At 11:45 AM 9/5/2008, Joseph Catron wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
>
>Well, the Republican candidate-veep has explicitly, in her own words,defined
> > herself--a pit bull bitch with lipstick.
> >
> > I propose that when talked about, here or anywhere else, she should only be
> > referred to by that moniker. The Pit Bull Bitch With Lipstick (TPBBWL for
> > short).
>
>
>Actually, I'm reasonably sure, from watching the speech and reading the
>transcript, the charming moniker "bitch" was not included.
>
>I'm not one to throw a fit over such a word, but is there any reactionary
>instinct on the left Palin's nomination has not dredged up?
>
>I recall a serious discussion here several days ago about the sexism
>entailed by the exclusive use of Hillary Clinton's first name.
>
>Now the same forum is playing host to bitch jokes (and rather unfunny ones
>at that). My God, what an absurd juxtaposition.
it is so awesome that you appeal to your god! My dog, that's actually... sublime? uncanny? canny? i had to use uncanny or canny because i have read it about 669 gojangazillion times while reading Zizek, relevant quote below, just for Dennis and Eric!
By the way, zizek's defense of his choice for obama is in the chapter i quote below. Also, Chris Doss should read Zizek's chapter on Heidegger and the question of nazism. I've only skimmed it, but on that superficial skim: it's definitely more thought-provoking than the turdblossoms recently sprouted on this list.
and without further adieu, zizek on the multicultural inquisitions like this one:
"It would be instructive to refer here to Rousseau, who described the inversion of the libidinal investment from the object to the obstacle which prevent our access to the object. This is why egalitarianism itself should never be accepted at face value: the notion (and practice) of egalitarian justice, insofar as it is sustained by envy, relies on the inversion of the standard renunciation accomplished to benefit others: "I am ready to renounce it, so that others will (also) not (be able to ) have it!"
Far from being opposed to the spirit of sacrifice, Evil is thus the very spirit of sacrifice itself, ready to ignore one's own wellbeing -- if, through my sacrifice, I can deprive the Other of his 'jouissance'... And do we not encounter the same negative passion also in politically correct multicultural liberalism? Is its inquisitorial pursuit of the traces of racism and sexism in the details of personal behavior not in itself indicative of the passion of resentment? Fundamentalism's passion is a false one, while anemic liberal tolerance relies on a disavowed perverse passion. The distinction between fundamentalism and liberalism is sustained by a shared underlying feature: they are both permeated by the negative passion of resentment."
Zizek, p 333 _In Defnese of Lost Causes_ from the chapter, "Why Populism is Good Enough In Practice".
>--
>"Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen
>lytlað."
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)