"To question Shepard's thuggish company is to be floored by his foolish exposure to severe risk. Anyone with a brain behind their eyeballs should be able to ascertain this easily without directly assigning blame to the victim."

You might also say "To question that woman's very short skirt and flirty mannerisms and the fact that she went home with that drunk guy is to be floored by her foolish exposure to the severe risk that she could be raped. Anyone with a brain behind their eyeballs should be able to ascertain this easily without directly assigning blame to the victim."

Except you can't make that argument in any credible court of law these days, as the court system now recognizes that those style of arguments were, indeed, usually attempts to divert attention from the actual crime and "blame the victim." And, sure, you could personally say the above, it's a free country, but it'd still be kind of disgusting if you did.

'cause like, "no" still means "no," and just because someone likes to cruise rednecks doesn't mean they're "asking" to be brutally murdered. It might shock you but, historically, there's been a lot of people picking up other people in bars, even picking up drunk and/or stoned redneck guys and gals, and even in twos and threes (there's probably at least thousands doing it right now as I type), but the vast majority of these people don't murder someone or get murdered. The sheer mundane usual-ness of this occurance )i.e., picking up rough trade in a bar) for straights, gays, bisexuals and probably aliens from the planet Zuni Alpha Five certainly seems to come as a surprise to faux-libertine Camille Paglia, who apparently hasn't been able to get over Matthew Shepard's behavior in over a decade.

Funny thing is, though, the court seemed to recognize that attempts to cast Shepard's behavior as outrageous, somehow "explanatory" of the excessive violence of what happened next, or somehow at-fault, didn't mean jack sh*t.

Strangely, though, Camille Paglia, Salon, Joan Walsh, and any number of right wing trolls haven't yet worked their way to the same conclusion. Go figure.

You are a college professor?

So, if I was cute, spunky, gorgeous, gutsy, fresh, but couldn't write or speak coherently without a cadre of political handlers, I would still deserve your respect in a classroom designed to prepare me for the professional world?

Don't you get it, Paglia? She is stupid. Period. It pains those of us who want intelligence in politics, those who believe we deserve integrity and substance from our leaders, that Palin is taken seriously.

Perhaps my overworked, underpaid professor from the state university was right, when he said that it is harder to get an A at IUP than at the Ivy Leagues, where high grades are allotted to the elites and the celebrated.

I certainly didn’t take your post as a new definition of free speech. Your post was very mild indeed.

Of course you could criticize Camille Paglia’s writing. But did you see the rest of the letters? A lot of them were just the personal attacks on her.

It is very unusual that you would like to see some opinions that are opposite of yours. Do you have anybody in mind who would present here a different view?

But, somehow, I think that most of the readers don’t want to see opinions, which don’t correspond to their own.

I don't like the tone of the letter-writers either, but do any of the conservatives on here really not know how conservatives pioneered this kind of thing? They still lead the way! Look at their vitriol, some of it repeated here, regarding Obama, who, in any other industrialized country, would be seen as right-of-center. Stop referring to the "Left," also. We do have several different Socialist and Communist parties in this country, as well as a Left-Anarchist movement, and none of them resemble the Democrats.

So, Salon-readers: don't take the bait. I know Paglia makes you angry, but don't respond the way the rednecks do towards people they don't like. They subsequently write letters here saying things like "see how intolerant The Left is?"

Regarding Palin: Shouldn't her Creationism render her beyond the pale, before any of her other positions (such as they are?) People are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts, and pointing this out is not intolerance or anything worse.

Palin better be treated with respect by the Republicans, because this year (or 2012) might show a repeat of what happened in 1968 with the entire south (and else where) going with a Third Party vote.

The old American Independent Party is still alive in California and in some form and name in about 40+ other states. The independents could rally around her and a balancing VP. Also Parot got 20 percent in 1992.

A large share of the population is tired of Washington being sold out to the Wall Street crowd and it is not just the wingnuts on the right but a majority of Independents and even some of the eggheads on the left.

Obama is just as bad as Bush on nearly every issue plus he is off the cliff on the left on several other issues. We went from Bad to Worse going from Bush to Obama.

Why do all of Paglia's articles have to be tomes?

And why do they seem to ramble & drone on & on without any real intent other than to fill up space?

Paglia's been an overrated pain in the butt since her disgruntled "the feminist academes don't like me, boo hoo," days (all the while claiming to disdain whiners), & has since made a name for herself mixing her faux highbrow "anthropology" with her genuine lowbrow love of all things pop. Especially herself.

Her latest self-reinvention as some sort of incoherent darling of the repub-libertarian set (libertarianism/anarchy--great ideas, till almost anything goes wrong) seems to have turned her from a hack intellectual into a pandering rambler & pointless contrarian.

Here's the thing Paglia-- the "Northeast vultures" don't have to "go after" Palin. Palin continually serves herself up (more or less eating & regurgitating her tropes) over & over with her inarticulate martyr act. She chooses when & how that dreaded spotlight shines on her poor lil ol designer soccer-mom MILF persona. And she appears to invite that spotlight & to relish it.

Nothing particularly wrong with that except that she never REALLY has anything to say other than "that darn mainstream media is after me."

It seems that if she had nothing to oppose-- no enemies within to vilify & about whom to make relentless little sarcastic comments while winking as though she has some sort of facial tic-- she would cease to thrive.

And the fact is her interviews & proclamations tend to be flat-out hilarious.

I was neither for nor against her cutesy persona--I realize how damn near impossible it is to strike the perfect balance between feminine/ not too feminine/ pretty/ not too pretty/ serious/ not too serious/ smart/ not threateningly smart, etc., as a female politician. But the fact is, Palin behaves combatively & irrationally, & then tries to spin it as though she's being attacked. She plays up all the cutesy folksy crap in a way that is so transparent that it is truly lost on me how anyone buys into it.

But that’s American politics. And Sarah Palin is one of the most political animals to come down the pike in ages. She claims to want no "politics-as-usual,” but she surely wants non-stop "politics-as-unusual." And most of her avid supporters admit to being more AGAINST her opponents than FOR her. A pretty low bar, & nothing worth championing.