But the provocateur's latest pro-Palin essay takes a weird turn into nonsenseland with this sentence: "Palin as a pro-life wife, mother and ambitious professional represents the next big shift in feminism. Pro-life women will save feminism by expanding it, particularly into the more traditional Third World." Wait…what?

What a vast oversimplification of the feminism of literally hundreds of countries, each with its own set of cultural values, economics, literature, and religion. How does Sarah Palin, a woman who has barely traveled outside of the United States, who favors "small town," "real" (read: white) America, who is staunchly Christian, help expand feminism into the Third World? Solely by being a pro-life working mom? Of course, Paglia barely explains why Palin is a savior for feminism in developing countries, probably because she's a maverick!

In addition, as Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte pointed out earlier this year, the governments with the greatest percentage of women "including Uganda, India, Pakistan and Costa Rica — have laws mandating that women hold a certain number of seats in some of their lawmaking bodies" Hmm, that sounds dangerously close to the dreaded socialism, and something small-government loving Palin would surely not approve of.

Honestly, I don't understand how anyone can take Paglia seriously as a feminist voice when she's so clearly and grossly biased. She hates, hates Hillary Clinton, as she's expressed on several occasions, mocking her looks as well as her personal life. In this essay, Paglia first says, "I was irritated by Hillary Clinton's aggressive flagging of Ayers in a debate, and I accepted Obama's curt dismissal of the issue." But guess what! When her beloved Palin brought up Ayers, Paglia became worried! "My concern about Ayers has been very slow in developing. The mainstream media should have fully explored the subject early this year and not allowed it to simmer and boil until it flared up ferociously in the last month of the campaign…his past connections with Ayers do seem to have been more frequent and substantive than he has claimed." Is she serious with this shit?

Paglia decries what she describes as "A shocking level of irrational emotionalism and at times infantile rage," Democrats displayed when dealing with Sarah Palin. If she wants to see a shocking level of irrational emotionalism, I suggest she look in the friggin' mirror.

Obama Surfs Through [Salon]
Checking In On Feminism Overseas [LAT]

Earlier: Camille Paglia Fighting Old Personal Battles With New Palin Sword

"Like Los Angeles and San Francisco, Manhattan and Washington occupy their own mental zones — nice to visit but not a place to stay if you value independent thought these days," Camille blathers on in her praise of Palin. And it sounded very much like what Sarah Palin recited in her RNC acceptance speech: "A writer observed, 'We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity,' Palin said. "And I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman. I grew up with those people. They're the ones who do some of the hardest work in America, who grow our food and run our factories and fight our wars. They love their country in good times and bad — and they're always proud of America. "

The implication with both Paglia and Palin is that people who live in cities are intrinsically less patriotic than those who are from Mayberry. We must be one hell of an unpatriotic country, then, because according to a 2005 U.N. survey, 80.8% of the American population lives in cities and suburbs. What's more, during this election cycle it's not only urbanites who have been made out to be unpatriotic. It's anyone who's not Christian.

First there's the whole Obama is a Muslim meme, and people jumping on Obama saying, "my Muslim faith." That's just flat out anti-Islam prejudice. But then there's Palin's Evangelism. Much has been made of Palin's Pentecostal church, and while some of what has been said about the Alaska governor's religiosity is overreaction, she has said several things that are deeply disturbing for anyone who believes strongly in separation of church and state.

Beliefnet.com editor-in-chief Steven Waldman writes in the Wall Street Journal: "What should be of concern to religious minorities is that Palin signed a resolution establishing a Christian Heritage Week. It didn’t actually declare the U.S. to be an officially Christian nation but it plucked Founding Fathers quotes way out of context to misleadingly imply they were devout Christians." In addition, Palin "told a group of young church leaders to pray for a gas pipeline because it was God’s will. 'God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built. So pray for that.' This is well beyond what President Bush customarily said. Asserting that God endorses a particular energy strategy or public works project is exactly the sort of mindset the Founders feared. The vote-for-this-because-God-says-so approach means that those who oppose a particular policy are violating God’s will — and good Christians should view them that way."

Though Paglia would certainly accuse me of being trapped in the allegedly closed-minded "mental zone" of New York City, I am deeply disturbed by these cultural assumptions. It serves precisely no one to play into the I'm-more-patriotic-than-you-are pissing contest. By Paglia and Palin's implied parameters, as a Jewish urban dweller I might as well be an Iraqi insurgent for my suspected level of innate patriotism. And as much as I believe in questioning authority and looking at our country critically, I wholeheartedly love America. "I have spent time debating with myself the notion of love of country," My mother wrote me in an email this week. "After all, this country took my parents, and they prospered and so in turn have we and you. Jews don't fit in a lot of places...we have to remember that." Trust me, mom, I haven't forgotten.

Fresh Blood For The Vampire [Salon]
Is Sarah Palin Bad For The Jews? [Radar]
The Passion of Palin: Separating Real Concerns From the Hysteria [WSJ]

Earlier: Pig Lips, Crazy Eyes, Camille Paglia And The Dear Leader

California Senator Dianne Feinstein also gets some Paglia love for having "true gravitas — a rare quality in women." Then Camille opines that Dianne Feinstein should have been the first female nominee for president. (Because even though America might not vote for a woman, they'll jump at the chance to vote for a Jewish woman) Further on, Camille admits that Madonna didn't want to meet her after that Madonna — Finally, a Real Feminist story in the 90s, perhaps because the pop star was intimidated by her intellectuality. "I attributed Madonna's skittishness at the time to her uncertainties about her education (she had dropped out of college after one semester to seek fame in New York)."

So to recap! Women rarely have true gravitas, should be stylish and warm but not too aggressive or shrill, and Camille Paglia is smarter than Madonna. (Paglia also defends Norman Mailer's place in the sexual dialog of the 70s and calls him "pussy whipped.") I'd foment some righteous indignation about it but I'm too exhausted from the anger aroused by the rest of her column to deal with it.

Queen Hillary's disruptive court [Salon]
Madonna — Finally, a Real Feminist [New York Times]
Earlier: Gorgeous Star-Fucking Hillary Clinton Aide Buys Fake Handbag And Other Stuff Vogue Left Out