WHY I LOVE CAMILLE PAGLIA

As I stated recently on Twitter, in honor of Manuary I am re-reading The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men, by Christina Hoff Sommers. This compelling book explains how the feminist establishment, aided and abetted by the government and our public schools, has succeeded in aggressively indoctrinating our children with the ridiculous notion that we need to achieve "gender equity." This cabal uses false statistics and psycho-babble to perpetuate and promote the idea that girls are disadvantaged in our schools due to a mythical, conspiratorial paternity hell bent on keeping women subjugated.

The reality is that the disadvantaged in our schools are the boys. In every category except standardized math testing and sports, boys are at a distinct disadvantage. Moreover, our children know it. Girls consistently are surveyed as happier and better adjusted in school than their brothers. Additionally, girls report that they feel their needs are met in our schools, while boys say the opposite. Yet, the canard that girls need to be protected from male domination persists and serves to "justify" all kinds of ridiculous programs designed to achieve "gender equity," thereby wasting precious resources chasing the hobgoblins of sexism invented by militant agenda-driven feminists who have no grasp of or interest in reality.

In my reading I recently came across a passage where Sommers quotes Camille Paglia extensively. I love Camille! I discovered her in college. Reading her words is like finding an oasis in the middle of a vast wasteland of lock-step adherence to trite liberal dogma. Camille is a self-described feminist with little tolerance for the insipid feminism of the "gender equity" crowd. She is a liberal who courageously argues that one cannot be intellectually honest in opposing the death penalty while supporting abortion rights. She is an atheist who recognizes and values the concept of religion. In short, she is a free-thinking, honest, hysterically-funny iconoclast unafraid of alienation from the left, as well as the right. She is also a lesbian who likes men.

Here's a passage from Sommers' book (pp. 63-64.):

It is very rare these days to hear anyone praising masculinity. The dissident feminist writer Camille Paglia is a refreshing exception. Her observations are effective antidotes to the surfeit of disparagements. For Paglia, male aggressiveness and competitiveness are animating principles of creativity: "Masculinity is aggressive, unstable, combustible. It is also the most creative cultural force in history." (1) Speaking of the "fashionable disdain for 'patriarchal society' to which nothing good is ever attributed," she writes, "But it is patriarchal society that has freed me as a woman. It is capitalism that has given me the leisure to sit at this desk writing this book. Let us stop being small-minded about men and freely acknowledge what treasures their obsessiveness has poured into culture." (2) Men, writes Paglia, "created the world we live in and the luxuries we enjoy." (3) "When I cross the George Washington Bridge or any of America's great bridges, I think--men have done this. Construction is a sublime male poetry."(4)

What a refreshing antidote to the shrill feminist dreck pervading academia! Camille is reviled by the liberal and feminist establishment- you know, the proponents of tolerance- because she refuses to join in the goose-step parade of short-sighted and self-interested political drivel. I have read most of Camille's books. I also follow her too infrequent, in my opinion, column on salon.com. We need more voices like Camille's. I may not agree with her on everything, but I never doubt her sincerity, nor her uncompromised scholarship. Spread the word: Camille Paglia understands and even reveres men. Thank you, Camille.

NOTES:

(1) Camille Paglia, Sex, Art, and American Culture (New York: Vintage, 1992), p. 53.

(2) Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1990), p. 37.

(3) Paglia, Sex, Art, and American Culture, p. 24.

(4) Paglia, Sexual Personae, p. 37.

The Princess and the Frog – A Homage to Classic Disney With a Modern Twist

Like many little girls growing up in the 80’s and 90’s, Disney Princesses were my obsession. One of our family’s favorite home made videos stars a 4 year old me confessing to my grandfather that I would literally die if Santa did not give me the Little Mermaid hand-held game for Christmas. I can remember twirling around my room in my yellow dress and deciding that when I grew up I wanted to live in a castle, have a talking tea pot, and a massive library of books like Belle. Disney has made a modern empire out of princess related movies, dolls, costumes, band-aids, and pez dispensers. The new film, The Princess and the Frog, provides a much-needed update to the outdated Disney Princesses, while returning to the original animation and musical style of the classics.


My favorite thing about The Princess and the Frog is the more modern and empowering message behind the main character. Many of the past Disney Princess movies are based on classic fairytales. While I appreciate that Disney has tried to maintain the integrity of these stories, many of them portray century old messages for young girls that are contrary to modern beliefs about the roles and abilities of women. Lets take The Little Mermaid, based on Hans Christian Andersen’s story. Sixteen year-old Ariel is a mermaid who pines over a human prince named Eric. Ariel trades her voice for legs in order to be with Eric. Ariel literally changes herself for a man she doesn’t know and is married just days after actually meeting him. Other Disney Princess stories, such as Snow White, reflect similar images of women who do nothing but sit around all day and wait for their prince charming to save them from their “difficult” lives and the ball and chain of something no woman should ever have to do…. work.




The Princess and the Frog, however, depicts a strong young woman named Tiana who has a dream of her own, starting a restaurant in New Orleans. Tiana makes efforts to achieve this dream by working multiple jobs and saving money. Along the way Tiana meets a prince in the form of a frog. After kissing the frog, Tiana is also transformed into a frog and the two fall in love. Without revealing too much of the story, Tiana is able to stumble upon true love and still pursue her own dream of owning a restaurant. This is a major change from previous Disney Princess movies by the addition of a strong female character. The writers even go so far as to add a character, Charlotte, who is a complete mockery of the traditional Disney Princess image of a girl waiting for her prince. Disney hit the mark by adding to their family of princesses a woman with strong work ethic and meaningful goals who stumbled upon love, rather than spending her life waiting for prince charming. The plot is fun and the frog couple meets a variety of loveable characters who add a good dose of humor to the film.


Another thing I loved about the Princess and the Frog is the good ol’ fashioned 2D animation. While I enjoy the work Pixar has been doing and am fascinated by the recent boom in 3D films, the classic, no gimmicky, 2D animation used here is both nostalgic and refreshing. Randy Newman catches the spirit of New Orleans in the many memorable blues and jazz influenced music sequences throughout the film. Ray the firefly’s sweet, though delusional, ballad “Ma Belle Evangeline” is easily one of my favorite cartoon musical moments. Overall I really enjoyed the Princess and the Frog. I was impressed by it’s more modern message, classic animation, and catchy soundtrack. I recommend it to both children and adults!

dannyras: Why I'm a Jackass

For my first major post, I wanted to get my feet wet and allow those of you who do not know me personally to get a snapshot of who I am. Ideally, throughout the course of this blog, the nuances of each contributor's personality and tastes will emerge and this is simply one image in the mosaic that composes me. Most importantly, though, I just think it's a funny story.

It happened to me last Winter semester at BYU (the location is significant). Consider this a warning that there is some mild language--none that is beyond what is PG-appropriate, but not language that I typically use around my grandmother. Just be warned. Also, it runs a bit long. Sorry--not really though.

---

On Tuesday in my Biology class I gave a presentation on DDT and malaria in Africa. For those of you unfamiliar with the situation, malaria is a mosquito-borne disease prevalent in most tropical/sub-tropical climates of the world and is most common in sub-Saharan Africa where I served my mission. Its symptoms are primarily flu-like, but when left untreated, severe neurological problems result, often leading to death. Estimates put annual infections of malaria somewhere between 250 million to 500 million, resulting in over one million deaths each year, the majority of which strike African children. During my time in Africa, I met and administered to hundreds of people who were infected, including a fellow American missionary. I've seen its ravaging influence first hand and can attest to its devastating affect on the African people. Here are the faces of some small victims of malaria that I met while in Zambia.



Now back in the 1940s, American scientists developed a pesticide called DDT that proved to be extremely effective at killing mosquitoes, and thus also effectively stemmed the diseases they transmitted, such as malaria and typhus. It was used ubiquitously during the 40s and 50s, with many people praising it as a godsend, a miracle pesticide! In that period, scientists found DDT so effective at killing mosquitoes, that the diseases they transmitted were nearly eradicated.



