Camille Paglia (sp?). Apologist for a revolution that won't happen.
As an American, living in too terribly American times, my limited knowledge of
Foucault is stoked by every act in this horrible melodrama. The current
rhetoric of revelatory "bombshells" outweighs the actual event of Iraqis being
killed to take attention away from the infantile sexual desires of a person we
deemed fit to lead us (sex is, to me, not necessarily an infantile expenditure,
but the crude drama of floozy interns and cigars-made-phalluses invites the fact
the Larry Flynt now dictates the US political weather). I rarely contribue to
this list, but since no one else is listening, this seems essential. While
appreciating Romantic poetry, this is all an argument against it. No person, no
construct of subjectivity, is worth the deaths of people. The Tomohawk missile,
penetrator of democracy, is now a legitimate form of political discourse.
I take solace in the fact that while America is doomed, the rest of the world is
not. All of this indicates a decline of empire that has been wanting to happen
for a long time.
What would Michel say? I think he'd laught heartily, as I do myself, in the
dark manner of convicts near the scaffold. Alas.
James Parr
Graduate Instructor
Department of English
University of Virginia
tanya doroshenko wrote:
> hello
>
> >>By the way, what is meant by the subject/abject distinction? Who is this
> >>taken from? Sounds a bit of a poor joke, and a poor criticism of Foucault.
> >>
> >>
> >>Stuart
>
> well i was pretty appauled by it- i'll get a more accurate ref for the book-
>
> >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >"Clinton's crimes are incestuous: He makes the whole world his family and
> >then seduces and pollutes it, person by person"--Paglia
> >
>
> do you really think this (about clinton?) who is paglia?
>
> Tatiana Tanya Doroshenko
>
> tdor1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
As an American, living in too terribly American times, my limited knowledge of
Foucault is stoked by every act in this horrible melodrama. The current
rhetoric of revelatory "bombshells" outweighs the actual event of Iraqis being
killed to take attention away from the infantile sexual desires of a person we
deemed fit to lead us (sex is, to me, not necessarily an infantile expenditure,
but the crude drama of floozy interns and cigars-made-phalluses invites the fact
the Larry Flynt now dictates the US political weather). I rarely contribue to
this list, but since no one else is listening, this seems essential. While
appreciating Romantic poetry, this is all an argument against it. No person, no
construct of subjectivity, is worth the deaths of people. The Tomohawk missile,
penetrator of democracy, is now a legitimate form of political discourse.
I take solace in the fact that while America is doomed, the rest of the world is
not. All of this indicates a decline of empire that has been wanting to happen
for a long time.
What would Michel say? I think he'd laught heartily, as I do myself, in the
dark manner of convicts near the scaffold. Alas.
James Parr
Graduate Instructor
Department of English
University of Virginia
tanya doroshenko wrote:
> hello
>
> >>By the way, what is meant by the subject/abject distinction? Who is this
> >>taken from? Sounds a bit of a poor joke, and a poor criticism of Foucault.
> >>
> >>
> >>Stuart
>
> well i was pretty appauled by it- i'll get a more accurate ref for the book-
>
> >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >"Clinton's crimes are incestuous: He makes the whole world his family and
> >then seduces and pollutes it, person by person"--Paglia
> >
>
> do you really think this (about clinton?) who is paglia?
>
> Tatiana Tanya Doroshenko
>
> tdor1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.