On February 10, Sarah Palin tweeted a public birthday greeting to Glenn Beck: “Happy B’day Glenn Beck! Ah, the wisdom of our elders…” Apart from the feigned folksiness of the word “B’day” and the astonishing attributing of wisdom to Glenn Beck, the tweet primarily declares an attempted strategic alliance. Self-professed “rodeo clown” Glenn Beck soon [...]
I lederen Kulturracisme [1. Weekendavisen nr 01 - 8. januar 2010] tager Anne Knudsen til orde i debatten om Lars Hedegaards efterhĂĄnden famøse pĂĄstand: “De voldtager deres egne børn. Det hører man hele tiden. Piger i muslimske familier bliver voldtaget af deres onkler, deres fætre eller deres far.” Til den omfattende stĂĄhej, denne udtalelse har afstedkommet, svarer Anne Knudsen:
“Hvis nogen efter en tĂĄr over tørsten havde forsøgt sig med at lancere pĂĄstanden om, at de missionske boller deres døtre tykke, eller at førtidspensionister driver hjemmebordeller med mindreĂĄrige, som et seriøst indslag i debatten om noget som helst, havde alle og enhver trukket pĂĄ skuldrene over det rablende fjols, uanset hvilken forening han eller hun var formand for. Men adskillige fuldvoksne danskere har nu i ugevis seriøst beskæftiget sig med Lars Hedegaards pĂĄstand fra denne skuffe.
Anne Knudsen mener altsĂĄ, at Lars Hedegaard har været udsat for en noget pedantisk behandling, der ikke var tilkommet nogen anden i en lignende situation. AltsĂĄ udgør “adskillige fuldvoksne danskeres” barnlige reaktion en overfølsomhed over for enten Lars Hedegaard eller enhver kritik af Islam. Dette argument er tidligere fremført af Søren Krarup:
A friend recently questioned the use of the personal pronoun “we” on aleph.dk. The question was posed on a rather bacchanalesque occasion, so the debate soon wandered off and finally had to sit down against a wall somewhere. In order to actually answer the very interesting question of personal pronouns, however, it would be pertinent to quote Beckett: “Qu’importe qui parle, quelqu’un a dit qu’importe qui parle.”
There is a funny double entendre in the French original, which is sadly lost in translation. The sentence has three members. The first one is perceived as a question even though it has no question mark. The second member states that someone said something, this something being the third member. The ambiguity arises in this last member, which can be read as both a direct and an indirect quotation. Either someone repeated the question in the first member – “What matter who’s speaking” – or someone said that, in fact, it matters who is speaking.
Anne Knudsen indleder sit juleevangelium – sin sædvanlige tilsvining af alle, der ikke smertefrit træder den gode produktive borgers sko og marcherer i takt med “det store vi” – med et julemysterium: Hvordan kan det være, at der ĂĄr efter ĂĄr bliver flere værdigt trængende, nĂĄr arbejdsløsheden stadigt er lav. Det mystiske ved mysteriet er [...]
I fredags var Anne Knudsen som sĂĄ ofte før 1 ude med sin lettere sløve rive efter alle, der ikke indgĂĄr i “det store vi” med dertil hørende respekt for ejendomsretten og generel tilfredshed med det bestĂĄende samfund. Hun indleder med, hvad der i en bedre verden var en overflødig anerkendelse af ytringsfriheden. Hmm…
Hvis man [...]
“I am here, and there is nothing to say.” “I have nothing to say and I am saying it and that is poetry as I need it.” These two quotes are, respectively, the first and one of the first sentences of John Cage’s Lecture on Nothing 1. Usually, to speak and say nothing is not [...]
“We the people” is a weird constellation. Is the plural subsumed under the singular or is it the other way around? Who is “We” and what is a people? Well in the case of “We the people,” “We” are the “people” of the United States, but again what does this entail? This question has no [...]
A bit of criticism in Danish:
Fra tid til anden støder man på udsagn, der i struktur og indhold er så vildfarne, at man næsten ikke orker at løfte pegefingeren til opbyggelig retningsangivelse mod fornuftens åbenbart svært navigerbare sti, men blot i mat stilhed græmmes over det velunderbyggede standpunkts devaluering til fordel for en polemisk mauvaise [...]
As a last installment (promised!) in our whole “commentary on the spectacular horrors of commentary”-debacle (now a trilogy with parts one and two already out) we should take a quick look at the ground values, not of bloggery as such, but of this our own particular verbal version of loose-stooled effluent. And as the greek [...]
Something which has really gotten my goat lately is intellectual commentary. There are certainly innumerable culprits within this field of pseudo-intellectual guff but two among them annoy me on a daily basis: Christopher Hitchens and Slavoj Zizek.
Let us begin with the anti-theist. Hitchens is a very educated man. He went to Oxford, which is [...]