GIRL TALK.

The Federalist is going in heavy for I-don't-need-feminims stories today. For starters there's this amazing headline:

Nicole Russell tells us:

Over the past few decades, more women than men are going to college and getting higher degrees. Then they’re purchasing homes and putting off marriage and babies. Guess what: They’re miserable. (As Donald Trump would say, “Sad!”)

How does she know they're miserable?

In an interview with Maclean’s Camilla Paglia confirmed this...

Good enough for me! Now that we have statistical confirmation, why are these independent women miserable?

Problem is, the kind of men feminist padawans tend to attract are -- how do I say this politely? -- not really men. Studies even show contraception users are attracted to more passive, feminine men.

Whereas real burly men will gitcha pregnint -- and then probably not marry you, but that's for the "Marriage Makes You Rich" scold-story, not this one.

Then Russell tells us about these two ladies she knows: One married "a softer, but more romantic man who would do whatever she wanted at the drop of a hat." The other married "a more direct, straightforward man, however demanding and borderline-misogynist he was... guess which one is happier?" Surprise, it's the misogynist's wife! At least she says she's happy, but what's with all those notes she keeps trying to pass me when her husband's not looking?

That's basically it, theme-wise, but there are many mangoes along the way, e.g.:

Many men who encounter a true feminist basically cower, act indifferent, shrug, butter up, charm, demean, ignore, or attempt to flirt.

I feel this should be in a poster like the Heimlich Maneuver. "That man is saying 'you come here often?' and shrugging -- must be a feminist in here somewhere!"

Deep down in the confines of her soul where she hasn’t even bothered to look, much less understand, a woman wants a man who exudes masculinity, who remains a steady rock in her current-filled stream of emotions and hormones. Instead of a man who says he’ll eat at the restaurant of her choice for the fifteenth time that month, she wants a man who cooks a meal she’s never tried before.

"Here, bitch, I used milk with the cheese powder instead of water. Now suck my cock." Swoon!

Elsewhere at The Federalist, Joy Pullman tells us how the secret of "mind-blowing sex" is marriage -- and a thousand Rodney Dangerfield jokes pummeled her back into the sea where she belongs. Kidding. Pullman warms us up by informing us that "a higher number of sex partners correlates with psychological and health problems" and if that doesn't make you want to drop the walk of shame for the walk down the aisle, she also has studies that show "two in five will orgasm during a hookup, but four in five will with a committed lover" -- but if you're thinking of just living together with your committed lover to redeem those orgasms, Pullman will have you know that "cohabitation reduces sex frequency and increases relationship conflict" -- whereas if your lover is "committed" by marriage, he can't run away!

If you're happy for Pullman but want to stay single anyway, be warned that she wants to share this gift with everyone, preferably before they get too educated to know better: society, she says, must "rethink the life script that requires young people to wait a decade or two between puberty and marriage." Old enough to bleed, old enough to butcher -- I mean, to have mind-blowing sex!

Rule of three demands we consider D.C. McAllister's "Why Girls Still Play Dumb To Get Guys," and it turns out that, duh, the mens like it:

While they want equal partners, there is a natural disposition in men to want to be dominant, to be the strong leader, and to be the protector. I’ll go ahead and use the antiquated term: most men, deep down, appreciate a woman who is submissive. They don’t want to be constantly challenged. They value deference.

At last! I thought. Someone at The Federalist was coming out for consensual roleplay! But for McAllister, it's not a kink, nor even a lifestyle, but just the way things ought to be -- for everyone. Today's men "don’t stand up for a woman when she leaves the table, open a car door, or show her the respect she deserves" because "our feminized culture has told him he shouldn’t." In fact, those feminims are just a buncha bull-dykes trying to spoil your submission:

These are the feminists who think a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle. She doesn’t need him. If anything, she should dominate him....

Likewise, ladies, you don’t need to be a dominant bullish Amazon woman to prove your worth, either. If a man likes that, then so be it. I wish him well in finding his man parts at some point in his life.

Man, these red-pill chicks have very specific ideas of gender roles. And that's cool! America's a big, beautiful rainbow flag of sexual choice. But I have a nagging feeling that they wouldn't agree it's a choice.

FRIDAY 'ROUND-THE-HORN.

