Posted on 03/19/2015 7:58:58 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I like Camille Paglia. She’s ornery and interesting, not subservient to the orthodoxies so stultifying to other public intellectual academic types of her acclaim.
Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie did an hour-long interview with the woman herself, and the whole thing is worth a watch (Or listen, as I did, while cleaning my house. How’s that for maximizing the intellectual potential of my gender conformity?). But here, for your viewing pleasure is Paglia on Hillary Clinton, coattail rider and enabler of a sexual criminal, as she puts it without compunction. It’s worth it just for the Rock-style eyebrow lift and Gillespie’s barely-contained reaction. I might make it my ringtone.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
In this clip, she also makes reference to the power disparity between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, which has always been one of the more problematic things about the whole incident and feminists’ dismissal of Clinton’s sins. I was just thinking about it today as Monica Lewinsky spoke at TED. The subject of her talk was cyberbullying, with Lewinsky plausibly claiming to be one of the first victims of this unfortunate Internet pastime. This is the part that got me.
She began her speech by joking she was the only 40-something who did not wish to be 22 again.
“At the age of 22, I fell in love with my boss. At the age of 24, I learned the devastating consequences.”
Look, Lewinsky was an adult at 22. She did something wrong. It’s also perfectly predictable that a 22-year-old intern might do something dumb and wrong when encouraged by her boss who happens to be the leader of the free world. As Paglia puts it, the “disparity of power…was one of the most grotesque ever,” and it would have been utterly inexcusable to feminists and Hillary herself in any workplace, except it was exploited in the service of a Democratic president. Not to mention the trashing of Bill’s various accusers. Paglia’s always been on the right side of this issue, calling out feminists for one of their most high-profile blind-eye-turnings.
I recommend the whole interview, but the various subjects are conveniently marked and hyperlinked here for your picking and choosing.
Mark for later
Paglia’s just great. I disagree with her as much as I agree with her, but man alive, what a keen mind and sharp wit.
‘Trying to follow her is like drinking from a fire hydrant.’
People described like this (I do no know of her - ) - - my ears cannot hear as fast as someone who insists on speaking fast - - -
As a former Leftie I can tell you this is a tactic cunning Lefties use to talk over someone. It’s what I find unlikeable about her. Orwell had a word for it in ‘’1984’’, ‘’duckspeak’’.
I don't disagree with the essence of what you are saying, but I disagree that Paglia engages in this. What I find the leftists do, and some on the right, unfortunately, is engage in shoddy debate tactics. The left reverts to this because most can offer no substance on why they think the way they do. Paglia is leaps and bounds away from this. She's a thinker. Her mind is going 1000 miles an hour and she wants to get it all out at once. I've seen the interviewer from Reason before. He's a pretty good interviewer, and I'm not trying to slam him too hard here, but I wish he had just let her go. If anything, I found her to be on quite a roll and was interested in her "train" of thought, and he interrupted her. But, granted, she would be a hard interview because ya gotta jump in sometimes. Ted Nugent is another one like this. I heard him on the Dennis Miller Show one time. Dennis Miller is never a loss for words, but he was pretty much so with Nugent...either that or he just sat back and enjoyed it with the rest of us. As Denver Pyle playing as Briscoe Darling said on the Andy Griffith Show, "Just jump in where you can and hang on!"
Paglia's not a journalist.
I didn't miss the point at all - I know what YOU are now.
I'm pretty sure I don't like it.
Hillary Clinton: Enabler of a sexual criminal.
LOL
Intellectual honesty is rare, especially on the left.
Thanks 2ndDivisionVet.
Back during the Clinton years—Whitewater days, WAAAY before Monica, I “found” both FR and Camille Paglia via Drudge. She was scathing to the hypocrisy of party only-D “good” -R “bad” shallow thinking of her fellow college professors. One of her earliest pieces I remember reading was about how Lyndon Johnson, in the US Senate in the late 50s blocked the Civil Rights Act (drafted by Rs) that he would late take credit for as President. She called out the re-writing of history. She earned my respect and she was in overdrive when the Lewinsky scandal hit.
She also is known for glowingly writing about savvy of “the working” classes who are looked down upon by the elitists who claim to politically represent the “little guy.” She suffers no fools or their hypocrisy.
Modern day feminists would stand with a rapist against a powerless woman IF the rapist was a democrat.
In short, with rare exception ‘feminists’ are as trashy as the worst men they railed against in the 70’s. Camille Paglia’s one of the few who has a principle beyond ‘getmedats’...
Interesting. I’m glad you are a former leftie! Maybe it’s the same concept of smokers who quit. They end up being the biggest anti-smokers around. Definitely interested in our evolution from the dark side. I was never what one would call a hard-core leftie, but just ignorant of things. Rush in 1998 steered me on the right path.
*YOUR evolution from the dark side...
With the Clintons we have a remarkably alarming case of what political power, its temptations, and the demands of its accession, can do to what might otherwise be relatively normal people. Neither one is remotely describable as normal; indeed, BJ Billy's political genius consists in a very convincing ability to fake it.
Not so She Who Must Not Be Named, who possesses a shriveled soul and no particular ability to discern it or desire to hide it. Her world conforms to her, and those parts of it that don't are to be destroyed. Such victims of a monomania for power always pay for it in the end, but the rest of us tend to pay for it first.
Same here.
And what am I most enlightened one?
That is not the paramount question. The paramount question is, how much do the Democrats pay you to hijack threads with farcical imitations of conservative thought?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.