Keyser Soze / Doug and Terrance

[Phil Wise]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mackin" <paul.mackin at verizon.net>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: Keyser Soze / Doug and Terrance


> > Judy Panetta wrote: (copied from Terrance's post since original never
came
> to my mailbox)
> > >
> > > Kelly as nostalgic for the sixties..? Let me preface this explanation
> that I
> > > wrote this as a first impression on reading this article. So forgive
me
> > > folks, if I do not have the research usually warranted here.
> > >
> > > But let me try...there is in Kelly's article a tone that I found
> reminiscent
> > > of the rhetoric of the "conservatives" in the sixties-early seventies.
> >
>
> Kelly definitely styles himself a conservative. Doubt if I knew of his
> existence until he came to the Post as one of their op-ed page
conservatives
> (to preside along side George Will). I've never read him at all regularly
> but associate him with the "right wing conspirary against the Clintons" as
> it's called..  Very abrasive in style. He was born in 1957 so would have
> come to life at the time Reagan's 80s conservativism was in flower.
Religion
> and politics. Culture wars. Would guess Kelly's view of both sides of the
> culture wars would be negative. Actually I've no idea on how he feels
about,
> say, abortion rights. But in any event I would guess Goldwater's earlier
60s
> conservatism would have held more appeal as something to look back upon.
> Maybe this ties is with what Judy saw.  Tough guy, no nonsense, keep the
> government out of my business (and bedroom if he'd thought about it) and
out
> of the rest of the world . Libertarian. By the way, remember it wasn't the
> conservatives who were pushing the Vietnam war. It was the liberals.
> Kennedy, Johnson. Anyway, now I'll read Mr. K. more assiduously.
>
>         P.


http://www.dailyhowler.com/h100301_1.shtml

Since this link above has some pretty sharp things to say about Mr Kelly and
possibly by implication his readers, I'll preface this by saying my posting
of it is in no way designed reflect on Paul.  But I saw no analysis in
Kelly's column, just name calling, which seems to be more or less the main
tool the "right" has employed against the "left" lately.  And this guy's
analysis of mainstream punditry is usually pretty tight.

And since Kelly's managed to bring what I'd prefer not to call
"anti-globalisation" into it ("much of what is passing for pacifism in this
instance is not pacifism at all but only the latest tedious manifestation of
a well-known pre-existing condition: the largely reactionary, largely
incoherent, largely silly muddle of anti-American, anti-corporatist,
anti-globalist sentiments that passes for the politics of the left these
days"), an utterly dishonest spew (hey, I think he's talking about me, fuck
him, he could at least not generalise me out of existence), I'll go along
with the critique even though its claims for the lack of genuine pacifists
in America is wrong, although it is funny that nobody can name them, it
seems.

phil


>
>
>