Re: reach

At 4:22 PM -0700 13/7/01, Nathan Goralnik wrote:
> On the contrary. I think both Wousters and I are quite aware of the
>relevance of the situation in Israel/Palestine. What's important is that
>there's no single "relevance" of the situation. One can read the situation
>in terms of bio-political racism, in terms of Western imperialism, in terms
>of Orientialism, in terms of the implications and applications of
>micro-politics, in terms of the role of the intellectual, etc.
> In my parody of Clifford, I likened his posts to articles about Britney
>Spears' breast implants. This was not to say that Clifford's posts are
>irrelevant, or the Britney Spears' breast implants are. Everything is
>political. I'm interested in more politicization, and less information. I
>don't care whether Britney Spears is currently a D cup or a C cup. I care
>about what Britney Spears' breast implants reveal about the way in which
>Beauty, Sexuality, Femininity, the Body, etc. are constructed in
>contemporary discourse.
> I would applaud Clifford if he'd make these kinds of analyses.
>Otherwise, his posts are simply redundant additions to the morning papers.

I've read quietly, sometimes learning, sometimes with amusement,
sometimes despair. But never with more despair than the above
self-parody -- "one can read the situation in blah-blah-blah", and "I
care about the way in which blah-blah-blah are constructed in
contemporary discourse". Unhappily, some of us live in the world that
you are busy "reading" and "discoursing", a world which is in large
part constructed in more than discursive fashion in Washington.

But really "simply redundant additions to the morning papers" must
take the cake. I've been looking, searching, but perhaps physical
distance is blinding. So, please pray tell: which morning papers
might you be referring to?

kj khoo

Partial thread listing: