En un proceso no se decide o ‘Sobre el lenguaje procesista’

A veces nos ponemos a hablar del sexo de los ángeles y nos olvidamos de cosas obvias. Si bien es cierto que, como admitió Freud, un cigarro es solo un cigarro y no un símbolo fálico (bueno, como mínimo en lo relativo a SUS cigarros,) y a veces las palabras son únicamente eso, palabras y etiquetas, en otras ocasiones una palabra lo marca todo. Por decirlo de algún modo, tales palabras arrastran a todo el mundo y te obligan a jugar con sus reglas. Ciertas palabras tienen tanta carga o contexto moral, que hacen girar todo debate en torno a ellas, incluso aunque se haya escogido esa palabra por cinismo.

Continue reading “En un proceso no se decide o ‘Sobre el lenguaje procesista’”

Advertisements

The Simpsons and The Springfield Shopper for bloggers

In Spain, among The Simpsons fans, there is a saying that could be translated as “everything is in The Simpsons” (todo está en Los Simpsons.) That’s usually said after viewing or thinking about a classic (pre 10-12th season) episode and realizing that a fifteen-year-old (or more) American sitcom explains current events better than our own social commentators. Political, social, or cultural issues of all stripes, it doesn’t matter what subject you want to talk about, because Everything Is In The Simpson, and there is a Simpson reference about it somewhere. If you wish to write about an issue, no matter how obscure it may be, there is a Simpson reference somewhere that explains it way better than you ever could.

Continue reading “The Simpsons and The Springfield Shopper for bloggers”

The Will to Outrage (Traducción)

[Nota: Lo que sigue es una traducción de una parte del artículo “The Will to Outrage” the Theodore Dalrymple. Para leer el original y los siempre desquiciantes y perturbadores comentarios en Takimag, click aquí ]

[This is a partial translation of Theodore Dalrymple’s article, The Will to Outrage. The original can be found here]

Continue reading “The Will to Outrage (Traducción)”

TV3, keeping it classy.

A little context: On May 9, 1978, Catalan businessman José María Butló (born 1900) was kidnapped by members of the Exèrcit Popular Català (Catalan Popular Army,) and the terrorists attached a bomb to his chest. They told him that if he did not pay 500 million pesetas they would detonate the bomb. Also, if he tried to remove the bomb, it would explode. Details are sketchy, but we know he refused to pay and, later, when he was at his home, the bomb exploded. He died.

Continue reading “TV3, keeping it classy.”

Hugs for Allah.

Traducción al español de este artículo.

From the MailOnline

“A Muslim convert who protested outside Parliament with a sign saying ‘I am Muslim, do you trust me enough for a hug?’ is facing jail for threatening to bomb an MP’s house.

Craig Wallace used the sign as Stop The War protesters came to Westminster for the vote on military action in Syria last week.

It stated: ‘I am Muslim, I am labelled a terrorist, I trust you, do you trust me enough for a hug?’

But the 23-year-old, of Willesden Green, north London, is now facing a possible prison sentence after he threatened Tory MP Charlotte Leslie online following the vote.

Wallace, who calls himself Muhammad Mujahid Islam online, wrote on Facebook: ‘I’m going to smash her windows then drop a bomb on her house while she’s tucked up in bed. You dirty f****** pig-s******* s***.’

On December 3, the day after MPs voted to authorise the airstrikes, he wrote: ‘I’m going to find her and show her what it’s like to murder innocents. You dirty pig-f****** w****.’

He also described shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn as a ‘war criminal’ and a ‘terrorist’ the day after the Commons vote to bomb Syria.

His defence lawyer Abu Sayeed said Wallace had posted the messages after he had been out protesting against the Syrian bombing vote for ‘two or three days and had very little sleep and had not taken his medication.’…”

Now that’s what I call an explosive personality. I’m not sure saying he is off his meds is a good defence, though.


<
Traducción.

Por el MailOnline

Un converso al Islam que protestaba delante del Parlamento con una señal que decía “Soy musulmán, ¿confías en mí lo suficiente para abrazarme?” se enfrenta a una pena de prisión por amenazar con una bomba la casa de un parlamentario.

Craig Wallace usó su cartel  hace una semana cuado los manifestantes de “Stop The War” fueron a Westminster por la votación sobre la intervención militar en Siria.

Pero el hombre de 23 años, de Willesden Green, al Norte de Londres, se enfrenta ahora a una posible pena de prisión tras amenazar online a la parlamentaria Tory Charlotte Leslie después de la votación.

Wallace, que online se hace llamar Muhammad Muhajid Islam, escribió en Facebook: ‘Voy a romperle las ventanas y arrojar una bomba en su casa mientras está en su cama. Sucia j***** s***** ******* [Nota: insultos intraducibles e indescifrables, pero parecen tener su gracia]

El 3 de diciembre, el dia después de que los parlamentarios votaran para autorizar los ataques aéreos, escribió: “Voy a encontrarla y mostrarle qué es asesinar inocentes. Sucia, p*** f**** cerdos [Nota: ese sí se entiende, no sé por qué el DailyMail lo censura].

También describió a la secretaria de asuntos exteriores, Hilary Benn, como una ‘criminal de guerra’ y una ‘terrorista’ el día después de que los Comunes votaran bombardear Siria.

Su abogado defensor, Abu Sayeed, ha dicho que Wallace ha escrito esos mensajes después de haber estado protestando contra la votación sobre los bombardeos en Siria durante ‘dos o tres días y que ha dormido muy poco y no se ha tomado su medicación.'”

Eso es lo que yo llamo una personalidad explosiva. Aunque bueno, no estoy seguro de que decir que no se ha medicado durante varios días sea una excusa muy buena.

Random Derrida #2

Today, in Random Derrida™, it’s Glas (1974)! It’s a book by Derrida described on Wikipedia as “It combines a reading of Hegel‘s philosophical works and of Jean Genet‘s autobiographical writing. ‘One of Derrida’s more inscrutable books,’[1] its form and content invite a reflection on the nature of literary genre and of writing.”

Well, if it invites a reflection, I’m sure it will be great. Wikipedia also says:

Following the structure of Jean Genet’s Ce qui est resté d’un Rembrandt déchiré en petits carrés bien réguliers, et foutu aux chiottes [“What Remains of a Rembrandt Torn Into Four Equal Pieces and Flushed Down the Toilet”], the book is written in two columns in different type sizes. The left column is about Hegel, the right column is about Genet. Each column weaves its way around quotations of all kinds, both from the works discussed and from dictionaries—Derrida’s “side notes”,[2] described as “marginalia, supplementary comments, lengthy quotations, and dictionary definitions.”[3] Sometimes words are cut in half by a quotation which may last several pages.

Uh, ok, let’s see what we may stumble upon. Mhh… page 143!

And the spit with which the gliding mast would be smeared becomes, very quickly -the pen is dipped into a very fluid glue- some vaseline. And even, without forcing, a tube of mentholated vaseline.Rises therefore in one sudden stroke [d’un coup], though very elaborated, the “tube of vaseline” that a policemen, in 1932, two pages further on, draws out of the pocket of the narrator

I’m speechless.

And what does Derrida says about Hegel on the other column?

 

What is a corpse? What is to make a gift of a corpse?Pure singularity: neither the empiric individual that death destroys, decomposes, analyzes, nor the rational universality of the citizen, of the living subject. What I give as a present to the woman, in exchange for the fneral rite, is my own absolutely proper body, the essence of my singularity.

 

 

4290184-speechless-stickguy-meme.gif