Letters to the Editor
-
Jeepers
This has got to be a joke, right? I'd heard so many complaints about Paglia's columns that I thought I would finally take another look. I'd tried to read her in the past, but was unimpressed. Meh, it wasn't for me but then something for everyone, right?
So I tune in to this column, and man is it awful. That's not just an opinion; it's fact. It is really really awful. As many others have said, I didn't get past page 1.5. Or maybe I should say, I couldn't get past page 1.5. It was physically impossible to read another word. The first letter was bad enough, with it's collection of moronic cliches about endless war, etc., and then to have her respond as if it was a thing instead of a nothing. The Bush administration doesn't lie? Oh. My. God.
Anyway. Waste of space, waste of time, waste of money. Earlier I said, "something for everyone, right?" Well, here it seems we have a case where she offers nothing for anyone. When DOES her contract run out?
-
A liberal forum
As a liberal, I think I have the moral duty to hear and analyze a whole variety of opinions, even those I don't agree, given them serious consideration, thoughtful dissection rebuttal or acceptance. . .
That is fine and dandy, that is why I come to Salon for reading material, other wise this would be the dogmatic arena such as The Weekly Standard or Pravda.
But at least, Salon, Joan, bring us QUALITY contrarian opinions,
not Camille's lengthy diatribe of non-sense. Pleaseeeeee?
-
I have to disagree with the letter writers
I enjoyed this article for several reasons.First, she demonstrates how to carry on a conversation with those with whom one disagrees, an apparently lost art judging by the response letters.Second, her opinions as always, mix what seem to me to be sharp observations with some whacky perspectives, which is itself amusing and interesting to read. Third, in contrast to the views of some of the letter writers, I don't see her views as "talking points", but quite the opposite, actual views and ideas. Finally: folks, I know its been a maddening six plus years with Bush et al, but by the tone of these letters we liberals are are sounding way shrill and humorless.Breathe, y'all
-
This is not about Camille
So you can stop reading here, Ms. Paglia.
This is about guns and the Second Amendment. I was reading about the lead-up to the Civil War, after the election of Abraham Lincoln, and something struck me. The militia system in the constitution had been a joke, of course. The militias didn't win the Revolution, of course. The Continental Army did, with help from state-run groups. Inexperienced farmers made a lousy invasion army for Canada, and hadn't been able to stop the British from torching Washington. Every 4th of July, paunchy old men paraded with rusty rifles. But once Lincoln was elected, the militias formed up, South first and then the North. The Confederate Army, in particular, came directly from its militias. How's that Second Amendment for ya, Billy Bob? And after the Union Army freed the slaves, state militias fade into blessed oblivion, taking their proper role as institutions like the National Guard and state police.
I'm not against guns. I think common law and state law are fine for regulating the basic rights to hunting and self-defense and target practice. The idea that the Second Amendment has anything to do with individual ownership of weapons is a modern and very stupid idea. The Second Amendment should be changed to read something like this: "State national guards are administered by the governor, subject to the ultimate authority of the congress and the president. Unregulated militias constitute unlawful assemblies and will be dispersed with the full force of the Army. Questions of the individual ownership of weapons are left to the states."
In the last twenty years, we've had the Clinton administration, a center-left presidency during which countless yahoos marched around in defense of... something or other. No income tax, whatever the loons are into that moment. And in this decade? The militias are quiet, yet our civil liberties and the constitution itself are in more danger than ever before. Der Leader stands up and says "I can grab any American citizen as an enemy combatant and imprison him indefinitely without even giving the charges." Where are our friends of liberty, the Michigan militia? The guys in camo running around the hills? Why, they're nowhere to be seen. Where's the alleged power of men with guns to safeguard liberty? Out in back of the garage, drinking Lone Star and listening to Lee Greenwood, it seems.
Do we need any more proof that the modern reading of the Second Amendment is complete, partisan, right-wing paranoia? Little spindly lawyers working for the ACLU, those are the friends of liberty.
-
Something seems a bit suspect...
Reading all the letters commenting on this article, the vast majority of which don't even bother to cite specific points but instead address their annoyance and/or disgust with Paglia's shoddy logic and writing, I find it hard to believe that she could cull eight pages of letters to her addressing specific issues for her to respond to - nevermind that it boggles the imagination that Salon published this abomination. I'm inclined to believe an earlier letter writer who posited that these letters are nothing more than scripted fakes. If I was really interested in masturbatory bloviating I'd watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh.
-
Dear Camille
When composing a fake "letter to the editor", one should take care to give the letter writers a different tone and voice than the one that you yourself use. In this case, that would be a haughty, self-aggrandizing, quasi-intellectual tone. It took me until about halfway through the second letter to realize that these "letters" were total BS. Fox News would be so proud!
-
Bad!
Christ this is bad writing. Again, why is this twit getting a paycheck when you could probably hire Digby? We like various voices, but they must be intelligent. Greenwald was a smart hire. Now give us Digby or somebody comparable and lose Camille.