Camille Paglia: "The feckless behavior of the Bush administration has been a lurid illustration of Noam Chomsky's books – which I've always considered half lunatic."

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Maybe this deserves its own thread. My favorite bits:

! Therefore if it wasn't absolutely clear at the start who exactly Foley was flirting with, the Democrats should have been far more cautious about what they said. All that's been accomplished by this scandal is to call into question one of the central erotic archetypes of gay male tradition -- the ephebic beauty of boys at their muscular peak between the ages of 16 and 18. It goes back through Western iconography from Michelangelo's nudes to Hadrian's Antinous and beyond that to Greek sculpture. It's a formula at the heart of Plato's dialogues, as in the Symposium, which shows Socrates in love with but also declining sex with the handsome young Alcibiades. In ancient Greek culture, an adult man could publicly profess his love for a young man without necessarily having sexual contact with him.

The Foley scandal exploded without any proof of a documented sex act -- unlike the case of the late congressman Gerry Studds, who had sex with a page and who was literally applauded by fellow Democrats when they refused to vote for his censure. In the Foley case, there was far more ambiguous evidence -- suggestive e-mails and instant messages. Matt Drudge, to his great credit, began hitting this issue right off the bat on his Web site and radio show. What does it mean for Democrats to be agitating over Web communications, which in my view fall under the province of free speech? It's a civil liberties issue. We can say that what Foley was doing was utterly inappropriate, professionally irresponsible, and in bad taste, but why were liberals fomenting a scandal day after day after day over words being used? And why didn't Democrats notice that they were drifting into an area which has been the province of the right wing -- that is, the attempt to gain authoritarian control over interpersonal communications on the Web? It's very worrisome and yet more proof that the Democrats have lost their way.

And:

The notion that terrorism could be confronted through conventional military means -- by sending in troops as if it were D-Day -- was such a colossal stupidity. That Donald Rumsfeld is still employed as the secretary of defense is a living testament to the managerial incompetence of the current president. If Rumsfeld had been booted out early on, Bush would have gotten more of a pass. It could have been argued that he had merely been misled by bad advisors.

I'm not a Bush hater. I've always viewed him as a decent fellow who was pushed into the presidency because he was his father's son. But he's been out of his depth in foreign affairs from the start. He certainly lacks the basic verbal skills for the presidency -- reading speeches authored by others is no substitute. But I've become concerned about Bush's mental state in the past few months. Sometimes in his press conferences or prepared statements (which I listened to on the radio), I heard a sort of Nixonian tension and hysteria. His vocal patterns were over-intense and his inflections impatient, lurching and sarcastic. There was this seething quality to his speech that worried me and that seemed to signal that something major is being planned -- perhaps another military incursion.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 27 October 2006 13:29 (nineteen years ago)

Camille Paglia: "...which I've always considered half lunatic."

Takes one to know one!

― The sun sets on twelve tons of pickled onions. A dynasty is dying... (Dada), Friday, 27 October 2006 13:31 (nineteen years ago)

It's like somebody hit puree on a blend of the NRO and the Huffington Post.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 27 October 2006 13:32 (nineteen years ago)

dada too fast!

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 27 October 2006 13:34 (nineteen years ago)

Hey, Sexual Personae is one of the funniest books I've ever read.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 27 October 2006 13:39 (nineteen years ago)

"And The Closing of the American Mind, don't get me started!"

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 27 October 2006 13:42 (nineteen years ago)

Are you equating Sexual Personae with The Closing of the American Mind?

― Fleischhutliebe! like a warm, furry meatloaf (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Friday, 27 October 2006 13:45 (nineteen years ago)

the first part is dumm but the second excerpt is pretty OTM i think

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Friday, 27 October 2006 13:45 (nineteen years ago)

Tracer, is the dumm part the notion that Foley wasn't looking to score when the calendar was right, or are you quarreling with the ephebic beauty of boys at their muscular peak between the ages of 16 and 18?

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 27 October 2006 13:55 (nineteen years ago)

that bitch crazy.

the second paragraph i don't even get what she's trying to say.

― GOD PUNCH TO HAWKWIND (yournullfame), Friday, 27 October 2006 13:55 (nineteen years ago)

it's wierd how at the turn of the 00s she was everywhere and now in blog-time she's sort of disappeared. maybe i just read salon too much back then

― geoff (gcannon), Friday, 27 October 2006 13:57 (nineteen years ago)

Are you equating Sexual Personae with The Closing of the American Mind?

