Letters to the Editor
-
Typo.
There's a typo in my last letter, but it's enough of one it needs correcting to make sure the idea is clear:
"...if Paglia claimed that the Civil Rights Movement lulled James Byrd into his violent racial-motivated movement, if Salon would continue to praise and promote that columnist."
should obviously read
"if Paglia claimed that the Civil Rights Movement lulled James Byrd into his violent racial-motivated murder, if Salon would continue to praise and promote that columnist."
Sorry about that.
-
Disturbing the Universe
That's an excellent suggestion, JesseK, and a startling one.
For the past couple of years, I've simply been raging against Salon's ill-conceived changes, but always checking back, out of good faith and residual affection, hoping that things would get better, because sometimes things are better. Wow, just like a bad relationship.
But you're suggesting a possible way to actually cause Salon not to be.
And you know, although I wouldn't have wanted that even a few months ago, now I think that just maybe I do.
I think I'll start writing letters.
-
Countown
And
-
Credible Candidates in Skirts
Welcome Back Camille.
My brain is thrilled to have you to read again. You are at your best. That said, allow me to point out what I believe is an error in your statement "Hillary, despite claims by the liberal press, is not the first credible candidate: That laurel belongs to Republican Elizabeth Dole, whose funding dried up but who was indeed a legitimate contender in the lead-up toward the 2000 primaries."
Unless you are limiting your observation to the 6 years that mark this young 21st century, neither Hillary nor Libby were "firsts" for their political parties. Waaay back in the 20th century around January 1972, New York Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, a credible, competent AfriCarribean-American announced her candidacy for president and campaigned vigorously for the job. She ran out of money. In 1964, Republican Sen. Margaret Chase Smith announced her candidacy and ran. She couldn't get support.
Both of these strong women were credible and able. Unfortunately, neither their colleagues nor the country were ready for a skirt in the White House no matter how proven they were when it came to domestic and global affairs nor how much brilliance and common sense they brought to the table.
-
So Glad to see Camille on Salon.com again!
I echo the comment in another letter: it would be even better to read a WEEKLY Camille letter instead of just a monthly letter. The more Camille, the better! Hated her absence, glad for the return!!
Thankx, Salon.com!
-
Ms. Paglia and Salon
No, I'm not particularly pleased about Ms. Paglia's return to Salon. I find her work to be repetitive and narcissistic. I thought that perhaps she had improved over the past few years, but I see that she hasn't. Her early work was good, but it saddens me to see a writer that refuses (consciously or not) to evolve and progress. It's a rather smarmy thing to say, but I liked Camille Paglia before she figured out that she was Camille Paglia.
I am sure that the editors are scrolling through these letters - I actually do have faith (perhaps naive?) in that. What I am not sure of is if anyone at Salon has anything to say to any of us - supporters and non-supporters? Can we expect Ms. Paglia to write a response? Does Salon have any kind of ombudsman of sorts?
I think that people are threatening to pull their subscriptions because they feel like no one is listening to them. Or rather, that the opinions of the readers have no influence on the publication. Are there more unique individual responses in Ms. Paglia's favor or against? What about letters that have not been posted here, but that have been sent directing to the editors privately? If enough people wrote in about a certain columnist or feature, would it make Salon change - is that a power that we actually have? I have no way of knowing these answers, and I am not sure that Salon would even attempt to tell me.
---
And a quick note to people who would advise me to skip Ms. Paglia's column if I don't like her. Why did I read her column, instead of ignoring it? Because I believe that in order for me to critique something, I should have at least read it. I read things by people that I don't agree with. You know, it's kinda like how we get annoyed with people that try to ban books and films that they haven't even read or seen...I think there's a proverb about that, something like, "It is wise to know the ways of the enemy."
It's unfortunate that my click-through to the article might be interpreted as a supportive message.
-
Well, maybe this one will answer
"I couldn't be happier to see a strong, clear voice of reasonable analysis on current affairs."
Welcome to the thunderdome. I been askin' and askin', and so far, I ain't go no answer at all:
Can you comb through this latest offering from Professor Paglia and point out a moment where the "strong, clear voice of reasonable analysis" shines through?
I read the whole damn thing, and yet I missed it somehow. Weirdly, I keep asking her defenders to point it out to me -- but they all seem to have gone out for a sandwich or something. I'm sure you can help me, though.
Record your answer here:
Did you remember to carry the bum?
-
The wisdom of Dean (James)
Following the distressing news that Paglia would be given a regular slot at Salon.com, I was pleased to read the dozens and dozens of fellow readers expressing the same disdain I feel, and my same determination not to renew my subscription (despite the welcome additon of Glenn Greenwald). The recent interview with Paglia was bad enough; her remarks on the Mark Foley scandal were so distinctively moronic that her return to the Salon fold is truly inexplicable.
I haven't read through all the letters yet, but one writer's citing of an old Paglia column where she favorably compared then-future President GWB to James Dean in "Giant" struck a nerve, as I've long associated W with a Dean line from that film: "Nobody is king in this country." Maybe she hadn't seen "Giant" recently.