the World Works"-type analysis that informs and fascinates and engages the reader into investigating issues in a holistic way. Paglia reminds of an ignorant loud-mouth out to shock her college town cohort, and that's frankly boring.

Sharpton totally gets a bad rap for his past failures, but anyone looking at his career objectively can see that media and public have gone after him with a racist-tinged vengeance. He certainly didn't get a blowjob, sleep with his campaign manager's wife, battle with cocaine addiction, or get involved in campaign finance corruption. He just took Tawana Brawley at her word.

If you weigh Sharpton's successes, his wit, his lyrical oratory and his refusal to back down from bringing racial issues to the fore, he ranks as one of the best advocates for social change this nation has ever had. I especially recall him fondly for calling a donkey a donkey in his Democratic Convention speech of 04; unlike other attendees, he spoke from the heart, without a teleprompter and he put Democrats who take for granted black support, on notice. That being, said, could the writer have gotten a little help with editing, punctuation and structure? This article was almost impossible to read.

My first response to your headline is "GREAT". Can't take it? That means you'll go away, right; in a country in which a former Senator's great grandfather could own Sharpton's ancestors, we do not yet have the racial parity to be thinking of white folks ever being victims of racism.