For a while in the 1980s I had a girlfriend with a Farfisa.

•   Conservatives are tumbling to the fact that if anything's gonna save 2016 for them it's stone cold racism. National Review's David French, a bless-your-heart I'll-pray-for-you Christian, does his bit with a post that shocked even me, and I've been reading his wormy shit for a while. It's called "The Hidden Reason Why Americans Dislike Islam" and that reason seems to be: Because Muslims are no damn good. Seriously. Reflecting on his spell in the Army, French writes:

I spent enough time outside the wire and interacting with tribal leaders to get a sense of the reality around me, but the younger guys on the line spent weeks at a time living in the heart of the local community. I remember one young soldier, after describing the things he’d seen since the start of the deployment, gestured towards the village around us and said — in perfect Army English — “Sir, this s**t is f**ked up.”

It is indeed. While it’s certainly unfair to judge Indonesia or Malaysia by the standards of Iraq or Afghanistan, it’s very hard to shake the power of lived experience, nor should we necessarily try.

Let that last clause sink in for a moment. Maybe his Muslim accountant is okay, but that'll never shake his ugly memories of the sub-humans whose homeland he was kind enough to invade and occupy.

After all, when we hear stories from Syria, Yemen, Gaza, the Sinai, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia, Mali, Pakistan, and elsewhere they all fit the same depressing template of the American conflict zones. Nor is the dazzlingly wealthy veneer of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or the other Gulf States all that impressive. Tens of thousands of soldiers have seen the veritable slave labor that toils within the oil empires and have witnessed first-hand their casual disregard for “lesser” life.

You all know how depraved the Saudi princes are, right? Well, even the poor ones are like that!  The next graf is amazing:

But this same experience has caused us to treasure the Muslim friends we do have — in part because we recognize the extreme risks of their loyalty and defiance of jihad. That’s why American officers fiercely champion the immigration of local interpreters, even to the point of welcoming them into their own home. That’s why there’s often an intense connection with our Kurdish allies, the single-most effective ground fighting force against ISIS.

As French has said before, lest anyone think him racist, there are a few good ones -- and they're all named Gunga Din! In fact, I'm beginning to think French watched that movie before he slagged the entire world Muslim population:

I bet he's looking forward to a gig with President Trump's Department of Mooslim Relations. (Bonus: At one point French says, "Even more disturbingly, it seemed that every problem was exacerbated the more religious and pious a person (or village) became." If only his programmers had put in a capacity for reflection!)

•   Camille Paglia in the Hollywood Reporter! On "girl squads"! Well, this should win her a brand new audience! Imagine the sunshine people reclining poolside and opening their HR to this:

Given the professional stakes, girl squads must not slide into a cozy, cliquish retreat from romantic fiascoes or communication problems with men, whom feminist rhetoric too often rashly stereotypes as oafish pigs. If many women feel lonely or overwhelmed these days, it's not due to male malice. Women have lost the natural solidarity and companionship they enjoyed for thousands of years in the preindustrial agrarian world, where multiple generations chatted through the day as they shared chores, cooking and child care.

Paglia has the soul of a gossip columnist but not, alas, the chops.

•   Jonah Goldberg's newsletter today:

Now, I’'m not necessarily saying we should meet ISIS at Dabiq and give them the Islamist Ragnarok they want. But I'’m not saying we shouldn't either. My point is if they want to have one big mano-a-mano fight between the forces of the West and Mordor, it’s purely a tactical question whether we should give it to them...

Oh Jesus. You can read the rest if you like; it's nearly quitting time.

FRIDAY AROUND-THE-HORN.

• Back when George Will signed up with Fox News, I wondered why; though he and they were both technically conservative, Will seemed too pointy-headed for people who think Fred Barnes is a sage and Steve Doocy a wit. But Will's recent column in which he suggested ladies get raped for the street cred shows that he had a strategy. The column has raised an outrage and even gotten him unsyndicated by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (who knew, women read newspapers too!) but it has also made Will a hot ticket among the yahoos who think Will has been punished for "blasphemy" ("this is America -- not China, not Cuba... despite the left’s attempts to silence," argh blargh etc.) and use the term "feminazi" seriously. Years of bullshit and bad-faith arguments have sufficiently infantilized these guys that a weedy professor type like Will would just make them mad with his fancy lingo -- unless he used it to validate their more thuggish sentiments. So goodbye ruminative considerations of U.S. policy, hello war on women, only with a bow-tie, and the brethren may consider their cause uplifted by the endorsement of a genuine intellectual. (Camille Paglia must be kicking herself.)

