Letters to the Editor
-
Pags, et al.
After reading the article and responses, I am wiping the tears of laughter out of my eyes. I can visualize these good readers grinding their teeth and pounding the keys. I enjoy her articles and realize she blows her horn and writes some really stupid stuff. But she also introduces new ideas. The Sontag stuff made me feel bad though. I thought Sontag was brilliant and sad.
-
Consensus of 1
For every consensus of 1 that's proven right, there are a 1000 cranks and idiots. I'm so tired of so-called individualists name checking Einstein and Galileo as a rationalization for their failures. Sorry, I mean, their maverick visionary genius.
There's a way to prove whether or not a theory is correct: it's called the Scientific Method. So far, it's very much on the side of those who believe that we've heavily affected the globe's climate.
-
How will a woman be elected president if even ardent feminists such as yourself continue with fashion statements?
Hi Camille,
I was quite puzzled as to why it is still necessary to make fashion statements about our female politicians? I quote: "Despite legitimate concerns about whether a speaker of the House should be creating ambiguity about American foreign policy, I thought Pelosi looked fabulous -- crisp, stylish, graceful and warm yet authoritative. Your comments about Condeleezza Rice & Hillary also seem to smack about image over accomplishments. " If you are unable to get your mindset off of fashion & into competencies, how are will the rest of the nation change theirs?
Thank you for the opportunity to correspond on this issue,
rcwarship
-
Lulu,
What new ideas does she introduce in this piece? I'm sick of that response. I've been a big fan of Paglia's for a long time. But she's running on empty, and articles like this show no respect for her audicence...or even for her own analytical ability.
-
Global Warming or Global Thawing?
Regarding the apparent climate warming trend, a question I have repeatedly asked and not been able to find a definitive answer to is "Are we experiencing Global Warming or Global Thawing?" That is to say are we moving away from or toward the climatic norm? What is the normal climate for Earth?
-
Camille, fast forward past the first 10 minutes
of An Inconvenient Truth. I agree--it was goddawful, and I almost stopped watching it at that point myself, but I didn't. I kept on going, and am so glad that I did. I would bet the house that if you watched the whole film you would be singing a different tune on climate change. As it stands now, your ignorance on this issue is appalling. You owe it to yourself and your readers to wise up.
-
Real inconvenient truths about Camille
1. She's a pedantic, shallow, over-educated/under-thought egoist with a need to shock for attention
2. She's as oppositional as a two year old, with about the same amount of self-control
3. She's frequently wrong about the facts
4. We read her to get pissed off, and it works
She could BE Ann Coulter
Maybe she is
-
Is it possible to have a rational discussion on Global Warming?
It's pretty humorous how many posts in this thread lead with a variation of "How dare such an idiot about science venture an opinion on science", followed immediately by egregiously non-scientific musings on the matter (Of course Global Warming is true! The glaciers are melting! It's mild in Cape Cod on Easter! My grandma in Florida will drown! How can it not be true! There's consensus, for God's sake!).
I don't know the extent to which Global Warming is caused by Man. If it's on its way, I don't know when. I don't know which species will be the big winners and losers if/when radical climate shift happens (humans included). I don't know the best way to head it off, or if our best attempts to do so might actually make things worse.
Neither do the vast majority of you. If you think you do, you're simply deluded. My apologies to the intellectually honest Climatologists and well-meaning and dedicated Geological dilitantes among you to whom this doesn't apply. But most of us can no better judge for ourselves about the above questions than we can that the fact that our car is using too much oil means that we need to replace the head gasket (a good mechanic and a good doctor are two of the most important relationships you will ever cultivate).
In a (probably futile) attempt to head off the Denier-huntin' mob with their torches and pitchforks; I do not deny Global Warming. I agree wholeheartedly with the poster upstream that it's stupid to play Intro-to-Epistimology 101 games as a precondition to actually doing something about things that might present a real threat. But shouldn't we try to face the danger with a clear head and dispassionate heart? If the last 6 or so years have taught us anything, it's that collective decisions made under emotional duress can lead to heartbreaking results.
Although I don't know much about climatology, I've consulted the best mechanics and doctors that I can find, and it certainly seems to me as if there's more than enough scientific evidence to be concerned - concerned enough to take preventive steps individually, and to support representatives who are themselves concerned.
Here's another thing about which I am concerned, though - deeply concerned. Taken as a whole, the quality of the discourse about Global Warming that I see, in media in general and even here at Salon (which I hold to a much higher standard) is simply abominable, on both sides of the issue. It mostly just reads like hysterical shrieking of insults and invective, intermixed with almost comically simpleminded contrary "evidence". There is intelligent debate to be found, but finding it is like trying to wade through a cesspool to find a diamond ring. And this fact ought to serve as a massive red flag to those of us who fear what's lost when scholarship and science are replaced by slogans and cheerleading.
Here's a modest test - if you can't even conceive of an intelligent person with pure intentions and neutral data honestly disagreeing with you about a position, then you've moved past belief and into credulity. That can be a dangerous place to be. And even if you are happy to be there, it still pays to be a little circumspect about your arguments if you hope to be pursuasive in any other way than merely rhetorically.
Please, fellow travelers, let's not allow passion and emotion to lead us down the path to editorial stupidity. It just gives aid and comfort to the enemy, and weakens our own position.