Camille Paglia on the Foley scandal:
Foley is obviously a moral degenerate, and the Republican House leadership has come across as pathetically bumbling and ineffectual. But the idea that this is some sort of major scandal in the history of American politics is ludicrous. This was a story that needed to be told for, you know, like two days.
. . .The way the Democratic leadership was in clear collusion with the major media to push this story in the month before the midterm election seems to me to have been a big fat gift to Ann Coulter and the other conservative commentators who say the mainstream media are simply the lapdogs of the Democrats. Every time I turned on the news it was "Foley, Foley, Foley!" -- and in suspiciously similar language and repetitive talking points.
. . .I was especially repulsed by the manipulative use of a gay issue for political purposes by my own party. I think it was not only poor judgment but positively evil. Whatever short-term political gain there is, it can only have a negative impact on gay men. . . . Gay men through history have always been more vulnerable to public hysteria than are lesbians....
Not only has the public image of gay men been tarnished by the over-promotion of the Foley scandal, but they have actually been put into physical danger. It's already starting with news items about teenage boys using online sites to lure gay men on dates to attack and rob them. What in the world are the Democrats thinking? . . . You'd expect this stuff from right-wing ideologues, not progressives.
And she's absolutely right.
26 Comments for “La Paglia”
posted by raj on
A few years ago, Camille “Motormouth” Paglia had a regular column in Salon. I quickly learned that her commentaries were nothing more than “diarrhea of the mouth, constipation of the brain” and “I–self-described lesbian–hate gay men.”
I wouldn’t put a lot into what she writes. But, unlike Stevie, I’m not a recovering lefty.
posted by Avee on
Is there anyone raj will not disparage? Is there any posting he doesn’t spit on? Raj, baby boobie jerkie, go haunt some other site and do us all a favor. Note, also, rajie makes no point aginst Paglia – he just spits from his garbage mouth. Again. He’s the sort of blog troll that never adds to constructive debate. And hey, he succeeded in diverting what could have been an interesting discussion on Paglia. Congrats, troll face. You win!
posted by kittynboi on
I don’t like her either, Much of her political talk in that article made it sound like he was still stuck in 2004 and had not been paying attention to all that has happened then.
And many of her opinions in general seem to be nothing but moralizing grandstanding; I rarely if ever see her offer up a coherent argument for anything she says. Most of it just seems like self assured arrogant bluster.
posted by etjb on
It is the Congressmans own fault for whatever his failings cause in terms of his career or the larger public.
posted by Antaeus on
“Gay men through history have always been more vulnerable to public hysteria than are lesbians….” Seems to me that we’d be well to listen to her tough love. While her characteristic style is to overstate the case, she nevertheless tells some hard truths, much as did the Trojan Cassandra of her beloved classics. Beware of false friends! (But that’s no brief for your open enemies, either!)
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Paglia wrote: “It’s already starting with news items about teenage boys using online sites to lure gay men on dates to attack and rob them.”
On this point, it should be stressed repeatedly by chatroom administrators and all who deal with people meeting others online: When you arrange for your first meeting with a stranger, do NOT agree to meet at his or her place, or in the park, or in any other out-of-the-way spot. Meet in a coffee shop or some other similarly well-lit and well-trafficked public place. Talk to the person and listen to him to get a feel for him, and introduce him to your friends or the bartender or waitperson. (A potential assailant will think twice if he knows there are people who can identify him afterwards.) Do not allow over-eagerness or alcohol (or other substance) to impair your judgment.
Unfortunately, some people are drawn to such encounters partly BECAUSE of the dangers involved.
None of this is to blame the victims. But we owe it to our GLBT brothers and sisters to give them good advice on protecting their safety.
posted by Bob on
The major scandal is the hypocrisy of the Republican leadership, not Foley himself. What he did was scummy, but probably legal. The pages were of legal age.
posted by Randy R. on
Paglia would be right if she wasn’t so wrong. Where is there any evidence that the Democrats colluded with the press? It was a Repblican page who brought the story out. What was the press supposed to do, ignore it? Once out, the story clearly had legs — the public demanded more information. And instead of giving more information, the Republican leaders like Hastest, Foley and Reynolds told lies, contradicted themselves, evaded questions and so on. Which of course just eggs the press to press for more information and it kept the story alive.
If all those involved had simply been upfront and honest from the moment it broke, the story would have lasted two days. But don’t blame the Dems for the ineptitude of the GOP, for crying out loud!
You know, is there ANYTHING the Gop won’t blame Dems for?
posted by Randy R. on
Talk about hypocracy: I count seven articles on this page alone on this website dealing with the Foley scandal. So, you can talk about this scandal all you want, but the mainstream press is supposed to sit on it? Aren’t you doing exactly what Paglia condemns the press for — and to which you agree?
