I hate the article, it's slovenly, myopic and turgid. The letters are all correct if they agree with this, wrong in many, many ways if they don't. It's such a predictable circus!

Now I can go back and read the damn thing to see if I agree with myself. Probably yes.

...will be the answer to a trivia question in four years. I was so glad the day McCain panicked after Obama's convention speech and chose Sarah Palin to be his running-mate -- that was the day Obama won the election.

I actually agree with Ms. P's response to the Jesus question, and she's more considered and less hiccupy tonight. Thank you CP for that.

But why not just say that solar phenomena drives homosexuality too, as well as climate change? It's got the same level of scientific justification. But I digress, which seems to work for CP pretty well. That's enough flappability for this month, oh oracle of the randomly inert. Adieu.

I've long since given up reading the Paglia articles. But the letters thread which inevitably follows is simply not to be missed. Pass the popcorn.

Why does Salon keep publishing this ridiculous attention-seeking fraud?

the ancient greeks sure must have had a lot of them. and it's amazing how the genes know to turn themselves on when men get sent to prison.

a science column in today's ny times referred to "humans’ peculiar erotic fascination with breasts." not even "human males"!

science gone wild!

"It is going to be interesting to see how the Democrat Party..."

YO - Daine:

The correct term is "Democratic Party". Camille didn't even call you on this. You go, girl... NOT

"Democrat", used in this context, is generally considered a demeaning term, and is more in line with the "fair and balanced" left-baiting of the Fox News Channel punditocracy.

Here is the relevant passage from the New York Times stylebook (not that style is within your field of perception):

Democrat (n.), Democratic (adj.), for the party and its members. Do not use Democrat as a modifier (the Democrat party); that construction is used by opponents to disparage the party.

Everytime I see the word Democrat used this way, it reinforces my perception of most of the low-rent lowbrow right wing rabble as AM-talk-radio parroting rednecks...

Unlike Camille, I'll keep it short:

1. As Penn Gillette would say, The Bible is bullshit. Plus, there is not an iota of proof JC even existed in any meaningful form. If you're going to proclaim your atheism, then argue like one. Likewise stop sucking up to convervatives!

2. Solar phenomena as cause of global warming: possible, but where's the proof, or don't we need one?

3. Obama's so-called stumbles: the guy's not even prez yet, give him a chance to prove himself. My tip is he will fail because history is not on his side. Will he prevent the coming depression? No. Will he solve the mess in the Middle-East and elsewhere? No. Will he stop sucking up to the Zionists, stop Israel mass-murdering children? No. Will he punish Wall Street, the City of London and the rest of those gangsters? No.

(I fear Obama is a bit of "paglia" democrat, showing too much respect for GOP assholes, and therefore will fail to transform himself into the can-do, inspiring presidents like FDR or JFK the world needs)

4. Homosexuality and genes: this is getting pretty boring. Personally, I think it's the genes. Paglia's explanation is the opposite. Fair enough, but again, where's the proof? All we get is supposition but no science and no proof.

5. Sarah Palin: enough already. To paraphrase Paglia herself, she's a paleo-nonentity. Ancient history, or herstory, whatever the fuck.

Manny

Perth, Australia

From your off the cuff remarks about climate change, HIV-AIDS, and homosexuality, it seems unlikely that you even understand the existing data.

And used her name, and letters from his listeners! Be careful about hacking!

I'm a right-wing conservative because, as Maggie Thatcher said, the facts of life are conservative. I am always open to opposing arguments since I never feel I have all the facts, nor necessarily am always reasoning correctly. Most liberal commentators are not worth bothering about since none of them have ever given 5 seconds of thought to anything but just spout the Party Line. I appreciate you because, although I frequently disagree with you, you DO think and always present a thoughtful and well-reasoned argument. Which has modified my views on more than one occasion. Keep it up; gadflies are needed now more than ever!

"On the other hand, I agree with you that Congress has come across lately like a clumsy, flea-bitten bunch of "bozos." Its poll ratings are lower than stinking swamp mud. I have a soft spot for the nimble Nancy Pelosi, a master of the ladylike stiletto thrust, but Harry Reid is a cadaverous horse's ass of mammoth proportions. How in the world did that whiny, sniveling incompetent end up as Senate majority leader? Give him the hook! "

The only way to render Harry Reid safe for future generations is to stuff him into Yucca Mountain just ahead of all the nuclear waste. The bad news is that Harry Reid, unlike that nuclear waste, will never be recycled into anything useful.

NO ONE is clamoring for a return to the Fairness Doctrine. Camille, the fac that you took this question seriously proves once and for all that you are whistling out your ass. I defy ANYONE to cite a single instance of a Democratic elected official or serious observer arguing for the return of the F.D. This is wingnut nonsense that finds a home between the ears of the Karas and Camilles. For God's sake, if you want to argue, quit building straw men for once.

The facts of life are conservative? You're saying this at the most stunning failure of free-market conventional wisdom in history? What part of reality matches the conservative line? I'm curious.

Using a false analogy with the Iraq WMD fraud to attack climate change is dishonest and built on an appeal to ignorance. The WMD fraud was based on microscopic scraps of secret evidence which even as it was tauted by the media was doubted by experts in the field (remember France and the UN?) and imploded at the first real data.

A better analogy would be to evolution or quantum theory, which began as narrow concepts but now are surrounded by vast and detailed data and supporting theory and calculation over a wide range of scales and disciplines, data all public and available. Yes, it helps to understand some mathematics, statistics, fluid mechanics, electromagnetics, chemistry, oceanography, fluid mechanics, biology and all that but with a little looking you can see how throughly picked over climate change concepts are and how well supported. Like evolution, each new discovery and improvement in model details (mostly driven by bigger computers) has buttressed the idea, a bad model would have fallen apart long ago.

If you say climate change theory is wrong - show me the more complete model and better and more extensive data to tell me what the real effect of the changes in CO2 concentration are, not just politically or philosophically inspired gut reaction.