• Visiting Clickhole does not make me as happy as not visiting it but knowing it exists. Is this the future of the web? Paging Prof. Jeff H. Jarvis...

• Terry Teachout has an interesting list of American artworks he would require high school students to study. The choices are intelligent and worth debating, but he prefaces the thing by telling how the UK's Tory education minister got rigorous about teaching literature and this resulted in a "predictable convulsion of high-minded outrage" in which the minister was accused of being "antiprogressive."  I'd love to know how your average conservative parental units in, say, Minot, North Dakota would react to the news that their young'uns would be forced to absorb Martha Graham and Langston Hughes. Oh, one other thing, Terry -- I recommend we add Otto Preminger's Skidoo to the film curriculum. It will teach the kids something about the 60s, and scare them off drugs.

IS THIS WHAT WE SENT YOU TO COLLEGE FOR?

At PJ Media, Susan L.M. Goldberg explains that Family Guy is the poisoned fruit of feminism. No, really. A section about what a terrible father Peter is begins with this:

Never has a term been so despised in the ivy halls as “The Patriarchy.”

Later:

Whether it’s the military, the doctor, or the monkey in the closet, the men on Family Guy do more to avoid perceived threats than to confront them, even if it means putting their own self-respect on the line. Ironically, while feminism focuses on the disenfranchisement of women, it has often done so by disenfranchising men.

Later still:

Whether playing up to feminist theory or playing into the results of a generation of male bashing, Family Guy’s definition of masculinity is the monster pieced together between books and over Cosmos.

The italicized Cosmos is in the original, so I don't whether Goldberg means the drink or the Carl Sagan TV show. (It's also possible her demoralized copy editor was laying a trap to find out if she can even read.)

Best part is Goldberg's bio:

Susan L.M. Goldberg is a writer with a Master's in Radio, Television & Film...

Wingnuts used to make fun of cultural studies gush -- look at all those liberal brats "studying" Madonna! Now they're not only going to college for it (and worshipping the queen of CultStud crap, Camille Paglia), they're writing a ridiculous amount of horrible cultural studies gush themselves.

They seem to think they're plumbing the Dark Mystery of the Arts to find the pulse of the electorate, but they just remind me of Chris Cooper trying to kiss Kevin Spacey in American Beauty. 

COUNTERCULTURE. Press release in the mail today:

A Thrill Ride For Patriots

Spring, TX, October 8, 2012 – Sometimes you just have to take a stand. Our country first learned this through the American Revolution, and a stubborn insistence on liberty is the hallmark of patriots to the present day. Telling that story in all its many forms is bound to be exciting and inspirational. In Patriots of Treason ( AKA-Publishing), David Thomas Roberts bursts into the political thriller genre with style and passion. 

A nation in crisis. A president of division. A deadlocked Congress. The United States is on the brink of civil war — again. Only a courageous federal whistleblower, an ordinary Texan and a governor who won’t tolerate the shredding of the Constitution can thwart an evil conspiracy by the federal government. 

An incumbent minority president, losing at the polls in his re-election bid due to the economy, gas prices and scandals in his administration, pulls an “October Surprise” that swings the election. An assassination attempt creates the perfect scapegoat — the Tea Party — through a deceit so well disguised that it comes dangerously close to succeeding. 

But, like patriots before them, some won’t stand for it. Some will become Patriots of Treason. Taut and suspenseful, readers will just have to hang on and ride to the end for a surprising conclusion.

Interesting, if a little derivative. Maybe it will make Camille Paglia less gloomy about the arts.

ROD & THE SLUTS. I keep forgetting Rod Dreher is still churning it out, but close-watcher Ed Lederer won't let me forget. He directs me to this Dreher post at Real Clear Religion, on the topic of SlutWalks.

Still with me? Yeah, I know, it's almost too obvious what Dreher would make of these female empowerment events -- particularly when you consider that he once called a young woman a slut for displaying a tattoo on her wedding day. (When it was announced Bristol Palin would show up pregnant on her wedding day, of course, Dreher was pleased.)

