In Phil Dore\’s piece he states that one of the STWC\’s weaknesses is their \”unwillingness to criticise totalitarian regimes that suit their ideological outlook\”. Indeed. I was socialising with some friends the other evening, one of them is from France. The subject matter veered on to French film at one point, and I asked Benois what he thought of the important 1960\’s film Battle of Algiers. His response was a ten minute catalogue of the evils that France has visited on Algeria over the last fifty years, in quite moving and fine detail. In summary, and in his words, \’Much, much worse than the US has ever done in Iraq\’. My point is that through ignorance, or cynical avoidance of awkward facts, many STWC activists wholeheartedly ignore France and Russia\’s role in supporting Saddam (easily and demonstrably more than US and UK in arms sales), and frequently raised France Russia and even China to saint-like status when their UN Security Council status was crassly manipulated by these countries to oppose Saddam\’s overthrow by the Coalition forces. Saddam was strategically and financially more useful to them in power than facing trial, and there was absolutely no ethical dimension to their veto. It\’s not that I am vehemently pro this war, I feel it has been handled disastrously by decidedly 2nd division statesmen, and that the Israeli psychotic meltdown should be tackled as priority. But I also feel that serious opponents of crimes against humanity – which most STWC people undoubtedly are – should take a closer look at who their bedfellows are when waging propaganda wars against the US, or assuaging their guilt for UK imperialism of over a hundred years ago. They themselves may just experience the \’blowback phenomenon\’ a few years down the line, if they spend too much energy eulogising evil lunatics such as Abu Hamza, and letting China and Russian state mechanisms continue crushing self expression while earnest socialists here try to overthrow our \’ruthless US hegemony\’.
Brilliant piece. This pseudo-philosphy of personal neurosis justifies a life style impossible wthout the very biology it deplores. One can have a fludity of social experience of \”gender\” without denying its biological basis. The argument against Koker et al, using imitative \”drag\” to define what might be understood as female behavior was breathtaking and conclusive.
If the author is going to critique \”difficult writing\”, at least don\’t write run-on sentences:
\”And for the moment, for whatever bizarre reason, \’theory\’ is what gets promoted and given tenure, therefore aspiring Assistant Professors and adjuncts have to crank it out, whether they actually like doing the stuff or not.\”
This cries out for a semicolon + \”therefore: + comma. (And in all the rest she writes so well.)
With everybody concerned that the loss of Freud will take away something of the profundity, complexity and whatever else of the human condition from philosophers, whay don\’t we just get back to William James and try some real psychology for a change? It\’s about a century late, but I\’m sure some lit-crit physicists will quickly start a guru trend on James if they wanted to.
There are certainly problems with elements of the left, and the article that has been written is interesting.
However, the failure of the campaign was due mainly to the US/UK political leadership blackmailing the populations into thinking that any delays on acting might result in massive disaster.
Christopher Hitchens\’ article on Michael Moore (see the news section of this site), in my view, contains itself many of the charges that Hitchens aims at Moore, such as touting politically-charged screed as fact, and presenting information in a misleading light. A spirited defence of Moore can be found at http://hollywoodbitchslap.com/feature.php?feature=1150 The author of this piece misidentifies Hitchens as being right-wing, but other than this he provides some convincing counter-arguments to Hitchens\’ attacks on Moore.
To me, debate over Michael Moore\’s films have become locked in a rather cheap, uninteresting \”Michael Moore is a prophet\”/\”Michael Moore is a liar\” dichotomy. Countless arguments rage over the editing of Bowling for Columbine, while far more intellectually fulfilling debates about the actual issues raised in the movie (e.g. Why exactly does America have so much gun crime? Does fear of violence in itself fuel violence?) are lost in a cacophony of highly partisan mudslinging.
When Fahrenheit 9/11 opens in the UK on July 9th, I look forward to going to see the movie, which I shall watch with interest and with my critical faculties engaged.