However, in 1962, naturalist author and environmental activist Rachel Carson published her book "Silent Spring" in which she castigates DDT as "an elixir of death". She argued that DDT was killing off many birds of prey and that it was imperative that people stop using it. You see, DDT was seeping into the soil and water sources and was being stored in the fat cells of fish. Predatory birds, such as the bald eagle or the peregrine falcon, were then eating the fish, overdosing on DDT and keeling over dead. Soon, environmentalists caught-on, lobbied DC and international green organizations like Greenpeace and, in 1972, America led the way in banning the use of DDT globally.

The immediate affects seemed beneficial and we all gave ourselves a big pat on the back for protecting these birds. After all, who with a heart would advocate the extinction of the eagle or falcon? But soon the real effects began to manifest and malaria outbreaks began to rise... and rise... and rise. Without DDT to mitigate the spread of malaria, infections skyrocketted to terrible proportions. Thanks to Rachel Carson, the peregrine falcon survives while literally tens of millions of people have lost their lives to a disease that should not even exist anymore.

Ironic, really, that it was Carson who coined the term "elixir of death". While DDT may have been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands or birds, Carson and her devout environmentalist followers are directly responsible for tens of millions of deaths of humans, predominantly Africans.

Choose your word: slaughter, extermination, genocide, holocaust. All are fitting, but I think ecogenocide does it best.

After my presentation, a sassy young chap (I'll call him "Steve" for the sake of telling the story; I really don’t know his name) piped up in his indoctrinated, condescending tone in defense of Carson.

"Don't you think we could find a solution that doesn't destroy the environment?" he chimed.

"Well, the solution was actually already found in DDT as, in the sixty years since its development, no other better option has arisen or even come close. Meanwhile, the genocide continues while the Prius-driving enviro-Nazis continue to decry any use of the panacea/pesticide as administering death to birds of prey."

Perhaps I didn't answer in the most diplomatic way, but after seeing the carnage to the African families I had grown to love during my time there, I had little tolerance for enablers of the biological slaughter.

---Two days later---

I show up in class for our Thursday lecture to a sweet, attractive girl giving a presentation on how global warming is affecting the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Australia. Being a skeptic on the merits of global warming, I approached the topic dubiously, but fairly.

At the conclusion of her presentation, I raised my hand and asked: "How do we know that global warming is the primary cause of this 'coral bleaching?' Haven't global temperatures fluctuated over the past centuries? And considering the Great Barrier Reef's continued existence, wouldn't evidence suggest that it has developed a means to adapt and adjust according to the changes in temperature over that period?"

A fair question, to boot. It did not attempt to debunk the theory of global warming, but simply called into question its affect on the reef specifically.

Almost immediately, little Rocco starts yelping at me about how global warming is a fact and every reputable scientist agrees that its a serious and pressing threat to the World, and blah blah blah blah blah. All the same hackneyed "Inconvenient Truth" talking points you hear re-hashed again and again every time the subject comes up.

Initially I wasn't phased by his irksome chirping, but instead continued to listen as the class discussed the idea, even providing plausible answers addressing my question. Thankfully, other class members respected my question as one being both sincere and valid to the topic at hand.

The discussion continued as the presenter fielded more questions, some more pertinent than others, but all were civil and respectful nonetheless. Finally, I raised my hand to ask another question:

"As you mentioned in your presentation," I began, "Australia has not done much if anything to stop this from getting worse. Does that mean that they are not concerned about it, despite the deleterious economic and physical ramifications you're describing? Or do they just not believe it is a serious threat?"

Another fair question, one specifically designed to get to the reasoning behind the inaction of the Australian government.

Suddenly--in an awkward flurry--Rocco stares right at me, and in an elevated and down-right sassy tone, pipes up again without even being called upon to speak.

"Well,” his voice quivering in agitation, “why doesn't Africa do anything about malaria?!"

I assume that this strange outburst was to suggest that Australia is just as powerless to protect their coastal environment as African nations are in fighting a disease that's already been cured. But by so doing, he was now treading on sensitive territory and I responded loudly; I’d had enough of the chihuahua’s crap. With the class’s full attention, I began:

"First of all, Australia is a first-world nation with the means and prowess that go along with it; African nations lack the resources and influence to realize such a solution."

