Letters to the Editor
-
Shammy
You're arguing semantics? How cheap can you get?
I wasn't arguing semantics, I was correcting your definition. That's quite different. You quite clearly don't understand what you're talking about, simply using the space to urge people to go to your blog more.
-
Letters section only worthwhile reading here.
I read the blurb for this column, then looked down to see it was written by Paglia. Steeling myself, I read a paragraph or two, knew I couldn't stand one more sentence, and went straight to the letters for relief.
Thank you, global warming people who apparently have bothered to read up on the subject! Thank God FOR this letters section, or reactionary dismissal of this catastrophe would be allowed to be the only voice heard here.
(Paglia should stick to the really important stuff, like commentary on world leaders' fashion and teeth.)
-
Bushes and Clintons
"There may be an atavistic longing for quasi-divine kingship that surfaces in unsettled times."
And there may not be. It may just be that they have both developed political families. Was the election of John Quincy Adams an expression of atavistic longing for quasi-divine kingship?
-
Could we get someone better
Isn't there someone else Salon could pay to be a high profile columnist? I pay a subscription to read interesting and challenging articles by good writers, not her self important, arrogant and uninformed drivel.
And if you think the fact that I am writing a letter means you are succeeding (the no such thing as bad publicity argument) understand I DON'T read her stuff. I read and skimmed enough of a sampling to know that she's horrible. I skipped to her global warming comments only to confirm that she was indeed rejecting the theory (since the line in the article description might have been a misleading teaser). Of course my assumptions were confirmed.
If there was somewhere else to write other than hear to state my complaint I would. I hate that Salon's staff is probably looking at the large volume of letters generated by her columns and sees that as a positive sign.
I'd like to see Joan Walsh come out and defend some of the nonsense Paglia spews in her articles and why they feel she's important enough to be given such prominant billing on Salon.
-
Could we get someone better
Isn't there someone else Salon could pay to be a high profile columnist? I pay a subscription to read interesting and challenging articles by good writers, not her self important, arrogant and uninformed drivel.
And if you think the fact that I am writing a letter means you are succeeding (the no such thing as bad publicity argument) understand I DON'T read her stuff. I read and skimmed enough of a sampling to know that she's horrible. I skipped to her global warming comments only to confirm that she was indeed rejecting the theory (since the line in the article description might have been a misleading teaser). Of course my assumptions were confirmed.
If there was somewhere else to write other than hear to state my complaint I would. I hate that Salon's staff is probably looking at the large volume of letters generated by her columns and sees that as a positive sign.
I'd like to see Joan Walsh come out and defend some of the nonsense Paglia spews in her articles and why they feel she's important enough to be given such prominant billing on Salon.
-
I think I finally understand SHAM
All of this anti-cult stuff only makes sense given the context of Bay Area politics. It's exactly the kind of reactionary overcompensation David Brock writes about in Blinded by the Right. I sympathize--really, I do.
Hence the suspicious exclusion of all cultish Right wing groups, of which there are at least as many as on the Lefty side--and they definitely wield MUCH more raw power than New Agers. Money. Government. Corporations. The VAST majority of churches. The frickin' military. Neo Cons. The list goes on and on.
I get sick of how much people in SF and Berkeley swallow the snake oil of much of the nutritional supplements industry--but only here could you pretend that New Agers are the power players of America.
Try telling the thousands of innocents killed as "collateral damage" that the Neo Con cabal is less dangerous than yoga and acupuncture teachers.
The Bay Area does not represent the norm in US. It's exactly the opposite of most of the country. SHAM can claim that "everyone" is looking at Christian and Rightist cults like Dominionism, only because they're not the power bloc in the Bay Area. But Dominionists get much more of a free pass in the media than New Age wackos. In reality, for whatever reasons SHAM gives, he's just attacking people that aren't on his political side of the fence.
Also explains the anti-Chinese slant of his targets--referring here to the shameful racist column in the Asian Times recently.
-
DeegeeOh
I can't hang around today but, regarding GW, here are my beefs in no particular order:
*Gore won't debate that Lombourg guy, Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen, or anybody else.
*There is a historical new age back-to-the-land connection to the solutions.
*The post-9/11 rush to irrationality.
*The complexity of the "problem" compared to the simplicity of the solutions.
*The C02 graph is the opposite of the temperature graph.
*What's happening in Europe.
*The Nazi attitude of groups like Greenpeace.
*The scare-them-to-death approach.
*The "science" of predicting the weather 100 years from now.
*The "science" of flawed computer models.
*The carbon trade-off scheme.
* Savitri Devi Mukherji.
*The argument that global warming stopped in 1998.
*The way people are labeled "deniers" like the Holocaust.
*The smug morality of GW believers.
*The scientists didn't have answers for the senators who posed difficult questions.
*The way GW is blamed for everything from allergies (and even boredom) to yellow fever.
*The bald-faced lies surrounding the organic food industry and genetically modified foods.
*The fact the people pushing this "emergency" haven't changed their ways.
*The bottled water nonsense.
*Organizing concerts for Madonna's Kabbalah Club.
*The rampant anti-Americanism.
-
Lynx
You're not a respectful person. I'm done with you.
-
Scientists are so stupid
Climate change, keyed to solar cycles, is built into Earth's system. Cooling and warming will go on forever. [...] Who is impious enough to believe that Earth's contours are permanent? Our eyes are simply too slow to see the shift of tectonic plates that has raised the Himalayas and is dangling Los Angeles over an unstable fault.
You know? I've like never thought of it before but I'm like so totally sure that these global warming scientists have like never heard of tectonic plate shifts. And I totally bet they've never heard of ice ages before, either. Camile Paglia should've so been a geologist. She's so much smarter than all those stupid scientists. Like, totally.