After the obligatory caveat...

Nothing, and I mean nothing, justifies sexual assault. Not even a little bit.

...comes this:

And yet, these young women expect to present themselves in this hypereroticized sexual milieu in clothing designed to telegraph sexual availability, yet not face any threat of aggressive male sexual behavior? To call this bizarre and stupid is not to stand up for would-be rapists, but rather to recognize the world for what it is -- and, given nature, what it always will be, though we can discourage the worst behavior through law and custom.

In other words, nothing justifies rape, but wearing a halter top is (and will always be) an inducement to rape, and anyone who thinks differently is a hopeless idealist.

Anyone who suggested that a person ought to be able to walk through a slum wearing designer clothing and sporting a fat wallet without being set upon by thieves would be correct in theory -- mugging is a repugnant crime of violence -- but a fool in practice.

Hey, that's an interesting thought experiment. Let's recall what Dreher thought when a bunch of Jesus freaks went into the Castro to tell the homos they were going to hell, and received an unfriendly reception. Did Dreher tell the God-botherers, as he tells the SlutWalkers, that they were fools who should have known better? No, he flipped out:

...no peaceful protester in this country should be subject to this threat... Watch this, and tell me these people [Update: by which I mean the enraged activist core, not all gays -- RD.] aren't going to come against churches full force once they have the civil rights laws on their side.

And these aren't even comparable provocations: Gay people muscling anti-gay preachers out of their neighborhood may not be Marquess of Queensberry, but it sure isn't rape. Yet Dreher's outraged by the former and meh about the latter.

There's plenty of patented Dreher nonsense in the thing -- for example, the Appeal to Camille Paglia (every conservative's favorite lesbian next to Jenna Jameson), and an anecdote from Dreher's youth about a common-sense salt-of-the-earth Southern lady who would certainly agree with Dreher about this subject if she could be summoned for an interview from Louisiana or Fantasyland or wherever she lives. But the key ingredient, as always, is middle-class self-pity -- Hussies Protest Rape, Dreher Family Hardest Hit:

It's a place that I will have to educate my sons and my daughter to navigate successfully, at a time in which there are few clear rules -- which increases the risk to them. Frankly, I don't know who will have a more difficult time making it through this bewildering postmodern maze with their faith, morals, and sense of dignity intact: my daughter or my sons.

Once the kids get you safely stashed in a home, Rod -- watch out, they may say they're taking you to a monastery -- they ought to be fine.

SHORTER OLE PERFESSER. Megadittos to Camille Paglia, who agrees with me that liberals suffer sexually from their devotion to sterile corporate life, while we conservatives thrive in the me-Tarzan-you-Jane world of academia! Which reminds me of a paid advertising link...

SPEED-WALKING WITH CAMILLE. I see Salon is still publishing Camille Paglia. Why, I wonder? It can't be respect for her prose, which reads like yammerings that a cranked-up MFA candidate might read into a digital recorder for her overdue thesis as she speed-walks around the quad. The only sane reason I can imagine they do it is to throw Republican yahoos some pointy-head bait, as the Times does with David Brooks and John Tierney, to get themselves links from rightwing blogs. Don't they realize they could get Ann Althouse to do the same thing for much less money?

This week the first half of Paglia's catecholamine cascade is devoted to current events, mainly "the orchestrated attack on radio host Rush Limbaugh, which has made the White House look like an oafish bunch of drunken frat boys." Don't linger too much over this image of Obama's Ivy League lieutenants pounding brewskis as they sing Coldplay from a speeding Lexus and head to the outskirts to go Rush-tipping, because as she rounds the student union Paglia is onto the "shrill duo of slick geeks (Timothy Geithner and Peter Orszag) as the administration's weirdly adolescent spokesmen on economics." Dekes and geeks! But wait, Paglia's heading for the tennis courts: "the White House is starting to look like Raphael's scathing portrait of a pampered, passive Pope Leo X and his materialistic cardinals... Do those shifty, beady-eyed guys needing a shave remind you of anyone? Yes, it's bare-knuckles Chicago pugilism, transplanted to Washington." So now they're Daley aldermen; turn down Coldplay, turn up "Oh Danny Boy." "The charitably well-meaning but hopelessly extravagant Leo X, by the way," adds Paglia, "managed to mishandle the birth of the Protestant Reformation, which permanently split Christianity." At this point Paglia has trampled the nets and is heading for the open road.

