How’s the writing biz? Any nibbles from publishers? Not even Regnery….?

So, oDub, you are now agreeing with Lilieks when he called you out for calling Wolfowitz “ filthy?” I seem to recall you were none to happy with what Lilieks said at the time, so what changed your mind?

Between understanding and the status qou, the Right will choose the status quo every time.

Yes, “the Right” is defending the status quo of retirement Ponzi schemes, realpolitik in foreign policy which results in coddling dictators, destructive welfare dependency, oppresive and complex taxation that results in increased ineffeciencies and slower economic growth, etc.

Perhaps you haven’t recognized that since 1994, it’s the Dems that have been standing in the way, shouting “No!” without offering any substantial reforms of these problems on their own. And then you wonder why the Left has trouble at the ballot box.

Regards,
St Wendeler

The no-preview posting hurts, doesn’t it?

How’s the marketplace been treating you, Jadegold? I see your playing the high-rent clubs these days. Congrats!

I mean, playing Rudy to Oliver’s Fat Albert? Wow. Most people could only dream…

How s the marketplace been treating you, Jadegold? I see you’re playing the high-rent clubs these days. Congrats!

I mean, playing Rudy to Oliver s Fat Albert? Wow. Most people could only dream&

Of course, it is amusing watching Jeffy claim no ones’s ever told him he can’t write “for sh&t.”

The marketplace has been hammering home that very point to Jeffy for years. After all, if one spends over half one’s life in the study of a certain subject–be it architecture, dentistry, or writing—but cannot eke out the barest living from such pursuit—well, the market is telling one something loudly and clearly.

(Can someone please deconstruct my use of that phrase so I can know whether there’s some power structure in that word or whether I’ve offended someone…)

I am out for the day, you all have a great night!

To be totally honest with you, it’s not even that funny. It’s like getting all giddy and exited about someone saying “Shut up”.

Hey everyone on the left, lets all start using this phrase and post all of the exact same pictures and exact same phrases and buzzwords on our websites and we can be just like the right!!

Don’t you wanna grow up to be just like me??!!!?!?!?!

I might ask you the same questions based solely on your username. Infantalize, much? And the thing that you reactionaries never got and still refuse to understand is that structuralism and deconstructionalism, which it gave rise to, are, in their essence, aimed at uncovering the operation of power in language. It isn t about  stealing your words, its about trying to understand the way your words and my words, our shared language, structure the world, indeed, constitute, the world in which we operate. If you experience this effort to understand as a  theft I can only surmise its because you, as most of us, have a vested interest in the masking of power relations in language. Afterall, it is upon these very power relations that our very identities as social, cultural and political beings rest. Ultimately, what post-structuralism reveals is that, essentially, there is no way out of language. All of us, you, me, Derrida, are trapped within it and the power relations it reinforces. You prefer your captivity. I prefer to keep up the good fight.

Indeed… You are Stuck On Stupid.

Fresh off of insisting that I write like shit, “frameone,” pontificating at length in ODub’s comments, follows up on yesterday’s discussion of racist sigification by setting us straight:You guys misunderstand. Articulate doesn’…

When Brits are surprised about something, they ll say,  Well blow me! but that doesn t happen here.

Oh, really?

If only Dems were half that diabolical.

As someone who is invested in language and the dissemination of meaning, protein, you can t write for shit.

Well, I’ve been accused of a lot of things, frameone, but that’s not one of them.

But then, I guess such dross is par for the course from someone who would make the kind of lame, pseudo-intellectual argument as you do, above. That is, you write:

Often times, however, when well-meaning whites speak about blacks their conscious desire may be to praise the person but unconsciously they feel a lack in their own use of language born of deep-seeded racist thinking that they themselves may not even be aware of. In the sentence under scrutiny here, Steele s ability to  use clear, expressive language that is his ability to communicate, is doubly emphasized in the use of the word  articulate and the comparison to Reagan. One cannot be inarticulate and a good communicator, neither can one communicate well and be inarticulate.

…which of course has the practical effect of suggesting that you, by virtue of your supposed enlightened understanding of language and your predilection for phenomenological interpretation (which to work, needs to ascribe to Ed “unconscious” motivations that you, by virtue of your preternatural ability to tease out hidden cultural dialogics, can identify), are above falling prey to the very forces you claim are informing Ed’s language.

In short, you are intellectually masturbating to the specter of your own assumed cleverness.

It is simply silly to suggest one need be articulate to be a good communicator, as any mime or puppeteer might tell you. And it is doubly silly to suggest that you can see into the soul of whites — or to assume that, because it’s possible to have unacknowledged racialist motivations for choosing certain words, it is likely, or, worse, that it is perfectly fair to assume that such motivations exist simply because the utterer is white.

That is racist. Which, as a diety capable of seeing through to the motivations of others, you should have noticed in yourself.

For what it’s worth, comments on my site aren’t modified. Come on over and make you claims there. Oliver has seen fit to delete several that have appeared here, so the discussion is being hamstrung.

But you seem to believe you’re such a brilliant writer — and that I can’t write a lick — which means you should have no problem showing me up.

Freaky.

I might ask you the same questions based solely on your username. Infantalize, much? And the thing that you reactionaries never got and still refuse to understand is that structuralism and deconstructionalism, which it gave rise to, are, in their essence, aimed at uncovering the operation of power in language. It isn’t about “stealing” your words, its about trying to understand the way your words and my words, our shared language, structure the world, indeed, constitute, the world in which we operate. If you experience this effort to understand as a “theft” I can only surmise its because you, as most of us, have a vested interest in the masking of power relations in language. Afterall, it is upon these very power relations that our very identities as social, cultural and political beings rest. Ultimately, what post-structuralism reveals is that, essentially, there is no way out of language. All of us, you, me, Derrida, are trapped within it and the power relations it reinforces. You prefer your captivity. I prefer to keep up the good fight.