In Phil Dore\’s piece he states that one of the STWC\’s weaknesses is their \”unwillingness to criticise totalitarian regimes that suit their ideological outlook\”. Indeed. I was socialising with some friends the other evening, one of them is from France. The subject matter veered on to French film at one point, and I asked Benois what he thought of the important 1960\’s film Battle of Algiers. His response was a ten minute catalogue of the evils that France has visited on Algeria over the last fifty years, in quite moving and fine detail. In summary, and in his words, \’Much, much worse than the US has ever done in Iraq\’. My point is that through ignorance, or cynical avoidance of awkward facts, many STWC activists wholeheartedly ignore France and Russia\’s role in supporting Saddam (easily and demonstrably more than US and UK in arms sales), and frequently raised France Russia and even China to saint-like status when their UN Security Council status was crassly manipulated by these countries to oppose Saddam\’s overthrow by the Coalition forces. Saddam was strategically and financially more useful to them in power than facing trial, and there was absolutely no ethical dimension to their veto. It\’s not that I am vehemently pro this war, I feel it has been handled disastrously by decidedly 2nd division statesmen, and that the Israeli psychotic meltdown should be tackled as priority. But I also feel that serious opponents of crimes against humanity – which most STWC people undoubtedly are – should take a closer look at who their bedfellows are when waging propaganda wars against the US, or assuaging their guilt for UK imperialism of over a hundred years ago. They themselves may just experience the \’blowback phenomenon\’ a few years down the line, if they spend too much energy eulogising evil lunatics such as Abu Hamza, and letting China and Russian state mechanisms continue crushing self expression while earnest socialists here try to overthrow our \’ruthless US hegemony\’.
Brilliant piece. This pseudo-philosphy of personal neurosis justifies a life style impossible wthout the very biology it deplores. One can have a fludity of social experience of \”gender\” without denying its biological basis. The argument against Koker et al, using imitative \”drag\” to define what might be understood as female behavior was breathtaking and conclusive.
Oh, dear.
If the author is going to critique \”difficult writing\”, at least don\’t write run-on sentences:
\”And for the moment, for whatever bizarre reason, \’theory\’ is what gets promoted and given tenure, therefore aspiring Assistant Professors and adjuncts have to crank it out, whether they actually like doing the stuff or not.\”
This cries out for a semicolon + \”therefore: + comma. (And in all the rest she writes so well.)
I was just reviewing Flashback: more than
500 arguments for the existance of God.
When I hit number 29, I had to pause:
29. ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (II)
(1) God is love.
(2) Love is blind.
(3) Ray Charles is blind.
(4) Therefore, Ray Charles is God.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
Alas, as of this week, Ray Charles died.
May we infer from this that God is now
well and truly dead?
—
Cheers,
Elliott
There isn\’t a way things _should_ be.
There\’s just what happens, and what we do.
— Terry Pratchett: _A Hat Full of Sky_
With everybody concerned that the loss of Freud will take away something of the profundity, complexity and whatever else of the human condition from philosophers, whay don\’t we just get back to William James and try some real psychology for a change? It\’s about a century late, but I\’m sure some lit-crit physicists will quickly start a guru trend on James if they wanted to.
RE:Dores article
There are certainly problems with elements of the left, and the article that has been written is interesting.
However, the failure of the campaign was due mainly to the US/UK political leadership blackmailing the populations into thinking that any delays on acting might result in massive disaster.
Christopher Hitchens\’ article on Michael Moore (see the news section of this site), in my view, contains itself many of the charges that Hitchens aims at Moore, such as touting politically-charged screed as fact, and presenting information in a misleading light. A spirited defence of Moore can be found at http://hollywoodbitchslap.com/feature.php?feature=1150 The author of this piece misidentifies Hitchens as being right-wing, but other than this he provides some convincing counter-arguments to Hitchens\’ attacks on Moore.
To me, debate over Michael Moore\’s films have become locked in a rather cheap, uninteresting \”Michael Moore is a prophet\”/\”Michael Moore is a liar\” dichotomy. Countless arguments rage over the editing of Bowling for Columbine, while far more intellectually fulfilling debates about the actual issues raised in the movie (e.g. Why exactly does America have so much gun crime? Does fear of violence in itself fuel violence?) are lost in a cacophony of highly partisan mudslinging.
When Fahrenheit 9/11 opens in the UK on July 9th, I look forward to going to see the movie, which I shall watch with interest and with my critical faculties engaged.