It's certainly an unflattering picture, but what about their policies? "First it was that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package, which let House Democrats throw a thousand crazy kitchen sinks into what should have been a focused blueprint for economic recovery." Pigs, nerds and frat boys chaotically rutting among kitchen sinks! May we put Ms. Paglia down for a donation to the impeachment fund? No, in Obama "I still have great hope and confidence." One wonders why, but Paglia has left the campus and is headed down to where the townies pound boilermakers and listen to talk radio:

This entire fracas was set off by the president himself, who lowered his office by targeting a private citizen by name. Limbaugh had every right to counterattack, which he did with gusto. Why have so many Democrats abandoned the hallowed principle of free speech? Limbaugh, like our own liberal culture hero Lenny Bruce, is a professional commentator who can be as rude and crude as he wants.

Yes, we can see the resemblances: Rush Limbaugh is addicted to drugs, and Lenny Bruce was pretty chunky toward the end. Also, Bruce played to houses shrunken by his persecutions, and Limbaugh says his ratings are "through the roof," which is just his way of saying that his free speech rights are being trampled. Also, as Paglia said previously, "Lenny Bruce, when he recited all those dirty words, was trying to offend liberals, not conservatives," which is why William F. Buckley defended Pat Buchanan against Bruce and prosecutors tried to put him in prison.

But Limbaugh's closest relationship to free-speech rebels is Paglia's approbation: "As a student of radio and a longtime listener of Rush's show, I have gotten a wealth of pleasure and insight from him over the years." Then -- while charging down Main Street, where townies gawk at her haircut, to which she responds with a quick wave as she mutters into her recorder -- "To attack Rush Limbaugh is to attack his audience -- and to intensify the loyalty of his fan base." Why she thinks this classic triangulation -- whereby a Party that until recently was capable of winning national elections is heat-glued to a radio clown whose devoted following represents a fraction of the electorate -- is a blunder, we can only imagine.

By page two of the offending essay her dictation has turned to Brazilian Carnival. It's okay; this too may be fodder for her thesis, soon to be a thousand-page book. Now, still gibbering, she's headed for the bright line of the horizon. Thank God her publishers put that chip in her neck, so that she may be tracked down the next time her imprint is needed to show conservatives they have a friend in the academy.

THE LAST REFUGE OF A WINGNUT. Rod Dreher points to a French academic's book which contradicts long-accepted ideas about the Islamic role in spreading Greek thought in the West. Edward Said et alia said it was big; the new guy says it barely existed. As usual when someone says something bad about Islam and not everyone in the universe applauds, Dreher yells thought police:

...many in the academic establishment have set out to ruin its author, Sylvain Gouguenheim, by tarring his as a racist and a tool of the right wing. Some medievalists have come to his aid, saying that it's a perfectly legitimate question and area of inquiry. But the politically correct academic police de la pensee are out for his head.

First, I checked Dreher's link, which is to Le Figaro and unhelpfully in French. Babelfish gave me a suspect but hilarious translation ("D' other researchers choose Libération to express their 'stupor' in a signed letter... The guards of the doxa leave their hinges"), which nonetheless shows the article to be highly prejudiced against the unhinged doxa guards -- that is, the petitioners against Gouguenheim.

But not everyone in Dreherland sides with the chief. One commenter points out another story about the controversy from the International Herald Tribune, which is in English and makes clear (as Dreher does not) that Gouguenheim has plenty of mainstream support. And several commenters point out that it's not thought-policing to point out that the guy's theory is full of shit.

Dreher updates:

Just to clarify, it's beside the point whether or not the historian Gouguenheim is correct in his theory. The point is, he should be able to raise the question, and to be able to be wrong in his theory, without being professionally ruined by the academic thought police.

Ruined? I notice his book is still selling. And, with the support of Le Figaro, Le Monde, and every Muslim-hater in the Western World, we expect Gouguenheim will become an international "contrarian" superstar, like Oriana Falacci or Camille Paglia. For people like that, the outcry from colleagues is the best possible advertising.

