A Heated Debate On Camille Puglia And Hillary Clinton

CAMILLE Puglia is America’s answer to Germaine Greer. Writing for Salon, she notes on Hillary Clinton:

Hillary’s willingness to tolerate Bill’s compulsive philandering is a function of her general contempt for men. She distrusts them and feels morally superior to them…

It’s no coincidence that Hillary’s staff has always consisted mostly of adoring women, with nerdy or geeky guys forming an adjunct brain trust. Hillary’s rumored hostility to uniformed military men and some Secret Service agents early in the first Clinton presidency probably belongs to this pattern.

As Clive Davis notes, “I like the use of ‘rumoured’ and ‘probably’ in the same sentence.”

For someone so full of firm opinion, a paid commentator, this sounds a lot like mindless chatter.

Today the Independent plugged a book from the Centre for Policy Studies entitled Lexicon of Contemporary Newspeak.

A sample given is: “We do need to have a debate about it … We have to have a very big debate about this” said Harriet Harman when asked on the Today programme whether paid sex should be made illegal. When asked for a view, she called for a debate.

The Newspeak politician is like Ms Paglia, and many journalists, all uncertain, fearful of making a decision and trusting their own authority.

Of course, this all gives credence to the bloggers, who can feed off so much uncertainty. The people who post comments on websites can be said to “fuel the debate”.

The point of the debate is lost. It is just a mass debate, an onanistic din of voices all vying to be heard but lacking any authority or objectivity.

This article will of course now form part of debates on journalism, Ms Paglia, the use of the world “objective”, the web, Anoraks, men and women, and the ever popular debate on sex.

Let’s have a heated debate!

Anorak

Posted: 14th, January 2008 | In: Anorak Says, Politicians Comments (4) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink