Letters to the Editor
-
Christ.
It's just a Camille critique.
-
Hello? Who the hell is this!
I think Michelle Obama will be answering that phone and will give whoever it is holy hell! I love the Obamas!
-
Unicorns, Lollipops, and Gynotopia
First, thank you Izziedee for your letter. It shows once again that a person can support Hillary Clinton and doing so does not make them irrational or angry.
I loved the unicorn, lollipop,etc...I found the commentary hillarious-unintentionally hillarious, but hillarious nonetheless. If any candidate is promising us sunshine, puppies and roses, it's Obama. As for "gynotopia," again I'm just not seeing it-maybe for that I would need rose colored glasses, but alas all the stores seem to sold out. Obama's rhetoric which is likened to the camelot days of JFK is the stuff of Utopian dreams. (or nightmare depending on how one views utopia. i.e. Thomas Moore or B.F. Skinner's Walden Two-in a word-yuck)Far from promising paradise on earth for women or anyone else, Hillary's theme is based on the premise that the workhorse gets things done by working and the show pony dazzles the eye, but isn't what you turn to when you have hard work that needs done. Her message seems boring by contrast to Obama's Utopian world view, because it is realistic, and well, reality is boring. Do you know the most effective president for getting bills passed through congress? LBJ, Ooh didn't see that one coming did ya? He wasn't polished, or pretty, but was damn good at pushing his agenda-Oh wait--that was the point Bill Clinton was trying to make wasn't it? Right about the time that he started being called a racist. What I find supremely ironic is that JFK and Camelot are hyped because of his magnetizing charisma and like Bill Clinton, he also couldn't keep it in his pants, but nobody really cares about that. Poor Jackie O-what with the ghostly specter of Marilyn hanging about- she never really did move on with her life with stoic and dignified determination, did she? As to the unicorn reference and I'm guessing, the phallic symbol in the horn? Sometimes a horn is just a horn. The heart of misogynistic sentiment is when it dismisses womens views as silly, trivial and ridiculous because they come from women. I'm not running around telling anyone to tear down the Washington monument. I like phallic symbols. I have no inherent fear of the penis, and am rather fond of them...
-
Billary gets Walloped Again
MS Primary Results
Obama 62%
billary 38%
Stay in there billary. Cause more damage.
-
Camille Paglia and Germaine Greer are now featuring in a modern version of "Sunset Boulevard"
The American Paglia and Australian Greer, both strident feminists when it really mattered, are finding it difficult to accept the fading of the light. In Melbourne just a few days ago the academic, Germaine Greer, promoting yet another of her books, opined that Hillary Clinton is "cold" and "calculating". Whether Greer had ever met Senator Clinton did not seem to be relevant. In 2003, Germaine Greer suddenly changed tack from railing against the exploitation of women to publishing a book titled "The Boy" which contained a series of images of adolescent boys whose young bodies were voyeuristicly drooled over by the then 64 year old Germaine Greer. Bewildered reviewers of the book couldn't understand her latest preoccupation but the book sank without trace except for demand in what is best called a "niche" market. "The Guardian" newspaper, a liberal UK paper, interviewed Bjorn Anderson who had been the l5 year old boy in Visconti's l970 film "Death in Venice". The l5 year old Swedish object of desire was now a man in his forties and very angry that Greer had used the image of his adolescent body as the cover photo of her book. Paglia and Greer are egomaniacs who have dined out on their early fame for far too long. Both of them have developed a "crush" on younger men. In Paglia's case it's Obama while Greer skated on even thinner ice, which was pointed out by those who are more thoughtful than she is, including Bjorn Anderson. The opinions of Paglia and Greer on politics reflect careers given over to being outrageous. "Age cannot wither nor custom stale her infinite variety" was said of Cleopatra but it does not apply to them. It's still the same old attention-demanding thing.
-
"It's not objective reality."
That's kind of a definition of criticism, I think, which is the art Paglia practices, however well or poorly. Anyone who would badger the editors or let his subscription drop because she is not "objective," because she offers "opnions," is reading her through the wrong generic lens. (If you want to criticize her criticism, then that's fine. But to criticize her for attempting criticism is silly.)
For years, many on the Left hankered for opinionated commentators with as much fuck-it-all spirit as the loathesome but culturally cached Limbaugh. Paglia is not our girl--her politics are goofy libertarian, her pop cultural judgments obnoxiously cutesy-poo, and her style confrontational for its own wearisome sake--but that is the context in which she should be judged, not as a journalistic automaton.
-
Rush has core principles? Ho, ho!
Camille: Another provocative column that is sure to evoke stormclouds of condemnation from our resident Paglia bashers. I look forward to reading their venomous denunciations of your political views, your writing style, your academic credentials, your "quisling feminism," and just about everything else about you.
I do take issue with one statement of yours, however:
But hasn't Rush's massive appeal always been based on his adherence to core principles rather than to narrow partisanship?
Good Lord, lady, what planet are you living on? You actually use "core pronciples" and "Rush Limbaugh" in the same sentence? Rush has no core principles, other than making tons of money and reflexively attacking everything and everyone connected with the Democratic Party.
Rush is a shill, Camille, and the fact that you listen to him (how can anyone with half a brain actually listen to Rush Limbaugh?) says a lot about you.....none of it good.
-
NotOrbitBoy
If Obama wins the nomination and loses the general, it's because HE loses. It won't be Hillary's fault. It's amazing. The cult of hope flock looks for excuses before the fact.