Paglia: Continued

Full disclosure: I cherry picked the paragraphs here but, i also gave you enough continuity to ensure proper context. In fact, it is a continuous quote from the magazine. This is from her Salon interview on the release of “Glittering Images: A Journey Through Art From Egypt to Star Wars”. This is from 10 October 2012.

You know that I’m conservative with a bunch of libertarian leanings, Ms Paglia is a left libertarian, and in all honesty there not all that much room between us, as you’ll see. About the only thing I disagree completely with here is that the 60s radicals were libertarian, my read then and now is that they were anarchists which is considerably different but, we are agree on where the Democratic Party has gone.

I would also argue vociferously with what she wants to do with the money her ideas on foreign policy would save but it would be an honest disagreement, and whoever won, America would be well served. And my terrible three politicians would be different but, I understand hers.

Camille Paglia, and the fiery planet of Mustafar, from "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith." (Credit: Michael Lionstar/Salon)

Camille Paglia, and the fiery planet of Mustafar, from “Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.” (Credit: Michael Lionstar/Salon)

OK: Who are you going to vote for?

I am voting for the Green Party.

Oh, you are? I don’t even know who the Green candidate is. Who is it?

Jill Stein — a doctor from Massachusetts. Now, I wouldn’t be voting Green if Roseanne Barr had won the nomination, but Stein is a solid and sensible candidate. I don’t agree with everything the Green Party says, but I’m in tune with many of its basic positions. I’m remaining a registered Democrat because I still hope for the reform of my party. If the Republican candidate were Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich, I would certainly not be voting Green; I would be voting for and contributing to Obama again, as I did in 2008. There are three people on the political landscape whom I absolutely loathe — Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Dick Cheney — that delusional and mendacious war-monger. But I think that Mitt Romney is a moderate — like Nelson Rockefeller, who as governor of New York poured money into the state university system that educated me. Romney is an affable, successful businessman whose skills seem well-suited to this particular moment of economic crisis. Hence I want to use my vote to make a statement about my unhappiness with the Democratic Party and the direction it has taken. The biggest issue for me is the Obama administration’s continuation of endless war, war, war. I denounced the Iraq incursion before it even happened.

I remember that — it was in an interview with David Talbot for Salon.

It was when the cowardly major media were totally accepting the government line and the flimsy evidence that Colin Powell presented at the United Nations. It was only after the invasion had been launched — and the non-discovery of any weapons of mass destruction — that the media woke up and began its way-too-late critique. I have been revolted by the silence of the liberal mainstream media about Obama’s expansion of war — even beyond our pointless continued presence in Afghanistan. After 9/11, I was for bombing the hell out of the mountains of Afghanistan until Osama Bin Laden was caught or blown to smithereens. I certainly never believed that land troops should be used in Afghanistan. Good lord, look at the evidence of history — how ridiculous! Not only the defeat of the Soviet Union there — it goes all the way back to Alexander the Great! But the Libyan incursion is another example. The mainstream media behaved like robots as Hillary Clinton and Samanatha Power and who knows who else put pressure on Obama to go into Libya. What are we doing there? It’s absolutely madness! Then, all of a sudden, when the whole thing blows up and our ambassador is killed, Hillary is in a funk. Oh, dear, how could this have happened? In a country that we helped!

And what is the administration’s response to the murder of our ambassador? Nothing. Do we have a presidency or not? The ambassador’s journal was lying on the floor for CNN to find, and it took weeks for the FBI to get there and spend a day — after sensitive documents were stripped long ago. The State Department has clearly become a morass of political correctness. Hillary and U.N. ambassador Susan Rice should resign. Of course the mainstream media were mum for weeks about the Libyan scandal. And that just empowers the right-wing in the country. The media’s pampering and protection of Obama over the years simply led to his weakening — which was on excruciating public display at his first debate with Romney, who landed blow after blow.

