archive-ca.com » CA » M » MCHUGH-RUSSELL.CA

Total: 287

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Dissent « Liam McHugh-Russell
    dismiss the problem out of hand but while obviously being a bit provocative to suggest that solutions to the problem lay in better understanding the nature of our anxiety That is I intended that the question be read in the register not of we should not be worried about it but in the register of what exactly is it as a matter of principle that we are worried about Your latest piece depends on an interpretation in the former register and I am not sure it provides enough evidence to justify that interpretation Can you say more about why you think that Zizek is being glib Does his argument in the book following this quote support your reading This is especially important given that there is evidence that this wasn t his intention First he doesn t say so what if we return to totalitarianism he says so what if one is accused of being anti democratic and totalitarian Neither the accusation nor even a personal orientation would necessarily imply endorsement of a totalitarian politics The second though you have dismissed it out of hand is the use of inverted commas which suggest that it is only democracy as defined under liberal democratic coordinates an orientation to question of democracy you clearly don t endorse not democracy in the ideal which he is attempting to muddle There is further support for this more generous reading one could look outside the book to sources in which Zizek has unequivocally criticized the authoritarian tyranny of Socialist Bloc policies here in his review of The Lives of Others in which he suggests that western leftists could be easily be misled by the film about how bad the system was and here a video in which he says at 2 25 Let me make

    Original URL path: http://Mchugh-Russell.ca/tag/dissent/ (2016-05-01)
    Open archived version from archive


  • inverted commas « Liam McHugh-Russell
    dismiss the problem out of hand but while obviously being a bit provocative to suggest that solutions to the problem lay in better understanding the nature of our anxiety That is I intended that the question be read in the register not of we should not be worried about it but in the register of what exactly is it as a matter of principle that we are worried about Your latest piece depends on an interpretation in the former register and I am not sure it provides enough evidence to justify that interpretation Can you say more about why you think that Zizek is being glib Does his argument in the book following this quote support your reading This is especially important given that there is evidence that this wasn t his intention First he doesn t say so what if we return to totalitarianism he says so what if one is accused of being anti democratic and totalitarian Neither the accusation nor even a personal orientation would necessarily imply endorsement of a totalitarian politics The second though you have dismissed it out of hand is the use of inverted commas which suggest that it is only democracy as defined under liberal democratic coordinates an orientation to question of democracy you clearly don t endorse not democracy in the ideal which he is attempting to muddle There is further support for this more generous reading one could look outside the book to sources in which Zizek has unequivocally criticized the authoritarian tyranny of Socialist Bloc policies here in his review of The Lives of Others in which he suggests that western leftists could be easily be misled by the film about how bad the system was and here a video in which he says at 2 25 Let me make

    Original URL path: http://Mchugh-Russell.ca/tag/inverted-commas/ (2016-05-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Zizek « Liam McHugh-Russell
    dismiss the problem out of hand but while obviously being a bit provocative to suggest that solutions to the problem lay in better understanding the nature of our anxiety That is I intended that the question be read in the register not of we should not be worried about it but in the register of what exactly is it as a matter of principle that we are worried about Your latest piece depends on an interpretation in the former register and I am not sure it provides enough evidence to justify that interpretation Can you say more about why you think that Zizek is being glib Does his argument in the book following this quote support your reading This is especially important given that there is evidence that this wasn t his intention First he doesn t say so what if we return to totalitarianism he says so what if one is accused of being anti democratic and totalitarian Neither the accusation nor even a personal orientation would necessarily imply endorsement of a totalitarian politics The second though you have dismissed it out of hand is the use of inverted commas which suggest that it is only democracy as defined under liberal democratic coordinates an orientation to question of democracy you clearly don t endorse not democracy in the ideal which he is attempting to muddle There is further support for this more generous reading one could look outside the book to sources in which Zizek has unequivocally criticized the authoritarian tyranny of Socialist Bloc policies here in his review of The Lives of Others in which he suggests that western leftists could be easily be misled by the film about how bad the system was and here a video in which he says at 2 25 Let me make

    Original URL path: http://Mchugh-Russell.ca/tag/zizek/ (2016-05-01)
    Open archived version from archive



  • how I spent my weekend « Liam McHugh-Russell
    about using the phrase to refer only to retroactive condemnation of criminality yet no washing liquid no matter how caustic could claim to be tough on stains unless it effectively reduced the sign of such stains In saying they are tough on crime the Harper government attempts to cover the field The language they use implies both approbation and activism painting the opposition as indolent and inattentive The Canadian press in turn does a poor job of challenging those using tough on crime language or of critiquing its use by placing it in the context of either criminology research and discussion of criminal justice ethics The result is occlusion of a debate about whether we should value criminal policy which gives victims justice by appropriately punishing perpetrators or social policy likely to reduce the number of victims Shouldn t politicians interested in good policy want to speak with nuance depth and complexity about their proposals their likely outcomes and the values represented in those choices They might but when one faces a press without the time effort or energy to report on those nuances the politician likely to grab the headline is the one who speaks in headlines In part Harper s government speaks in tough on crime language because the press is willing to report it that way My thinking is that we need ways of having the real debates which sidesteps the evasions perpetrated by the political class and facilitated by the press Here s the conclusion from the first draft of the proposal which gives a sense of my intuition the promotion of public knowledge is the most if not the only effective method of intervening in the toxic relationship which currently exists between politicians and the press Without public knowledge and support for it the idea