All polemics are laughable from a distance. (Mein Kampf excepted, which is why we must destroy everything in Iran. < / Santorum >)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 27 October 2006 13:57 (nineteen years ago)

i don't really have the instinct or experience to judge what she says about 16-18 year olds thru history - i think the dumm part though is that imagining the democrats have "lost their way" by going after foley for it is ludicrous; it's just politics, always has been, always will be; not playing that hand once you're dealt it would be inconceivable; she also assumes the democrats had actually FOUND their way at some point which is a notion i find highly questionable

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:00 (nineteen years ago)

it always amazes me how many otherwise smart people project themselves onto/into a political party and then feel betrayed when one of millions of decisions that are taken daily by party members fails to align with what they want

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:05 (nineteen years ago)

i mean: the democratic party is not socialist, it is not postmodernist, is barely feminist; it has NEVER has been these things except when political expediency demanded it.

individuals will have grand hopes, will mean well, will DO well, but the larger machine is just a machine to gather and sustain power and whatever it takes to do that, it will do, and whatever voters it can reach it will reach

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:08 (nineteen years ago)

well, among many other things, Paglia is an idealist, so it's unfortunate she lives in America.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:09 (nineteen years ago)

All that's been accomplished by this scandal is to call into question one of the central erotic archetypes of gay male tradition

Can't. Stop. Roffling.

Oh, wait, the other thing it's accomplished is neutralizing the "family values" card prior to an election. So there's that, too, but by all means let's keep the focus on the classical antecedents of Foley's Letters To A Young Page.

― hearditonthexico (rogermexico), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:17 (nineteen years ago)

among many other things

Camille Paglia: Blowhard, sophist, idealist, American.

― hearditonthexico (rogermexico), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:19 (nineteen years ago)

If you question Camille on the Nephrititi myth, she's going to hurl one of Madonna's metallic breast cones in your face.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:19 (nineteen years ago)

HAHAHA

― Fleischhutliebe! like a warm, furry meatloaf (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:22 (nineteen years ago)

the ephebic beauty

hey, it's that word again!

― kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:24 (nineteen years ago)

I'm not a Bush hater. I've always viewed him as a decent fellow...

Only a city-dwelling coastal liberal could manage this sort of sentimental misreading. I'd suggest she move to Jesusland and surround herself with these smug hayseed pricks she thinks are so decent.

― M. V. (M.V.), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:37 (nineteen years ago)

I always forget what a hack and a moron Paglia is. . . until she reminds again.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:43 (nineteen years ago)

i dunno, i think her reading of democratic electoral weakness on defense and religion is pretty otm

― geoff (gcannon), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:46 (nineteen years ago)

wait, people still pay attention to this nutty dyke?!?

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:47 (nineteen years ago)

in the US is "would have gotten" considered OK in this kind of piece. or is she being folksy?

― benrique (Enrique), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:47 (nineteen years ago)

that didn't stick out to me at all. it's not formal but it's pretty normal speech, i say it all the time i'm sure. not folksy.

― geoff (gcannon), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:50 (nineteen years ago)

what's wrong with "would have gotten"? that's correct.

― the orchid and the wasp (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:51 (nineteen years ago)

She is neither a hack or a moron, but much of her political analysis seems to be a little, I dunno, unreal.

― Fleischhutliebe! like a warm, furry meatloaf (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:53 (nineteen years ago)

it's ok to say, but write? (to be fair, i was taught that the word 'got' is a dreadful solecism, so 'gotten' was definitely verboten.)

i like 'gotten', but it stuck out within the piece for me -- but my anglo mileage will vary!

xpost

― benrique (Enrique), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:53 (nineteen years ago)

'would have got' or 'would have had' woulda done 'er.

― benrique (Enrique), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:55 (nineteen years ago)

Only a city-dwelling coastal liberal could manage this sort of sentimental misreading

Frankly, she's not a liberal.

rural- and sapphic-phobias above noted.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:55 (nineteen years ago)

"would have got" is a UK construction. "gotten" is the way to write it in the US.

