Friday, October 27, 2006

The Truth

Today posted an EXCELLENT interview with Camille Paglia. I've always liked her writings, and have always found her very insightful, but it's been awhile since I've read anything that has been so dead-on. She nails the Foley scandal, the war in Iraq, and the current direction of the Democratic party. It really is incredible, check it out if you can.

Update: To read the full article without a Slate subscription click the link and watch a 10 second add for full access. It's totally worth it.


Prairie Dawg said...

That was pretty excellent.

edP said...

CP is a master (mistress?) of rhetoric and turning things on their heads. This is not always a condemnation when I use the hackneyed phrase "turn things on their head" because sometimes things do, in fact, need to be turned that way.

BUTT, sex, Foley, the Democrats the persecution and even robbing and beating of gay men in America...all at the doorstep of the Democrats and their lapdog media...I don't quite buy it - but nice try.

More later

edP said...

This is fascinating:

"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."

I wish CP went on to explain what she means by "formula". She seems content to make this connection between fame, power and NAMBLA panky among the Athenians and that is part of the story...but there is more to this connection between physical attraction, power and how Socrates deals with the love of the most beautiful man in Athens (and it is the same Alcibiades who goes on to betray her...and the tyranical ambitions of Al and his pal Critias lead in no small way to the charges leveled against Socrates) hell, CP can't go into all this shit...If Salon's readers wanted that kind of boredom they could read my blog.

edP said...

I found the whole interview to be stimulating and frustrating all at once. After listening to your message again, I assume you are interested in my reaction to the last question:

"It seems like religion has never been a bigger issue in American politics, recognized on both sides of the aisle as something that needs to be addressed. Have the Democrats changed the longtime Republican characterization of them as godless?"

and CP's response. I have some thoughts...I'll read it again and post something over the weekend.

Good to hear from you - wish you could've been able to come back out here. The other night when the boy and I were at Twins he said "Maybe (insert your name here) will be here drinking one of his Cub beers and we can play Big Buck Hunter."

DC Liar said...

Keep in mind, CP is a self-avowed democrat , which adds great weight to her argument. Granted, she has definite libertarian leanings, but I can't see her stringing together conspiracy theories out of shadows just for the fuck of it.
The fact of the matter is that the democrats and the media have deliberately omitted facts, muddled the time line, and have obsfucated and mischaracterized these events for personal gain. All the while betraying the most deeply held tenets of their faith in the process.

This whole mess reminds me of the Nietzsche quote "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster".

edP said...

Technically she is a Hollywood Democrat

edP said...

I do agree there is a sense in which the D's have been jerking off the dog just to feed the cat here.

I don't know what that means, but I decided to say it.

edP said...

Seriously, back to my first response - I think it is good that she played the D and perception of gays card in her response. I think she turns the issue nicely...I just don't buy it all the way - that's all.

I appreciated the irony that some among the D's and the media are playing the finger pointing game

A famous British politician once said "It doesn't matter if the major position squares with the minor so long as the major produces 47% of the votes and the minor procures another 12%."

But what do the British know, they lost an empire and eat food I wouldn't give to a dead dog.

DC Liar said...

Agreed, they've played it brilliantly, but at the cost of their soul (or what trace elements of soul can be found in politics). I'm just amazed that it took a democrat to articulate the situation so succinctly. God knows that no one in the majority has been able to do that.

Oh, and that dead dog very well could be considered British cuisine. Just put a crust on top and serve it on yesterday's newspaper - and viola, you have Hampshire dingger pie.

edP said...


Prairie Dawg said...

Not sure what there is not to buy (aside from her facile Plato references). The dems are the ones who:

Think they can impress voters just by running a so-called "military man," and making great fellating show of the ones in their party who served

and generally think a person's identity/life experience MAKES the argument

Talk about how everything is out of the "standard Rove/Cheney/(insert 'puppetmaster' here) playbook"--yet fail to anticipate every trap that's been laid for them

Play the "We're not that gay!" card when it suits them

Jump like rabid dogs on every little GOP glitch, as if whatever-it-is-this-week will be payback for hounding Clinton for 8 years

forgetting about the crying wolf story

And frankly I do think the press helps them along by imagining themselves third-rate Woodwards (ha ha) and thinking they're going to get the big one THIS time, as well as being obligated to fill up 24 hours of news time hashing out everything--as if it's sports radio, where in a bye week I can go on vacation, come back, and STILL hear about the firstplay of the game against the Cardinals. Everything is so out of proportion. And all this talk in the press about major democratic wins--how is that not transparently wishful thinking?