If Camille Paglia and I were straight, she'd be at the top of my list of MILF's.

  • Aquanerd

    Posts: 845

    Sep 10, 2008 12:36 PM GMT
    ...and her is one of the reason's why...
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/index.html

    Does anyone else get a chubby in the presence of pure reason?
  • Aquanerd

    Posts: 845

    Sep 10, 2008 3:42 PM GMT
    Did anyone take the time to read the link. I'd like to hear your honest and thoughtful appraisal. I realize that might be asking a lot from many posters here.
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Sep 10, 2008 4:27 PM GMT
    Paglia seems to be at war with reality, and if I may be so bold, seems to be waging that war entirely because Palin is a woman. To not believe what one reads in the media solely because it is inconvenient to the McCain camp's superb public relations stunts is beyond gullible. She overlooks basic facts of our constitutional process, notably that Palin, in the event she were ever to become President, would choose justices just as reliably anti-choice (in many senses of the word) as Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.



    Oh, and by the way, Sarah Palin is at the top of my list of MILFs.

  • Squarejaw

    Posts: 1035

    Sep 10, 2008 4:39 PM GMT
    Paglia never really writes about anything but Paglia.
  • art_smass

    Posts: 960

    Sep 10, 2008 4:43 PM GMT
    I love her because she's so entertaining, even when she's teetering on the edge of absurdity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2008 4:57 PM GMT
    OK, I read that, in its entirety.

    I don't agree that Paglia only talks about Paglia - like her or not, and I guess she is out of fashion, here she is writing about the future of our nation, and writing very well.

    She is absolutely right. I sat around various luncheon tables with people who ought to know better and received my fair share of scorn and incredulity when I said that Senator Obama's choice of Senator Biden would be fatal and that Senator McCain's choice of Governor Palin would electrify his party base and win him the election.

    The momentum in the campaign has completely shifted and it will not shift back.

    From where I sit the choice of Governor Palin, creates as venal and brilliant an unholy alliance as I could have imagined (actually it is unimaginable really).

    Women are going to vote for McCain Palin, and they are going to do so decisively. I don't even expect the election to be close.

    I am reminded of one of the 20 items on my written list of guiding life principles:

    13. Learn to love truth instead of trying to make true that which you love.

    In my opinion, that applies to this situation.

    The Annie Oakley comparison is so apt that it isn't even funny.

    Terry
  • Aquanerd

    Posts: 845

    Sep 10, 2008 5:08 PM GMT
    styrgan saidPaglia seems to be at war with reality, and if I may be so bold, seems to be waging that war entirely because Palin is a woman. To not believe what one reads in the media solely because it is inconvenient to the McCain camp's superb public relations stunts is beyond gullible. She overlooks basic facts of our constitutional process, notably that Palin, in the event she were ever to become President, would choose justices just as reliably anti-choice (in many senses of the word) as Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.



    Oh, and by the way, Sarah Palin is at the top of my list of MILFs.



    LOL, Your not alone. I'm sure there are a lot of "Young Republican" college boys strokin' it, while listening to a recording or her Speech and the RNC.

    Read her column closely, she isn't saying she believes what the McCain Camp is saying, but that she see that most Americans are. I think that she was calling the Democrats to get a grip on reality. You can attack and try to destroy the person that holds a set of believes that you disagree with, but you will not destroy the basic philosophy the person believes, unless you resort to the totalitarian tacts.

    As far as the Supreme Court Justices. Remember that it was Reagan that nominated Anthony Kennedy, and G.H.W. Bush nominated David Souter. Both were vilified by the left as going to overturn Roe v Wade, but have come down against that and other "conservative causes," when they were viewed as unconstitutional. While it was Clinton nominated Ginsberg that expressly stated that she disagreed with our founding fathers in believing that foreign law can be used to rule on US law.

    After a quarter of a century and with a majority of the Supreme Court Justices nominated by Republican Presidents (7 or 9), Roe v Wade is still the law of the land. An argument could be made that, if Republican were putting up nominations in order to overturned Roe v Wade, then it would have already happened.

    Don't tell the Extreme Religious Right, but Roe v Wade will not be overturned. Oh and by the way, don't tell the Extreme MoveOn.Org Left that Obama will not be pulling US troops out of Afghanistan or Iraq.

    There I have said it, If he wins, you head it here first.
  • Laurence

    Posts: 942

    Sep 10, 2008 5:11 PM GMT
    Oh please.

