Saturday, July 02, 2005


fashismflashism, get your own here too: (hat tip to Kelley at lbo-talk)

downthread (the Bradich 10 point plan) a little ways:

Fox News in Ratings Free Fall
Here's something you won't hear on Fox News -- ratings for the cablenews channel have been plummeting since before the November election.According to TV Newser, the number of people watching Fox during primetime in the 25 to 54 age bracket dropped in April for the sixthstraight month.TV Newser cited a CNN press release which gave these totals for Fox'sprimetime audience in the 25 to 54 age bracket: Oct. 04: 1,074,000;Nov. 04: 891,000; Dec. 04: 568,000; Jan. 05: 564,000; Feb. 05:520,000; March 05: 498,000; April 05: 445,000. That amounts to adecline of 58 percent, with no sign of leveling off.Other cable stations' ratings were also down since the election, butCNN's, for example, appeared to have stabilized last month while Fox'scontinued to drop.What the press release didn't say is that we can add 629,000 people tothose who don't watch Fox. That works out to just over 89,857 peoplefor each of the seven News Hounds who are watching Fox so those peopledon't have to.Now that we've added another Hound, we should be able to take care ofthe remaining 445,000 in even less than six months.Fox's plunging ratings should be a warning to those cable stationstrying to copy the news channel's conservative Republican slant.People are tired of it. Try something different, like a progressivetelevision show, for a change.

intello heavy weightyism throwing volatile feather stroke punches

Same Senseless Ramblings, Slightly Bigger Stage, or Intellectual Investments in Jolly Corners - 209K Wow, this is the heaviest hardslugging sort of intello weightyism I've come across in a dog's age; it's all about what literary theory can bring to psychoanalysis and whatnot (including vica versa), . .. .. mighty mighty interesting, I only wish Laurence Rickels (on whom more all throughout past work; check the logbriefer for most recent) would join in here.

The original curriculum proposed by thread initiator Kaufman is ignored in favor of a Holland book, reference to which posted by first commenter Jonathan, here's Kaufman's response: "Holland neglects to mention one significant difference between geology, astronomy, medicine and psychoanalysis; namely, that the first three can produce empirically measurable results, whereas psychoanalysis cannot. Holland confuses the theorizing for practice, equating the theorizing of Lyell, Darwin, etc. with psychoanalytic theorizing, then ignoring the fact that the theories of Lyell, Darwin, etc. could be and in fact were later verified by empirical evidence. The strongest possible version of Holland’s claim is that psychoanalysis is, right now, as much of a science as geology or evolutionary biology in the 1860s...and that’s not the claim he wants to make. (As I’ve mentioned before, I entered grad. school a psychoanalytic critic, but I’m leaving an apostate.)
But this isn’t the discussion I wanted to have; I’m less interested in the truth of psychoanalysis in general than its possible utility for literary studies in particular. Is it possible for psychoanalysis to be utterly wrong about people but eminently useful when addressed to novels/poems/etc.? "