Letters to the Editor
-
Gaak
Gee I really hope to read more about George Bush's manly, appealing style again--that was where I checked out a few years ago.
-
If Paglia Adored Power
She would not have behaved so defiantly that she was kicked out of almost every job she ever had, ending up for a while teaching in factories. She would not have challenged power, she would have flattered it. She would not have made mincemeat of the then-cultural pieties, but would have co-opted the PC mentality and ridden it for all it was worth. She would not have challenged authority, and would have remained in the Ivy League. She would either be writing mainstream articles for the print journals of the traditional left or the traditional right.
No, she always defied the people in power, and risked job after job doing so, and published books that alienated her from the people in this country who weild power.
I think you confuse her admiration for individuals who impress their individual traits on the world stage (Helen of Troy enslaving the men of Greece, pop culture icons who impress their will on the arts in their time, men and women striving to create culture and civilization over the course of centuries) with a different kind of power altogether. It's not the arbitary rulers of any given time that interest her, but the defiant rebels who change the course of civilization. Byron, not Bush.
-
A Breath of Fresh Air
Dude-ess, "valorization of the trades!" You rock Sister Camille. As an electrician with a few smarts it is so god damn refreshing to be able to read a lucid and intelligent voice with a keen eye towards political and social realities. Keep it coming.......but an endorsement for Hilary? I don't know. Let's just vote for a true Military Roman Dictator and see how that plays out. It's going to be interesting. Very interesting.
-
If you're bringing people back...
How about bringing back Allen Barra?!
-
Bizarre reaction
Not to trivialize Anna Nicole's death, but Camille's reaction and her behavior in response to it is absolutely bizarre. I have to question her sincerity. It is suspicious to be so "upset" by the death of Nicole Smith whom she doesn't even know. And her remarks about Elizabeth Taylor...this is personal stuff that doesn't belong in a serious article. Either she is loony or she is simply pulling our chains to get a reaction! Of course, everything she writes is for effect. I wish Salon would find someone else to play the gadfly but they appear to be smitten with her even though their readership would like to be shed of her.
-
Question
"I am a pro-choice libertarian Democrat."
WTF does that mean?
-
Of course it is not genuine...
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.