Actually, had you paid attention to this:
> > 1. It's about hackery in academia, which isn't necessarily hackery
> > elsewhere. Thus, one's worked can be judged "good" elsewhere, but not in
> > academia. Consider for example a case of a Cornell psychologist who, IIRC,
> > didn't get tenure (or something) because some of his work is popular and
> > produced in trade paperbacks. [1]
it wouldn't have been necessary. LOL. Or else I'm blonder on the Internets than I thought.
Here's something else I came across through a comments-post at the blog:
http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/04/academic-freedoms-and-ward-churchill/
here, both Henry Farrell and Timothy Burke explain why, for the reasons I've described, Churchill is considered a hack. And, I have to say, the more I read about him from various sources and the more I read his acolytes, I'm starting to become
1. a raving positivist due to the rampant disregard of reasoned arguments based on actually reading texts among that portion of blogoliciousville that fancy themselves members of the reality-based community.
2. a raving resister of any attempt to mix up advocacy roles in political movements with one's own research. IOW, I'm starting to agree with Chomsky's view, a view I've always found less than satisfying.
Polemicize somewhere else and stay the fuck out of the academy. Your scholarship should be on Milton and you pursue it because you could give a crap whether it advances your political agenda, a position I think Carrol once took. In fact, why doesn't everyone just pursue stuff that has NOTHING to do with their political academics. Hell, it should appear to be contradictory to it. Yeah. That's it.
I think I must be Carrol's love child or something. As I grow up, Carrol's becoming really wise in my old age. :)
Also, I need an advance of about %15k to write the book that I have in my head about the inadequacy of some variants of left social theory.
Also, Carrol needs to help this poetry-challenged Bitch understand Milton.
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org