    Paglia has made a career out of being contentious, or should I say trying to be contentious. She'd argue the moon was made out of cheese if she thought it made her interesting.

    I'm surprised that people still give credance to anything she writes.

    Loz
  • Aquanerd

    Posts: 845

    Sep 10, 2008 5:17 PM GMT
    Laurence saidOh please.

    Paglia has made a career out of being contentious, or should I say trying to be contentious. She'd argue the moon was made out of cheese if she thought it made her interesting.

    I'm surprised that people still give credance to anything she writes.

    Loz


    Heres to hoping that Obama and the Democrats agree with you and ignore her. Lets revisit what she said in 2 months.
  • Laurence

    Posts: 942

    Sep 10, 2008 5:22 PM GMT
    We'll see.

    I don't think Obama and the Democrats are running for office worrying about what egotistical columnists like Paglia have to say.

    It's a shame that Paglia can't say something constructive without trying to be provocative (so she likes Palin and thinks she's a feminist...oh very contentious).

    Silly woman.

    Loz
  • Aquanerd

    Posts: 845

    Sep 10, 2008 5:32 PM GMT
    Laurence saidWe'll see.

    I don't think Obama and the Democrats are running for office worrying about what egotistical columnists like Paglia have to say.

    It's a shame that Paglia can't say something constructive without trying to be provocative (so she likes Palin and thinks she's a feminist...oh very contentious).

    Silly woman.

    Loz


    I agree, the idea that their would be enough room or Paglia's ego in the Obama/Biden campaign is laughable. I was amazed their was room in Denver for both Obama's and Biden's egos.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2008 7:51 PM GMT
    ?attid=0.1&disp=emb&view=att&th=11c0fccb

    sorry, I couldn't resist....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2008 7:56 PM GMT
    While she makes a point about Palin - after all it's not about her at all, but about how the voting public seems to view her that makes her a potent tool - she's jumping the shark to claim that Palin's as important to modern feminism as Madonna. Esp. given that Madonna has dampened her own importance and is still light years ahead of Palin's impact on thinking. Madonna's impact of revolutionary, while Palin's is reactionary.

    Camille...she hasn't been quite right for a few years now, but she's on to it about Palin's significance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2008 9:14 PM GMT
    Paglia's as witty as ever though I can't help but feel she's giving Palin a pass merely to be provocative. "She may be anti-gay, anti-choice, fundamentalist...but let's give her a pass" [sic], so she says, but she's kidding herself if she thinks Palin represents the progressive face of neo-feminism.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Sep 10, 2008 9:36 PM GMT
    Enjoyed the column, and always find her writing to be entertaining, balanced, and interesting.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2008 9:39 PM GMT
    For those of you conservatives posting positively in this thread, I suggest you read a little of Paglia's vitae before you consider her an ally in any way.....
  • Aquanerd

    Posts: 845

    Sep 12, 2008 2:47 AM GMT
    RunintheCity saidFor those of you conservatives posting positively in this thread, I suggest you read a little of Paglia's vitae before you consider her an ally in any way.....


    I've been reading her stuff for years. I find everything she writes though provoking, and most of the time when she's writing against conservative issues, I usually agree, we both tend toward the Libertarian side of most issues. (see the Smallest Political Quiz Forum)

    Point of fact, I think that some of the posts that are negative about Paglia are do to the fact that she does take both parties to task. And as evident with every forum on this site, if you take one step out side of the strict Liberal ideology you will be castigated.
  • B71115

    Posts: 482

    Sep 12, 2008 2:55 AM GMT
    I have her bookmarked. Look forward to reading her Salon column every month.
  • Aquanerd

    Posts: 845

    Sep 12, 2008 3:18 AM GMT
    B71115 saidI have her bookmarked. Look forward to reading her Salon column every month.


    Salon has archives of her past columns. Also, if you ever get a chance to hear her speak, she is manic, and a bit A.D.H.D., sometimes hard to follow, but very interesting.

    Her's a clip that explains while, the dogmatic liberals hate her...
    <object width=">
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2008 3:38 AM GMT
    That is Paglia's usual column, the 1,000th version of the same well written cliches. Fuck postmodernism; read military history. Classic feminists are bad; farm wives toting calves back to the barn are the real feminists. Pay no attention to substance (especially Camille's), but preoccupy yourself with rhetoric (like Rush Limbaugh, whom she constantly promotes, as if we should all still be impressed by her own maverick nature).

