As far as Nesta's last question is concerned, the trial functions possibly
to reassert the "morality" or 'righteousness' or 'humanist' nature of
western democracy. It is interesting what Foucault has to say about
punishment and the sovereign.
At 05:50 1/12/98 -0600, you wrote:
>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
>-------------------------------------------
>
>
to reassert the "morality" or 'righteousness' or 'humanist' nature of
western democracy. It is interesting what Foucault has to say about
punishment and the sovereign.
At 05:50 1/12/98 -0600, you wrote:
>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
>-------------------------------------------
>
>