Letters to the Editor
-
Camille's Motives
Camille Paglia's presence on Salon, I suppose, is meant to be a foil to all the progressive writers on the site, but her twaddle reminds me more of Imus...offending for the sake of offending. I wish Salon would give her the boot for all her insults to our intelligence, our dearly-held values, and our core beliefs. Because I doubt her sincerity and because I feel she is simply writing for effect, I dismiss her points. She is playing a game with us and I don't like being the brunt of her joke.
Salon seeks to give us a range of subjects and I appreciate that, but I draw the line at being jerked around and manipulated by a fraud, like Camille Paglia.
-
What a relief!
As the one who first made the tongue-in-cheek suggestion that CP wrote her own fan letters I was relieved to find that Salon has not stooped that low. I think Tamburlaine's response to my initial post provides a perfectly adequate explanation. Original post below.
Camille you zany prose stylist you!
Camille Paglia has alway been and adventurous rhetorician, but I love this new gambit. She's obviously written all the "fan mail" herself and then proceeded to answer it! I mean, come one, there is no way that all her interlocutors could just happen to write the same ponderous, meandering, prose as she does. Think about it.
-cacambo
Good one, Cacambo
Most of them seem to have been written by bootlicking fanboys and fangirls, so it's possible they've been slavishly imitating her style for so long you can't tell them from the real thing.
- Tamburlaine
-
Xrandadu Hutman
I'd like to see you explain how "reducing consumption of petroleum" or "reducing the clear-cutting of forests" is equivalent to "wasting billions of dollars. I'd also like to see you admit that not everybody who believes in global warming is advocating a set of hard-line, dictatorial solutions.
"
Sigh. Like I said, you have to look at Europe and the draconian measures that are being put in place: computer chips in trash cans to assess how much you recycle, etc. Here's links - with the ones from Spiked - to give you an idea of what you don't see:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=401420&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=394997&in_page_id=1770
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=413216&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=426532&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5
"Low-wattage lightbulbs cost the same as regular lightbulbs and save the consumer electric costs."
Then buy mine. I own bulbs already. Buy me a car, too. Come on, Mr. Money Bags - and while you're at it, I got family.
"Not everybody is talking "doomsday," but they are talking "rational concern." What do you object to? That people are concerned about messing up life on this planet? Should people pad their communication with niceties in order to avoid turning you off?"
Bullshit. They're using the word "catastrophe". I hate when people back-peddle when pressed. I'm not. Cults may be a controversial stance to take but I'm sticking to it.
Be a man.
-
Do conservatives really see war as the ultimate solution?
Dear Ms Paglia,
as one of those rabid, gun toting, right wing, former military, and female to boot, conservatives...i'll take a crack at this one if you don't mind.
the simple answer is "no". the next logical question would be "why do we support the war in Iraq?" that's a harder question to answer.
i was in the military for the 1st gulf war. we came to an agreement with Iraq for a cease fire. yes, other countries were involved as was the UN, but we owned the deal. the cease fire was violated before the ink was dry. many of us wondered why our time and lives had been wasted if there were to be no consequences for Iraqs misbehavior. the situation wore on us more as the 90's went on. the clinton admin made the case for Iraq as an enemy, and the case for WMD. still, nothing was done. in our hearts, we knew that someday we'd have to go back and finish what had been left undone.
after 9/11, it became apparent that we were going to war. i was glad that the president did not limit our potential actions to Afghanistan because we all know that radical Islam is spread throughout many nations. i did have my doubts about going into Iraq. it had nothing to do with whether or not Iraq was a bad player. that was a given. it had to do with the decimation of our military readiness over the course of the post Desert Storm years.
my concerns were balance by the assertions made by all nations that Saddam had WMD, and the fact that he had used them. if his country was as strapped for cash as the humanitarian organizations had reported, what better source of ready income than to sell WMD to the highest bidder? of course we did not know at the time that Saddam was a multi-billionaire.
my brothers, husband, and both sons now serve. the idea of WMD used on the battlefield is the stuff of nightmares. used here? the stuff of (so far) B movies. given the available info and the 9/11 attack, going after Saddam was a logical move.
have we made mistakes? many. should we have gone into Iraq? if we could make decisions with hindsight, maybe we wouldn't have done it. what now? win.
bin laden did a couple of interviews in the 90's. he talked about the US weakness and inability to finish what we started. he talked about our cowardice in Somalia. if we withdraw from Iraq now, it is more fuel for his type of radicalism.
what is a "win"? that's a hard question, but one we should be working on answering, rather than thinking about quiting.
it could be argued that there are more conservatives serving in the military, and sending sons and daughters to serve, than there are liberals doing the same. we have more reason to wish to avoid war. we have more at stake. we also have good reason to wish to win. we do not want to carry this on until our grandchildren are old enough to serve.