It doesn't help Glenn Greenwald to be exposing the NY Times lack of credibility when Salon runs a hack like Paglia. Going through her eight pages published here, I counted no fewer than 11 sheer errors in fact, another 8 questionable assertions, plus four items of serious misinformation left unchallenged.

Very disappointing.

As for her political views, also apparently based on a lack of facts, she comes off like some of the right-wing propagandists on the (now closed) NYT forums who espoused just enough dislike for some of the more rabid Republicans and right-wing policies to make them seem like they might be reasonable moderates. The illusion fades when defending and even sympathizing with casual but serious abuses of capitalism and militarism. We're familiar with the poseur who hopes that erratic and inconsistent personal positions can establish the pretense of being a 'maverick', when the real object is to exploit a few of the more innocuous liberal positions as a vehicle for some of the more wrongheaded conservative positions. Jesuits, who invented the word 'propaganda', would be familiar with the tactic.

Either that, or she's really just a ditz with strong opinions.

Given her political sympathies, I'm not about to believe she voted for Ralph Nader. If she ever did give her vote to Nader, he'd give it back.

"I would expect the world in 20 years to be a complete disaster. World Order IS neccesary...or maybe you want to leave it up to the extremists to accomplish that task."

Translation:

"Let the military-industrial complex coerce the planet into submission to The Empire or the Islamofascist boogeyman is going to get you."

Neocons will take whatever scaremongering they can get.