Wednesday, November 30, 2005

For Tomorrow

Hope everybody had good time off. For tomorrow we'll be talking about the last three essays in Butler's Undoing Gender, the chapters entitled: "The End of Sexual Difference?" "The Question of Social Transformation," and "Can the 'Other' of Philosophy Speak?" See you all tomorrow morning.

Sunday, November 27, 2005

You know you want to....

You know all you Democraps all want to become a Republican't!!!!

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

What it takes to deny a cure for cancer: The christian right VS. HPV

The HPV vaccine is a chance to wipe out cervical cancer a common and often fatal form of cancer in women. Any organization who opposes this due to the fear of rampant female promiscuity are confusing themselves with Christ. In this opposition they purport to be Christ by placing in themselves the authority to pass judgment inflicting death. Is the power invested now in the christian right made them believe they have divine powers. The notion of women's deserving to die due to their promiscuity is not the notion of a god fearing people, where is the humility, the notion is the ownership of god. Maybe more accurately they have in fact co-opted god (as image) in order to be able to instill in themselves the agency to make statements/decisions(?) this extreme.

The two groups to have purportedly made statements against the vaccine are the Concerned Women of America (an ironic title) and the Family Research Council, who in a press release actually retracted any statement they may have made, by declaring that they actually support and will be "monitoring" the progress and implementation of the vaccine. The main problem in openly opposing the vaccine was that they wanted to have their daughters vaccinated.
This modern christian body; what are they, it seems that god is just this word used to denote a certain ambiguous force behind a body of people, the mysterious force which commands trust in administration of large ethical issues. That it is insanity to say women deserve to die for having sex, and thus we should not cure cancer, and that this is a christian notion(!!).

The fear of promiscuity in young women is what drives the opposition to this vaccine. Its interesting that promiscuity is a word usually associated with women. You rarely hear of men's promiscuity, if promiscuity is just a process by which one exhibits sexuality..... this disease has been virtually attributed to women alone even though men carry the disease equally, the difference is that men are significantly less effected by it and only a very small percentage will ever develop a type of cancer from it (what if the tables were turned and HPV caused a high rate of penile cancer in men? (sentence edited for content) I wonder, would we have the vaccine by now??)

A few quotes:

Wendy Wright says that, when she first heard about the possibility of immunizing preteens against HPV, she thought "it would seem to send a message that we're expecting the girls to be sexually active."
Concerned Women of America

The thing that makes it so f-ing scary is that people this delusional have influence.

Meanwhile, Harper says, she thinks some women far older than 11 or 12 will line up for an HPV vaccine, even if their insurance won't cover it. "I see as many women for abnormal Pap smears who are in their 40s or 50s as in their 20s," Harper says. The reason: Either the women aren't monogamous or their husbands aren't.

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Subject or Object, You Decide......

So if the king's head is aroll why do people still have false assumptions that power flows from the king?

One theory is that perhaps the individual person might atempt to transpose an internally relevent strategy on to an external reality. I think that the multiplicity of desires of an individual is by default, ruled by an "inner king" (a better term might be steward) so to speak, a single driver of a bus full of desires. How otherwise would the individual body fulfill any desires at all? (However, I have not thought out the idea of different agents of the multiplicity driving at different times.)

This assumtion was called into question in class and it was suggested that the "inner king/steward" was not a shared human condition, but a style of internal governance, and that a person might function under the inverse situation, which can be assumed to be self governance by multiplicity.

Here's why I disagree:

Human activity (vs inactivity), of any type involves decisions, which are an act of will and an exercise of power in the Foucaultian sense that any strategic planning toward a future end is political and an expression of power.

I think that this is also the moment when the individual chooses subjectification instead of objectification.

From a logical grammatical standpoint, a subject (noun) has agency to employ a verb, to excersise power. The object is acted upon by the verb, and has no agency.

The multiplicity (plurality), an object, cannot drive the bus because the bus, (a singular individual body) can only progress in one direction at a time since it is contiguious, and unitary. A plurality precludes subjecthood by definition, it is diffuse and incoherent. To infer that the multiplicity should govern the individual means that the individual chooses objectification and cedes the stategic intervention of power and agency of the individual driver of the bus, or self subjectified individual.



I reserve the right to change my opinion at any time, so don't be surprised if I do!

Sunday, November 06, 2005

In the year 2014 New York Times has gone offline...

Hey guys.
Apparently some topics of this class (especially Foucault and that strange movie They Live) finally broke some kind of door in my head that was locked and painted over. I catch myself thinking about media at least 2-3 times a day which is totally abnormal for me. And, of course, while I am paying attention to those things, they seem to appear much more often.
One of those appearances is this video (ad?) If you didn't see it - check it out. It's different, it's something to wonder about.

In the year 2014 New York Times has gone offline. The Fourth's Estates fortunes has waned. What happened to the news?