― the orchid and the wasp (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:56 (nineteen years ago)

i like dykes, morbs! the nutty word was more descriptive.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:57 (nineteen years ago)

Her reading of the Democratic party's foibles is right on, methinks; only her Condi defense strikes me as crackpot.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:58 (nineteen years ago)

Wouldst thou have gotten thee to a nunnery?

― Fleischhutliebe! like a warm, furry meatloaf (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:58 (nineteen years ago)

Frankly, she's not a liberal.

sure she is. what else would you call her?

― geoff (gcannon), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:08 (nineteen years ago)

An idiot.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:08 (nineteen years ago)

yeah roffles all around clap clap

no really, what other term is there for someone of her political position? she's a liberal.

― geoff (gcannon), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:09 (nineteen years ago)

Seriously her "insights" are either completely crazy (Foley, Rice, Chomsky, etc) or so painfully obvious (Democratic woes, Clinton, Bush) that a first year political science student with a fascination with pop psychology could have come up with them. She's is now and has always been a hack.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:10 (nineteen years ago)

yeah agreed it's all pretty entry level.

― geoff (gcannon), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:11 (nineteen years ago)

hahahaha paglia would not define herself as a liberal, at all.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:19 (nineteen years ago)

Seriously her "insights" are either completely crazy (Foley, Rice, Chomsky, etc) or so painfully obvious (Democratic woes, Clinton, Bush)

Apparently you haven't visited the presidential thread recently; it's not obvious to a lot of posters.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:26 (nineteen years ago)

?? are you kidding? she says shit like "as a classical liberal..." all the time, sometimes libertarian or libertarian democrat or some shit. sad that i know this.

― geoff (gcannon), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:27 (nineteen years ago)

On a related note, I also have little patience with the Chris Matthews/Tim Russert types who desperately seek a Democratic candidate their admirable but corny fathers would approve of.

― M. V. (M.V.), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:40 (nineteen years ago)

"Apparently you haven't visited the presidential thread recently; it's not obvious to a lot of posters."

No shock there.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:40 (nineteen years ago)

ok maybe she's a "classical liberal" but wtf does that have to do with anything? the world's changed a bit since the 18th century.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:41 (nineteen years ago)

She is a nothing, an opportunistic self-promoting pseudo-academic talking head. Arguing about whether or not she is a liberal or calls herself a liberal seems beside the point, but whatever.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:45 (nineteen years ago)

alex in sf otm.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:47 (nineteen years ago)

But she's a lot funnier and sharper than Barack Obama!

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:49 (nineteen years ago)

her bread and butter is constant bitching about the democratic party, the clintons, academic feminism, and the "chattering classes," but i've never read her espouse an idea out of place in contemporary liberalism. she goes on about valorizing capitalism tho, without having a concrete thing to say about it other than that. i don't know what other label you could really give her. i don't want to invest a lot in this "argument" but it was stated flatly that she was not a liberal, and that's bullshit.

― geoff (gcannon), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:52 (nineteen years ago)

"chattering classes" god what a hackass phrase that is

― geoff (gcannon), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:53 (nineteen years ago)

"But she's a lot funnier and sharper than Barack Obama!"

Whoopy-dee-doo.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:54 (nineteen years ago)

Matt Drudge, to his great credit

lol

― dmr (Renard), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:57 (nineteen years ago)

At this point she's basically the ILM poster of public intellectuals.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 27 October 2006 16:15 (nineteen years ago)

Imagine Paglia's views coming out of Tom Harkin's mouth (if you can stay awake); that's all I meant by "not a liberal."

For one thing, she's against hate-crimes and anti-discrimination laws.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 27 October 2006 16:40 (nineteen years ago)

"For one thing, he hates M.I.A."

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 27 October 2006 16:42 (nineteen years ago)

definitely the ILM equivalent

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 27 October 2006 16:43 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2000/08/24paglia.html

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 27 October 2006 16:55 (nineteen years ago)

lol

― geoff (gcannon), Friday, 27 October 2006 17:02 (nineteen years ago)

Imagine Paglia's views coming out of Tom Harkin's mouth (if you can stay awake); that's all I meant by "not a liberal."

Nor, by the way, can I imagine Harkin mistaking Bush for a decent fellow.

― M. V. (M.V.), Friday, 27 October 2006 17:41 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.