    This is the same "thinker" who blamed other women for the shootings at Virginia Tech. She wrote that women have become too much like men, especially in their sexual appetites, causing great frustration among men that leads to mass murder because they can no longer hop a freighter or get a factory job and work out their aggression on the assembly line. I'm not kidding.

    She also has the Cheney-like habit of quoting herself to prove a point. And, like Andrew Sullivan, she generalizes her personal experience to everyone -- and also, like Sully, attacks gay people who don't share her tedious beliefs about gender and sexuality. (Thus, too, nobody should read Foucault, Lacan or any other theorist.)

    My favorite comment in this column:

    "One reason I live in the leafy suburbs of Philadelphia and have never moved to New York or Washington is that, as a cultural analyst, I want to remain in touch with the mainstream of American life. I frequent fast-food restaurants, shop at the mall, and periodically visit Wal-Mart (its bird-seed section is nonpareil). Like Los Angeles and San Francisco, Manhattan and Washington occupy their own mental zones -- nice to visit but not a place to stay if you value independent thought these days. Ambitious professionals in those cities, if they want to preserve their social networks, are very vulnerable to received opinion. At receptions and parties (which I hate), they're sitting ducks. They have to go along to get along -- poor dears!"

    Please! This from a woman who has kicked and clawed and flattered her way into the public eye, sacrificing the little rigor displayed in "Sexual Personae," a book I very much enjoyed when it came out. I love skillful contrarians (like Christopher Hitchens), but Camille isn't in the mainstream in her leafy suburban home. She's still living in 1980.
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Sep 12, 2008 3:41 AM GMT
    Aquanerd said
    styrgan saidPaglia seems to be at war with reality, and if I may be so bold, seems to be waging that war entirely because Palin is a woman. To not believe what one reads in the media solely because it is inconvenient to the McCain camp's superb public relations stunts is beyond gullible. She overlooks basic facts of our constitutional process, notably that Palin, in the event she were ever to become President, would choose justices just as reliably anti-choice (in many senses of the word) as Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.



    Oh, and by the way, Sarah Palin is at the top of my list of MILFs.



    LOL, Your not alone. I'm sure there are a lot of "Young Republican" college boys strokin' it, while listening to a recording or her Speech and the RNC.

    Read her column closely, she isn't saying she believes what the McCain Camp is saying, but that she see that most Americans are. I think that she was calling the Democrats to get a grip on reality. You can attack and try to destroy the person that holds a set of believes that you disagree with, but you will not destroy the basic philosophy the person believes, unless you resort to the totalitarian tacts.

    As far as the Supreme Court Justices. Remember that it was Reagan that nominated Anthony Kennedy, and G.H.W. Bush nominated David Souter. Both were vilified by the left as going to overturn Roe v Wade, but have come down against that and other "conservative causes," when they were viewed as unconstitutional. While it was Clinton nominated Ginsberg that expressly stated that she disagreed with our founding fathers in believing that foreign law can be used to rule on US law.

    After a quarter of a century and with a majority of the Supreme Court Justices nominated by Republican Presidents (7 or 9), Roe v Wade is still the law of the land. An argument could be made that, if Republican were putting up nominations in order to overturned Roe v Wade, then it would have already happened.

    Don't tell the Extreme Religious Right, but Roe v Wade will not be overturned. Oh and by the way, don't tell the Extreme MoveOn.Org Left that Obama will not be pulling US troops out of Afghanistan or Iraq.

    There I have said it, If he wins, you head it here first.



    Yeah I agree with your assessment of the column itself.


    I understand your point regarding SCOTUS. However, a President Palin would appoint RELIABLE anti-choice justices. The far right who Palin caters to will not allow another David Souter or Sandra Day.
  • Aquanerd

    Posts: 845

    Sep 12, 2008 4:07 AM GMT



    Yeah I agree with your assessment of the column itself.


    I understand your point regarding SCOTUS. However, a President Palin would appoint RELIABLE anti-choice justices. The far right who Palin caters to will not allow another David Souter or Sandra Day.[/quote]

    Palin is a Conservative like Reagan was a Conservative, and like McCain is not. The Democrats love to say that Republican want to over turn R v W, the truth is that the Religious Right is a small % of Conservative Republican. Point of Fact, the Democrats are the more Dogmatic on the Abortion issue.

    The problem for the Democrats is Obama is addressing Palin popularity the same way you got elected to the Illinois State House, send in operatives to get all the other candidates rules ineligible, rather than competing on ideas. I love that Obama keeps saying he wants to talk about the issues. When? He's rather make jokes about McCain's ideas. (sorry, got off topic)