Letters to the Editor
-
Paglia is a Con Woman
When will you please realize that Paglia is a con job? Her writing is self-inflating, and it is actually painful to read because of her bad syntax and grammar and poorly researched subjects.
In this day and age, she would never get tenure at a prestigious university such as Princeton.
She is a fraud, and a bad one at that. Moreover, her writings are excruciatingly boring...
-
Why?
Why is this blowhard writing for Salon? Why do her "opinions" matter? Is she supposed to be some "serious, provocative" thinker? What am I missing? She can't touch Kamiya? She's overmatched. There's supposed to be original thought here?
What a waste of space.
-
Paglia is a global warming skeptic?
Please.
Joan Walsh, are you stupid or what? Seriously. After this Paglia column alone, you have to answer your readers. Free speech? Hell, yes! Blatant lies? Hell, no. This goes beyond the need for clicks for ad revenue. Please exercise some editorial respect for the truth, if not for decent writing.
-
leave just leave
Oh please another idiot savant with opinions . Please Salon throw paglia out into the forest so she can ramble to the wind.
-
Thank you, Salon
For running this column. When I saw Paglia's name on the masthead again, something went off in the back of my mind that I was disappointed, but I couldn't remember why I felt that way. Then I read your column today, and suddenly it's clear.
Her writing is self-involved, self-important, and self-oriented. She bloviates with just about every word. Her "insights" illuminate nothing and her "arguments" uncover nothing. The prose is, well, turgid. All in all an example of what I would not desire to read... I'm glad this exemplary column appeared early enough to prevent me from wasting too much time figuring out the mess all over again.
I'm not sure whom you were seeking to attract, but bringing back Paglia was not a step forward for Salon.
-
global warming? Camille, stick to Madonna
The recent report on global warming is the consenus of thousands of scientists who contributed to- and debated the data. Scientists- you know, those people who go through years of training to look at the natural world from a skeptical point of view and form conclusions based on the data at hand. Most scientists can get into an disagreement about almost anything, but human-facilitated global warming is not not one of those things. If you can't trust that kind of censensus, then don't bother taking those heart, diabetes or cancer meds, cause you damn well can't trust those. Welcome back to the flat earth society.
-
Yikes!
Look, we all know Ms. Paglia is a provocateur, so we shouldn't be surprised when she makes goofy statements about subjects she knows nothing about. Like Ann Coulter, she blows hot air for the fun of it-- little girls who need attention, arrested in development. That being said, Ms. Paglia obviously has a voracious appetite for knowledge--I just wish she would know when she was out of her element.
Global warming is a serious subject, and although some may find it interesting that Ms. Paglia finds geology exciting, it hardly makes her casual observations relevant in any serious discussion of it. I suppose she'll be defending Creationism next.
-
Do we need to suffer fools gladly?
"Climate change, keyed to solar cycles, is built into Earth's system"
Source, please? The causes of past climate changes, such as the ice ages, continue to be fiercely debated, there is no such conclusion as "Climate change [is] keyed to solar cycles". That is a pure lie.
And then there is "When Gore told a congressional hearing last month that there is a universal consensus among scientists about global warming -- which is blatantly untrue -- he forfeited his own credibility."
You are such a stupid sack of s**t. There are still people that argue the earth is flat, I guess you believe them.
I have never said this before, but if Salon continues to publish crap like this them my premium account is likely not to be renewed.
-
wow
A vast global warming conspiracy?
You actually buy into the notion that solar cycles are responsible for current global temperature trends?
Mercury vapors near a kiddie day care center get your panties more bunched up than the threat of rapidly rising oceans, catastrophic droughts and storms, massive loss of biodiversity, unprecedented global famine, and enormous resource wars?
Your geology professor thought you were smart, eh? You've contemplated the wonders of Niagra Falls? You must think you have mad credentials.
You voted for Nader in 2000?
On a scale of 1 to intelligent, I give you a "bumblefucking nuts". Also, your writing style is vacuous and pretentious.
Joan Walsh, please get rid of this woman.
-
Gold, Jerry ... gold!
No "universal consensus among scientists about global warming" ... correct! About 250,000 say yes, 20 or 30 no ... and that ain't universal, dammit! If only more people were as careful with words as you, Pags. I don't know who scares me more: you or some of these "letter writers." My favorite is Hugh Greentree. "All of (Bush's) actions have been taken with appropriate attention to the procedural details." Well that's a relief to find out! Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?
-
I Faced a Real Conundrum Today
Should I get Dr. Pepper or Diet Dr. Pepper? Fortunately, my question, like every other in the known universe, was answered by a passage in epic tome "Sexual Personae."
-
Lies, damn lies
Camille Paglia has no shame.
1. "As a lapsed Catholic, I detest dogma in any area."
Bullshit. Paglia eats up and regurgitates the dogma of the far right endlessly while trying to fool her readers by claiming to be a Democrat and a feminist. She's a Democrat like Limbaugh is a Democrat and a feminist like Phyllis Schlafly is a feminist.
2. "Too many of my fellow Democrats seem peculiarly credulous at the moment."
Double bullshit. Paglia is not a Democrat, and no one is a more credulous consumer of right-wing propaganda than she is.
3. "I am a skeptic about what is currently called global warming."
I am a skeptic about what is currently (or ever) called Paglia thinking.
Camille, how do you live with yourself?!?
Eric Meyer
-
This just in - Islam murderously incompatible with Enlightenment values
Camille,
Is it fair to say that you are in broad agreement with Gibbon, who blamed the fall of Rome on Christianity? In any case, I wonder when in the post-WWI era that the West has been defended by its intellectuals. What I see is a depressing history of Western intellectuals supporting Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and so on. These infatuations with totalitarianism have a remarkably consistent lifecycle: enthusiasm, followed by willful self-delusion, and then finally a painful repudiation, with only a few die-hards remaining nostaglic over the lost or flawed vision of the murderous, illiberal ideology.
Islam, I think, is no different. You are correct to point out that Islam is inherently incompatible with feminism. It is also incompatible with tolerance for sexual freedom (especially homosexuality), with free speech, and with the free exercise of religion. On that last point, I always find it interesting that many liberals point to Muslim "toleration" of Jews and Christians, while ignoring the fact that atheism has always been completely intolerable to Islam.
So perhaps we are simply in the period of willful self-delusion about Islam, and inevitably the cognitive dissonance required to apologize for Islam while defending the tenets of Western liberalism is unsustainable. That is a hopeful thought; unfortunately, these totalitarian ideologies tend to have a rather large body count associated with them.