tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756292796580291035.post4454559369373967319..comments2023-10-01T01:56:19.699-07:00Comments on You Made Me Theorize: From Work to Beer to TextJoseph P. Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12757706787232014827noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756292796580291035.post-89854987090268526822009-09-23T09:44:02.680-07:002009-09-23T09:44:02.680-07:00Because really, maybe the President just likes Bud...<i>Because really, maybe the President just likes Bud Light.</i><br /><br />Very true. However, can we deny the fact that personal styles and tastes bring into relief our own textuality--the way that others read us? In other words, can we deny the fact that bying into a particular product--be it beer or something else--bespeaks a rejection of other products, which in and of itself suggests something about us? In even shorter terms, can we overlook the fact that Obama's choice is bound up in the rhetoric--the textuality--of nationalism, to the extent that he "bought American" (even though I don't think Bud is American-owned)?Joseph P. Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12757706787232014827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756292796580291035.post-31654082796157599072009-09-23T09:37:26.813-07:002009-09-23T09:37:26.813-07:00Kbdancer,
I found your missing comment. It appea...Kbdancer,<br /><br />I found your missing comment. It appeared in the post itself. So I have pasted it into the comment box, which will mean that it will now appear under my name, and I have removed it from the post. Here's <i>your</i> comment:<br /><br />In my opinion, analyzing the differences between the New York Times and Daily Beast articles can illuminate the differences between meaningful analysis for its sake and that for the aggrandizement of the author. I appreciated the slightly sarcastic tone of parts of the New York Times article, recognizing the tendency of bloggers and pundits to over-analyze and therein assign non-existent meaning. In contrast, the Daily Beast verged on doing just this without conveying that it could be, and the fallacy of doing so. In any event, expression of thought doesn't have to kill the author if the reader, like the New York Times article, also gives the author his/her due. Because really, maybe the President just likes Bud Light.Joseph P. Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12757706787232014827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756292796580291035.post-14991138306247850912009-09-23T06:58:00.172-07:002009-09-23T06:58:00.172-07:00It looks like it worked!It looks like it worked!Joseph P. Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12757706787232014827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756292796580291035.post-69453208892673095902009-09-22T13:55:00.334-07:002009-09-22T13:55:00.334-07:00This is a test comment, as I've had trouble in...This is a test comment, as I've had trouble in the past, thank you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com