So, the first reason I’m voting Green is the state of endless war. Second is the appalling rise in the military and domestic use of drones. I bought Medea Benjamin’s protest book about drones, and I agree with her. There is reason for great concern about the use of drones for police surveillance in the United States. This Democratic administration has gone very deep into the weeds here in offering incentives to local police departments to acquire drones, which are a serious threat to our civil liberties and right to privacy — which liberals should be defending. We’re on our way toward a Big Brother society.

My third reason for going Green is the creeping totalitarianism of Obamacare, which Jill Stein as a physician is rightly skeptical about. I began denouncing the Obamacare bill in my Salon column within two months after Obama’s inauguration. And I was also criticizing the President’s imprisonment within an insular circle of advisors who were not of sufficient quality and experience as administrators or strategists to sustain his presidency. If Democrats and their cohorts in the mainstream media had listened to me and begun criticizing the administration early on, there would have been ample time for a course correction and Obama would now be sailing into reelection.

But the childish naivete of so many supposedly well-educated liberals was shown by their complete failure to notice or remark on the most glaringly obvious deficiency in Obamacare: You cannot possibly expand medical coverage to millions of people without also expanding medical training and funding new clinics and hospitals. The total absence of that in the bill was ludicrous. And you still hear mush-minded liberals saying all the time in the media, “Oh, what about this nice provision or that?” When any of those things could have been easily dealt with by free-standing bills passed with bipartisan support.

The way liberals lay down flat to accept this massive, totalitarian takeover of the American medical system was shocking to me. Let’s remember how Bob Dylan broke out of folk music into the public sphere with his great song, “Subterranean Homesick Blues,” which was about the fascist intrusion of Big Brother government. It was about the FBI and the CIA and the police — faceless bureaucracies — intruding into our private lives. What in the world has happened to the Democratic Party? Its passivity towards this awful takeover of our lives by a know-it-all government, as shown by the way Obama has governed by constantly going around Congress — appointing czars and one new layer of bureaucracy after another. And hardly a peep of protest from liberals. It’s like the movie of H.G. Wells’ “The Time Machine” — Democrats have turned into the Eloi; they’re like sheep. They hear a signal, and it’s like pre-programmed spin in their heads — they just trot like sheep in one direction. I am voting Green in protest against the systemic corruption of my party.

Well, thanks for the exclusive. Totally agree on two subjects, Afghanistan and the growing surveillance state. But it seems like those are issues brought up — we raise them, other progressives raise them a lot — but part of why it never comes up is because the Republicans are completely complicit and would likely be worse in both of those areas.

Wait a minute, hold it, no! Listen — a huge point I want to make is that the protest against the surveillance state has, with only a few exceptions, been mainly coming from the Right and not from the Left! Talk radio has been seething with this issue for years. A good example is talk-show host Mark Levin’s “Liberty and Tyranny,” which was a No. 1 New York Times bestseller three years ago and yet got very few mainstream reviews. Democrats have got to wake up! This is why the Republican Party has gained and why the Democratic Party is in disarray — because the Democrats have lost one of their key signature issues from 1960s leftism. Why has the GOP become the freedom party?

A lot of the people who were critical of the growth of surveillance under Bush no longer care about it under Obama. That’s true. But you’re saying that it’s up to the Left, and the Democrats, to change that?

Yes. The Left must retake this issue of personal freedom and civil liberties. Over the last 20 years, freedom has become a conservative watch word, and liberals have lost their claim to it. There is a huge difference between contemporary upper-middle-class bourgeois Democratic liberalism and the fire-breathing 1960s leftism that was the mood of my college years. After all, it all began with the free speech movement at Berkeley! But liberals have now been trained to be docile and obedient. Last month, I was the featured speaker in a debate about gender roles at the Yale Political Union. At the dinner at Mory’s beforehand, the very bright and talented student organizers were telling me about how every academic year begins with a counseling session where they are instructed about the nature of sexual “consent.” So I said to them, do you understand that there is a level here of surveillance and control of your private lives that at the University of Paris would be considered grotesque? Why should the administration of any college be telling young people the way they should be interacting with each other? But these very able and promising students have been brought up in a culture of smothering paternalistic observation and control. It’s so authoritarian! But the students have been taught not to question it. To a ’60s libertarian dissident like myself, it’s really alarming.

But don’t you think the two parties have converged, have moved in the same direction, on surveillance and authoritarianism?

As someone who listens to talk radio, I must tell you that the issue of personal freedom and resistance to a swollen totalitarian government has become primary on the Right. Yes, the two parties have converged in their support of Wall Street and the military. But as with Richard Nixon going to Communist China, it may be only a Republican president who could close our excess number of military bases around the world. Why is there never a public review of our obscenely costly global presence? I believe in a strong military and in adequate funding for training and armaments, but we are seriously over-extended right now. This is where I completely agree with the Green Party. We are still stuck in a hopelessly outdated Cold War model.

And all that foreign aid — I’m sick of it! We go on and on throwing money down every corrupt rat hole in the world! Our tax dollars should be going to upgrade inner-city schools or paying for medical care for the elderly. Why aren’t Democrats in the forefront of proposing budget cuts in unnecessary government expenditures? They’ve sure made it so easy for Republicans to tag Democrats as reckless tax-and-spend liberals. And too many Democrats have fallen for the administration’s canard that we can restart the economy through more government spending.

So then, why not vote for Romney?

I cannot cast a vote for a party that cast so many votes in the primaries for the vile Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum! The Democrats may be naive about institutions and economics, but the Republicans seem to be culturally and psychologically naive in imagining for a single second that Newt Gingrich is a deep and erudite thinker! I watched that boomlet happen, and I thought, “What world do Republican voters inhabit if they mistake Gingrich’s glib, snickering, tittering snarkiness for depth and learning?”

No, the Republican Party has become very provincial in terms of culture. Nelson Rockefeller, in contrast, was a collector of first-rate abstract art! That’s one of the things I’m trying to remedy with my book. One of my target audiences is home-schooling moms — whose powerful voices I heard calling into conservative talk radio at the dawn of the Tea Party. They are formidable and capable personalities whom feminism has foolishly ignored.

Continue reading  In “Glittering” return, Paglia lets loose

She is especially right about the way the democrats have lost their way on totalitarian tendencies in our government. It is an issue, in fact it may be the issue for many of us on the right, but not many years ago the left would have been right there with us because in truth this is an

American Issue

 

South Carolina, my Opinion

English: Newt Gingrich at a political conferen...

Image via Wikipedia

OK, everybody is reporting the South Carolina results: Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Paul.

We all know how Gingrich got there: Offense is the best defense. Just ask John King. A man who will fight (even verbally) for Americans will find support from those Americans.

What exactly is Romney’s problem?

To start with; he’s very much the establishment candidate and the people do not find the establishment to be congruent with our needs and desires. That’s a pretty mild statement of the case. What a lot of us believe is that the establishment would rather lose to Obama than a conservative.

Bain Capital. Romney got rich. Yay, good for him, most of us don’t have any problem with that, that’s part of what made America great. (If done legally). Why does Romney seem to be embarrassed about it? He was apparently a good business man, so what’s the problem, he made money for his company and that’s the mission. He also created some (pick your own number here) jobs and that’s good, too.

He made enough money that he lives off his investments so he presumably pays about 15% capital gains tax as opposed to earned income (That’s a leftist term in there, by the way, having enough money to invest, doesn’t make your income from it unearned, any more than the pittance you get from Social Security is unearned. It’s earned the good old capitalist way, by investing wisely.) Again good for him. There shouldn’t be any capital gains tax, that money was already taxed as income but, that’s a battle for another day. He seems to be embarrassed about this too. Why? Release your tax returns or don’t, hardly anybody is going to understand them anyway. Indecisiveness and stalling is not what we need in our President right now (actually anytime). If we wanted a Ditherer-in-Chief we’d vote for Obama.

Character Counts: Willard has been on every side of every issue at some time. None of us were born thinking exactly the way we do now.  We learn. The old chestnut is true “If you’re not under 30 and not a liberal, you have no heart; If your over 30 and not a conservative, you have no brain.” As we trek through life, we learn things. Things that work. Things that don’t work. Witness Gingrich, he acted as a cad most of his life, repented and seems to be trying to do the right thing, we respect that.

