Do I love to hate her, or do I just hate her?

Did Paglia go to Yale because of merit, or did her parents write a check?

Does Paglia hate herself, love being hated, or is it clinical?

Is that cartoon a caricature, or is she really that ugly?

The QUESTIONS! My God, the QUESTIONS.

The bible is pretty impressive, considering how it was crapped out by "our wretched ancestors" to quote Freud.

Sleep is a feature of life. OP: unconsciousness is a feature of the vehicle of consciousness. Death can't BE nothing, unless nothing IS. So death isn't like sleep at all. A better metaphor for death is ultimate wakefulness.

No one is gay or straight. We all love people who embody the features of archetypal perfect parents (the phallic mother, if you will). People who claim to be either gay or straight are confining themselves according to normalizing pressures of the all-to-many (many of us)

Global Warming is real (all the science is based on some pretty fucking simple principles) and methane gas is going to kill us all, as evidenced by the fact that it's totally happening, and the evidence for solar cycles is so scant, and the evidence for the contrary is so overwhelming, and we're still sitting around arguing about it because we are totally stewing in our own hatred to the point of political constipation. Guess what comes after that?

Nice knowing you all.

Try to have some good sex before you die. And love someone. And make a fool of yourself.

-Lilian

The first mass extinction we know of occurred when a certain kind of bacteria that breathed carbon dioxide, and exhaled oxygen, exhaled so much oxygen that it poisoned itself. Any sufficiently knowledgeable person on the subject knows this story, in addition to those who remember 7th grade science class. This theory isn't controversial (any more), and is yet another proof that organisms can destroy their environment (as if that really needed a proof).

But if you believe humans are special organisms ordained by God with the right to tear up the house, and not just another part of the animal kingdom, you start to make up these stories and "arguments" that sound good to someone else similarly ignorant, but are in diametric opposition to the actuals.

If you believe further believe it is foretold to be destroyed, a certain nihilism invades all of your thoughts, until you decide that even if those crazy scientists who invented the computer and sent a man to the moon (or did they?) just might be right, who cares because you know it's gonna be destroyed anyway, 'cause it says so right in the book.

If a majority of society has these feelings that humans are special and can't be destroyed, it starts to invade the thoughts of even rational thinking people. Even they might begin to make arguments like, "The earth has warmed and cooled over time, therefore humans cannot affect the earth's temperature," which is an honest decomposition of the supposed logic of many.

Expressed that succinctly, the statement is so obviously false that few who make this argument express it that way, it being a fight with their subconscious to not admit believing something dumb.

This argument is, however, one of the most pervasive I've encountered amongst the ignorant. If you disagree with the science, I respect you, because it means that you've learned some really complicated mathematics, if nothing else. Most people who argue against human-generated global warming don't even understand the concept at a conceptual level, much less the mathematics.

To imply that, "most geologists," would agree with that statement is also ridiculous, and contrary to the facts. Geologists in fact discovered the first mass extinction event I spoke of earlier.

no

Well based on many of these letters seems you pissed off the left, again. Sigh, what else is new? People, I observe, do not feel comfortable thinking out of their bubble. Salon belongs to the left so the left wants to read only left-wing opinions; it comforts them. You come along and throw them for a loop. They don't like it. I suspect most people are like this, right and left. I also suspect that it applies to me too, except on the right. For this time-period, though, I am pretty much keeping quiet; I liked Bush (W) and also for some strange reason, like Obama. I don't care for a lot of the folks who surround him, including his ditzy wife! Oh well, this too shall pass. Good article...I liked it.

Even bought it for my brother-in-law a few Christmases ago.

She really should stick to benign lit crit.

Oh, and by the way, how many more admitted conservative letter writers have to say, "Gee, Camille, I love your stuff, and I agree with most of it, and you seem so very intelligent, not at all like other stupid liberals" before people stop calling her a liberal?

There is very good hard science being produced that supports that global warming (and cooling) relate to solar activity and not CO2 in the atmosphere. One example is Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, AND WILLIE SOON Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. This is simply an issue of science. If you take the time to read and understand the science behind this issue, you will be hardpressed to continue to support the current global warming hypothesis (i.e. that increased CO2 is causing warming).

I recently read VAMPS AND TRAMPS, Ms. Paglia's 1994 book of essays. For those of you who enjoy reading Paglia's articles, as I do, I heartily recommend that you get your hands on her other publications particularly VAMPS AND TRAMPS.

Solar activity and carbon dioxide contribute to global warming. I notice you provided no links to actual research papers to support your assertions about what the "real" science is.

No, you are what a climatologist would call a moonbat. Don't pretend to speak to the science unless you want to back it up with facts. I can back up everything I say, so I wouldn't suggest challenging me on it. Don't throw me in the briar patch, I guess I'm saying, br'er fox. Please.