I remember when I first heard some of Paglia's vitriol against "feminists."

She, like Coulter, garnered attention & profit precisely because of mean-spirited provocateur flame-throwing. If Paglia is now kinder & gentler, that’s fabulous.

But it's a bit disingenuous, to say the least, to call Baldwin's mean-spirited hyperbole out whilst ignoring her own career-making vitriol.

As for her rambling, I see now that it's partly Salon that's to blame, luring the reader in with the idea that the piece will be about Palin when in fact it's a letter-answering article, necessarily an exercise in non sequiturs.

between "no" meaning "no" and the stupidity (and culpability) of getting oneself into a situation with people who plainly aren't going to take "no" for an answer. On the one hand, however outrageous the behavior or however stupid the decision which led to getting oneself into such a situation, a crime is a crime (whether rape, murder or something else) and ought to be suitably treated in a court of law.

BUT, on the other hand, unless we deny we have any responsibilty for the consequences of our actions, any personal harm resulting from going home (or anywhere else) from a bar with a drunk guy is at least in part our own doing. In some measure the one making the decision to go with such a person(s) shares a measure of blame for any untoward consequences and this is true even though ANY violence on the part of the drunk guy (or anyone else) is his responsibility.

That 'bobbyjoe' hasn't yet worked this out says something about his powers of reasoning.

in fact just that. While I deplore painting a swastika on a Jewish synagogue (I'm not Jewish, but unlike el p, can tell the difference between a synagogue and the Temple, the minimal remains of which are in Jerusalem), as soon as you begin to attempt to read the intention of the spray painter you join the 'thought police'. This is true in respect to any other crime, no matter how heinous. When we get into trying to discern why one person was robbed and not another we are on dangerous ground and however much we may deplore prejudices of one sort or another, when we begin to punish similar actions with disparate sentences we have begun to punish for thoughts, not actions.

Actually it's not true "that no one much cared about this law [hate crimes] until sexual orientation was being added to the list." Those who are objecting to hate crimes laws have objected to them from the start; those like el polacko who thought them OK when they were first enacted, still approve.

The law is a very inexact entity. The Justice System has always taken "thought" or intent into consideration. The degrees of killing are the most obvious example: premeditated murder vs. involuntary manslaughter, with many more grades in between.

"Conspiracy to commit murder" is another example of prosecution for intent.

I have long believed that,if we are to prosecute hate crimes, we should prosecute serial rapists & murderers as hate criminals, since the most prevalent hate crimes committed are against women. Serial rapists, serial killers, serial abusers often target women or children simply because they are vulnerable. Yet we don't prosecute even men who kill or rape strangers repeatedly as hate criminals.

The reason hate crime laws are useful, practically speaking, is because the criminal who kills or harms out of adherence to ideology or obsession is extremely unlikely to ever relinquish that motive, or to stop committing crimes.

In other words, unlike a "personal" murder or a crime committed "in the heat of passion," the hate criminal has an entire ethos-- or obsession-- built up that continually fuels predatory violence.

I would prefer to see people kept out of society based on the heinousness of their crimes & the danger they present to the rest of us. Hate criminals present with a high recidivism rate.

Surely hate crime laws are problematic in some ways, but considering the epidemic leniency with which murderers & other violent offenders are treated in our court systems, every little bit of extra muscle in terms of enforcement & sentencing of violent criminals is welcome.

Good Lord!

The woman is so full of crap/herself it really IS enough to make a living off of! Only in America!

A whole paragraph on BONO lyrics? Really?

Anyone who doesn't realize that Ginger Rogers was an incredible comic (see almost anything, but especially "Carefree") & dramatic actress (see "Kitty Foyle") who totally outshines Astaire (as an actor) in every vehicle, should not be paid for her opinions.

Freud was a hack, too, but Fiddledeedee I do declare I think Ms. Paglia may suffer from penis envy.

As for her opinions: I don't mean to be harsh, but frankly, Salon, it seems the consensus is that most of us don't give a damn.

As usual, so much of this writer's content is debatable and apparently confronting for the sake of confrontation. So I will pick a mere straw out from the whirlwind.

"Palin should not have gotten into a slanging match with David Letterman or anyone else who has been obsessively defaming her or her family. Let surrogates do that stuff."

How is Letterman or any of these people 'obsessively' defaming Palin? Paglia knows he has a writing staff who for the sake of their jobs tag on to popular trends and then just go for it with the gags.

Palin's sheer ignorance - which Paglia acknowledges later in her screed, is the reason she's a target. And her thin-skinned response when she's called on her bullshit, makes her an even more inviting target. Most of us learned this lesson in the playground.

Because Camille Paglia speaking well of something proves its cultural moment has passed. Cf. Madonna's, Rolling Stones' relevance.

At least Sarah Palin has the guts to write her own speech, unlike Obama, who can't put a coherent sentence together without his teleprompter or blackberry. I am still amazed at how fearful the comies on the left are of her. I firmly believe that they can't possibly run against her in '12 on any issue that requires any level of knowledge without first destroying her at a personal level, including her family. Too bad the left won't tell us what the REALLY have in store for us when they take over. Oh !!! that wouldn't get very many votes for them, Would it ?