In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Risk, Reward and the New Class | Main | Where Were You in 1964? »

February 18, 2007


Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

* Dave Lull points out that, after a six-year break, Camille Paglia is once again writing for Salon magazine. Camille is my favorite intellectual flamethrower.

* Emily Yoffe contrasts the way the older folks are wary of putting their lives online while the sub-25s take it for granted. Yoffe argues (convincingly, to my mind) that we're witnessing the largest generation gap since the 1950s. (Peter catches my goof: The author of this piece is Emily Nussbaum, not Emily Yoffe.)

* Thanks to Arts and Letters Daily for pointing out Po Branson's piece about how the praise many American parents lavish their kids with is backfiring. Reminds me of the spoiled-brat pathology I've been noticing most recently: "entitlement syndrome."



posted by Michael at February 18, 2007


Camille Paglia -- I look forward to anything new by her. That Salon piece, however, is really lame. That part about alerting the black fastfood employees to news of ANS's passing was beyond parody. Here's to Paglia improving her game for the next Salon piece!

One of the problems with her writing, as Steve Sailer had once pointed out, is thet she has the Big Theory, which requires her to reiterate key talking points in every one of her articles.

I also have a suspicion, very much based on her insightful writing during the 90s, that if she were intellectually honest with herself, she'd be a conservative -- but prefers to promote herself as an iconoclast libertarian. There is an odd disconnect between her working-class white ethnic sensibilities, and her somewhat mannered celebration of cultural decadence.

(For what it's worth, my own favorite contemporary philosopher is Larry Auster.)

Generational Gap -- there's certainly something to that. I've always told people that I find I have more in common with people who had graduated high school ten years before I did, than with people who graduated three years after me (I'm c/o '89). One theory: from the 50's on, youth culture was rock n roll. Since 1991 or so, it's been hip-hop.

Posted by: PA on February 18, 2007 10:42 AM

You know, I've read some things by Paglia that I liked. Like the first commentor, I just wish she would dump the orthodoxy. She could cease referring to herself as any kind of feminist. I'm bored to death of women who described themselves as belonging to any one of the several million varieties of feminism.

Why do women persist in this behavior? Why the insistence that they speak for anybody but themselves? They don't.

One of the more amusing examples of this was the Amanda Marcotte kerfluffle. If you read her screed on why she was dumped by the Edwards campaign, you'll discover that "misogynist" men drove her out because of her dedication to the Holy Grail of feminism. Marcotte was exposed and defeated by... a woman... Michelle Malkin, one of the most powerful female voices on the web.

I'll bet that Malkin's views, which are fiercely patriotic, religious and family oriented, represent a lot more women than do the views of a foul mouthed atheist like Marcotte.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on February 18, 2007 12:54 PM

It was Emily Nussbaum who wrote the article about putting one's life online, not Emily Yoffe.

Posted by: Peter on February 18, 2007 6:08 PM

I'm glad that young people today will have something to look back on in which they can take a justifiable pride, not to mention knowing that they in some small way contributed to the stewardship of the Western tradition.

Posted by: Brian on February 18, 2007 7:23 PM

I have enjoyed Paglia in the past, but found this one weak. By the way, how could she vote for Hillary? If I were to picture someone working at a college running the multiculturalism/feminism/white-male-privilege orientation it would be Rodham and some of her political cohorts.

And Anna Nicole Smith: Perhaps, she represents nothing. Would you not love to hear paglia say that about something -- just once?

As for Michele Malkin: She could not handle a ponytail tugging incident with Chris Mathews. She sat there like she was waiting for the teacher to save her or something. I saw her the other day filling in for O'reilly, and she was debating an amateur pro-illegals Mexcian featherweight. She was lame, but it looked like she was ready for a talk radio gig in Fresno and only because the station could use pictures of her in a promo. Thus guaranteeing some male callers. Malkin is not all that smart, eloquent or analytical -- she is certainly average. I do read her blog and on occasion enjoy it, but I have say she's not fit to carry Ann Coulter's jock strap.

Posted by: sN on February 19, 2007 2:42 AM

Well, I do read just about everything Coulter writes. She's outrageously funny. The left hates her so ferociously because she's adept at satire... something righties aren't supposed to be able to do. That field was supposed to belong to the left. She's beating them at their own game.

Whether or not Malkin is a lightweight, she's already put her mark on the presidential campaign. Edwards will not recover from the beating he took over Marcotte. That was entirely Malkin's doing.

I have great respect for Malkin because I know just how difficult it is for a Filipina, particularly a pretty petite Filipina, to be taken seriously. Life is easier for Coulter in this regard. Since my late wife was a hard charging, beautiful and petite Filipina, I know from experience how angry whites (especially white women) become when they encounter a Filipina who isn't a washer woman. I discovered that white liberal women are intensely, and unashamedly racist. I also discovered that white men will fight tooth and nail to support their women in their racist hatred of Filipinas.

Malkin is a true trail blazer. She's up against constant racial hatred and a phalanx of liberals who think that she should be cleaning toilets. Really. You wouldn't believe how racist white women are in relation to Filipina women.

The white woman's complaint against the Filipina is simple: unfair competition. How can you continue to pussy-whip the white men with allegations of sexism if Filipina women continue to offer them a way out? A traditional Filipina woman likely has a great education and job, and she is religiously dedicated to keeping her man happy. Nothing makes a feminist white woman angrier.

So, walk for a few moments in Malkin's shoes. She is demanding to be taken seriously, and succeeding, even though she is a traditional Filipina. You might want to reconsider your appraisal of this very strong, very beautiful and very fierce woman. She's dynamite.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on February 19, 2007 10:00 AM

I think one or two wingnuts have blazed Malkin's particular trails before. But she's cute! And winger guys just love cute chicks who spout authoritarian agitprop.

Posted by: Steve on February 19, 2007 1:24 PM

I just don't think Malkin has the firepower to represent the right. While I do suspect that Shouting Thomas may have his judgments on Malkin somewhat clouded by the memories of an obviously special woman to him, I will refrain from argument and tip my hat to fine memories of love and a special woman.

As for right-wingers loving "cute chicks" who spout authoritarian agitprop, I can say as a general rule we are drawn to cuteness and beauty i guess that would go for most guys you could place a lot of phrases before that. Cute chicks who spout: environmentalism, love for dogs and cats, conspiracy theories, gossip, chicken pot pie recipes. In other words, I think steve has scored cheap points by throwing in the cute chick part. I might like that particular brand just because I have never known a cute chick who spouts authoritarian agitprop -- it sounds rather
entertaining, at least, on a short term basis.

I am also confused because I thought the line is that we right wingers are afraid of powerful women. You know those harpies of the left with the steel-toed faces that kick you with their bitter ugliness which is just their personalities showing -- I have not even gotten to their actual looks which radiate totalitarianism lite.

Posted by: sN on February 20, 2007 12:27 AM

This line about right-wingers being "authoritarian" is so fifty years ago. Look at the world around you. Who is causing you to lose your freedom? Who is applying binding restraints on your autonomy? Both sides of the aisle are doing their bit. Wake up and experience reality.

Posted by: jult52 on February 20, 2007 8:54 AM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?