I regularly read Camille Paglia's column on salon.com. I think that part of the attraction for me is the sheer audacity and viciousness that she sometimes displays.... towards other progressives! She is a self-described progressive feminist, and a lesbian to boot. Honestly, for me its utterly bizarre to read the thing she writes considering the demographic she comes from. I can't compute how she can refer to global warming as "the new liberal theology," the assumption of human culpability with respect to global warming as an "act of hubris" and Ellen DeGeneres' meltdown on national TV as an act worthy of a "Raspberry Award for worst performance by a lesbian icon." Wow. Really. WOW.

For me this is incredibly compelling. Camille really is the sort of devastating woman that I'd love to share a drink with. I wonder if (e:lauren) hates her. I suspect that she's more dedicated to feminism and Democrats in general than what people expect out of her... which is of course involves ascribing to radical progressive dogma commonly associated with people like her. Anyway, if there is a feminist out there that other feminists hate, I'm definitely interested in what the hoopla is about.

Click here to see what I mean - - topics include Hillary Clinton (and who would be a better female Presidential candidate), global warming and Norman Mailer. I have to say, I think she takes cheap shots (what liberals don't? I just listened to an hour of Paul Krugman doing it on NPR describing his new book) but is entirely fair about Norman Mailer.

Hey ladies, did you know that you can learn make assumptions about your man based on what gaming platform he prefers?



I can't fucking believe that somebody got paid to write this.

Speaking of writing, I was reading last week's Artvoice (its officially obsolete as of today) and was delighted to read the "Ask Anyone" section on the inside of the back page. I was born to write these sorts of responses to peoples questions, given my cynical and humorous approach. The "gay perspective" is particularly funny. I really should be writing these for Artvoice, but until that happens I'll simply post my own responses here for you to enjoy.

Q1.

I have two questions:

1. I have a friend who uses the wrong words all the time - like he'll say, "Oh, this weather is grandiose today." Should I correct him?

2. I have another friend whose table manners are not very good. He is about to be interviewed for law jobs, and I know the firms will take him out to eat. Should his friends (I'm not the only one who notices) tell him how to use a fork and so on?

I really like these guys and I don't want to offend them, and I know I'm not perfect.

- Buffalo Guy

Ronald Raygun says (the responses in the article have pseudonyms so why can't I?): Considering that your own grammar is... like utterly shocking like, why should you be the one to correct your friend? Personally I think that your objections to his language has more to do with you than it does him. You find his language annoying - fair enough. I suggest you learn how to use an adjective before attempting to correct anybody. You think you are clever and you are not. In England they would refer to you as a muppet - would you accuse them of speaking improper English as well?

As for your friend with table manners, thats an entirely different story. Consider this - we are talking about lawyers here, not about the fucking Queen of England. I find it hard to believe that your friend eats like a caveman. Lawyers occupy the lowest professional rung so lets not put them on a pedestal, okay? If you think that your friend should be trained to hold his knife and fork only in specific hands in order to be able to impress a lawyer, I have to say that you think too highly of the profession.

I'm starting to think that one of two things must be true; either all of your friends are knuckle-dragging neanderthals that cannot speak English or eat properly, or it is you that desperate needs some counseling despite your laughable caveat about not "being perfect" yourself. Leave your friends alone - your obsession with their "faults" are patently obvious and deserve more careful study than table manners ever would.

Q2.

Help! I think I'm falling in love with a guy who drives a Hummer with a Bush-Cheney sticker on it. (My friends don't even call him by his name; they just refer to him as 'the Republican'). Should I get out now, and risk losing someone great, or stick around and risk ending up with Archie Bunker? And if I don't stay, does that mean I'm as intolerant and prejudiced as I thought he would be?

- Lefty Leaving

Ronald Raygun says: Your friends are idiots if they refer to someone you love solely on his political ideology and not his name. If you actually loved this guy as you claim you do, you wouldn't tolerate this immature nonsense and you sure as hell wouldn't speculate that he may end up being Archie Bunker. Its obvious to me that you don't love him, and its obvious to me that you are being bigoted. You've suspected this yourself, so I can't say that this should be a surprise to you. You are assuming he is a bigot based on his political ideology (you would certainly know by now if in his heart of hearts he is a bigot), and then you turn and ask if not being able to tolerate his politics makes you a bigot yourself. The answer to this question is: of course it does. You should get out; not for your sake but for his. He doesn't deserve this sort of behind-the-back, sordid evaluation. If James Carville and Mary Matalin can make it, I'm sure that you and Mr. Hummer could. You're shallow and have a narrow world view that prohibits you from entering relationships with people you disagree with and make a litany of assumptions about.

