Camille Paglia crowns Palin, spites bloodhounds

Good old Camille. Fatuous and dull as ever. The lengths she goes to in an effort to be relevant, like an academic lesbian step'n fetchit.

I’ll examine some of Paglia’s claims.

Paglia wrote: “The gigantic, instantaneous coast-to-coast rage directed at Sarah Palin when she was identified as pro-life was, I submit, a psychological response by loyal liberals who on some level do not want to open themselves to deep questioning about abortion and its human consequences.”

Whether that is true or not is completely irrelevant to whether abortion should be a crime. Paglia has committed the ad hominem fallacy.

Paglia wrote: "If Sarah Palin tries to intrude her conservative Christian values into secular government, then she must be opposed and stopped. But she has every right to express her views and to argue for society's acceptance of the high principle of the sanctity of human life.”

Under the US Constitution, Palin has a legal right to express her views. And it is good that she has that legal right to do so. She even has a moral right to express her views. But it is very important that we elect Obama-Biden over McCain-Palin. The former are likely to be vastly better as president and vice president. For one thing, Obama is more committed to diplomacy than McCain is and is less likely to invade Iran. Moreover, Obama’s health care plan is likely to help millions of people get quality health care. In addition, McCain and Palin have some highly problematic views, for instance, Palin has argued that creationism should be taught in the public schools.

Paglia wrote: “If McCain wins the White House and then drops dead, a President Palin would have the power to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court, but she could not control their rulings.”
So, what is Paglia’s point? I don’t see it. It is important that federal judges don’t overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s important that women and doctors are not fined or imprisoned for abortion.

Paglia wrote: “It is nonsensical and counterproductive for Democrats to imagine that pro-life values can be defeated by maliciously destroying their proponents.”

What does she mean by “pro-life” values? Of course no person’s claims are false because the person has been “destroyed” by one’s opponents

Paglia wrote: “And it is equally foolish to expect that feminism must for all time be inextricably wed to the pro-choice agenda.”

Whether that is true or not, it’s important that abortion is not a crime.

Paglia wrote: “But the one fundamental precept that Democrats must stand for is independent thought and speech. When they become baying bloodhounds of rigid dogma, Democrats have committed political suicide.”

I don’t know what she is talking about? We should voice are disapproval of bad ideas and say why they are bad. She talks about “political suicide,” and it is important for Obama to win this election. But saying that a number of Palin’s views are highly problematic and why they are highly problematic is unlikely to reduce Obama’s chances of winning this election. For example, most people in the US don’t think Roe v. Wade should be overturned. And I suspect most voters don’t think creationism should be taught in the public schools. Moreover, my experience is that US citizens tend to be more inclined to vote for a candidate if the candidate shows an ability to argue that one’s opponents positions are less good than one’s own positions.

However, for the sake of argument, let’s say that if many Obama supporters criticize some of Palin’s views, it is likely to decrease Obama’s chances of winning. That doing X is likely to decrease a candidate’s chances of winning is not sufficient for it to be bad to do X. For example, Truman’s desegregating the armed forces was unpopular at the time. And Truman had reason to believe that desegregating the armed forces would decrease his chances of winning re-election. However, he made a very good decision in desegregating the armed forces. So, if one has reason to believe that one’s criticizing some of Palin’s views is likely to decrease Obama’s chances of winning this election, that would not be sufficient to determine that one ought not criticize any of Palin’s views.

Wow. The ongoing political suicide of the left continues, right here (as well as hundreds of other sites), right before our very eyes.

Who would have imagined this possible, just a couple weeks ago.

There is plenty of room in modern thought for a pro-life feminism -- one in fact that would have far more appeal to third-world cultures where motherhood is still honored and where the Western model of the hard-driving, self-absorbed career woman is less admired.

This is false. And it's sort of funny how mistaken feminists like Pagila are on this. Ideology trumps logic.

Truth: feminism is forever tied to opposition of life. It is infertile by nature, and instinctively leans towards abortion and birth control.

Palin is merely an odd exception; it takes heroic effort to be both fertile and feminist...for 99% of women, it's impossible. Palin is that 1%. How nature really works: male and female working together to produce more offspring. Hence, feminism and oddballs like Palin are merely a flash in the Darwian pan, and this can be demonstrated in the birth rates. Any culture that embraces it has already signed its death warrant, and the rare Palin types change nothing.

So Ms. Paglia says that:

"not until the Democratic Party stringently reexamines its own implicit assumptions and rhetorical formulas will it be able to deal effectively with the enduring and now escalating challenge from the pro-life right wing. "

All right, got it. The Democratic Party needs a new rhetorical formula on the abortion issue.

And what, Ms. Paglia, would you suggest as a new rhetorical formula?

Ah, here we are:

"My argument ... has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature's fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.

Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful."

Well, I'm touched.

No question, that is a charming formulation, to be sure.

No question, that is a charming formulation, to be sure.

No more charming than the reality it describes. No less, either.

Seems that anyone who doesn't toe the line gets personally villified and shredded by the angry left...

Pardon me, I need to restock on the popcorn!

Carry on libs!

Christmas in September!

Need I elaborate on that?

he he lol he he

Steve says: Moreover, Obama’s health care plan is likely to help millions of people get quality health care.

Steve, everyone in America has access to health care. It's the law.

Not everyone has health insurance , but many who don't, could have it, if they chose to pay for it instead of for non-essentials.

The idea of "government health care" makes many of us think of other government programs such as the Indian Health Service or VA and ask ourselves if we really want all of us to Change to THAT. A doctor I know does a roaring cash business in joint replacements for Canadians in pain who would have to wait years for them under Canada's much admired (by the left)health service. Be open-minded, look at McCain's plan which improves access and competition to what is already serving most of us well.

Palin has argued that creationism should be taught in the public schools.

This has already been debunked today in the Newsweek article linked to in Rod's Factchecking post. You can check that out while you are doing your research.

Ann wrote: “Steve, everyone in America has access to health care. It's the law.”

Well, yes and no. Emergency rooms are required by law to give health care. But some people don’t have access to health care in a thick sense. For example, according to the Institute of Medicine, 18,000 US citizens die each year because they can’t afford health care or can’t qualify for proper health insurance. Here is a link:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm

Also, many people can’t afford health insurance. And, as a result, they are unable to get quality health care.

Anne wrote: “The idea of ‘government health care’ makes many of us think of other government programs such as the Indian Health Service or VA and ask ourselves if we really want all of us to Change to THAT. A doctor I know does a roaring cash business in joint replacements for Canadians in pain who would have to wait years for them under Canada's much admired (by the left)health service. Be open-minded, look at McCain's plan which improves access and competition to what is already serving most of us well.”

I’m not sure I see your point. But people should be able to have private health care if they want to. But we should also have a Medicare-like plan for whoever wants. It would make quality health care available to millions more people.

Ann wrote: “This has already been debunked today in the Newsweek article linked to in Rod's Factchecking post. You can check that out while you are doing your research.”

According to the Newsweek article, "Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to 'debate both sides' of the evolution question, but she also said creationism 'doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.'"

I'm not sure what the authors of the Newsweek article meant by “has not pushed for.” But Sarah Palin has publicly argued that creationism should be taught in the public schools. For instance, in a debate when she was running for governor, she argued:

"Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And, you know, I say this, too, as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It’s been a healthy foundation for me. But don’t be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

Here is a link to the transcript of the debate where Palin argued that creationism should be taught in the public schools:

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/102978

And here is a link to an article in the Anchorage Daily News on the subject of Palin’s arguing that creationism should be taught in the public schools in the gubernatorial debate:

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html

It is very important that we not teach creationism in the public schools. Creationism is false. And it is important not to teach kids that certain beliefs might be true, or are plausible, when those beliefs are known to be false. It would be like teaching students that the earth might be shaped like a pancake. However, it would be fine for teachers to say: "Some people believe that creationism is true. But they are mistaken. Creationism is false." And then it would be good for the teacher to go on and say why it is known that creationism is false.

Erin Manning:

No matter how you wish to define feminist, it always is the opposite of the woman who expresses a strong need for a man to be both her material provider and authority in the home.

You can't be a feminist while at the same time saying yes, women need men to provide materially for them, and most importantly, men must be have authority over the family or they will not play that family game. It's very simple why authority must follow men in family struture: men already are "separate" from the family to a large degree by going "out" to provide for said family. Culture must therefore give them authority at home when they drop their paycheck off. This is why, of course, why most successful and dominate cultures attach a child's name to a man and make him responsible for his child's behavior. Modern feminism is the culture that rejects this deal - our whole culture is feminist and hence demographically in the toilet.

My point above was merely that the woman who embraces a male's suthority at home and relies on his providence (the anti-feminist by any definition) will, over time, dominate the demographic landscape. This is, natch, why feminists have done so poorly in the breeding department, and are currently going the way of the Dodo and nobody will miss 'em.

The Palin feminist factor is front-and-center here. She is a real feminist, but through heroic focus she has found a way to be both a feminist and a high breeder (at the expense of her family, natch, no matter how much we wish deny it). She is thus the untimate feminist. But the fact is that she is highly unusual, in the top 5-10% of beauty and willpower and work ethic. Most women aren't like this, so she is merely a notable exception and her type (high-breeding feminists) will remain just that: an exception.

Btw, this analysis is merely a non-ideological reality. Personally think feminists are cute (in a tragic sort of way). But I would never wish to raise a family with one!

The Paglia article is choice. She is so clear-thinking and sensible; I hope someday she recognizes the error of many of her ideas.

I posted suggesting Palin as a representative of the "New Feminism" called for by Pope John Paul.

I agree with much of what Paglia has said... I also wonder how much of this has to do w/ guilty consciences on the abortion issue. There have been a lot of abortions in the last 50 years or so, and I'm sure not all of these women have come to terms with all of this... How much of the violent reaction against Palin is caused by guilt feelings among those who regret or repress their feelings about their own abortions, and those of their sisters / mothers / wives / girlfriends? I know a lot of this comes up when women have children of their own... For the childless (the vast majority of the anti-Palin women) could this be the first time they've really had to confront the reality of their own actions???

Oh, come now, Sig. You know me better than that. I'd never wring a hankie; I'd be much more likely to be urgently trying to convince the crowd not to give the "thumbs down" and call for the loser's execution.

And Mdavid, I don't agree with what you've written. It's one thing for a woman to accept her husband's authority in a truly Christian sense, and with the understanding that he, for his part, is willing to die for her if necessary (as Christ did for the Church; poor St. Paul is so misunderstood in that epistle passage). But I don't get the "relies on his providence" nor the idea that going out to work and dropping off a paycheck is a normal situation (see what I wrote above re: agricultural societies). Both a man and his wife ought to be relying on God's providence, not unduly elevating the man's paycheck to a position of greater importance than the unpaid drudgery by which the wife serves the family's greater good; this, just like feminism, puts a man and his wife in competition with each other, with the husband insisting that his wife owes him more respect and appreciation than he owes her. Moreover, I think this sort of attitude on the part of men will always *lead* to feminism, in that there's an underlying contempt for the woman and what she offers to the family, and a corresponding false worship of the money brought home by the husband as a tool of power.

You are right, Rod. That is a heck of a brilliant column by Paglia, and I agree with almost every point she makes. I guess I owe it to myself to start reading more Camille Paglia.

Regarding Sarah Palin's church, my brother attended a church with a very conservative pastor and views (somewhat similar to Palin's) for a number of years without losing either his good judgment or his capacity for independent thought.

I attend a very liberal church, and frequently find myself in disagreement with some of the statements made by both members and clergy. We shouldn't judge Palin solely on the basis of her church, though we certainly have every right to be curious about the tenets of that church. According to an NBC News Investigates piece I saw yesterday, Governor Palin has governed like a pragmatist, not an ideologue.

A note on class issues here. Most jobs outside the home available for women of the lower classes are not exactly exciting or fulfilling. Most women I know are not grateful for the chance to work at WalMart instead of being home with their kids, and blame "feminists" and the "sexual revolution" for creating a culture where it is only possible for the wealthy to have the option to stay home.