At 01:24 AM 01-12-98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Woof!
>
>Matthew
Ohhhh, what a *goood* boy! Now, roll over and play dead for awhile, and
later you can play further at becoming-dog, becoming-Fritz,
becoming-Michel, becoming-ridiculous.
Alternatively, you could answer a question, respond to a criticism, post
something substantial (I've done this, for all the other "upset"), submit
("down boy!"), look up the phrase "identity politics" in some handbook, or
shut the hell up?
Enough of this.
As for Nesta's comments that:
"Isn't the point, the old-fashioned point I suppose - *who* benefits by
this prosecution of Pinochet? Who is trying to distance themselves? Who
stands to gain by being unassociated, becoming dissassociated - with
P.? "
"Because I do not think, gentle readers, that it is the dead who are
achieving in this story. Someone is scoring. And it probably isn't the
bereft, in the end.
In whose interests is it that the Western democracies should - belatedly
- bring the dictator to trial?"
Those questions are indeed the appropriate ones: not what is going on
inside someone's or some group's heads, but what is the *effect* of these
practices, in whose interests do they operate for or against, etc. I am
sure few folks on this list would argue that it is "the people" who are
behind all this, it is authentic, etc. Again, I dont care, this in itself
changes nothing. I want to see him swing.
As for your last question, this is interesting, though I'm not sure what
you are exactly suggesting, what you think those answers might be. Do you
perhaps see some "ruse" in the works, and if so what is it (animal,
vegetable, mineral or what)? But as for the U.S., Clinton, Albright et al.
do not find it in their/our interests for the trial to take place, esp. in
Spain or the UK or Europe. Obviously it is in US interest to control the
trial as much as possible, if it must in fact happen. I have deleted it,
but have received newsmail, from either the BBC site or the Guardian, that
we are "secretly" pressuring the UK/Straw into letting P. go back to Chile,
under the pretense of a (sham) trial there. Which practically no one, from
either pro/anti-trial side, believes would actually happen.) So unless the
Gaurdian has gone tabloid, the trial is *not* in US interests, and this of
course is all the more reason to support it.
As for the other western "democracies," I should love to hear more from
comrades on this list, and in the UK (Alejandro?), Spain (if we have any),
anywhere in the Americas..... as to whom is being served what.
Best,
Daniel
-------------------------------------------
Daniel Vukovich
English; The Unit for Criticism
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------------------------------
>
>Woof!
>
>Matthew
Ohhhh, what a *goood* boy! Now, roll over and play dead for awhile, and
later you can play further at becoming-dog, becoming-Fritz,
becoming-Michel, becoming-ridiculous.
Alternatively, you could answer a question, respond to a criticism, post
something substantial (I've done this, for all the other "upset"), submit
("down boy!"), look up the phrase "identity politics" in some handbook, or
shut the hell up?
Enough of this.
As for Nesta's comments that:
"Isn't the point, the old-fashioned point I suppose - *who* benefits by
this prosecution of Pinochet? Who is trying to distance themselves? Who
stands to gain by being unassociated, becoming dissassociated - with
P.? "
"Because I do not think, gentle readers, that it is the dead who are
achieving in this story. Someone is scoring. And it probably isn't the
bereft, in the end.
In whose interests is it that the Western democracies should - belatedly
- bring the dictator to trial?"
Those questions are indeed the appropriate ones: not what is going on
inside someone's or some group's heads, but what is the *effect* of these
practices, in whose interests do they operate for or against, etc. I am
sure few folks on this list would argue that it is "the people" who are
behind all this, it is authentic, etc. Again, I dont care, this in itself
changes nothing. I want to see him swing.
As for your last question, this is interesting, though I'm not sure what
you are exactly suggesting, what you think those answers might be. Do you
perhaps see some "ruse" in the works, and if so what is it (animal,
vegetable, mineral or what)? But as for the U.S., Clinton, Albright et al.
do not find it in their/our interests for the trial to take place, esp. in
Spain or the UK or Europe. Obviously it is in US interest to control the
trial as much as possible, if it must in fact happen. I have deleted it,
but have received newsmail, from either the BBC site or the Guardian, that
we are "secretly" pressuring the UK/Straw into letting P. go back to Chile,
under the pretense of a (sham) trial there. Which practically no one, from
either pro/anti-trial side, believes would actually happen.) So unless the
Gaurdian has gone tabloid, the trial is *not* in US interests, and this of
course is all the more reason to support it.
As for the other western "democracies," I should love to hear more from
comrades on this list, and in the UK (Alejandro?), Spain (if we have any),
anywhere in the Americas..... as to whom is being served what.
Best,
Daniel
-------------------------------------------
Daniel Vukovich
English; The Unit for Criticism
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------------------------------