Your Alert Header
Your alert message goes here.
Astro Kid NJ: Video: Later With Bob Costas: Camille Paglia Trashes Gloria Steinem Wing of Feminism, in 1992
Good thing that Camille Paglia was never a U.S. Senator. Because they would never be able to shut her up. They would never be able to go home, Congress would always be in session, because the Senate was always in session. The House would be on vacation, with the Senate always open for business. Well always open to listen to Camille Paglia, if they hear very fast. Congress would have to create a new police force of Sergeant of Arms who would simply be there to shut Camille Paglia up and get her to yield the floor. To some poor freshman senator, whose been waiting for months to finally be able to speak on the floor. Because Senator Paglia has been speaking the whole time.
But having said all of that, I probably agree with just about Camille Paglia says about radical Feminists. People who I call man-hating dykes who essentially hate straight men and male masculinity. And are always putting down straight men, especially Caucasian men and especially Anglo-Saxon Caucasian men with southern or rural backgrounds. It’s not feminism or Feminists who are the problem. What they believe in is very mainstream. Which is equal rights and treatment for women under law. That men and women should be treated equally under law and not given special treatment either way for simply being a man or women. Which all Americans believe in. Well everyone to the Left of Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum, but not has Far-Left as radical Feminists who see women as better than men.
As far as Anita Hill, I’m one of the last people who would ever be a fan of U.S. Justice Clarence Thomas. Never heard of the man before President Bush appointed him to the Supreme Court in the summer of 1991. Shouldn’t be surprising since I was only 15 at that point. But even back then it seemed somewhat surprising to me that Anita Hill would finally make public her allegations once the Thomas Senate confirmations hearings finally started in I believe October of 1991. Maybe Professor Hill thought she should’ve been the one appointed to the Supreme Court in 1991, instead of her former boss Clarence Thomas.
I use to see Camille Paglia as the right-wing nut who put down feminism because Feminists wanted equal treatment for women. I use to put her in the same category as Ann Coulter. And saw Camille as Ann’s roommate at nut house. But thank God for education, because without that I wouldn’t of learned more about her and learn that it is not feminism, equal rights, equal treatment that she was putting down. She was putting down militant feminism and political correctness. Bill Maher had the best line in this video that he called his show Politically Incorrect, because he wanted to give liberalism a good name. That is sort of what Camille Paglia is about as well.
Maher and Paglia are two of the most anti-politically correct people you’ll ever meet. They aren’t fans of political correctness from either the Left or Right and most of it probably does come from Left. Political correctness are about as illiberal and anti-liberal as anything can get. Because it violates the most important aspect of liberalism and personal freedom. Which is the right to speech and the ability for people to express themselves and speak openly. Because someone in the political correctness, the Far-Left really will be offended by it. “Making jokes about Caucasian men and right-wing women is okay, but everyone else is unacceptable.” For political correctness supporters.
And what Camille Paglia and perhaps Bill Maher are saying is that the problem with feminism is not feminism. But militant feminism, this idea that women shouldn’t be treated equally, but better. And there other issue has to do with political correctness. That again people should feel free to express themselves especially if they are correct, even if that means it might offend someone. Like racial or ethnic minorities, women of all ethnicities and races. Or the political correctness Left. That people should be able to be themselves and express themselves, but then they also make themselves open to criticism as well.
Give Camille Paglia five minutes to talk and two days later she might still be speaking and about the same subject. She seems very pissed off and energized in this interview. But I actually agree with a lot of the points that she’s making here about feminism. That she’s a feminist in the sense that she believes in equal rights and equal opportunity. That women or men shouldn’t be denied access simply for being female or male. I believe in the same things accept that as a man and a straight one at that, (ha ha) I’m not sure that I can qualify as a feminist. But maybe that is a subject or debate for a different time.
But perhaps Camille Paglia’s larger point or the one these stresses more is that women or men shouldn’t be judged better simply for being a women or man. Her critique about Feminists is not about mainstream Feminists who believe in equal rights and equal opportunity. But against people who are called militant Feminists. People, women especially who believe that women are superior to men and therefore should be treated better and should be running the world. And those are the Feminists that I break away from not as a man, but simply as a Liberal who believes in equal rights and opportunity.
William F. Buckley is someone who I at least call a Classical Conservative, as well as Libertarians and even Liberals such as myself should definitely respect, if not like and I believe like as well. Because he was a very intelligent and honest man who gave his views based on facts and evidence. And someone who went with the evidence and not a pure ideologue in the sense that he kept a position no matter what even when the facts and evidence changed. And that he was also a real Conservative. Not a big government supporter on the Right, but someone who believed in both economic and personal freedom.
Bill Buckley is not the father of American conservatism. But he’s the father of the American conservative movement as far as making it a national movement and something big enough to the point that it could compete with Liberals and Progressives and people further left than that by the 1960s. Richard Nixon becoming President of the United States by 1969 has something to do with Bill Buckley and his National Review and other writings. To go along with Barry Goldwater and the Goldwater Conservatives of the mid and late 1960s.