Dreher is a professional schismatic who owes his entire Crunchy Con following to the massive persecution complexes of like-minded vegetarian Jesus freaks who consider themselves the one true church of conservatism, as proven by the contempt in which all other conservatives hold them. That such a person would fail to recognize the selling power of apostasy is nearly unbelievable.

So unless he's faking -- never a longshot with this bunch -- the best explanation for Dreher's thickness is this: conservatives, even the fringier conservatives like him, have reached a point in their degeneracy where they must believe other people are trying to silence them. It doesn't matter that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, they are not being silenced at all, but merely called out on their bullshit -- to their fragile psyches, it's the same thing: an intolerable assault on their egos that, if not repelled, will result into the obliteration of their carefully-constructed personalities. So of course any opposition loud enough to reach their ears is Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini all rolled into one.

A pity that Dreher and Jonah Goldberg fell out; they have so much in common.

BLOGGER'S REMORSE. I voted for Obama but now I've read Ann Althouse...

I've already said that Obama made a good impression on me when I first encountered him (when he spoke at the 2004 Democratic convention), but that I condemned all the Democrats who voted against John Roberts (and that included Obama)...

In the beginning of August, I was annoyed by Andrew Sullivan's effusive support of Obama as the candidate who would rid the young of the older "traumatized" generation...

So I was leaning strongly toward Hillary last summer. But I wasn't agonizing over the Democratic race. I favored Rudy Giuliani...

Obama just seemed bland to me around this time, and I was needling him to attack.

Then came Oprah Winfrey...

I was reading Carl Bernstein's "A Woman in Charge," and I identified with something Camille Paglia wrote...

Shortly thereafter, that video provided emotional massage...

Now, I've read through the posts and caught up to the present. Have I traced a journey?

...and I'm thinking, can't we get Dennis Kucinich back in the race? I'm clearly in the wrong constituency.

ANOTHER "COME TO JESUS" MOMENT. I have a little cold and was not wont to post, but Kia Pienso has pointed out to me a new essay by Camille Paglia which has lifted my spirits somewhat.

The thing is hard to synopsize, but let me say that toward the beginning Paglia writes:

A primary arena for the conservative-liberal wars has been the arts.

Sometime later:

I would argue that the route to a renaissance of the American fine arts lies through religion.

Then:

Hymnody should be viewed as a genre of the fine arts and be added to the basic college curriculum.

The salutary effect of sacred song on the "the spiritual poverty of contemporary secular humanism" is hinted at in this description of what to unsympathetic readers may appear an outbreak of mass hysteria:

The most influential camp meeting occurred at Cane Ridge in Bourbon County, Kentucky, in 1804. For three days and well past midnight, a crowd estimated to be between twenty and thirty thousand sang and shouted with a great noise that was heard for miles around. Worshippers transported by extreme emotion jerked, writhed, fell to the ground in convulsions or went catatonic. This Kentucky Revival, called the Second Great Awakening, spread through the inland regions of the South and eventually reached western Pennsylvania.

(I pause here to add crucial emphasis, which Paglia's famously logorrheic style denies, to the punchline:)

But the movement never flourished in the North because of its harsher weather.

The 6,425-word essay covers a lot of ground, but we might say the key to it is Paglia's account of the attacks on Chris Olfili's The Holy Virgin Mary when it was shown at the Brooklyn Museum in 1999. Paglia blames this lunacy not on the people who made the attacks, but to the "the total failure of curatorial support" by the Brooklyn Museum, who presumably erred in failing to properly instruct a no doubt receptive Mayor Giuliani in African fertility symbology.

The whole thing pretty much goes like that. Examples of religious violence and absurdity are given, and the arts community gets the blame for being insufficiently acquainted with the Bible. While the little jihads are mostly described in coolly descriptive language, the irreligious artists and arts supporters are subjected to the kind of editorial attacks ("Supporters of the arts who gleefully cheer when a religious symbol is maltreated act as if that response authenticates their avant-garde credentials") that are sure make this essay, like many of Paglia's public explosions, a treasure trove for conservative quote trawlers, who will rejoice that somebody in the Academy is talking their language.

THE SIMPLE TEST, DEFEATED. I recently ran one of my Ole Grey Perfesser Tests -- that is, I took a page of Instapundit at random and analyzed each post on it for evidence of centrism, libertarianism, and other alleged nutrients. The results vary but little from reading to reading, and show the Perfesser to be a reliable Republican shill with statistically insignificant trace elements of contrarianism added to appeal to young and/or unsophisticated consumers.

Since Ann Althouse has been talking up her credentials as a centrist Democrat, I figure she's about due for a test, too:

Oct. 25, 9:10 am: Lawsuit over penis! Gross!

9:27 am: That Corker ad with the white girl is shameful and perhaps plays to racist feelings.

9:44 am: I like Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

9:50 am: Don't you think we should have sexually segregated schools?

10:19: James Cavaziel, Michael J. Fox -- a plague on both your houses!

3:10 am: I think this court decision in favor of the gay-marriage side is a big mistake. I always say that, of course, which is why I always have to remind you that I'm pro-gay-marriage, too.

Oct. 26, 5:11 am: Bob Dylan Broadway show. Hmm.

5:55 am: Ugh! What a bad poster! Why isn't the hand wearing pants?

6:32 am: Ha ha, Ted Nugent is funny. Why doesn't anyone else write about it? Oh, someone else wrote about it.

6:50 am: Why did I do this on a school night! Now the sun's coming up and I still can't get to sleep.

7:03 am: Mickey Kaus said the gay Jersey court was playing politics. Hmmm.

8:10 am: Those people who say Corker's ads use racism against Ford are being dishonest. I think Ford's people are just as bad!

8:41 am: Now Simon Cowell has me thinking about marriage. I wish I could sleep, or feel my tongue, or stop thinking about not feeling my tongue.

9:13 am: David Brooks says the midwest is the future. That would be awesome.

11:24 am: What's your favorite Supreme Court Justice! SCALIA! He's so fine, he's so fine he blows my mind Scalia! Why don't you like Thomas? It is because he's black? Can I serve you and Barbie some more tea?

8:30 pm: O God it was good to sleep... still tired though... uh, I guess there's something to those dirty stories Webb wrote... politicians always do that you know... Omigod, I wrote a lot of crap! I better add some factual material.

10:07 pm: Ha ha, Camille Paglia sure gave it to those Democrats! What? The thing about Studds is wrong? Ugh, what a drag. I gotta start saving this shit for the weekends.

11:11 pm: If I blog about my radio show tomorrow morning maybe I'll remember it when I wake up, and not just turn off the alarm and go back to sleep like last time.

Oct. 27, 6:18 am: That Bob Dylan show sounds awful.

6:50 am: If I were Kevin Barrett, here's how I would have handled that protest.

7:10 am: It was bad, what the Muslim cleric said about rape. "Clean out the White House" doesn't mean get rid of Bush! God! You're so stupid!

7:36 am: Ha ha! Canada! Ha ha!

8:04 am: Okay I'm about to go on the radio. UPDATE: I was on the radio.

10:01 am: I take pictures.

1:38 pm: Some people have trouble with the blog in their browser. Foxfire! O God that's funny! Fox-Fie-Err. Fox-Fie-Err. Wow.

4:16 pm: Reading about TV is kind of like reading and kind of like watching TV. So maybe we should just read about TV. But then we'd need TV shows to have something to read about. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

4:46 pm: Bes-tial. Bes-ti-al. BESSSSSSSSSSSSssstial. Bes. Ti. Al.

6:06 pm: Wow. This place is awesome.

7:25 pm: No, wait. Wait. No, was it cool to laugh at that? No, because yeah, if it was Hitler because of the Jews. Steve Irwin didn't kill any Jews.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

8:05 pm: You know? Because, you know?

Oh, I can't stand this anymore, I quit. Some things just don't bear close examination.

TALES OF ORDINARY MADNESS. We hear today, after a blessedly long hiatus, from Camille Paglia, whose anger at liberal colleagues has made her a surprise hit with folks who would otherwise never listen to a humanities and media studies professor say anything, unless she were reading back their fast-food order. Paglia is still mad at other intellectuals, even when she agrees with them:

The feckless behavior of the Bush administration has been a lurid illustration of Noam Chomsky's books -- which I've always considered half lunatic. Chomsky's hatred of the United States is pathological -- stemming from some bilious problem with father figures that is too fetid to explore. But Chomsky's toxic view of American imperialism and interventionism is like the playbook of the rigid foreign policy of the Bush administration. So, thanks very much, George Bush, you've managed to rocket Noam Chomsky to the top of the bestseller list!

