It’s one of the most pathetic claims to fame/achievement that I’ve ever read…

Now . . . If he can only get canned.

Sanchez on Twitter: “wow, really getting heat from neocons and far right wing fox viewers for saying truth. must have hit nerve.”

The tortured logic of Rick Sanchez:

Sanchez: The earth is flat.

Entire scientific comunity: “That kind of ignorant nonsense was disproven hundreds of years ago.”

Sanchez: “Wow. I must have struck a nerve.”

Sanchez now tweets he was misquoted:

http://twitter.com/ricksanchezcnn/status/2849728714

What a coawrd.

guido911 on July 26, 2009 at 12:35 PM

What a turd. A typical lib CYA

Seriously, I really like double entendre from Banderas and her “wise Latina” comment … two with one blow!

I wonder if we’ll hear feedback from another Latino at Fox News, Orlando Salinas…

And he doesn’t have to worry about working at FOX because we only hire talent who have the ability to generate ratings.”

Game . . . set . . . and MATCH!

Has Sanchez killed anyone this week???

dugbru on July 26, 2009 at 4:55 PM

Close, but no cigar. He’s planning another drunken drive in early August.

Sanchez now tweets he was misquoted:

http://twitter.com/ricksanchezcnn/status/2849728714

What a coward.

guido911 on July 26, 2009 at 12:35 PM

Maybe it’s just me, but is it supposed to be “cool” or something nowadays for a “journalist” such as Sanchez with a national platform to demonstrate with every public message that he is functionally illiterate?

I know that Twitter is supposed to convey a person’s quick thoughts.

But would it kill Rick Sanchez to learn what a capital letter is, or how to punctuate?

140 quickly-typed characters is still enough to show mastery of the grammar of the English language.

Pomo (Postmodernism) is rhetoric-heavy, yes. But rhetoric is a tool, so one can ask how it’s being used and why it’s being used that way. The postmodernists have rejected reason, and along with it concern for evidence and consistency. What then is the purpose of rhetoric? In pomo practice, there are a couple of possibilities.

One is that rhetoric becomes a kind of subjectivist expressionism – you play around with language and hope that something interesting pops out. Derrida is often like this – I think of him as a performance artist of postmodernism. In its darker moods, this approach recalls a line from Kate Ellis, a sympathetic-to-postmodernism commentator, who noted “the characteristically apolitical pessimism of most postmodernism, by which creation is simply a form of defecation.” Whatever’s been processing and churning up inside you – you just let ‘er rip.

The other use of rhetoric is politically-charged persuasion. Pomo rhetoric becomes long on emotionalism, ad hominem, and so on, and it becomes short on logic and evidence. But the point of such rhetoric is effectiveness, not truth.

You mention that much pomo political rhetoric is anti-capitalist and champions unlikely causes such as fundamentalist Islam. Here the pomo are taking a page out of Lenin’s and Marcuse’s playbooks. There’s a long-ish story here that I talk about in Chapter 5 of Explaining Postmodernism: Traditional Marxism said that capitalism would collapse from the inside (the exploited and alienated workers would rise); but when that didn’t happen, Marxists theorized that capitalism had exported its misery to the Third World (Lenin’s idea) or to outcast and marginalized subcultures (Marcuse’s idea). So the new strategy was to cultivate the anti-capitalist resistance in those places.

(And in calculated ethnic and minority groupings in the US defined by the media and academia.)

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2009/03/postmodernism-unpeeled.html