Feeling my pulse increasing and my face getting flushed from the rising anger, I continued further elevating my voice, being possessed with the knowledge that I was both in the right and in complete control:

"And secondly," my voice getting louder still, "obviously you and the BASTARDS at Greenpeace don't give a DAMN about the 800,000 African children they're killing every year!"

Stunned and shaken, Rocco took a second before shooting back with a profound, "Yeah, well... you're a jackass!!"

At which point, my professor stood up and half-laughing said, "I think that will do it for the discussion today..."

Sherlock Holmes

I wanted to see Guy Ritchie's new take on Sherlock Holmes ever since I saw the previews for it a few months ago. I love the character; love that he is a flawed, restless, addict. I have enjoyed the tales of Sherlock Holmes in their various forms all my life, even the underrated- in my opinion- 1985 Barry Levinson film "Young Sherlock Holmes."

The fact that Ritchie decided to make the latest incarnation an action film is icing on the cake. For pure entertainment value I dig the fast-paced, visually-stimulating, good vs. evil action genre. The lovely Mrs. Voldematt, obviously a purist, has expressed disdain for the concept of Sherlock Holmes as action hero. She prefers the cerebral, ponderous Sherlock Holmes. The Holmes who doesn't get dirty or, frankly, bloodied.

Tonight I ventured forth in the rain, son in tow- and later met by the Triumvirate's fanboy, Leland- to see Ritchie's take on Sherlock. There is action ab initio which, of course, I love. Robert Downey, Jr.'s Sherlock is a streetwise scrapper, always at the ready for a brawl. He is bored and restless when without a case, but there is no opium addiction in this one.

A recurring theme is Holmes' ability to assess an opponent and how best to vanquish him. This is played out first in the character's head with voiceover as Holmes decides the blows that will render the opponent neutralized. Immediately following, Holmes executes the plan to perfection.

Ritchie filmed in mostly gray tones, perfectly capturing the milieu of the seedy underbelly of Victorian London. The sets and special effects used to recreate old London are amazing.

Jude Law is an amiable Watson. He is the perfect BFF for a Holmes of the action genre. The villain Blackwood, played by Mark Strong, is creepy and sinister without resorting to camp. Rachel McAdams is the one weak link in the cast. I almost suspect the character was turned into an American merely because Ritchie realized McAdams couldn't pull off an English accent. While I loved her in "Mean Girls," she seems miscast here.

This slick, stylish, very Ritchie-esque Sherlock Holmes does not fail to entertain. The plot is interesting, the acting is superb, the camera work is rich, and the pace is perfect. There are no boring lulls in this one. I give it a solid A-. Enjoy!

My two cents

The triumvirate is made up of two of the most amazingly talented, quick-witted, engaging, laugh-out-loud funny, and fecund people in the world-- along with me.

Simply put, we are three people, each at different stages of life, who share the same talent. We have found that we are at our best AFTER we have wasted all the time our colleagues would have spent studying, creating, working towards a task, etc.

How do we waste that time? The possibilities are endless! Television, movies, the Internet, Facebook, Twitter, reading for pleasure, trips to the kitchen, random cleaning, and my personal favorite: napping.

We love all-nighters and the thrill of being under the gun. We might, in a moment of weakness when time is running out on a deadline, proclaim, "I will never do this again." However, that declaration is swiftly forgotten the moment the task is completed and the result is an astounding success.

Do we believe this is a lifestyle that all should pursue? NO! We suspect most people would find our M.O. to be utterly unacceptable. That is fine; we don't judge you. Go ahead and work on that project, but as for me and my fellow members of the T-rate, we will go out and play!

Final note to our religious friends, especially those who share our faith: We do not believe the procrastination mantra should be a religious practice. We believe in the words of Amulek; that one should not procrastinate the day of his repentence. In fact, getting yourself right with the Lord will ensure that your head and conscience are clear when you inevitably have to complete your particular school, work, or other secular task.

¡Viva el triunvirato!

What We're All About

Here, Ellen sums the three of us up pretty well.

So it begins!

Welcome, friends! I'm excited that our collective genius will FINALLY be documented in an accessible blog format. Now go for it!