Chomsky's "toxic" view, as explicated by Paglia, has been fulsomely borne out by actual events, yet Chomsky is "half lunatic." In fact, to hear Paglia tell it, President Bush himself is more than half lunatic:

...I've become concerned about Bush's mental state in the past few months. Sometimes in his press conferences or prepared statements (which I listened to on the radio), I heard a sort of Nixonian tension and hysteria. His vocal patterns were over-intense and his inflections impatient, lurching and sarcastic. There was this seething quality to his speech that worried me and that seemed to signal that something major is being planned -- perhaps another military incursion.

Interestingly, despite this startling accusation of incipient Presidential lunacy, Republicans are linking to it.

Lord Nazh is phlegmatic: "Granted she has her hang-ups like any good lefty does... scim the lefty parts if you must." This guy says "A liberal Democrat tells it like it is!"; Fraters Libertas is tickled that Paglia "opines on liberal talk radio." In a long post, one Dr. Melissa Clouthier says of Paglia's warning of a Bush mental breakdown that "If I were him, I might be paranoid. I've mentioned this before. I'd be paranoid because everyone does seem out to get me..." One hopes her Doctorate is not in psychology.

Apparently you can get big play from the right by talking smack about liberals, even if you simultaneously suggest that George W. Bush is one sleepless night away from blowing up Iran to still the voices in his head. This suggests a new definition for the term Bush Derangement Syndrome.

A FIRST CLASS STRANGE-O. Once again, a mortal enemy of the Democratic Party (not to mention the democratic way of life) offers it collegial advice. She does so, predictably, by first asserting that her own Party is so interested in the health of the nation (which it has brought, unassisted, to near-ruin) that it must come pleading to the cursed Others that they not place a madman within polling distance of the Command in Chief:

Our No. 1 question used to be: Can we beat this guy easily? But now we feel the age of terrorism so profoundly challenges our country, and is so suggestive of future trauma and national pain, that our No. 1 question has become: Is he?.?.?. normal? Just normal. Is he stable and adult and experienced?

In this latest fever dream of the Wall Street Journal's resident mystic, Peggy "it was what it am and that's all that it am" Noonan, the specimen so lacking in normalcy, stability, adulthood and experience that it must not be exposed to the electoral light of day is... General Wesley Clark.

Her professed concern with America's well-being might be to the uninitated touching, but seasoned Noonan-watchers will know it for an affectation meant to bestow upon her own partisan scribblings an unearned loftiness.

She only recently visited similar slurs upon the erstwhile Democratic frontrunner Howard Dean ("Odd... immature... ungrounded..."); it's only a matter of time before she brings such like, with the same maudlin air of a duty painfully performed, against whatever other contestant seems to have a chance against her beloved Leader.

For now, Clark is her target, and she brings to his demolition all the sharp tools of her tenure as the Riefenstahl of Reaganism. "A first class strange-o," she proclaims Clark, "void of purpose beyond meeting the candidate's hunger."

On what grounds are these damning indictments delivered? These:

• Clark was dismissive of John Kerry before Noonan had her chance;
• Clark bragged of leading the U.N. mission against Kosovo (a defeat of totalitarianism in which Noonan's beloved Leader can claim no part);
• Clark changed his mind about the war (watch for this in her coming jihad against Kerry);
• Clark was mean to Brit Hume;
• Clark was nice to Michael Moore;
• Clark favors abortion rights (Jesus wept!);
• Camille Paglia doesn't like him.

Noonan spends many column inches on this last bit, which is hilarious, considering that Paglia has explained her "Italian pagan Catholicism" thusly: "I'm pro-prostitution -- I mean really pro, not just pro-prostitute and against prostitution. I'm pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-drag queens, pro-legalization of drugs" -- whereas Noonan's non-Italian, non-pagan Catholicism is explained mostly by her lies about Pope John Paul's endorsement of the new Mel Gibson movie.

It has been demonstrable for some time that this miserable harpy is nuts -- the question remains, why does a major outlet like the WSJ continue to avail her ravings? Perhaps the question answers itself.