Oprah's Obama

Democrats, Elections 2008, Politics, Pop-Culture, The Zeitgeist

Before being swept up in it, let’s trace the genesis of Barack Obama mania for a moment. It was started by Oprah Winfrey. I’m not saying he ought to be discounted because his popularity is of the Queen of Kitsch’s making. For one, it’s too late for that. Oprah is a powerful person. However, since the media have taken on her mantle and kept the momentum going, we seemed to have forgotten that Oprah introduced Obama to the public.

Obama is a nice enough man. Whereas most candidates are quite ignoble, he’s merely mediocre. I think he was against the war, which ought to elevate him above The Hildebeest among Democrats. Republicans won’t have worthy candidates, unless Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul decides to run.

In any event, it doesn’t hurt to remember that Obama was launched by the confessional queen and in many ways represents the Oprah-ization of American life, down to his names.

Had he been christened “Barak,” he’d be the namesake of an impressive “military general in the Book of Judges” in the Hebrew Bible. Alas, if his mother intended to so name him, she misspelled “Barak.” If this indeed is the genesis of his name, it would also be emblematic of contemporary America.

Obama’s middle name — “Hussein” — he shares with Saddam and many millions of Muslims. That too provides a snapshot of modern America.

Oprah’s Obama

Democrats, Elections 2008, Politics, Pop-Culture, The Zeitgeist

In any event, it doesn’t hurt to remember that Obama was launched by the confessional queen and in many ways represents the Oprah-ization of American life, down to his names.

Obama’s middle name — “Hussein” — he shares with Saddam and many millions of Muslims. That too provides a snapshot of modern America.

Paglia Prattles On Pop Music

Music, Pop-Culture, The Zeitgeist

The pronouncements of the once-interesting Camille Pagilia have grown rather obtuse. How bland has she become? You be the judge. What she says here about “CrotchGate” is as worn and uninteresting as anything Gloria Steinem might muster.

Paglia has always substituted symbolism for substantive assessment in the realm of art. Remember her clapped out claptrap about the significance of drag-queen iconography? This awful error has led her to evaluate Madonna as “an authentic, creative artist.”

Madonna cannot sing or compose a song worth hearing. Like most pop “musicians” today, she is a product of the visual medium: first the video, then the DVD. If you were unable to see these “artists,” you’d not want to hear them. I suspect that their image alone has, over the years, supported CD sales. And of course, the masses habituate to the thump-thump studio-engineered racket that substitutes for a voice, instrumental arrangements, and chord progression in a Madonna or Britney ditty.

Every “recording” artist today is drawn from a highly biased sample, where T & A are the prime criteria for selection, not musical ability. Janis Ian’s “Seventeen” would never have been recorded today; she’d have flopped. In music nowadays, the visual, not the auditory, is the medium.

Paglia blathers about the mismanaged sexuality of well-worn, ugly monsters like Britney Spears. (And the media mock Tom Cruise, a man of 44, for his double chin. Have you seen the chins on the big, flat, expanses that make up Britney’s mug?) The Porn Aesthetic is at work here, not the sensual.

The notion of Paglia as a sharp cultural commentator finally evaporated when she called Condoleezza Rice a brilliant woman. The woman, Condi, has not even been able to fulfill the minimum requirements of her office, much less demonstrate brilliance.(Her last official “remarks” are quite good…for a 12-year-old.)

Donald Trump, who, shall we say, has a good sense of what would fly in the private sector, said of the Secretary of State that she was a lovely woman, but that she “goes around to other countries and other nations, negotiates with their leaders, comes back and nothing ever happens.” He’d have fired her, that’s for sure.

In any event, I’ll no longer be following Paglia too closely (her eventual evaluation of the blogosphere came well after mine and only echoed what I had said in “The Importance of Boundaries“).

The Iraq Study Group's Magic Realism

Iraq, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Middle East

“The Iraq Study Group has advised the administration to try a few more tricks before getting our spent men and materiel out of Iraq. Led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, the Group is especially desperate to secure Iran and Syria’s assistance in reversing Iraq’s fortunes. If its central thrust is accepted, “Enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in the region” will, slowly, replace localized brute force.
There is, however, a pesky problem with galvanizing the newfangled axis of angels.
One of the aims of Bush’s disastrous occupation of Iraq was to weaken—even collapse—the Islamic Republic. He has achieved the exact opposite of what he intended. Iran has superseded the US as the most influential power in the region. Syria is second. Both have collaborated nicely in getting Zelzal-2 missiles and short-range Katyusha rockets to Hezbollah. Israel, like the monkey-see-monkey-do country it has become, followed the US’s bliss, as hippies would say, and leveled Lebanon. That failed mission further entrenched the terrible troika—Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah—as the region’s top dogs.
So how do the politically weak entice the strong? How does America leverage influence over Iran and Syria? Promise not to invade them? Threaten not to return their captured soldiers? ‘Allow’ mad Mahmoud to enrich Uranium? We’ve gambled away almost all our bargaining chips—bar one.
We still have Israel…”

The excerpt is from my new WorldNetDaily column, “The Iraq Study Group’s Magic Realism.” Comments are welcome.