To those who wonder why Paglia publishes here (in spite of helping to get this website off the ground 14 years ago), wake up and smell the capitalism. Paglia gets clickthroughs and page views and that's what drives ad revenue. You can thank Paglia's online BFF, Matt Drudge, for the volume. His site is the wormhole through which the crazies travel to get here, and share their mock surprise in Letters about a "liberal" who gets it. The formula sets up a nice little cottage industry for Salon: Paglia + Drudge = Multitudinous Page Views. If you really want to see Paglia gone, stop clicking.

I agree with Paglia on Jefferson Airplane and Grace Slick. They were uniquely preoccupied with nuclear devastation (their '68 Crown of Creation album cover features a mushroom cloud) and had a completely unique sound. Too back rock history has all but written them off.

"The default position of liberals who cannot debate a topic is that their opponents are liars."

Geez, let's see...why in the world would liberals ever call conservatives liars? After all, Iraq had WMD, the Iraqi people were going to welcome US troops with flowers, the cosmos is 5000 years old, financial markets regulate themselves and don't need the government to help them when they mess up, the free market is God and government is evil, yes, why in the world would we ever call you liars?!

Imagine my complete lack of surprise, when looking into Sail's latest "argument", that I find it's a cut and paste from "co2science.org," another oil funded think-tank that throws rocks at other scientists, but does no real science of their own.

Does it make predictions? If the answer is no, it ain't a scientist. It's an easy test.

CO2Science.org is yet another vanity organization that self-publishes a variety of contrarian nonsense, does no field experimentation, does not make accurate predictions, and never publishes in reputable journals like Science or Nature.

Nature and Science are simply hymnals for the Church of Global Warming which has brainwashed the so-called "scientific community" which knows nothing about science or the scientific method!

Fair and Balanced (TM) data can be found in such journals as FOXScience and ExxonMobile's Nature.

(Holy crap! Being a no-nothing contrarian propaganda spewer, even a facetious and sarcastic one, is actually kind of fun and distressingly easy.

It's kind of scaring me - I think I'd better stop, now.)

Thanks, and your summary was really funny.

I know there's no winning the argument but it's fun to poke at 'em.

Besides it's not like Paglia's worth discussing, beyond overt ridicule, and you already did that.

Again, I never said you were required to believe anything!

It is YOU who get angry and hostile and call ME A LIAR just because I disagree with you. You are the Grand Inquisitor trying to stifle the heretics. You are the opposite of an iconoclast--you are trying to prevent the chipping away of one of your idols, the man-made global warming icon.

We report, the readers can decide.

Your dissection of Ms. Couric and her dysfunctional brain was delicious. As usual, you are on target. You should do a TV talk show with Christopher Hitchens as your sidekick. That would rock! You would draw as many conservatives as you would liberals.

East Coast elites are seriously underestimating Sarah Palin. If she stays in the public limelight, I expect she will slice them and dice them like an accomplished Sushi chef.

Again, it matters NOT where it was cut and pasted from. What matters is the data it presents. You do not recognize Nature or the other journals cited as legitimate scientific publications?

You are betraying your own religious fervor to defend your faith-based support for manmade global warming. You are behaving in a decidedly UNSCIENTIFIC manner, not to mention your bad manners in calling those who disagree with you liars.

Gracie Slick was a unique and remarkable singer. One should listen to her on a forgotten solo album, Manhole, especially on the theme from that movie.

Look up, the roof is gone...

--SailFree

You do realize that your post illustrates my point? The lefties claim that anyone with whom they have a disagreement is a liar. Chivalry and honor are, outside of a few, dead.

and we decided that your denial of manmade global warming is as valid as "Iraq has WMD", the age of the cosmos is 5000 years old and humans took joyrides on dinosaurs . Next.

Camile is dragging this magazine down like Palin dragged down McCain... Dump her before you lose all credibility!

Let me get this straight, Camille. You personally find Sarah Palin to be quite lucid. Anyone who claims otherwise is merely exhibiting urban snobbishness. Your proof is a tortured re-write of one of her phrases.

Katie Couric, on the other hand, is stupid, ugly, dull and biased. You don’t like her voice. She dresses badly. She probably even smells bad. She carefully edits interviews to further her personal agenda.

Camille, Katie C.’s wit, personal politics, or fashion sense don’t matter if she presents informative interviews, and her Palin interview was very enlightening. Couric asked simple, clear, routine questions and Palin‘s responses seemed to be either white-noise blather, or simply off the mark. So says a nation full of English speakers - including prominent conservatives - who witnessed Palin‘s performance and decided then and there to vote against her. Imply bias all you want, Camille, but editing didn’t put those words in Palin’s mouth.

Your high opinion of Sarah Palin is still a mystery to me, but that‘s OK. On the other hand, I was very disappointed that you would stoop to attacking Katie Couric in such a childish manner. She may be all you claim (I doubt it, but it’s possible), but it is irrelevant. Your mocking attack comes across as a schoolyard defense of your frightfully indefensible Sarah. How sad.

What’s YOUR agenda, Camille?

Iconoclast NOT!

Again, I never said you were required to believe anything!

It is YOU who get angry and hostile and call ME A LIAR just because I disagree with you. You are the Grand Inquisitor trying to stifle the heretics. You are the opposite of an iconoclast--you are trying to prevent the chipping away of one of your idols, the man-made global warming icon.

You start by saying I'm not required to believe anything, and your next statement clearly says that if I don't agree with you, I'm not an Iconoclast.

Therefore, you are requiring me to agree with your nonsense, in order to justify my name. I'll quote from the dictionary, because you seemed to be confused about the word require.

Require, definition 2b: "to demand as necessary or essential."

Your claim seems to be that a requirement of being an Iconoclast is that one must challenge the same authorities that you challenge, or perhaps every authority, you really don't make it clear.

Also, the fact that I'm named the Renegade Iconoclast seems to completely whoosh by you.