March 03, 2005
A Nation of Fools If
If youÂ’re anything like us, dear reader, you get all of your news from The Nation, one of AmericaÂ’s foremost left-of-reality newsweeklies. After all, a quick perusal of The Nation would keep you up-to-date on all the latest events, without any of that nefarious corporate spin.
As such, readers of The Nation for decades have kept abreast of all kinds of important political information: Alger Hiss was framed; Lynne Stewart is innocent; American universities are run by the Right; &c.
In fact, dear reader, just the other day, one of the junior editors here at “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly”—let’s just call him “Chip”—was perusing the voluminous backlog at The Nation’s glorious “website.” In doing so, he came across a piece by one of his favorite columnists, Patricia J. Williams.
Ms. Williams, for those who are not familiar with her oeuvre, is an African-American law professor at some obscure Ivy League school called Columbia. Although this surely makes Ms. Williams one of the most occupationally fortuitous members of society, it has not stopped her from using her post at The Nation to rant and rave about the horrors of America.
Perhaps Ms. Williams believes that, in other countries, it would prove far easier to Mau-Mau fancy-pants universities to tenure untalented hacks.
Anyway, “Chip” came across the December 13, 2004 installment of her regular column, which she has appropriately titled “diary of a mad law professor.” (It seems as if Ms. Williams, much like bell hooks, is allergic to capitalization.)
This article, entitled “From Birmingham to Baghdad,” starts as follows:
I, Condoleezza Rice, was leaning over the kitchen sink, hacking up a half-dozen or so rotisserie chickens and slinging the parts into a serving dish in time for the first of the party gusts. I filled the bowls with popcorn and peanuts, brewed a pot of French roast and pulled a lost toddler out of the laundry room. I sidled up to Arnold Schwarzenegger and gave him a big old smooch. And when the Devil walked in the door, he took one look at me and said, “You win.”
Yes, it was Halloween night and I, Patricia J. Williams, had gotten myself up in the guise of the soon-to-be Secretary of State of the United States of America. I had it down, from the proper little suit to the neatly tucked bob of a hairdo. And it was funny for a while—vampires deflected, ghouls leapt back. After a time, I took the mask off, but people still called me Condoleezza for the rest of the evening. And that felt strange and sad somehow.
The rest of the article offers Ms. Williams’ largely unsubstantiated take on Secretary Rice’s personal life, and tells us that “Nobody ‘hates’ Condoleezza Rice.” Oddly, at the end of said piece, Ms. Williams informs us that “She [Secretary Rice] is a tightly fitted mask of compulsive politeness pulled over both great grief and corrosive, unhealed cruelties.”
To which we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” respond: Well, at least you don’t hate her. We—like Ms. Williams—tend to admire folks who are distinguished by their “corrosive, unhealed cruelties.”
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” did not mention this article in order to quibble with Ms. Williams’ take on Secretary Rice, however. Far from it.
Instead, we want to note a strange coincidence: Last Halloween, the members of the crack young staff dressed up as writers and editors for The Nation. Accordingly, just as Ms. Williams was donning her Condoleezza Rice uniform, “Chip” was putting on her Patricia J. Williams costume.
As you can imagine, dear reader, dressing up like Patricia J. Williams was funny for a while—white people engaged in preemptive cringing, college administrators genuflected. After a time, “Chip” took the mask off, but people still called her Patricia for the rest of the evening. And that felt, as you could imagine, strange and somehow sad.
After all, it is difficult to masquerade as a columnist preternaturally incapable of sustaining an argument. ItÂ’s tough to moonlight as a law professor who makes Maureen Dowd seem like a paragon of wit and sanity.
Other members of the crack staff, however, did not have things any better. Just ask “Chip,” who was dressed up like Alexander Cockburn all night. Not only did he have a rib-tickling last name, he was compelled to shout ridiculous conspiracy theories: As far as Mr. Cockburn was concerned, the punchbowl had been spiked by Zionist agents.
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” suppose we ought to be grateful that Susan Estrich doesn’t write for The Nation. After all, Halloween ain’t so pleasant when you have to stare at a woman who’d make Medusa seem fetching.
A Nation of Fools
If youÂ’re anything like us, dear reader, you get all of your news from The Nation, one of AmericaÂ’s foremost left-of-reality newsweeklies. After all, a quick perusal of The Nation would keep you up-to-date on all the latest events, without any of that nefarious corporate spin.
As such, readers of The Nation for decades have kept abreast of all kinds of important political information: Alger Hiss was framed; Lynne Stewart is innocent; American universities are run by the Right; &c.
In fact, dear reader, just the other day, one of the junior editors here at “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly”—let’s just call him “Chip”—was perusing the voluminous backlog at The Nation’s glorious “website.” In doing so, he came across a piece by one of his favorite columnists, Patricia J. Williams.
Ms. Williams, for those who are not familiar with her oeuvre, is an African-American law professor at some obscure Ivy League school called Columbia. Although this surely makes Ms. Williams one of the most occupationally fortuitous members of society, it has not stopped her from using her post at The Nation to rant and rave about the horrors of America.
Perhaps Ms. Williams believes that, in other countries, it would prove far easier to Mau-Mau fancy-pants universities to tenure untalented hacks.
Anyway, “Chip” came across the December 13, 2004 installment of her regular column, which she has appropriately titled “diary of a mad law professor.” (It seems as if Ms. Williams, much like bell hooks, is allergic to capitalization.)
This article, entitled “From Birmingham to Baghdad,” starts as follows:
I, Condoleezza Rice, was leaning over the kitchen sink, hacking up a half-dozen or so rotisserie chickens and slinging the parts into a serving dish in time for the first of the party gusts. I filled the bowls with popcorn and peanuts, brewed a pot of French roast and pulled a lost toddler out of the laundry room. I sidled up to Arnold Schwarzenegger and gave him a big old smooch. And when the Devil walked in the door, he took one look at me and said, “You win.”
Yes, it was Halloween night and I, Patricia J. Williams, had gotten myself up in the guise of the soon-to-be Secretary of State of the United States of America. I had it down, from the proper little suit to the neatly tucked bob of a hairdo. And it was funny for a while—vampires deflected, ghouls leapt back. After a time, I took the mask off, but people still called me Condoleezza for the rest of the evening. And that felt strange and sad somehow.
The rest of the article offers Ms. Williams’ largely unsubstantiated take on Secretary Rice’s personal life, and tells us that “Nobody ‘hates’ Condoleezza Rice.” Oddly, at the end of said piece, Ms. Williams informs us that “She [Secretary Rice] is a tightly fitted mask of compulsive politeness pulled over both great grief and corrosive, unhealed cruelties.”
To which we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” respond: Well, at least you don’t hate her. We—like Ms. Williams—tend to admire folks who are distinguished by their “corrosive, unhealed cruelties.”
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” did not mention this article in order to quibble with Ms. Williams’ take on Secretary Rice, however. Far from it.
Instead, we want to note a strange coincidence: Last Halloween, the members of the crack young staff dressed up as writers and editors for The Nation. Accordingly, just as Ms. Williams was donning her Condoleezza Rice uniform, “Chip” was putting on her Patricia J. Williams costume.
As you can imagine, dear reader, dressing up like Patricia J. Williams was funny for a while—white people engaged in preemptive cringing, college administrators genuflected. After a time, “Chip” took the mask off, but people still called her Patricia for the rest of the evening. And that felt, as you could imagine, strange and somehow sad.
After all, it is difficult to masquerade as a columnist preternaturally incapable of sustaining an argument. ItÂ’s tough to moonlight as a law professor who makes Maureen Dowd seem like a paragon of wit and sanity.
Other members of the crack staff, however, did not have things any better. Just ask “Chip,” who was dressed up like Alexander Cockburn all night. Not only did he have a rib-tickling last name, he was compelled to shout ridiculous conspiracy theories: As far as Mr. Cockburn was concerned, the punchbowl had been spiked by Zionist agents.
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” suppose we ought to be grateful that Susan Estrich doesn’t write for The Nation. After all, Halloween ain’t so pleasant when you have to stare at a woman who’d make Medusa seem fetching.
Posted by: Chip at
12:01 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 797 words, total size 5 kb.
March 02, 2005
Stodgy Old Oxbridge We, the
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” simply love academic conferences. Not only do they allow us the opportunity to keep up with the latest intellectual fashions—which, as you may imagine, are deeply important to our culture’s survival—they also present us with an opportunity to catch up on some much needed sleep.
As far as we’re concerned, nothing is as fortuitous as listening to a grandiloquent chucklehead drone on about “gender(ed) readings of Bryan Adams.” Except for dislocating one’s shoulder, of course.
Accordingly, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” like to keep abreast of the latest conferences. Naturally, then, we routinely check out the “website” of lofty Cambridge University.
It turns out that this beacon of academic respectability will be home to the “Third International Conference on New Directions in the Humanities,” which shall take place in August of this year.
And what kinds of scintillating intellectual fare will be on display at said conference? Why, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” are darned glad you asked.
One Ioannis Vamvakitis, a PhD candidate in Media and Cultural Studies at the University of Sussex, will deliver the all-important paper “Psycho-geography and Schizophrenia: Queers ‘Out for a Walk.’”
Sounds fetching, doesn’t it? If the title hasn’t drawn you in, check out Mr. Vamvakitis’ pithy summary: “I will present my homoerotic subjects’ psychogeographical maps to scrutinize whether their desire is being structurally marginalized/suppressed or produces schizogeographies—do they reconstruct structural space through everyday 'schizo-desiring' e/motions?”
A darn fine question, that.
But we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” know what you are saying to yourselves: What the heck does all that mean?
Never fear, dear reader, never fear. For Mr. Vamvakitis has offered his potential audience member(s) a fuller description of his paper, the beginning of which is as follows:
I strongly believe that an emancipatory homoerotic desire could only exist as a schizophrenic desire which according to Deleuze’s and Guattari’s "schizoanalysis" is simultaneously “architectural” (Grosz, E, 2001) and anti-structural—it is counter-structural, and thus, revolutionary, productive and proud (Deleuze, Guattari, 1982). Therefore, in my DPhil project, I am scrutinizing whether the homosexual could be what Deleuze and Guattari have defined as an “Anti-Oedipus” who through his/her “schizophrenic” wanderings "confronts" capitalism’s social fascism "that causes us to love [social] power [and] desire the…[structures] that dominate and exploit us" (Foucault, M, 1982, xii). What I would like to find out is whether the homosexuals could present a schizo-desiring e/motion that strives against capitalism’s strategic homophobic places—institutional discourses—of power and truth, and in conflict with its "Psychoanalysts and Semiologists" who interpret desire in relation to structure and “lack” (Foucault, 1982, xii). Moreover, and in relation to R. D. Laing’s “anti-psychiatric” existential ontology, I will attempt to clarify whether the schizo-desiring and anti-structural homoerotic e/motion – in the case that it does exist—constitutes the homosexual subjects anti-social leading them to marginality, “despair” (Laing, R. D., 1960), and eventually, to disciplinary institutionalisation, or whether it constitutes them counter-social leading them to radical and liberating modes of social embodiment—to counter-structural, heterotopian identity and space-time constructions.
Ah: That ought to clear things up. And weÂ’re delighted to find that it is highly unlikely that Mr. Vamvakitis will prove prolix.
Just in case youÂ’re still not convinced that Mr. VamvakitisÂ’ discussion will be a turning point in this history of British higher education, we blithely present yet more evidence: Mr. VamvakitisÂ’ brief description of his MA thesis:
[It] was titled ‘“Big Brother”: The Reality Show as a Globalized Post-documentary Form’ – Through M. Foucault and H. Lefebvre I attempted to scrutinize the type of western disciplinary spaces that “Big Brother” forges and reproduces, in order to westernize its global inmates and audiences—and received one of the highest marks in the class.
Naturally, this leads us to wonder: What received the lowest marks in the class?
Stodgy Old Oxbridge
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” simply love academic conferences. Not only do they allow us the opportunity to keep up with the latest intellectual fashions—which, as you may imagine, are deeply important to our culture’s survival—they also present us with an opportunity to catch up on some much needed sleep.
As far as we’re concerned, nothing is as fortuitous as listening to a grandiloquent chucklehead drone on about “gender(ed) readings of Bryan Adams.” Except for dislocating one’s shoulder, of course.
Accordingly, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” like to keep abreast of the latest conferences. Naturally, then, we routinely check out the “website” of lofty Cambridge University.
It turns out that this beacon of academic respectability will be home to the “Third International Conference on New Directions in the Humanities,” which shall take place in August of this year.
And what kinds of scintillating intellectual fare will be on display at said conference? Why, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” are darned glad you asked.
One Ioannis Vamvakitis, a PhD candidate in Media and Cultural Studies at the University of Sussex, will deliver the all-important paper “Psycho-geography and Schizophrenia: Queers ‘Out for a Walk.’”
Sounds fetching, doesn’t it? If the title hasn’t drawn you in, check out Mr. Vamvakitis’ pithy summary: “I will present my homoerotic subjects’ psychogeographical maps to scrutinize whether their desire is being structurally marginalized/suppressed or produces schizogeographies—do they reconstruct structural space through everyday 'schizo-desiring' e/motions?”
A darn fine question, that.
But we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” know what you are saying to yourselves: What the heck does all that mean?
Never fear, dear reader, never fear. For Mr. Vamvakitis has offered his potential audience member(s) a fuller description of his paper, the beginning of which is as follows:
I strongly believe that an emancipatory homoerotic desire could only exist as a schizophrenic desire which according to Deleuze’s and Guattari’s "schizoanalysis" is simultaneously “architectural” (Grosz, E, 2001) and anti-structural—it is counter-structural, and thus, revolutionary, productive and proud (Deleuze, Guattari, 1982). Therefore, in my DPhil project, I am scrutinizing whether the homosexual could be what Deleuze and Guattari have defined as an “Anti-Oedipus” who through his/her “schizophrenic” wanderings "confronts" capitalism’s social fascism "that causes us to love [social] power [and] desire the…[structures] that dominate and exploit us" (Foucault, M, 1982, xii). What I would like to find out is whether the homosexuals could present a schizo-desiring e/motion that strives against capitalism’s strategic homophobic places—institutional discourses—of power and truth, and in conflict with its "Psychoanalysts and Semiologists" who interpret desire in relation to structure and “lack” (Foucault, 1982, xii). Moreover, and in relation to R. D. Laing’s “anti-psychiatric” existential ontology, I will attempt to clarify whether the schizo-desiring and anti-structural homoerotic e/motion – in the case that it does exist—constitutes the homosexual subjects anti-social leading them to marginality, “despair” (Laing, R. D., 1960), and eventually, to disciplinary institutionalisation, or whether it constitutes them counter-social leading them to radical and liberating modes of social embodiment—to counter-structural, heterotopian identity and space-time constructions.
Ah: That ought to clear things up. And weÂ’re delighted to find that it is highly unlikely that Mr. Vamvakitis will prove prolix.
Just in case youÂ’re still not convinced that Mr. VamvakitisÂ’ discussion will be a turning point in this history of British higher education, we blithely present yet more evidence: Mr. VamvakitisÂ’ brief description of his MA thesis:
[It] was titled ‘“Big Brother”: The Reality Show as a Globalized Post-documentary Form’ – Through M. Foucault and H. Lefebvre I attempted to scrutinize the type of western disciplinary spaces that “Big Brother” forges and reproduces, in order to westernize its global inmates and audiences—and received one of the highest marks in the class.
Naturally, this leads us to wonder: What received the lowest marks in the class?
Posted by: Chip at
12:01 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 653 words, total size 5 kb.
March 01, 2005
Israel Needs the WomenÂ’s Studies
Die-hard fans of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” will undoubtedly recall that we have recently featured a new series entitled “The Inequities of Academe.” Accordingly, we have devoted a few humble posts to discussing the problems associated with life as a professor.
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” considered this series a potential antidote to all the recent complaining and finger-pointing directed at such professorial beacons of reasonableness as Ward Churchill.
(Those in-touch with the goings-on of academia certainly know Prof. Churchill; heÂ’s an Ethnic Studies teacher at the University of Colorado, and a member in good standing of the Fraud Indian tribe.)
Although we donÂ’t want to toot our own collective horn, we figured that focusing on some of the rough spots related to academic life could soothe the souls of many a beleaguered professor. (If they have souls, of course.)
Invariably, however, whenever we do something nice for academics, they wind up disappointing us. TheyÂ’re kind of like an alcoholic uncle: Sure, you still love him, but you just hate yourself for it.
And what, you may ask, has recently upset the crack young staff? What academic shenanigans and tomfoolery have collectively gotten our collective knickers in a collective twist? We—as always, it seems—are darned glad you asked.
A correspondent from our Chapel Hill (NC) office has recently sent us a flyer for an upcoming lecture at the venerable University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. You know: The school at which John Edwards will soon be teaching. ItÂ’s kind of like a College of Political Broken Dreams.
The following provides the contents of said flyer, to which we have affixed our own humble commentary:
The Curriculum in WomenÂ’s Studies is pleased to sponsor a talk by:
Rela Mazali on
“Militarization, Gender and Anti-militarist Activism in Israel”
A writer in both English and Hebrew, Rela Mazali is one of the founders of New Profile, a feminist movement working to de-militarize Israeli society.
“A feminist movement working to de-militarize Israeli society,” eh? Gee, that sounds like a really fantastic project. In fact, we can’t think of any reason why Israeli society would be militaristic in the first place.
Oh, wait. No, never mind: We still canÂ’t think of a reason.
One must especially laud Ms. Mazali’s aim to terminate Isreal’s pesky desire to protect itself when one realizes how un-militarized—nay, pacifistic—Israel’s neighbors are. After all, these peace-loving Muslim countries haven’t stirred up any difficulties for the Jewish state. Just ask Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, &c.
She was initiator and Assistant director of the widely aired documentary “Testimonies” (1993), on Israeli soldiers’ involvement in the first Intifada and has published numerous books and articles addressing challenges faced by women and girls in this war-torn region.
Indeed, the disgraceful militarism of Israeli society has certainly harmed Israeli women and girls. As such, they are far worse off than their Arab sisters, whose tranquil societies have allowed them to prosper.
Who wouldnÂ’t want to be blessed with all the manifold rights offered to women in, say, Syria? As any card-carrying academic knows, Syria is the epicenter of a glorious feminist movement. Pretty soon, its women wonÂ’t have to travel around entirely covered by burlap sacks.
Mazali, who has just completed a chapter for a U.N. University book on gender and small arms, is currently writing a Hebrew collection of story-essays and a new book in English.
Why not a book on gender and big arms? After all, big arms prove far more effective at chucking grenades.
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” didn’t realize that there was a United Nations University. That’s pretty impressive. Perhaps their course listings look much like the following:
UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY
Spring 2005 Course Listings:
-Corruption as a Means to Personal Advancement 101 with Prof. Kofi Annan
-Oil for Food Scam 220 with Prof. Benon Sevan
-Genocide? What Genocide? 310 with Prof. Boutros Boutros-Ghali
Anyway, dear reader, as you can surely tell, Ms. MazaliÂ’s talk will demonstrate how disassociated from reality is the strange creature known as the WomenÂ’s Studies professor.
To twist Gloria SteinemÂ’s famous quote, Israel needs WomenÂ’s Studies practitioners like a fish needs a bicycle.
Israel Needs the WomenÂ’s Studies Touch
Die-hard fans of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” will undoubtedly recall that we have recently featured a new series entitled “The Inequities of Academe.” Accordingly, we have devoted a few humble posts to discussing the problems associated with life as a professor.
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” considered this series a potential antidote to all the recent complaining and finger-pointing directed at such professorial beacons of reasonableness as Ward Churchill.
(Those in-touch with the goings-on of academia certainly know Prof. Churchill; heÂ’s an Ethnic Studies teacher at the University of Colorado, and a member in good standing of the Fraud Indian tribe.)
Although we donÂ’t want to toot our own collective horn, we figured that focusing on some of the rough spots related to academic life could soothe the souls of many a beleaguered professor. (If they have souls, of course.)
Invariably, however, whenever we do something nice for academics, they wind up disappointing us. TheyÂ’re kind of like an alcoholic uncle: Sure, you still love him, but you just hate yourself for it.
And what, you may ask, has recently upset the crack young staff? What academic shenanigans and tomfoolery have collectively gotten our collective knickers in a collective twist? We—as always, it seems—are darned glad you asked.
A correspondent from our Chapel Hill (NC) office has recently sent us a flyer for an upcoming lecture at the venerable University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. You know: The school at which John Edwards will soon be teaching. ItÂ’s kind of like a College of Political Broken Dreams.
The following provides the contents of said flyer, to which we have affixed our own humble commentary:
The Curriculum in WomenÂ’s Studies is pleased to sponsor a talk by:
Rela Mazali on
“Militarization, Gender and Anti-militarist Activism in Israel”
A writer in both English and Hebrew, Rela Mazali is one of the founders of New Profile, a feminist movement working to de-militarize Israeli society.
“A feminist movement working to de-militarize Israeli society,” eh? Gee, that sounds like a really fantastic project. In fact, we can’t think of any reason why Israeli society would be militaristic in the first place.
Oh, wait. No, never mind: We still canÂ’t think of a reason.
One must especially laud Ms. Mazali’s aim to terminate Isreal’s pesky desire to protect itself when one realizes how un-militarized—nay, pacifistic—Israel’s neighbors are. After all, these peace-loving Muslim countries haven’t stirred up any difficulties for the Jewish state. Just ask Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, &c.
She was initiator and Assistant director of the widely aired documentary “Testimonies” (1993), on Israeli soldiers’ involvement in the first Intifada and has published numerous books and articles addressing challenges faced by women and girls in this war-torn region.
Indeed, the disgraceful militarism of Israeli society has certainly harmed Israeli women and girls. As such, they are far worse off than their Arab sisters, whose tranquil societies have allowed them to prosper.
Who wouldnÂ’t want to be blessed with all the manifold rights offered to women in, say, Syria? As any card-carrying academic knows, Syria is the epicenter of a glorious feminist movement. Pretty soon, its women wonÂ’t have to travel around entirely covered by burlap sacks.
Mazali, who has just completed a chapter for a U.N. University book on gender and small arms, is currently writing a Hebrew collection of story-essays and a new book in English.
Why not a book on gender and big arms? After all, big arms prove far more effective at chucking grenades.
We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” didn’t realize that there was a United Nations University. That’s pretty impressive. Perhaps their course listings look much like the following:
UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY
Spring 2005 Course Listings:
-Corruption as a Means to Personal Advancement 101 with Prof. Kofi Annan
-Oil for Food Scam 220 with Prof. Benon Sevan
-Genocide? What Genocide? 310 with Prof. Boutros Boutros-Ghali
Anyway, dear reader, as you can surely tell, Ms. MazaliÂ’s talk will demonstrate how disassociated from reality is the strange creature known as the WomenÂ’s Studies professor.
To twist Gloria SteinemÂ’s famous quote, Israel needs WomenÂ’s Studies practitioners like a fish needs a bicycle.
Posted by: Chip at
12:01 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 713 words, total size 5 kb.
27kb generated in CPU 0.0192, elapsed 0.068 seconds.
33 queries taking 0.0564 seconds, 103 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
33 queries taking 0.0564 seconds, 103 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
