Comments on: Dershowitz and Paglia: When Good Liberals Go Wrong

By: Aubrei

Aubrei — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:42:47 +0000

#90,Thomas wrote: ” Some of the major pillars of Cultural Marxism (”Liberalism” is “multiculturalism”,”
Okay, hold it right there. Liberalism is NOT the same thing as cultural Marxism. Apparently, you’re framing this from an American pop-conservative type of reference, the kind favored by Ann Coulter, where everything left of Right is “Liberal” including Marxism and Communism. Huh?! All of this is factually incorrect. Liberals are capitalists, not communists, nor socialists. And classical Liberal philosophy favored smaller government and greater individualism, much as modern conservatives do today. I see no conflict here with a national Jewish identity. Linking Liberalism to Marxism or Communism or anti-religion etc is simply erroneous. Also, contrary to the way you characterized “multiculturalism” as being anti-nation state, multiculturalism as it is promoted today, while does prove detrimentary to the main nation state, however it actually tries to set up states within a state, nations within nations, it actually encourages seperatism.

By: dck

dck — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:32:54 +0000

…and Paglia?

I’m been increasingly disappointed in her for some time.

I’m not sure what the problem is there. Maybe nothing fails like success.

By: dck

dck — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:26:21 +0000

This debate seems entirely self-indulgent, to me.

…NO ONE, even in America, is quite sure who Barak Obama really is. Can Dershowitz prove, definitively, that Obama is even a U.S. citizen? Can Dershowitz say, absolutely, that Obama is more Christian than Muslim? If not, if there are ambiguities here, then it is important to ask:

1.) Is Israel in a strong enough position to give Obama the “benefit of the doubt” to suit American politics?

2.) What are the consequences of serious error here? Can Israel afford those consequences?

3.) Is Professor Dershowitz willing to risk those consequences on the centrality and correctness of his argument?

I suppose we need intellectuals to raise questions but thank God other sorts of minds make vital decisions.

Professor Dershowitz should concentrate on the Law: He was right on Scooter Libby and courageous to speak out.

By: Donna V.

Donna V. — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:36:18 +0000

P.S. Same for the music. The Beatles, the Stones, the Who, etc. were war babies who were at least a few years older than their boomer fans.

Well, us younger boomers never had to worry about being emotionally invested in our era. I knew the 1970′s sucked at the time – not because I was such an incredibly smart 18 year old, but because I had a hard time finding even a crappy summer job in 1977.

By: Donna V.

Donna V. — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:26:23 +0000

Calvin: Writer Joe Queenan (a boomer himself) once pointed out what is obvious, once you think of it: MLK, Bobby Kennedy, the Freedom Riders and most of the people active in the Civil Rights movement were NOT boomers, but people who came of age in the ’40′s and 50′s. The oldest boomers, those born in ’46, were still in high school at the time of the March on Washington. All they did was watch the Civil Rights movement on TV. Now they make it sound like they personally faced down troopers at Selma.

Boomers WERE old enough for the post-MLK era – the era that ushered in Black Power and the Panthers. Boy, that was a fun time, wasn’t it? A real riot.

By: Calvin Ball

Calvin Ball — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:58:05 +0000

96, Donna, and when you dare to criticize the ’60s, they drag out the civil right movement. Well, it’s not entirely clear that they even got that right. It certainly could have been done a lot better. With all of the attention and treasure that’s been thrown at that, we should be living in Utopia right now.

Nope, they accidentally got part of the civil rights thing right, but overall the ’60s were 99-44/100% percent unadulterated dooky. They could have elected Goldwater, but they blew it.

By: Donna V.

Donna V. — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:06:33 +0000

Tanstaafl wrote:
Camille Paglia seems to be between a rock and a hard place in trying to assess this administration. She gravitates to liberalism but some cell keeps firing, deep in her midbrain, that something is hugely amiss.

So true. The cell that keeps firing in her brain is the one labeled “common sense.” That little nugget of sense is why I keep reading her. Otherwise, she’d be just another leftist academic who writes more entertainingly than most.

I think her common sense wars with the old ’60′s radical in her. Paglia is the girl with kaleidoscope eyes when she looks back at her Woodstock generation. Oh, she’s admitted that some that old hippie stuff was silly, but she can’t bear to question the basic assumptions of that era, because that was her era. I know a lot of older boomers who are like that – they are far too emotionally invested in the 1960′s to admit that their generation did an awful lot of damage. It’s an article of faith with them that they were the most idealistic, creative, coolest bunch of romanticists to ever grace the planet and everyone who came after them was pitiful and materialistic and grasping in comparision. (As a younger boomer, born in 1959, I’ve been hearing about the Incredible Super Fab ’60′s from the older ones since 1976 or so. I’m really, really, really tired of those people.)

So it’s no wonder Paglia contradicts herself and says something strikingly insightful in one paragraph and strikingly stupid in the next. Everytime her innate common sense struggles to get out, the ’60′s hippie in her comes along and stomps on it.

By: Charles R. Williams

Charles R. Williams — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:50:47 +0000

Give Paglia and Dershowitz another 6 months. They’ll come around. Maybe they’re not ready to be thrown off of Obamessiah’s wagon train. I suspect this is especially true of Paglia. She must establish her left-wing bona fides by bowing before the king so she can plunge the knife in deep.

By: Craig S. Maxwell

Craig S. Maxwell — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:29:23 +0000

73. frank grimes:

Craig S. Maxwell:“Good” people do not defend murderers”

so who defends them?

Answer: People like Alan Dershowitz.

You welcome,

Craig S. Maxwell

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:29:03 +0000

73. frank grimes:

Craig S. Maxwell:“Good” people do not defend murderers”

so who defends them?

Answer: People like Alan Dershowitz.

You welcome,

Craig S. Maxwell