The Progressive Blog Alliance HQ

Not since reading Murakami's Wind-Up Bird and Garcia Marquez's One hundred Years of Solitude have I been so energized by a book till now. Marciano Guerrero'sThe Poison Pill is subtitled "Business (Gothic) Thriller," but it is more than that. The prose is rhythmic and easy flowing which might lead one to believe that it is simplistic. Because the author dispenses aesthetic, philosophical, and literary allusions with artistry and transparency, it doesnt detract from the main themes. For example, as a character is about to die, he refers to a knife as having balance, harmony, and radiance. According to James Joyce these terms are in sum Thomas Aquinas' model of beauty. I also like the name of a Dominican Doctor: Esculapio Gallo. Well, Socrates last words were: "I owe a rooster (Gallo) to Aesculapius"--meaning no pharmakon could save his life. It just happens that the doctor's patient is also doomed. By now you may be thinking this is a coincidence. Not at all. You will also find meaningful allusions to Borges, Poe, Vargas-Llosa, Dante, and other literary giants. One can also learn about business; but that is material for another review. And so is the coincidence of Ivon Bates (hero) and Norman Bates (Psycho) commiting the same heinous crime. But enough. Here are two other choice books...Happy reading.

Back to main page

Liberals may well accuse McCain of having served as a useful tool for the Bushites on the torture issue, in that, by diverting the public's attention away from the real problem — the US Administration’s preposterous definition of torture — he has made it impossible to discuss the issue that really should be discussed. But that is only one part of the story. Yes, it is true that Bush can now simply claim that the US "does not torture," skirting completely around the question of what he means by the word "torture." The Bushites have manipulated the definition of torture so as to make it meaningless. And it is true that, meanwhile, activities that any rational person would consider to be torture will continue as before.  (read more at http://alse.blogspot.com )

Spirit and soul are often confused one for the other. They are, in fact, quite different. Spirit is understood as animation, motivation, thrust. Soul is intuited as alone, unique.

Soul has no rational basis unless Plato’s pseudo-metaphysical argument is taken seriously. In that case, our soul is immortal having existed from before our birth and continuing to exist after our death. The fact that it is ours temporarily is inconsequential and our affect on it is minimal if at all. As a person of faith, I do not accept that. I believe a soul is given us at birth by God, that it is our essence so to speak, that it has no form or substance, that it is pure potential much as energy is potential in a boulder on the edge of a cliff, and that we begin to shape our soul as soon as we begin making decisions. I believe that at any moment in our existence our soul has been shaped by the sum of all our decisions up to that point, that this is what God values in us, and that this is what we are held accountable for if we are held accountable at all.

To the administrators again: Thanks for clearing the offending posts under "re." yesterday. Wouldn't you know it, the same spammers are back again! LOL I know you're busy with everything in a new site, so I'm not at all upset. Just to let you know. Here's one of them: re freethumnail galleries older women *-=*=* dating mature women mature wives *-=*=* older ladies adult galleries mature women *-=*=* mature breasts older granny *-=*=* mature post hot older mature women *-=*=* milf mature mature nude women *-=*=* mature pic post mature wives *-=*=* nude older women older mature sexgalleries *-=*=* hairy mature older women mature aunts *-=*=* mature men galleries gallerie mature women *-=*=* free mature galleries Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2005-10-05 15:10.

Michel Foucault: Interview with Paul Rabinow (1984):

I like discussions, and when I am asked questions, I try to answer them. It’s true that I don’t like to get involved in polemics. If I open a book and see that the author is accusing an adversary of “infantile leftism” I shut it again right away. That’s not my way of doing things; I don’t belong to the world of people who do things that way. I insist on this difference as something essential: a whole morality is at stake, the one that concerns the search for truth and the relation to the other.

In the serious play of questions and answers, in the work of reciprocal elucidation, the rights of each person are in some sense immanent in the discussion. They depend only on the dialogue situation. The person asking the questions is merely exercising the right that has been given him: to remain unconvinced, to perceive a contradiction, to require more information, to emphasize different postulates, to point out faulty reasoning, and so on. As for the person answering the questions, he too exercises a right that does not go beyond the discussion itself; by the logic of his own discourse, he is tied to what he has said earlier, and by the acceptance of dialogue he is tied to the questioning of other. Questions and answers depend on a game—a game that is at once pleasant and difficult—in which each of the two partners takes pains to use only the rights given him by the other and by the accepted form of dialogue.