Guess the Dems made you post all of those, right?
posted by J.P. on
Randy, there is a big difference between spreading the “Foley is a pedophile pervert” smear and countering it.
posted by Randy R. on
Agreed. But wouldn’t one be enough? Why seven? Or is the IGF milking the issue to attract people to the website? If so, they are guilty of the very thing they criticize.
Oh, I get it. If the Dems do it, it’s bad. If the GOP does the same thing, however, it’s good.
posted by Randy R. on
and where was the outrage from Paglia when our previous president was dragged through months of press inquiry because he lied about sex? The press wasn’t his lapdog then, was it?
Sorry, but I have no patience with people like Paglia. She runs her mouth off on anything and everything. Her opinions are no more insightful than that of some of our regular bloggers on this site. I mean, on it’s face her comments are absurd — that we should worry about what Ann Coulter thinks about the media? For cryin’ out loud! So why the hell is anyone interested in what she has to say about anything?
posted by John on
A republican house staffer gave the initial e-mails to ABC.
Republican pages handed over their IM transcripts.
Republicans in the House colluded to cover up what was happening.
Yet we are supposed to believe this is all the Dems fault? if the Dems had wanted to break this story to do the most damage it would have happened a week before the election, not two months before when tehre was plenty of time to spin the damage. This is just pathetic.
posted by Boo on
On this point, it should be stressed repeatedly by chatroom administrators and all who deal with people meeting others online: When you arrange for your first meeting with a stranger, do NOT agree to meet at his or her place, or in the park, or in any other out-of-the-way spot. Meet in a coffee shop or some other similarly well-lit and well-trafficked public place. Talk to the person and listen to him to get a feel for him, and introduce him to your friends or the bartender or waitperson. (A potential assailant will think twice if he knows there are people who can identify him afterwards.) Do not allow over-eagerness or alcohol (or other substance) to impair your judgment.
Plus if you\\’re an adult, um, don\\’t try to date teenagers.
posted by raj on
Antaeus | October 31, 2006, 2:33pm |
“Gay men through history have always been more vulnerable to public hysteria than are lesbians….” Seems to me that we’d be well to listen to her tough love….
Tough love? Sorry, but, if Paglia actually wrote that, she was merely repeating something that more than a few of us have known for a long, long time. There are several reasons for it, but they all pretty much boil down to mysogeny and the adult-male-dominated hierarchy.
posted by raj on
Richard J. Rosendall | October 31, 2006, 2:34pm |
I recognize your point regarding dangers of hooking up in internet chat rooms, but I sincerely doubt that much can be done about it. It’s been a while since I was in an AOL chat room, but I don’t recall any moderators there. Same with gay.com chat rooms, and I’ve been there more recently. As far as I can tell, most people use IMs (instant messages or “pvts”–private messages in gay.com parlance) outside of the chat rooms to actually “hook up,” so a moderator wouldn’t necessarily know what is going on.
Moreover, it appeared to me that more than a few of the people who go to those chat rooms aren’t what I would call “gay.” More than a few of them are obviously married and looking for a little action on the side, usually on a workday during lunch or on their way home from work. It isn’t clear how one might get to them, even if they wanted to be gotten to. Additionally, since they aren’t “gay,” I’m not sure what responsibility the gay community–such as it is–has towards them. Perhaps you might want to enlighten me.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Perhaps all the Democrat apologists here can explain why HRC staffers were apparently peddling the emails and instant messages to various media sources, including ABC — and creating anonymous blogs, which inexplicably ended up being recognized immediately by Democratic sites like DailyKos and paid Democratic operatives like Mike Rogers.
Actually, as it turns out, paid Democratic operatives, including CREW, which is funded by Democratic billionaire George Soros, and paid Democratic political consultant John Aravosis, had said emails in July or even earlier — but didn’t see fit to publish them then, instead waiting until barely over a month before the elections.
After all, since Democrats insist that Foley was a child rapist, should have been suspected of such because he was gay, and that any delay in reporting his behavior resulted in many more children being endangered, why did they and their paid operatives sit on the emails for several months?
posted by ETJB on
“Perhaps all the Democrat apologists…”
So, the IGF civil rules have been abolished? Or only when they attack Democrats?
Perhaps the Libertarian apologists might want to explain how the Califorinia LP candidates supported the state ballot measure to ban gay marriage?
More to the point; Congressmen Foleys actions were not a private affair. A libertarian rant against his invasion of privacy does not wash and either does the GOP “its the minors fault.”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
explain how the Califorinia LP candidates supported the state ballot measure to ban gay marriage
Why do old-party shills always issue demands that people “explain” fantasy situations?
Do they really have such contempt for the intelligence of the electorate that they think repeating the same old fabricated talking points will allow them to wriggle out of accountability for the mess they’ve dropped us in?
posted by Bobby on
“Not only has the public image of gay men been tarnished by the over-promotion of the Foley scandal,”
—And who has been over-promoting the Foley scandal? The left! Is there any proof Foley had sex with anyone underage? No. Only the embarassing e-mails. Had Foley been a democrat, he would have first denied it as a fabrication, then admit it as legal behavior, and years later justify it as nobody’s business.