The issue isn't him but you - trust me. If politics is the hang-up that makes a relationship unworkable for you, then you deserve Chairman Mao and not Archie Bunker. The complaint isn't the Hummer but the politics - it seems that you enjoy an affluent lifestyle. If you want a provider with deep pockets and a liberal worldview, call John Corzine. I hear he is a risk taker and enjoys having gas guzzling SUVs he is riding in drive at excessive speeds.

Tired of wondering where Mr. Right is? Listen to this lady to avoid your pitfalls. You might get uncomfortable reading what she says.

Salt Lake City - I think they are sending me there next week for a days work, not including a day of travel. Anybody know if its a dry city?



It is beautiful though.

Before I get into the Pakistan stuff I wanted to highlight this blog entry from MSN Money. Its an excellent entry about the economic realities of "shopping for a better world" as well as the ludicrousness of a $5/lb. heirloom turkey. She makes a lot of points about shopping at Wal-Mart that are absolutely correct - its real easy to put yourself on a soapbox when you can actually afford more expensive groceries. Activists often never consider how their self-righteousness actually affects people they didn't think about to begin with... due to said self-righteousness. I think a larger point is also made, although its unspoken - if you eat gourmet on Thanksgiving, you just might be a douchebag. Thats my take on it though!

Pakistan - I'm appalled at what is going on there. I think our government made a critical mistake putting all our GWOT eggs in one Pakistani basket - now we are reaping what we are sowing. However, if you've paid attention to American history at all, you'd know that this isn't the first, the second or even the third time that we have allied ourselves with disturbing individuals. Noam Chomsky will bore you to tears talking about it. During WWII we were allied with Communist Russia; during the Iran-Iraq war, we backed Saddam Hussein. It has always been done in the spirit of living with working with a lesser enemy if it means the destruction of a greater enemy. This is how the US of A, for better or worse, has always done things.

In particular, the US Congress has the power to eliminate funding that Pakistan currently enjoys. Why don't they do it? I have to say, Democrats have been incredibly disappointing. We went through an entire election cycle filled to the brim with anti-Bush bullshit and Democrats ended up riding a Blue Dog wave to a slimmest of majorities in the Senate and an unstable majority in the House. The Kool-Aid drinking non-thinkers actually are blaming President Bush when in fact the one group of people that could affect Musharraf the most at this point (from an American perspective, anyway) is actually a bi-partisan Congress with a backbone. After their exhilarating veto override of the recent $23 billion pork barrel water bill that was rolled down the aisles of Congress, you'd think they would be up for a fight against something they all should deplore.

So, why is nothing being done? Congress are sitting on their hands because of the same reasons that war funding hasn't been cut off yet - there is absolutely no political will to make a decision that could have a directly negative result. What about the Bush Administration? At first their lack of action and cautioned words puzzled me until the obvious answer struck - there is no interest, despite how shady Musharraf is, to have a nuclear Pakistan with a power vacuum of any sort. Meddling in other countries affairs has left egg on our faces twice (or more, if your heart bleeds for those Communist revolutions Reagan snuffed in the 80's) in the last 50 years. I hesitate to say that the Bush Administration is being wisely cautious, since the two words almost never go together let alone separately in a convo about President Bush. Certain political realities and self-interest are precluding us from doing the right thing - we can leave it at that.

The Administration is unsure about to what degree they can actually affect things in Pakistan at the moment. These aren't the days of the CIA in the 60's where we can go in covertly and place in a figurehead. These days we replace leaders by direct military force. Remember - Pakistan to a degree is radicalized and people there definitely love Osama more than Musharraf. Nobody is interested in having that country fall into Islamicist hands. At the moment it appears that Bhutto would certainly be the leader and essentially is the leader, if not officially at least in spirit. She has twice been removed on allegations of corruption, and it has to be mentioned that under her government she directly funded and gave military support to the Taliban. Now she says she is against them. So, how do you choose between an aspiring dictator and a former Taliban supporter who "allegedly" skimmed off of government contracts and banked nearly $2 billion in Switzerland? If its to be believed, she is no different than Saddam Hussein was in terms of ripping off her own people for personal gain.

In the end, I always say that as long as the people want it, democracy should win every time. The truth is that it doesn't. We cannot force Musharraf to resign any more than we could have prevented the coup that put him in power. Its an obvious problem, however, that the world is looking to us for a strong condemnation and because we are unsure of the outcome we say very little. Then again, never in the course of American history have we held our allies to a higher standard. I love my country - there is no better on earth. Immigrants even break the law to come here for a better life. However, there are two things that I can say make me embarrassed to be American; the first is our legacy of slavery and the second is our seemingly time-tested need to ally with dysfunctional leaders in order to protect or pursue our own interests. Couldn't we have done better than Pakistan and Musharraf? Personally I don't care if Bhutto is corrupt - if the people want her, they should have her. They can sort out their own mess later, but I suspect if she was overthrown twice there is nothing stopping her from being overthrown a third time - perhaps by the Taliban.