I don't really care what Ms. Paglia thinks about Obama's "missteps" - some people conveniently see "glaring breeches in protocol", (Camille, I had no idea what a prig you were), whilst others see someone comfortable in his own skin, deftly maneuvering the corridors of convention totally aware of the symbolic nature of his presence on the world stage and being more concerned with helping establish an environment of collaboration and communication rather than one in which the balance of power hangs on whether or not the POTUS gives the Queen the right gift or whether he displays the proper combination of American Superiority and respect towards the King of Saudi Arabia. Like everything else the good prof writes, her objections are overwrought, semi-hysterical and really nothing more than personal conjecture and personal taste masquerading as considered social commentary, not unlike her personal distaste for Tim Geithner, whom she berates for his appearance and bearing ( she probably REALLY dislikes his wispy, billowy hair), and spends no time discussing the policies he is pursuing. Inconsequential in other words.

That I managed to write this much astonishes even me, as I vowed not to bother commenting on this shrill self-aggrandizing nonsense ever again. Most of her columns are nothing more than excuses for her to address her personal crusade against what she considers political correctness. Like any good narcissistic obsessive, she sees evidence of her bogeymen everywhere that she chooses to look. I would let this particular "column" pass, but one section bothered me and it's the one regarding the Washington D.C murder case. I know nothing about the case itself, but I'm astonished at how quickly she jumps to the conclusion that the sexual orientation of those involved had any bearing on it whatsoever, but worse, that the media's lack of coverage of the story from that angle alone is evidence of it's capitulation toward the gay community and PC attitudes about gay culture. Nonsense. Anyone with a brain could see from the sketchy outline provided that there were multiple reasons aside from familiarity from high school for those involved to have gathered and any number of things could have set the sordid events in motion. Because some of the participants are gay doesn't preclude that the murder had at it's base the same tawdry beginnings as any white trash mayhem regularly shown on reality television. I mean, the murder DID take place in D.C. right? Not exactly a crime-free paradise. I don't know what she wanted the local media to do, gin up public outrage against gay men gathering in the presence of single straight men? I don't see your point. To me, it's exactly those kind of circumstances where it does the citizenry good to have cooler heads prevailing over both the investigation and in how it's presented in the media. We don't want witch hunts, do we? Or maybe you do. The rest of the right-wing hacks seem to be promoting just that.

Obama so far has been pretty true to his campaign promises and if not directly following through then at least addressing them in terms of long range plans. This is the one case where there is a glaring about-face and it would be disturbing to think that his earlier speeches were nothing more than a cynical ploy to get elected. I wonder if the changing locale to Bagram has anything at all to do with the theater of war moving to Afghanistan. Perhaps they want the "convenience" of location along with being farther away from the prying eye of US media. The again, perhaps they are thinking that any kind of escalation in Afghanistan is going to be politically risky unless it pays off big dividends early on and they want to maintain the ability for making large sweeps through the region including Pakistan in order to expeditiously end the war, which is some of the same wishful, (read: dumb), thinking that lead to the misadventures in Iraq.

Chris Mathews is frustratingly obtuse about some things, his allegiances seem capricious and yet he still maintains a semblance of journalistic integrity on important topics. I watched that exchange in disbelief especially when he went into that 9-11 tailspin.Everything you said was spot on and you underscored your discomfort with the outcome of the case from the start so it was simply weird to witness. I don't usually expect Pat Buchanan to deviate from shouldering the poor white man's burden when it comes to questions of affirmative action, (the Republican's favorite straw man), but I usually expect a bit more nuance from Chris. But good on you for sticking to your guns on a sensitive subject.

of course it all depends on how ummm... tastefully it's done. Playboy for all it's self-serving rhetoric about it's support for first amendment rights and helping advance the supposed sexual revolution doesn't really have much cultural cachet anymore unless you're looking to it for hints on pubic grooming trends, so I'm not certain how much relevancy this would have overall and it's possible it would have a real "eeewww!", factor, like running across a boudoir photo of your mom. On the other hand, admitting that age doesn't diminish sexuality would be a healthy thing as I for one am really sick of how we sexualize very young woman as a matter of course in films ,TV and pop music .