Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
Brad, I also noticed that the bill was concerned about the elimination of corruption. What is the record of United States regarding corruption? Our political campaigns are nothing more than organized bribery. Is it possible for a non-corrupt politicians to get elected to anything higher than the City Council in a small town? How many corrupt leaders has United States propped up around the world? This is not an argument that AGOA is a bad thing...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons(fwd)
Rob Schaap wrote: Two men expressing affection in a homophobic world may do so by hugging each other, but only if they bring their forearms hard against each others' backs, preferably bruising some ribs, and then, for but a moment, making sure to hug hard enough to induce pain. This is a very poignant ritual, but must be reserved for rare and moving occasions - like when someone remembers it is the object of theory that is the object of theory. I think we need to theorize this - the need to differentiate this kind of hug from an erotic hug, the need to bruise some bones in the process, etc. etc. I'm reminded of that Barbara Krueger caption to a photo of a football game - "You devise elaborate rituals to touch each other." Oh, sorry, this isn't economics. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
In a message dated 00-05-15 18:09:36 EDT, you write: A friend of mine from grad school, Donna Landry (co-editor of The Spivak Reader), has been studying peasant and working class women poets of the 17th 18th centuries. I asked her if she likes reading the stuff, which from what I've seen, looks pretty awful. She said no, but that she doesn't like poetry much anyway; she'd rather read detective novels. Sigh. You know, this confirms my worst suspicions about those philosophers manque who do Theory. They don't like literature, and they lack the discipline or training to do real philosophy, so they generate esxciting-sounding but essentially meaningless social theory ungrounded in either rigorous argument or empirical fact. Spivak, pah. Here we have a literature prof who doesn't like poetry, who would rather read detective novels, but who studies bad "subaltern subject perspective" women poets because that is a PC thing to do. The stuff is (I wil take her word) of no literary value, and should be studied by someone with training as a historian or historical sociologist, who might be able to teach us something about it. EP Thompson did this some in Customs in Common; but he loved poetry, and knew it. high and low, as an able literary critic--not a Theorist, but as someone who knew the period(s) and loved the language. Oh, well, I am a boring old reactionary who loves poetry, so what do I know. However, my gripe with Theory aside, there was in the literary canon that _I_ was taught a lot of really good folk song and poetry by Anonymous; and you can find a lot of it in the ballads. My wife, same vintage as me, five tears later than you,a nd like me an amateur historian of medieval and Rennaisance England,a hs the asme recollection. Course we listen to a lot of thsi music in song all the time, too. Hey hey, ho ho, Western culture's gotta go, Right, teach 'em Spivak instead of Milton, it's great as an emetic. --jks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
Please find attached one manly cyber-hug, Justin! Well-spoken, comrade! If, as Frost said, 'poetry is what gets left out in translation' (though I'm convinced Dryden managed to keep plenty of Chaucer in), 'tis even the translation that's left out in the postie critique, where the heroic couplet is only a shitfight between the logocentric and the phonocentric, and meanings not worth discussing beyond their a-priori definition as some generic ether which is significant only in that it signifies nothing but its own deferred difference. For myself, I've a lot more time for Spivak than Derrida. As I have more for influenza than I do smallpox. Anyway, good on you, Justin! Rob. In a message dated 00-05-15 18:09:36 EDT, you write: A friend of mine from grad school, Donna Landry (co-editor of The Spivak Reader), has been studying peasant and working class women poets of the 17th 18th centuries. I asked her if she likes reading the stuff, which from what I've seen, looks pretty awful. She said no, but that she doesn't like poetry much anyway; she'd rather read detective novels. Sigh. You know, this confirms my worst suspicions about those philosophers manque who do Theory. They don't like literature, and they lack the discipline or training to do real philosophy, so they generate esxciting-sounding but essentially meaningless social theory ungrounded in either rigorous argument or empirical fact. Spivak, pah. Here we have a literature prof who doesn't like poetry, who would rather read detective novels, but who studies bad "subaltern subject perspective" women poets because that is a PC thing to do. The stuff is (I wil take her word) of no literary value, and should be studied by someone with training as a historian or historical sociologist, who might be able to teach us something about it. EP Thompson did this some in Customs in Common; but he loved poetry, and knew it. high and low, as an able literary critic--not a Theorist, but as someone who knew the period(s) and loved the language. Oh, well, I am a boring old reactionary who loves poetry, so what do I know. However, my gripe with Theory aside, there was in the literary canon that _I_ was taught a lot of really good folk song and poetry by Anonymous; and you can find a lot of it in the ballads. My wife, same vintage as me, five tears later than you,a nd like me an amateur historian of medieval and Rennaisance England,a hs the asme recollection. Course we listen to a lot of thsi music in song all the time, too. Hey hey, ho ho, Western culture's gotta go, Right, teach 'em Spivak instead of Milton, it's great as an emetic. --jks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
what is this "manly cyber-hug"? (smile!) Mine Please find attached one manly cyber-hug, Justin..
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
G'day Mine, Two men expressing affection in a homophobic world may do so by hugging each other, but only if they bring their forearms hard against each others' backs, preferably bruising some ribs, and then, for but a moment, making sure to hug hard enough to induce pain. This is a very poignant ritual, but must be reserved for rare and moving occasions - like when someone remembers it is the object of theory that is the object of theory. Cheers, Rob. what is this "manly cyber-hug"? (smile!) Mine Please find attached one manly cyber-hug, Justin..
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
At 01:35 PM 05/13/2000 -0400, you wrote: My understand of the shift from hunting and gathering to agriculture is that nutritional standards did decline, but so did the risk of starvation. Agricultural output was less uncertain. Maybe, but it's not unmixed progress. It's more a matter of a trade-off (which was my point). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
