the butter has all gone
ebb-tide... moon in uranus
*. Our 'appraisal', as you term it, of our exchanges was and is representative. Like a lot of people who feel they possess the weapons of theory and a willingness to use them on some pet-cause, you plump for rhetoric when reciprocity is what is needed. If you are serious about some kind of career or career-hobby in politics, then employ all that reading to enable your ears as well as your tongue. Evidence speaks for itself - nowhere in your mails did you debate the points we raised. In contrast, we met each of your points in turn, telling you why we believe your campaign for * is folly. Re-read the exchanges. We can send them back to you if you like. At no time do you seriously or meaningfully meet our questions. That's just fact. Good that you have added Schrumpeter to your reading list. That does you credit. His 'committe' analysis is the problem in a nutshell; and flags up the inherent deception of politicans, politics itself, and what gets termed democracy but isn't. May we suggest you also add, say, David Harvey, Jurgen Habermas - obvious enough; but read somewhat around the subject, too, by adding Jacques Derrida's 'The Post Card', for its 'envois', and Charles Harrison's essay (as Art and Language), included in Frascina (ed.) Pollock and After: the Critical Debate, for its discussion of the so-called 'Trobriand Island problem'. Read Camus, also - 'The Outsider', 'The Plague'. Go see the Gilbert & George exhibition at Tate Modern. The answers are as much there as they are in books formally about politics, we feel. To be clear, too, we are not formulating a recipe for inertia. Your quip about waiting for a 4th World War is as cheap as it is immature. You like to finish your messages with a cheap-shot - a common enough but tiresome ploy to gain reaction. Trouble is, it is the wrong kind of reaction, and is worse than useless; just as destructive, generalising, and idiotic as dropping those bombs on strangers you say you are dead set against. Your caricaturing us; reducing us to an abstraction, which suits the pursuit of your campaign; or so you believe. In spirit, you are just as colonial and self-interested as those you criticise. Can you not see this? You do not know us; and you will not know us. The image you have of us is all projection, flawed contingency. Thanks for the links you sent, but we will not be clicking on them. Tell us, does the 'abundant information' on * include his business interests, or how much time he spends with the poor vs how much time he spends with businessmen, etc.? We have commited no such sins; yet, at a distance and just because we disagree with you, you demonise us. In contrast, you are willing to attach your name to all kinds of dodgy systems. Before you dedicate your time to working for the man we suggest you do a moral audit of the man himself. You might not like what you find.
*. Our 'appraisal', as you term it, of our exchanges was and is representative. Like a lot of people who feel they possess the weapons of theory and a willingness to use them on some pet-cause, you plump for rhetoric when reciprocity is what is needed. If you are serious about some kind of career or career-hobby in politics, then employ all that reading to enable your ears as well as your tongue. Evidence speaks for itself - nowhere in your mails did you debate the points we raised. In contrast, we met each of your points in turn, telling you why we believe your campaign for * is folly. Re-read the exchanges. We can send them back to you if you like. At no time do you seriously or meaningfully meet our questions. That's just fact. Good that you have added Schrumpeter to your reading list. That does you credit. His 'committe' analysis is the problem in a nutshell; and flags up the inherent deception of politicans, politics itself, and what gets termed democracy but isn't. May we suggest you also add, say, David Harvey, Jurgen Habermas - obvious enough; but read somewhat around the subject, too, by adding Jacques Derrida's 'The Post Card', for its 'envois', and Charles Harrison's essay (as Art and Language), included in Frascina (ed.) Pollock and After: the Critical Debate, for its discussion of the so-called 'Trobriand Island problem'. Read Camus, also - 'The Outsider', 'The Plague'. Go see the Gilbert & George exhibition at Tate Modern. The answers are as much there as they are in books formally about politics, we feel. To be clear, too, we are not formulating a recipe for inertia. Your quip about waiting for a 4th World War is as cheap as it is immature. You like to finish your messages with a cheap-shot - a common enough but tiresome ploy to gain reaction. Trouble is, it is the wrong kind of reaction, and is worse than useless; just as destructive, generalising, and idiotic as dropping those bombs on strangers you say you are dead set against. Your caricaturing us; reducing us to an abstraction, which suits the pursuit of your campaign; or so you believe. In spirit, you are just as colonial and self-interested as those you criticise. Can you not see this? You do not know us; and you will not know us. The image you have of us is all projection, flawed contingency. Thanks for the links you sent, but we will not be clicking on them. Tell us, does the 'abundant information' on * include his business interests, or how much time he spends with the poor vs how much time he spends with businessmen, etc.? We have commited no such sins; yet, at a distance and just because we disagree with you, you demonise us. In contrast, you are willing to attach your name to all kinds of dodgy systems. Before you dedicate your time to working for the man we suggest you do a moral audit of the man himself. You might not like what you find.
posted by murmurists at 9:59 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home