Gee whiz,

Salon seems to have deleted my very short comment, which was entirely without profanity, where I suggested that debating whether Camille Paglia (who I've met, because my mom teaches with her, and who was a moron in person) ...um, where was I? Oh yeah! So Salon deleted my comment suggesting that debating over whether Camille was an idiot or not is the same as debating over whether Paris Hilton is talentless or not.

You go, Salon! Freedom of speech is important, yeah? I write for your rival www.nerve.com, and I remember when your website actually used to contain news. I'm a liberal, and I hate G.W.B. as much as possible, but you seem to have settled just for that, yeah? No actual news, just various "Bush sucks" columns.

Fire Joan Walsh, please, and replace her with Heather Havrilesky. I didn't even know that Joan was the editor in chief until I read it in this comment section, but, Jesus, she's in charge? Have you read her humorless, non-interesing blog? Go here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/?last_story=/opinion/walsh/misc/2007/11/15/colbert_springsteen/

And spare me. Here's a link to my blog. I don't claim that it's good or interesting or anything. I get paid to write it, and that's that. But maybe it sucks. That's what separates me from the Joan Walshes and the Pagilas of the world: lack of excessive self-regard:

http://www.nerve.com/nerveblog/nervevideo.aspx?blogid=144

--Oliver

The answer is simple: because Camille's not running!

Thank you for your response. I am sorry that my rant was, by then, at some remove from Camille's original article. The sentence I quoted simply revived my perplexity during(or more accurately, in the wake of) the Impeachment hearings when each night we were subjected to what I called "the intellectual calisthenics" of the leading feminists wherein they defended Clinton's egregious breach of the sexual harassment laws...legislation which (if I read Jeffrey Toobin correctly) they themselves were instrumental in putting on the books. I was hoping that sombody might in passing enlighten me.

No, I was aware of the distinction you made. It was not my intention to tar you with the same brush, so to speak. Sorry about that.

I'm not certain understand much of the criticism of this article or Camille's writings on Salon. Why else would someone read her writing if not to get her opinion on certain topics? We read almost all writers because we either enjoy their style or they somehow speak to us. Whether we want to or not, we all create cocoons for ourselves.

I'm just finishing Sexual Personae, so I'm new to her writing, but I've very much enjoyed what I've read thus far. I don't agree with everything she puts forth, nor should I. Reading soley to reinforce one's own beliefs is limiting in the least.

The bottom line is if people don't like her writing or don't want to have their beliefs challenged, even to a limited degree, then don't read it. The internet is very egalitarian in that way.

Camille;

I have discovered your writing only today. It is clear that you are intelligent. Why not do your readers a favor by minimizing the obscure verbiage. Your writing borders on exhibitionism. It is not necessary or desirable for you to establish your elite status so strenuously.

As an educated person, and educator, surely you must believe that writing should communicate your thoughts easily and well. One does not do that by using words that are unfamiliar to the reader, and even unfamiliar to some of our dictionaries.

Aside from that sincere criticism, keep up the interesting work.

about how she'd vote for her anyway ....

way to go, Camille .... it's going to be a long year ...

You really owe your readership some expansion on exactly what congruence you now find with Mailer's positions on "feminism" then ... as I recall, it was always quite apparent ... but specifics would be nice.

So on what fool's errand is ratched jaw on about this week?

Oh yeah...that's right, Hillary.

Does she expatiate on why Hillary supports NAFTA, and continues to do so, despite knowing it contributes to many Americans losing jobs? Duh? Eh?

Does she speculate as to why Mzzz Hillaarry doesn't adopt Kucinich's single payer, universal health care scheme? For, despite what one cement head on this site bellowed about it not working because some Canadians were coming to the States for your health facilities, it does. It's just that Conservatives elected in these countries are refusing to fund it, thus causing long waiting lists for elective surgery and doctors to be overworked and beds to not be available, so they can then say Medicare is flawed when in fact they are sabotaging it by not funding it. They want to privatize medicine, but they know it would be unpopular, since it would benefit the rich only, they try to do it by stealth. Stop trying to make the facts fit your prejudices ( I forgot the name of the poster who said that). Of course the system will be flawed if it doesn't have the cash it needs to run it efficiently. So would everything else. The money taken from tax payers (a levy) isn't being directed to public hospitals, as it's supposed to be, for the system to run. That is, our money isn't being spent (here in Australia). The government is being like a miser who stuffs all his money in his mattress and dresses in rags and lets his house fall into disrepair because he refuses to spend any. Does Cammy even talk about such things, though? Not on your Nellie; our Cammy would rather chat about Madonna, and her wet dreams about her. That's just sooo much more important!)

She has a lot to say about how Hillary has the personality of a cyborg (okay, okay--that's so unfair to the cyborg); and about how she (gasp!) can't extemporize, and needs a script. Or, how she has all the charisma of a goldfish. But, Cammy will vote for her anyway if she wins the nomination. That's like saying the bread is moldy but, what the heck, I'll eat it anyway.

Then she lets us know that she hasn't read any novels written after World War II (We can tell, Camille...really we can). Only novels? As she says, she didn't much like Mailer's novels, except for "The Naked and the Dead", but dug his "Advertisements for myself". (Get it? She's styled herself on this kind of personal journalism. And here I was thinking it was plain ol' narcissism).

And then, and then, and then...there's some tidbit on Ellen and Rosie (both of whom, apparently, are bad lesbian role models which we need as much as we need left-handed, polka dancing icons). They, it seems, on a scale of importance rate about the same as Global warming for her (and she wonders why we want to stick a pitchfork into her). According to Madame Jackass here Global warming is a fashion like hula hoops, or yo yo's, which Hollywood cretins like Jaime Lee Curtis expound on as they do about other 'fashions' like Darfur, or Third world debt, although they know nothing about these (just as you do, Cammy, on Salon). Melting glaciers, rising seas, extinction of numerous flora and fauna, depleting water and agricultural resources...bah! they're just nature being awesome. Give global warming a chance. You might love it. And besides, seeing as Jaime Lee Curtis rattles on about it, it can't be all that significant anyway (gee, what an airhead). So, if Brad Pitt discusses gravity, that can't exist either? Are you having magic mushrooms on toast! What meds are you on?

(Pssst! Salon, the pitchfork is me being jocular. Do you want me sound Like Hillary?)