Saturday, February 03, 2007

From comments on another site. I'm proud of this one.

"He's like the minister who is loyal to the despotic ruler through thick and thin, while decrying as a decent liberal must, not despotism but its necessity!"
nothing new:
“Painter” is a descriptive term, like “writer” or “filmmaker.” I’ve always been envious of filmmakers since they don’t get called “artists” until people decide they are good enough to warrant the term. All painters get called artists these days and that’s done no one any good. My father was an “english teacher.” He published a few things, one or two well known, but he did not refer to himself as a “literary critic.” He never had “a project” or let anything other than his students take priority. He was not a genius and did not pretend to have an original mind though it could be argued that in some ways he had one. An unimaginative chemist may do research that has value, a “philosopher” with a mediocre mind should stick to teaching philosophy. But the logic of hypertrophied individualism and the need to compete with the hard sciences has created a culture of literary conceptualism and pseudoscience that in the form of “tenured radicals” gives cafe revolutionaries like me a bad name. “Yummies” Young Upwardly Mobile Marxists as an old family friend named them. I doesn’t matter if it’s literary theory, chicago school economics or linguistic analysis, it’s the same fucking thing: rationalist conceptualism, of by and for the academy and meaningless outside it.

The humanities are a function of the social. They are linked to the world through the study of the history of perception. We are made by language and by culture and are not independent of it. It used to be that there was a reciprocal relation between those who followed their sensibilities and those who came by afterwards to find out what honesty had made that intellect could not. That reciprocal relation still exists, but not in the academy (and not nearly enough in the ghetto of the art world) In the world at large all is if not well still much much better. By and large it’s still assumed by people who are bright enough to think about such things that Eastwood is better than George Lucas -and these days better than Scorsese- Pynchon is better than Tolkien and that Ayn Rand simply sucks. In the academy however all bets are off. Libertarianism is little more than a cult in the outside world, but has a place of importance in academic culture. And rationalism (about everything) reigns. Rationalism predicated on what now? On what? ON WHAT?
These days every idiot with a PhD wants to be an intellectual.
Talk amongst yourselves.

What does it mean that “nerds” now run humanities departments?
What and why is a literature geek? And how and why did people, so unwilling or unable to situate themselves socially or historically as products of linguistic and cultural community take over departments dedicated to the study of language, culture and community?
Nerds separate intelligence from perception, from the body. Nerds fear history and context. The hate instability. It makes them nervous. Posner is a nerd.
Everything I’ve read here over the last few years; the language the tone, the arguments, are specific to the culture and times that produced them.
Professor Franco Moretti argues heretically that literature scholars should stop reading books and start counting, graphing, and mapping them instead. He insists that such a move could bring new luster to a tired field, one that in some respects is among “the most backwards disciplines in the academy.”
What’s the difference between and expert and a connoisseur? A connoisseur pays attention to his tastes, his surroundings his responses to them and those of others An expert doesn’t think he has tastes and thinks his surroundings don’t matter. He thinks he’s interested in the outside world. Americans are experts. They neither know nor care how others perceive them. You follow me now?
I’ve spent the last few years arguing with experts trying to explain that expertise is not enough. I’ve failed.
Cubans in Miami, Jews in New York
"Moral seriousness is not moral responsibility. Manners are not actions."

Thursday, February 01, 2007

As'ad AbuKhalil
"In Arab (Saudi-funded) media, they never stop referring to the "wisdom" of the Saudi king. Wisdom? I would settle for his ability to read one sentence in Arabic, I swear. Spare me the wisdom. And does he still keep the Hitler dagger (given to his father by Hitler) in his private desk (a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia told me that, and told me that he smokes in private--contrary to Wahhabi rules and regulation). Don't you like Wahhabi rules and regulations, especially whey they are enforced on everybody in the kingdom except the House of Saud?"
So fucking glib.
Josh Marshall:
"Regarding when the bombs might start falling in Iran, a few different pieces of evidence point to a time frame in early March. More on this later this evening."
As if this is were simply a matter of American politics.

Tony Judt:
If... the United States of America is to resume its lost leadership of the world community... then it will need to begin by recognizing, in Eisenhower's words, that "with all the defects, with all the failures that we can chalk up against it, the UN still represents man's best organized hope to substitute to conference table for the battlefield." In Europe this realization only took root after Europeans had spent 30 years torturing and killing tens of millions of other Europeans; so long as they were merely killing colonial "natives," attitudes changed little.

Here in the US, at the time of writing, the death of more than three thousand American soldiers in Iraq has registered with the public; but the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis hardly at all.
Political ground starting to shift in Iraq ?:
Al-Hayat calls attention to the formation of groups originating within the Iraqi Accord Front (Sunni) and the UIA (Shiite) respectively, by parliamentary representatives who in both bases say or imply that they are unhappy with the prevailing sectarian polarization. The reporter introduces the story this way:
In an important sign of the beginning of the dismanteling of the political blocs that formed as a result of the American occupation, several deputies have started to break with traditional alliances, in favor of forming small groups, within the main blocs that have a sectarian model.