Running around telling people what you (or your advisers) think they want to hear isn’t good politics, it’s prostitution. Maybe it used to work sometimes but, were paying attention this year, and you can’t hide behind the so-called media anymore.

Reference the media, they may love you now, Willard, but they’re fickle lovers, if you got the nomination, they’d desert you in a New York minute. You’re the girl that’s available, Obama’s the girl they love. Ask John McCain.

Romney-care: He must be really proud of this illegal socialistic monstrosity. Here we have a candidate that has flip-flopped on every issue, except the one that means he cannot win the nomination, and if he did could not win against Obama. The thing is, Romney-care tells us as nothing else could that Romney is just another progressive that knows better than we do what is good for us. That’s my parent’s role, not my government’s. Let me make and pay for my own mistakes.

Santorum

I know he carries some baggage that I’d like him to explain from the end of his time in the Senate. But overall, I like him and like him a lot. He talks about things I care about; America, people who work for a living, respect for tradition, the Constitutions, Life, Hunting, and other things. I supported Perry, as most know, now I support Santorum. But to make it happen he better get it together for a long campaign haul. I have doubts that he can do it. We’ll see.

Paul

Crazy Uncle Ron needs to study history. I’ve said all I’m going to about him.

So, far we have three primaries and three winners, I like it this way. the longer we can keep the Democrats and media (but I repeat myself) off-balance, the better. I could even live with a brokered convention.

On to Florida

Obama=Mittens, Perry and Romney, Oh My

Actually my title is somewhat unfair, to Obama who has never made any real secret of his beliefs and has acted in accordance with them, however misguided they are.

I’ve been saying (with a lot of company) that Romney is Obama’s second term. From the Wall St. donors list, to the rest of the crony capitalism crap, Romney’s not conservative, he’s not liberal, he’s not even a moderate. What he is, is a whore, for sale to the highest bidder.

A note, I’ve been out pretty much all day and haven’t done much research (no, really, it’s not because Wikipedia is still down, it really is a time thing). I do plead guilty, though, to using Wikipedia a lot for minor noncontroversial things, and I respect them for their stand on SOPA. Anyway, I’m going to combine a couple of things from friends of mine tonight, I think they’ll each like the others work.

First off via Mark America (follow the link for his article) comes one of the most incredible videos I’ve seen. You remember that Ann Barnhardt video that Mark and I both ran last week? Somebody has taken that and done a remarkable job of editing that reinforces her points beyond doubt. It is long and there is some strong (NSFW) but nothing I don’t hear on a job site everyday.

If you’re voting in the Republican primary to re-elect Obama it is very easy: Vote Romney.

I think we all know that Texas has a fair amount of ‘Pay to Play’ (actually most states do) but Perry may have taken this a bit far. BlogsensebyBarb has found a piece originated at salon.com detailing some background on ‘Pay-to-Play’ in Governor Perry’s Texas (guess what, Mitt Perry makes a cameo appearance here too). Given Salon’s politics, I’m not giving this full value at first look. I’m going to look into it more, but you know what they say about smoke and fire.

A new lawsuit reveals contradictory stories about an illicit $1 million campaign contribution from “Swift Boat” funder.

October 3, 2011 |

This story originally appeared at Salon.

“Follow the money” is an elementary rule for understanding American politics, and in the case of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the money trail leads to a case of apparent money laundering that involves his Republican presidential rival Mitt Romney and a $1 million contribution from the same Texas tycoon who bankrolled the “Swift Boat” attacks against the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.

Bobby Jack “Bob” Perry, a residential construction magnate in Houston, is not related to Rick Perry by blood, only money. But there has been lots of that. As with the Swift Boaters to whom he donated $4.45 million, Bob Perry ranks as the single largest donor to Rick Perry during the latter’s 10 years as governor of Texas, according to official figures tabulated and analyzed by Texans for Public Justice, a nonprofit watchdog group in the state capital of Austin.

Bob Perry contributed $2,531,799 directly to Rick Perry from January 2001 to July 2011, TPJ reports in “Crony Capitalism: The Republican Governors Association in the Perry Years.” That puts him well ahead of such other notable donors as Koch Industries, the energy conglomerate owned by David and Charles Koch, the chief funders of the Tea Party, and Contran Corp., whose efforts to establish a nuclear waste dump in Texas have succeeded thanks to regulators appointed by Perry. (As Justin Elliott reported this week, Perry is also a leading funder of Karl Rove’s American Crossroads political action committee.)

Read Barb’s article here.

What should have been a triumphal conservative follow-up to the TEA Party led victory in 2010 has degenerated to this? How shameful.

I am quickly coming to the dismal conviction that Rick Santorum, for all his numerous flaws, some of which I consider serious, is best least bad we’re going to get. I cannot stomach Obama, but I’m not sure that Romney is anything but his second term. Actually he is because Romney will guarantee Obama’s second term and probably a democratic Senate (at least) as well.

Short Note:

With reference to the SOPA/PIPA protest today it worked pretty well for pressuring Congress apparently but, Silicon Valley had best be thinking about how to stop the piracy of copyrighted materials instead of just screaming censorship. Google for one, has a serious almost-plan for disrupting offenders cash flow. Something targeted is a good idea, it’s also why I was so late on climbing on this bandwagon.

Update:

Following a tweet from Ann Barnhardt this morning, I now know who produced the video above, in all its hilariousness, and I am pleased to say it appears to be one of my fellow Nebraskans, and you thought we didn’t do anything but grow corn.

Anyway, she posted this, this morning:

I started making this video the night of Thursday, January 12, 2012. I uploaded it to YouTube, after pulling an all-nighter to get it finished, around 6:00AM on Tuesday, January 17, 2012. I made the video. Me. No one helped me. No one paid me…although, if anyone would like to, the “tip jar” is right over there —>

I made the video because I really don’t want to see Mitt Romney as the President of the United States because I’ve never believed that he is ANYTHING that he has said that he is. I’ve always felt that Mitt Romney says whatever he feels will be the best thing he can say to whatever audience he is speaking to.

Read the rest of her post, and check out her videos.

Great Job, Shelly.

Romney: the Loser’s Bet

You all know, who read this blog regularly that I support Rick Perry, I’ve told you why, and I’ll add that my second choice is Rick Santorum. That said, here are the reasons that I cannot support Mitt Romney.

Have you noticed that the establishment of the Republican party wants us to nominate Romney? I speak for nobody but me but, I do NOT believe Romney can win. Why:

  • Romney-care. While it may be marginally constitutional on the state level, it is the father of Obamacare. Obamacare is the issue on which some  60% + of the American people agree with us. Nominate Romney and we lose that issue. If the Supreme Court doesn’t find it unconstitutional, and that’s decidedly in question, it will be in force forever, just like the other entitlements. It’s now or never. Does the establishment care? In a word: NO. If you haven’t noticed the establishment is all for big government. LOSE
  • Bain Capital. Romney’s record is somewhat defensible but, it’s complicated and most of our countrymen aren’t going to take the time to understand. There are also a lot of ties to the big Wall St. banks which will have to be defended, I don’t know about you but this makes me uneasy. If I’m uneasy, what are Americans who don’t pay attention going to listen to? Yep, slogans from Obama, and sound bites from Newt and Perry. Also, Bain relied a lot on government (at all levels) to make their schemes work. See the history of Steel Dynamics for more.
  • Electability. Romney won election once as Massachusetts governor, he chose not to run for reelection. As nice as his family seems, I doubt he really wanted to spend more time with them. He figured he was going to lose. Does he really think it’s going to be easier to beat Obama? I don’t. Obama’s entire skill set is in getting elected, honestly, dishonestly, by whatever means necessary. To beat Obama you need very enthusiastic people. Know anybody enthusiastic about Romney? I Don’t. LOSE
  • Independents. The conventional wisdom is that Romney will appeal to moderates and independents. How? By being all things to all men? It’s never worked before. What appeals to independents is someone who (whatever his beliefs) knows himself. Why? Because with a man (or woman) of character, you know what to expect. We knew, within reason, what Obama was all about, as we do with Santorum, Perry, Paul, even Gingrinch. It’s not very dignified to have your finger stuck up in the wind all the time. Not to mention that we did this with Dole and McCain, How did that work out for us? LOSE
  • Charisma. This covers a lot but part of it is, would you like to follow Romney much of anywhere? Me neither. Anybody interested in having a beer with Romney? Yawn. Think he’s going to have any coattails to help candidates on lower levels? Fill in your own questions here, I think you’ll find the same answers. LOSE

This isn’t a bullet point because it’s not well enough formed in my mind. Do you think the Republican establishment (and in general the Ruling Class) would rather have Obama or a conservative win? Remember the Republican establishment is just as much about big government as the Democrats are. Conservatives threaten that entire thing about doing business as usual, and that’s far more important to them than defeating Obama.

One other thing, Mark America picked up in that interview that Christie did with Oprah. Christie says that he’ll be more ready in to run for President in 2016. I’d say that’s true. But if he believes that Romney is going to win, why would he assume that he won’t be running for reelection in 2016. Seems to me he should have said 2020 unless he believes that Romney will lose.

I can’t speak for you but I have a strong preference for nominating a candidate I can believe in, even if we lose (which if it’s a proper campaign, I don’t believe  we will) and not the establishment’s it’s-my-turn candidate who’s basically Obama-Lite. Mittens, indeed. LOSER!!!

Archbishop Cranmer on on Sen Santorum

Thomas Cranmer, principal author of the Forty-...

Image via Wikipedia

I’m sure you all remember Thomas Cramner, Archbishop of Canterbury who was appointed by King Henry VIII. Amongst other things he wrote the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, and the 39 Articles an Anglican statement of faith. He was burned at the stake by Catholic Queen Mary.

Anyway, His Grace for some obscure reason has returned and for sometime has been writing a blog from his, to say the least, unique viewpoint. Not long ago, he wrote about our Presidential election, specifically his view of Senator Santorum‘s views on Islam, Muslims, and EUrabia. His view is interesting. An excerpt follows:

But Rick Santorum is not a JFK kind of Roman Catholic: while Mr Santorum would feed on the orthodox feast provided by the Catholic Herald, Mr Kennedy would have delighted in the more liberal and progressive fare served up by The Tablet. In BBC terms, Rick Santorum is a ‘fundamentalist Catholic’, after the fashion of Pope Benedict XVI. Some will find the label oxymoronic, but we’re talking in the vernacular. To many, Rick Santorum is a ‘social conservative extremist’ because he favours amending the Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and to overturn the Supreme Court’s ‘Roe v Wade’ ruling on a woman’s right to choose to abort her baby. Essentially, he views the Presidency as a religio-political office – an instrument of governance instituted by God for the propagation of biblical values. Besieged by wars and rumours of war, economic meltdown and sin such as we have not seen since the days of Noah, he stands four-square in the millennialist tradition, believing Washington can usher in the Second Coming.

Mr Santorum’s policy priorities chime with the primary social concerns of American Evangelicals – poverty, abortion and homosexuality. But he will struggle for credibility in this constituency for as long as he believes that contraception should be illegal. And yet, and yet…

It is what Rick Santorum has to say about Islam, Muslims and EUrabia which merits rather more scrutiny, for it gives clues to what would be his foreign policy concerns. He is on record for a speech he made shortly after being ousted a senator in 2007, in which he talked of the need to ‘define the enemy’. It is averred that he ‘made little effort to distinguish between the general population of Muslims and violent Islamic extremists. If anything, he seemed to conflate the two’. He said:
“What must we do to win? We must educate, engage, evangelize and eradicate.”

I recommend that you read the entire post here.

There is quite a bit more hear, all of it good information. Enjoy.

%d bloggers like this: