Does anyone else find it a bit curious that the people whose letters Camille chooses for her column never seem to actively participate in the regular letters section (which is probably the most active part of Paglia's Salon columns)? You think they'd be curious enough (and happy enough) that their letters had been chosen to drop by and follow through, maybe engage others in some conversation about it, etc. But unless I'm missing it (and I well could be; Paglia generates a lot of letters-- usually of the 'why is Salon publishing this idiot' variety-- more letters than almost anyone else on this site, which is why Salon keeps her around), I don't see many around here claiming ownership of those specific ideas.

How nicely these chosen letter writers' interests and obsessions tend to dovetail with Paglia's own. But often what they're mentioning-- and the ideological perspective they're coming from-- doesn't tend to crop up in the actual regular letters pages responding to Paglia's columns. So I guess I'm wondering why many of these folks are so shy. Why do these shrinking violets often seem to save all their thoughts for Camille alone? Come out, come out, wherever you are.

I'm particularly interested in cases like "Will Morgan." As other readers (who, like, actually participate in the Salon letters section) have pointed out, "Will" sounds an awful lot like a Fox News strawman version of a liberal. Indeed, asks "Will," why should we honor the service of a POW who fought in an "unjust" war? If we don't approve of the war, why should we approve of the troops, right? Ahem. Interesting philosophy you've got there, "Will." But I'm sure there are quite a few readers here on Salon who'd be willing to challenge that viewpoint; you know, maybe before someone like Paglia's buddy Limbaugh conveniently singles out your letter as an example of the "liberal mindset." So drop on by, won't you? Let's all discuss.

...would like to have heard what CP had to say about her latest heroine charging women for their own rape kits.

And all that stupid gushing about how she "might be part Indian" and her husband is part Native. I think he's about 1/16. I'm 1/16 French; I don't go around talking about how French I am, or use it for any kind of credibility.

Organicas really hit the nail on the head. I wonder if CP owuld have written a gushy article about Ilse Koch if she found her cute?

I am tired of hearing that we should not have gotten involved in Vietnam.

Let us recall that a basic tenet of Marxism/Communism was that the communist system can work only if the whole world is engaged in it. Hence, the Soviet Union's preoccupation with taking over and indoctrinating other countries in their version of that bankrupt philosophy.

The Soviets had already taken over eastern Europe and they had mounted incursions in Cuba, Korea, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Yemen and a variety of other countries including Vietnam with that very goal in mind. Red China was already their close ally. There were Red Brigades in Rome, riots in the streets of Paris and there were Communist parties springing up all over the world. (Anyone remember Gus Hall?)

What America did in Vietnam, Korea and to a lesser extent in other places was draw a line in the sand and make clear to the Soviet Communists that if they try to spread their philosophy outside of their sphere of influence we will be in their face constantly to shut them down. If we had not done this the Soviet Union would not have collapsed and Communism would still be a thriving, though still bankrupt and vacuous, philosophy.

Russia is a nation of vast wealth and resources. Nevertheless, their people were standing in line for meat, potatoes and toilet paper. They were looking head-on at the Reagan Administration's "Star Wars" initiative when they wisely gave up. In essence, we out-spent them.

Vietnam was not a waste. The people who served there for us are heroes. They helped win the Cold War. They deserve all the honor that returning WWII vets received. It's time to make amends over this.

When Camille Paglia says "feminist", she means "femme fatale". I don't think any of the women she so christens would be caught dead with that label: Virginia Woodhull, Ida Tarbell, Mary R.Beard, Sarah Palin. That being said I agree with Camille that Sarah is an exceptionally bright woman (as Woodhull was) and unquestionably a political dynamite. But unfortunately, she is exteremely limited by her background and circumstance and she has been unable to rise intellectually above the backwaterthat that is Wasilla. Her hitch to fundamentalism is a function of that. It is the unfortunate crucible that forges Sarah's sense of direction and purpose. It is my view that Palin could easily overcome that if her ambition finds another sponsor (again I am guessing that on the example of Woodhull's repositioning her "spiritualism" once exposed to the intellectual elites of her time). The real test of Palin as a phenomenon would be to have her in intensive "care" of trainers for the next 4 years, not a team whose basic aim is to paint over her hillbilly politics, but one that translates her polpulism to a more urbane and better-reaching political platform.

The problem is that Sarah is damaging herself politically in the inane pitbull attacks that are supposed to save a political campaign that is going nowhere. She should reconsider, and invest in her national political future.

Really? A viper, as in snake?

Wow, that sounds like a completely unjust description of a strong woman. Couric, incidentally like Palin, was also a trailblazer with respect to career opportunities. Couric the being the first woman to anchor the nightly news on one of the major T.V. networks.

So why is Palin the new feminist ideal and Couric a snake?

"The university culture at Columbia and Harvard through which Obama passed has been drenched in a reflexive anti-Americanism for several decades."

It's not 1981 any more Camille. This sort of right-wing claptrap isn't taken seriously by any but the most gullible. Of course, you did figure out how to get a column at Salon, so maybe you have a knack for identifying the gullible.