>Kelley wrote:
>
> > well, there is *still* nothing new in the analysis. it has been said, at
> > least on this list, from its very beginning:
>
>The sad thing is that Doug himself has written and continues to write
>material on the third way so much better than anything included in
>Zizek's article -- better in part because Doug's work avoids the
>tang of conspiracy theory which (as Ken noted) seems to haunt
>Zizek's piece -- and except for that "tang of conspiracy" the
>article is utterly banal.
Banal and old hat, or arcane and obscure. That just about covers it all. Amazing how versatile one writer can be.
Doug