Bill Buckley I believe is the first of the likable Modern Conservatives. Someone with strong center-right conservative to conservative-libertarian leanings and someone who could and would defend his position to any point. But do it in a way where he didn’t make his positions and rhetoric disrespectful and personal. He would attack and critique his opponents case and views. But not attack them personally and make his positions based on facts and solid evidence. And not simply just throw things out there and demagogue the other side. Which again are reasons why Conservatives, Libertarians, Progressives and Liberals should respect if not like him.
“1960s Counterculture and Libertarianism”, seems like a strange title to me. And you might say that, “well its the title of your piece, so why did you call it that?” That would be partly true, but the title of this piece has to do with the title of Brian Doherty 2007 book about 1960s counter-culture and libertarianism. But why is that a strange title to me? I’ll tell you anyway, because libertarianism wasn’t even a term back then. They came around in the early 1970s with the creation of the Libertarian Party. Which isn’t much bigger today then it was back in 1972 or so. And I’m not saying there weren’t Libertarians back in the 1960s, because of course there were. Milton Friedman comes to mind and even Ayn Rand, but they were called other things.
People who believed in individual liberty back then were called Liberals and Conservatives. But they had different versions of what individual liberty meant to them. And I’m not talking about the Religious-Right or the New Left. But true Liberals and Conservatives not trying to change the definitions of those terms, but who truly believed in liberalism and conservatism. Conservatives who believes in conserving liberty and conserving the state and not expanding it. And Liberals who believed in expanding liberty for people who don’t have it and protecting liberty for people who don’t have it yet.
And that is where Libertarians come in and that is what gave them their opening. Because Libertarians didn’t want to conserve the state, or expand the state. But they want to expand liberty and they believe the way you that is by shrinking the state and getting government almost completely out of people’s lives. And just leaving government to protect our freedom from predators who would take it away. And by doing this both economic and personal liberty would be expanded to people who don’t have it yet. Which is much different from the Conservative who wants to conserve freedom and decentralize government, but not shrink it. And the Liberal who wants to use government to expand liberty both personal and economic.
One thing that I believe Libertarians can at least respect if not like about the 1960s counter-culture movement. Not the New Left crowd that was not just anti-war and use of force from government and wanting to tear down the American liberal democratic form of government and economic system. And replace it with a socialist collectivist model. But the anti-establishment movement that believed people should be free to live their own lives and even live differently from their parents and grandparents. Which is really individual liberty is about, right. The liberty for the individual to live their life the way they see fit, just as long as they aren’t hurting any innocent person.
I couldn’t dream up a stranger trial than the Manson Family trial of the 1970s. It’s not just that you had so-called Hippies involved, except for Charlie Manson who was label all to himself. He was just purely anti-establishment to the point that he didn’t believe that any laws applied to him because of how society screwed with him his whole life. And that he was entitled to get back in any way he saw fit. So perhaps criminal anarchist would be the best way to describe him. And then you throw in his so-called family, a crime family criminal gang really and his soldiers being doped up all the time and you have a script that Hollywood couldn’t dream up.
What California or I guess Los Angeles County had against Charles Manson was the facts. And an army of witness’s that could back up the facts. Including Manson’s own soldiers former soldiers. Now since Manson never physically acted in the murders except for ordering them, the prosecutors led by Vince Bugliosi had to prove that Manson ordered them. And prove which solders that he selected to carry out these murders of actress Sharon Tate and several others. And that is where the witness’s come in and all the evidence that they left at the Spawn Ranch where the Manson Family lived.
Not a conventional case where you have lets say one murderer whose guilty of murdering at least one person. And you basically know the defendant is guilty based on the current evidence at hand. And it is just a matter of showing and proving how murder or murders by the defendant happened. The motive, the opportunity, the weapon and everything else. And looking at things like DNA, witness’s if any, lack of an alibi and everything else. With this case you have to prove that one man ordered a certain group of people to murder several others. Without the leader actually saying, “go murder these people over here and at this time.”
Based on this interview and the fact they were talking about Rudy Giuliani the way they did, I would have to think this show was done in 2007-08, when Representative Paul ran for president the second time. And I mention that because Bill Maher I believe was still calling himself a Libertarian back then. And I think he even called Ron Paul his political hero. How four years or less can really change your political philosophy, or at the very least how someone displays what is supposed to be their politics.
Because Maher is still pretty liberal when it comes to free speech and defending the right to speak hate and say really insulting things and is still anti-political correctness. And some other key social issues involving civil liberties and personal freedom. But he’s way over the left now on economic policy and even calling for caps on how much money Americans should be allowed to make. And that we need a European sized superstate to take care of everyone. And that government should be completely running things like health care, health insurance, education and I’m sure some key areas of the economy.
I’m not sure how someone can say that government should stay almost completely out of people’s affairs as long as we aren’t hurting people, which is where Bill Maher was 7-8 years ago, can then say that government doesn’t mind the business of the people enough. And that we have too much choice and individualism to manage our own economic affairs at least. Wait, I got it, I know how someone can do that because it has been done before. Just ask Arianna Huffington. Who made a very similar political transition just 10-15 years ago.