    Original URL path: http://Mchugh-Russell.ca/2010/02/15/how-i-spent-my-weekend/ (2016-05-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • crime « Liam McHugh-Russell
    brusque treatment and an intention to rub out the underlying phenomena There is nothing a priori inaccurate about using the phrase to refer only to retroactive condemnation of criminality yet no washing liquid no matter how caustic could claim to be tough on stains unless it effectively reduced the sign of such stains In saying they are tough on crime the Harper government attempts to cover the field The language they use implies both approbation and activism painting the opposition as indolent and inattentive The Canadian press in turn does a poor job of challenging those using tough on crime language or of critiquing its use by placing it in the context of either criminology research and discussion of criminal justice ethics The result is occlusion of a debate about whether we should value criminal policy which gives victims justice by appropriately punishing perpetrators or social policy likely to reduce the number of victims Shouldn t politicians interested in good policy want to speak with nuance depth and complexity about their proposals their likely outcomes and the values represented in those choices They might but when one faces a press without the time effort or energy to report on those nuances the politician likely to grab the headline is the one who speaks in headlines In part Harper s government speaks in tough on crime language because the press is willing to report it that way My thinking is that we need ways of having the real debates which sidesteps the evasions perpetrated by the political class and facilitated by the press Here s the conclusion from the first draft of the proposal which gives a sense of my intuition the promotion of public knowledge is the most if not the only effective method of intervening in the toxic relationship

    Original URL path: http://Mchugh-Russell.ca/tag/crime/ (2016-05-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • media « Liam McHugh-Russell
    brusque treatment and an intention to rub out the underlying phenomena There is nothing a priori inaccurate about using the phrase to refer only to retroactive condemnation of criminality yet no washing liquid no matter how caustic could claim to be tough on stains unless it effectively reduced the sign of such stains In saying they are tough on crime the Harper government attempts to cover the field The language they use implies both approbation and activism painting the opposition as indolent and inattentive The Canadian press in turn does a poor job of challenging those using tough on crime language or of critiquing its use by placing it in the context of either criminology research and discussion of criminal justice ethics The result is occlusion of a debate about whether we should value criminal policy which gives victims justice by appropriately punishing perpetrators or social policy likely to reduce the number of victims Shouldn t politicians interested in good policy want to speak with nuance depth and complexity about their proposals their likely outcomes and the values represented in those choices They might but when one faces a press without the time effort or energy to report on those nuances the politician likely to grab the headline is the one who speaks in headlines In part Harper s government speaks in tough on crime language because the press is willing to report it that way My thinking is that we need ways of having the real debates which sidesteps the evasions perpetrated by the political class and facilitated by the press Here s the conclusion from the first draft of the proposal which gives a sense of my intuition the promotion of public knowledge is the most if not the only effective method of intervening in the toxic relationship

    Original URL path: http://Mchugh-Russell.ca/tag/media/ (2016-05-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • policy « Liam McHugh-Russell
    brusque treatment and an intention to rub out the underlying phenomena There is nothing a priori inaccurate about using the phrase to refer only to retroactive condemnation of criminality yet no washing liquid no matter how caustic could claim to be tough on stains unless it effectively reduced the sign of such stains In saying they are tough on crime the Harper government attempts to cover the field The language they use implies both approbation and activism painting the opposition as indolent and inattentive The Canadian press in turn does a poor job of challenging those using tough on crime language or of critiquing its use by placing it in the context of either criminology research and discussion of criminal justice ethics The result is occlusion of a debate about whether we should value criminal policy which gives victims justice by appropriately punishing perpetrators or social policy likely to reduce the number of victims Shouldn t politicians interested in good policy want to speak with nuance depth and complexity about their proposals their likely outcomes and the values represented in those choices They might but when one faces a press without the time effort or energy to report on those nuances the politician likely to grab the headline is the one who speaks in headlines In part Harper s government speaks in tough on crime language because the press is willing to report it that way My thinking is that we need ways of having the real debates which sidesteps the evasions perpetrated by the political class and facilitated by the press Here s the conclusion from the first draft of the proposal which gives a sense of my intuition the promotion of public knowledge is the most if not the only effective method of intervening in the toxic relationship

    Original URL path: http://Mchugh-Russell.ca/tag/policy/ (2016-05-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • press « Liam McHugh-Russell
    brusque treatment and an intention to rub out the underlying phenomena There is nothing a priori inaccurate about using the phrase to refer only to retroactive condemnation of criminality yet no washing liquid no matter how caustic could claim to be tough on stains unless it effectively reduced the sign of such stains In saying they are tough on crime the Harper government attempts to cover the field The language they use implies both approbation and activism painting the opposition as indolent and inattentive The Canadian press in turn does a poor job of challenging those using tough on crime language or of critiquing its use by placing it in the context of either criminology research and discussion of criminal justice ethics The result is occlusion of a debate about whether we should value criminal policy which gives victims justice by appropriately punishing perpetrators or social policy likely to reduce the number of victims Shouldn t politicians interested in good policy want to speak with nuance depth and complexity about their proposals their likely outcomes and the values represented in those choices They might but when one faces a press without the time effort or energy to report on those nuances the politician likely to grab the headline is the one who speaks in headlines In part Harper s government speaks in tough on crime language because the press is willing to report it that way My thinking is that we need ways of having the real debates which sidesteps the evasions perpetrated by the political class and facilitated by the press Here s the conclusion from the first draft of the proposal which gives a sense of my intuition the promotion of public knowledge is the most if not the only effective method of intervening in the toxic relationship

    Original URL path: http://Mchugh-Russell.ca/tag/press/ (2016-05-01)
    Open archived version from archive