Bill Clinton did. Like Foley, Bill’s behavior was legal but not quite moral. If he had been at my company, it would have been considered sexual harasment. But Clinton had something Foley lacked, Clinton could make himself the victim and make all the liberals love him.
Foley can’t do that with republicans or anyone. Republicans will love a right-wing gay, but a so-called gay who has erotic conversations with a 16 year old is beyond the pale. Legal, but not socially acceptable, nor should it be.
Now Foley will learn what it’s like to be truly alone. I feel sorry for him. Maybe he should move to a foreign country. Who’s gonna trust him in America?
posted by Randy R. on
Actually, ND30, no Dems that I am aware of called Foley a child rapist. In fact, the evidence shows that he never actually has sex with any of the pages. That much is clear. If you can identify any Dem that actually said Foley was a child rapist, I will retract my statement. Until then, you have to submit a bit of proof before making such comments.
Furthermoe, Aravosis stated he received copies of the emails early in the summer, but he didn’t them on his blog. Why not? He explained that in the world of journalism, you do fact checking before you make a story sensational. Had the emails been faked (as Dan Rather found out), it would have ruined his credibility.
The problem with replicans apologists is that they are so used to running any smear, no matter how unfounded, that they assume everyone else acts the same way. Fortunately, some people insist on proof before making the facts public. It’s the reponsible and ethical thing to do.
And the responsible ethical thing that the republican leadership should have done was to act on those emails when THEY found out about them, to determine their veracity, and then if true, take appropriate action. But they didn’t, and the scandal resulted.
posted by Randy R. on
I mean really, ND30. It’s a very strange arguement that you are making. what you are saying is that the repulicans hid this story and tried to keep it quiet. The Dems then found out about it, and THEY are the ones who should have blown the story on the incompetence and corruption of the Republicans, not the Republicans themselves.
But of course, when the Dems do just that, like complain about the incompetence and corruption in this war in Iraq, and the greater war on terror, they are attacked as unpatriotic.
So the Dems can do nothing right, and the Repubs can do nothing wrong. This is why people are fed up with them and are about to throw them out of office.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Aravosis stated he received copies of the emails early in the summer, but he didn’t them on his blog. Why not? He explained that in the world of journalism, you do fact checking before you make a story sensational.
I have to roll my eyes here.
Aravosis isn’t a “journalist” any more than Jeff Gannon was. It’s obvious that they held the e-mails in reserve to be used during election time.
Efforts to claim fake nobility over “journalistic ethics” are beyond the pale, especially given that Aravosis’ “journalism” is all partisan editorial — which breaks the first law of journalism, which is “report the fact and the facts alone.”
Aravosis also doesn’t like inconvenient truths about things which go against his political beliefs. When the execrable Scott Long at Human Rights Watch began his pogrom against Iranian gay refugees reporting on anti-gay activites in Iran, Aravosis was more than happy to simply defer to Long’s views — since they were politically useful to the Democratic party — and slammed fact gatherers from Iran like Arsham Parsi; gay activists in the USA, UK and Australia (including Peter Tatchell); and veteran investigative writers like Doug Ireland, as liars — all to defend the Iranian regime from the supposed threat of a Republican-led invasion.
Suffice to say, an ethical “journalist” he is not.
posted by Bobby on
I’ve spoken to Aravosis, he’s a self-centered arrogant leftwinger more concerned with attacking the right than reporting the news.
I used to get his stupid letters, always asking for money. Journalists are such useless bums.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And the responsible ethical thing that the republican leadership should have done was to act on those emails when THEY found out about them, to determine their veracity, and then if true, take appropriate action. But they didn’t, and the scandal resulted.
But the problem is….they did.
They confronted Foley; Foley admitted he had sent the emails, but claimed he was just being friendly. They ordered him not to contact the former page anymore, and he did not. This suited the former page’s family, who didn’t want this to become a media circus.
What are you saying? Should they have automatically assumed the worst about Foley because he might be gay? After all, prominent Democrats compared gay men being around pages to bank robbers hanging around banks.
If you can identify any Dem that actually said Foley was a child rapist, I will retract my statement. Until then, you have to submit a bit of proof before making such comments.
Nancy Pelosi herself said that Foley was a danger to children. Can’t get much clearer than that, especially since she didn’t think Gerry Studds — who DID have sex with pages — was one.
And for once I agree with NL; anyone who’s observed Aravosis knows that the man is less a journalist than he is a paid political operative.
posted by ETJB on
A few years ago, when California voted on the ballot measure to define marriage as between a man and a woman, the Libertarian Party opposed the ballot measure.
Many, if not most, of its candidates supported the ballot measure. The CA LP admitted as much when I called them on this and said that they were not going to try and disipline anyone.
It is not a lie; the California Libertarian Party took no serious action against its candidates who support the anti-gay marriage initititive.
So please get off of your; my political party is holier then art thou.