Turn on the cable news and tell me with a straight face that they are not still covering Anna Nicole Smith.

Of course this is interesting. We're in America where gossip is news and news is gossip.

who cares

she is beautiful, he is a power male, she a power female, what is the news

my family has had cross race marriages for 50 years, half a dozen that come to mind

Charles, wake up it is 2007

of passing interest is more her beauty and sense of style and glamour

he's old & rich, she's young & hot. she may be accomplished, but he's stratospherically wealthy, therefore his wrinkled, overrated ass is attractive to her.

there is nothing new under the sun.

She looks 28 but she's 38. It's a date: Good for her and good for him.

http://www.thehistorymakers.com/biography/biography.asp?bioindex=553

Just thought I'd finally say something bout it.

Narcissism of small differences.

That’s the crux of my point, but I’ll address some tangentials as well… Particularly, as for justifying the names, I think the following is illuminating and humorous: “if you say "hegel," you mean one thing; when you say "heidegger," you mean another thing. when you say "hegel," you must mean three things:”
Certainly, most likely an unintended oversight, but somewhat revealing of the absurdity of trying to peg a single, or even just multiple, ideas to an author.
Or, ‘Foucault’: “The third point concerning this "author-function" is that it is not formed spontaneously through the simple attribution of a discourse to an individual. It results from a complex operation whose purpose is to construct the rational entity we call an author. Undoubtedly, this construction is assigned a "realistic" dimension as we speak of an individual's "profundity" or "creative" power, his intentions or the original inspiration manifested in writing. Nevertheless, these aspect of an individual, which we designate as an author (or which comprise an individual as an author), are projections, in terms always more or less psychological, of our way of handling texts: in the comparisons we make, the traits we extract as pertinent, the continuities we assign, or the exclusions we practice.”

For someone who has spoken of himself as a Marxist, it would seem wise that you would be wary of reducing actual theories and ideas to trivialized intellectual commodities, thinks that don’t actually *do* anything aside from attempting to associate some sort of saleable characteristic upon those who ‘use’ them.

Does Hegel mean Marx? If you only know Hegel through Marx. However, Marxism’s use of dialects required a massive, and quite clever, reinterpretation of multiple major premises Hegel’s philosophy. There’s a world of difference between Phenomenology of Spirit and any Marxist writing. But then again, does Hegel just mean this text? Or does Hegel mean Spinoza, Kant and Schelling? Or, do we know now that a text is not a line of words releasing a single "theological" meaning (the "message" of the Author-God) but a multidimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centers of culture.

Point? Stick with ideas, use ideas. Dropping names doesn’t due credit to those who claim they know and can use the ideas behind them.

*Enjoying the hegemons of post-colonial theory, seems, of course, ironic in light of many of the theories of post-colonial theory itself.

And Charles, I'm not saying your knowledge is limited to name dropping. However, the comment in this post certainly was an equivalent to it as are many similar comments. "Those of us who are familiar with the dominant themes in post-colonial literary theory" is a pretentious and shallow treatment of any such ideas. Noting that, I don't think, is undeserved.

I would like to see more meaningful engagement with the ideas, as you say you do in your other writing, in the slog posts as well.