Camille has reached a new low with her opening 500 word bloviation on Palin. It is pretty apparent that the Camillster she has completely lost her ability to reason logically or rationally process evidence. I’m no psychiatrist so I’ll refrain from commenting on whatever psycho-sexual bullshit that may be going on with Camille and her twisted fascination with Palin but I will comment on just a couple things she said that are just plain stupid.

Camille: “Whether Palin has a national future or not will depend on her willingness to hit the books at some point and absorb more information about international history and politics than she has needed to know in her role as governor.”

First of all I would argue that she did need to know more in her role as Governor. Second, wouldn’t it be better to run someone for the highest office in the land that already had this knowledge of international history and politics first? It appears pretty ass-backwards to pick someone for office and then try to educate them on what’s needed for the job later. It’s kind of like choosing a new President for a University and then helping them get their GED before they take office.

Or how about her silly observation that, “…as I know from listening to talk radio. Callers coming fresh from her rallies are always heady with infectious enthusiasm.” followed up by accusing Vanity Fair of “faux objectivity” for writing a sepulchral piece on her. So Vanity Fare is faux objectivity and right wing talk radio is hard hitting journalism?

There is not reason to keep this unhinged moron on the payroll of Salon.

righteous and right on brother. But Ms. Walsh isn't listening apparently. Apparently the "ka-ching" of page hits is drowing out the legitimate critiques of Ms. Paglia's nonsense. Then again Ms. Walsh is in the business of making money like every other journalistic endeavor so I'm not real surprised.

She had a chance to dump hacks like Paglia, Keillor and Wingnut Walken and make a serious run for Froomkin, but chose to let him fall into the hands of Arianna's US Weekly unnavigable gossip rag when clearly she could have made a shrewd 3 for 1 trade and a future draft pick to have GG and Froomkin in her bullpen.

Oh the possibilities. Find a way to bring on Scott Horton to round out the rotation and this site would have kicked ass and taken names for decades.

King Kauffman thought and wrote circles around the weak tea efforts of Paglia and Keillor and where is he now?

Camille Paglia wrote a book by that name, (and if other Salon readers have mentioned it too, I apologize for thinking this is original.) It's about poetry, and I bought it, and on purpose.

But c'mon Salon:

"Dear Camille,

Just wondering. Do you still think Sarah Palin is ready for the big stage?

(Letter writer)

Good question! Especially after Palin's shock resignation as Governor of Alaska this past Fourth of July weekend..."

One of two things is true here: the question is disingenuos, or the answer is. And even worse, both are.

Break Blow Burn this nonsense up Salon. I'm pretty sure that most of us who subscribe to Salon, and not just once, but several times over several years, will listen to the reasonable other side. But not Wingnut. And no longer Camille Paglia.

Dear Editors,

Over the past couple of years over 95% of paid subscribers who write letters ask you (some even politely) to give Camille the axe. We all know the real reasons that you keep her around but I just want to ask you if it is really worth it? Is getting a few more hits really worth looking like a bunch of assholes? Is a few more hits really worth alienating your paid readership over? Is a few more hits worth giving some ignorant has-been an open forum that could go to a serious, interesting or thoughtful writer (of which Salon has many but could always use more).

Just asking.

ctttt:"How anyone can not find Paglia both truthful and hilariously amusing is beyond me. Have these people never heard of Gore Vidal or Pauline Kael?"

Vidal and Kael would both bitch slap you for making that comparison if they could!

Could this be a reason to celebrate?

So many real journalists out of work, yet here comes Paglia with another one of her unreadable rambles.

ZZZZzzzzzzZZZZ. I could barely make it past the obviously staged question, and Camille's chirpy "Good Question!"

I was out of there a few ridiculous sentences later. Please, Salon, from a subscriber. The money going into Paglia could easily be put to better use. For instance, you could hire a cat to walk up and down the keyboard for about half an hour.

thinking of better uses for the monies paid Paglia, Keillor, and Wingnut . . . giving it to the local Food Bank, rolling it up and shhhhmokin' it to see if Paglia's nonsense makes better sense on a good ink high, or spending the money to bring video to Salon so we could watch Ms. Walsh wipe her well-educated fanny with it (gross but symbolically apropos).

But cats on a keyboard is money equally well spent. At least cats are cool looking, have interesting personalities, and might have something valuable to say if they could be trained to type. More than can be said for any of the above "designated page-hit generators".

Potato salad, lesbo porno, and Palin. Really? It seriously borders on the absurd to keep the troika of teh stupid on the payroll--but money makes people do funny things (even seemingly right thinking smarties like Ms. Walsh).

I think that one of the tasks of a good editor of a magazine like Salon is to weed out the writing that does not reflect the aesthetic or philosophical mindset of your readership. This does not mean that we shouldn’t be given contrarian or differing views—just that those views should be tempered by reason, critical thinking and sound scholarship. Case in point: whether or not you agree or disagree with Joe Conason, David Sirota or Glenn Greenwald, you know that you're dealing with heavyweights when you read them. They back up what they say and exhibit the restraint and authority one expects from professional journalism.

On the other hand, Salon has Camille Paglia; a writer that the majority of Salon’s readers have shown contempt for by repeatedly and mercilessly excoriating in the letters to the editor. Paglia is a writer who throws ten-dollar academic terms around to cover up the vacuousness of her thinking, lacks the critical thinking skills to be considered a serious journalist (or philosopher) and whose writing is a paean to personal prejudice. Salon once referred to her as “Our fave pop philosopher”; and epithet that I hope to never see in print again.

To keep a writer like Paglia around when so many of the readers have spoken up so articulately on the matter demonstrates an attribute of a bad editor —hubris and contempt for your readership.