Skip to main content

But mightn't my Harvard crimson trump your Yale blue (12 March 2009)

As the editor who published this piece, I never saw it as a technical analysis of the economy. It is political analysis, a learned observer's sense of where power resides, how those with power must be appeased even when they may not have earned it, and, yes, where to lay some blame. Rather than shallow, I find Michael's take to be unencumbered by a bunch of economic and academic gobbledygook. He calls it as he sees it -- and he sees it as a noted professor of US history. (David Beers, "Tbarnston, another view," _The Tyee_. March 12, 2009)

Folks, don't dare object to the piece, for it's written from a "learned observer," " a "noted professor" -- that is, from someone from within an establishment David Beers evidently has great respect for. Considering that this journal (i.e., The Tyee) evidences some signs of being a guerrilla, alternative, "mouthpiece," some of us might now be confused as to when we're supposed to defer and when we're allowed to object. If the editor doesn't want to have to chime in again to tell the unsavy why this particular piece is one they should just just try and learn from, or if compelled to comment, just offer up a Jeffrey J. and be done with it, he should find some way of marking the piece so we're all in the know. He kind of did -- he told us this particular author is being published by YaleUP, but again, all that stuff about feisty fish confuses -- so we're NOT supposed to pour scorn on those who know what the little spoon is for? We're supposed to revere well-positioned plain-speaking academics, even though they tend to be conservative, and dump on those who talk in academic gobbledygoody, even though they tend to come from the postcolonial, feminist/gender studies, new historical, marxist schools, that tend to lean strongly progressive? Okay. Oh dear.

Link: Rescuing the Wealthy Idiots (The Tyee)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   


2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…