Re: In the News
Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 1:03 am
Don't get into my business, Tomas. Don't quote what other people think of what I write or what I do here. If you have something to say about it, say it. I don't give a flying, holy fuck what you think of me, my posts, or my links, jerk.
__________________________________________________
As to Obama's political affiliations and background, the fact is that many of us who are products of that era and the periods after it have all entertained different sorts of radical philosophy. I read George Jackson, Angela Davis and Eldridge Cleaver when I was a teenager, not to mention Malcolm X. Many people, though certainly not all, have read and considered the dissident positions, it is par for the course in most university settings. I have read very closely the main Liberation Theologians, Feminist discourse, Central and South American history and the praxis of US hegemony in the region, African liberation discourse, American Indian liberation discourse, Chomsky, Zinn, Ayers and Bernadette Dorn to boot. All of this stuff is as relevant and is essentially 'American'. It is a part of what has informed many of us, as well as the intelligentsia of this country.
It does not particularly disturb me that Obama is aware of this 'discourse', as a matter of fact I consider it a tremendous plus. If he understands these discourses, he will then understand how the dispossessed of this world feel, and the mixed feelings, the disturbed feelings, they have toward America. Even his Islamic connections do not disturb me, perhaps because I have read Palestinian resistance literature and grasp the discourse. Obama clearly represents a new mode of thinking, a new internationalism, and I sincerely feel that 'we' need to move forward with new discourses, more relevant discourses, discourses that are vitally connected to real people, and the world as it really is. McCain, as we can all see, represents merely a continuation of the old discourses and the typical way of doing things, seeing things.
We need to break the stranglehold that the pseudo-Religious Right has on the flow of ideas, and all these ideas need to come out in the open and be discussed publicly. The fact that there is so much resistence to allowing this, like on TeeVee and on talk shows, is evidence that America is a country of mental midgits and backwater hicks. Any of these ideas could be discussed and are discussed, say, on French talk shows. It is called intellectual freedom and represents intellectual vibrancy.
I do not isolate my spiritual sense---the word they use around here is 'enlightenment' and masculinity---from the affairs of the world, and what I think about the world, and what is happening in the world. This, right now, is our 'spiritual world', and our world is our 'spiritual world', and so I say to Dan (or Carl or anyone), if you don't like my ideas or attitude, then simply ban me, but don't yack about what I write or complain. Just hit the fucking ban button.
Can I make this any clearer?
(Now, there you have more substantial ideas presented in clear prose than---if you will permit me---you ever express in all your distorted writing, jack-ass.)
__________________________________________________
As to Obama's political affiliations and background, the fact is that many of us who are products of that era and the periods after it have all entertained different sorts of radical philosophy. I read George Jackson, Angela Davis and Eldridge Cleaver when I was a teenager, not to mention Malcolm X. Many people, though certainly not all, have read and considered the dissident positions, it is par for the course in most university settings. I have read very closely the main Liberation Theologians, Feminist discourse, Central and South American history and the praxis of US hegemony in the region, African liberation discourse, American Indian liberation discourse, Chomsky, Zinn, Ayers and Bernadette Dorn to boot. All of this stuff is as relevant and is essentially 'American'. It is a part of what has informed many of us, as well as the intelligentsia of this country.
It does not particularly disturb me that Obama is aware of this 'discourse', as a matter of fact I consider it a tremendous plus. If he understands these discourses, he will then understand how the dispossessed of this world feel, and the mixed feelings, the disturbed feelings, they have toward America. Even his Islamic connections do not disturb me, perhaps because I have read Palestinian resistance literature and grasp the discourse. Obama clearly represents a new mode of thinking, a new internationalism, and I sincerely feel that 'we' need to move forward with new discourses, more relevant discourses, discourses that are vitally connected to real people, and the world as it really is. McCain, as we can all see, represents merely a continuation of the old discourses and the typical way of doing things, seeing things.
We need to break the stranglehold that the pseudo-Religious Right has on the flow of ideas, and all these ideas need to come out in the open and be discussed publicly. The fact that there is so much resistence to allowing this, like on TeeVee and on talk shows, is evidence that America is a country of mental midgits and backwater hicks. Any of these ideas could be discussed and are discussed, say, on French talk shows. It is called intellectual freedom and represents intellectual vibrancy.
I do not isolate my spiritual sense---the word they use around here is 'enlightenment' and masculinity---from the affairs of the world, and what I think about the world, and what is happening in the world. This, right now, is our 'spiritual world', and our world is our 'spiritual world', and so I say to Dan (or Carl or anyone), if you don't like my ideas or attitude, then simply ban me, but don't yack about what I write or complain. Just hit the fucking ban button.
Can I make this any clearer?
(Now, there you have more substantial ideas presented in clear prose than---if you will permit me---you ever express in all your distorted writing, jack-ass.)