Niall Lucy, bro of Judith Lucy, husband of, ummm, daughter/step daughter (I can't remember) of lscp's step-dad, and a rampant lefty who wrote a bunch of books including "A Derrida Dictionary" and "The War on Democracy" (of which I have an online review somewhere though I can't remember where or under which nick I posted it, though I do recall exposing it's central fallacy and thus, collapsing if not exposing all that was built upon it).
Met him @ a family xmas dinner family back in 2006 and, prolly because we generally stayed away from things political or controversial, we didn't disagree on all that much ... ;-)
Hmmm, I seem to recall reposting/forwarding my online stuff about his books to other family members, so I wonder if it still lurks in my archives.
[pauses to submit an archives search]
Ah yes, here tis, from the 26/12/2006, a day after the xmas get together ...
-=-=-=-=-=-=- quote on -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I had a flick through "the war on democracy"and don't mind admitting that I was having trouble figuring out where Lucy & Mickler were coming from, what their boggle was, and what they might be hoping to achieve (presuming something more than simply filthy lucre, fame, and the provision of entertainment and amusement.)
Then my browsing stumbled (a fair way into the shock and awe campaign if memory serves me correctly. Heck, it was xmas day after all, so don't put too many demands on me ...) at last upon a clear definition and commitment by the authors to a term.
"Democracy".
I don't mind admitting that their definition actually left me confused because in fact all they seemed to have done is describe common democracy (that surely we all know and understand) in its action/practice/application yet while doing so, attempted to make it sound somehow at odds with the common usage and understanding of the term when it is used as a label.
A re-reading of the book's main title helped put it all back into perspective again, with an obvious shift in who might actually want to be in "Team Oz" (f*** yeah! <tm>).
I don't have a problem that Democracy with a capital D is a simple off-the-shelf fully-formed batteries-not-included product that has as a vital natural part of its internals and operating procedures and other minutia, aspects that are still ideas and ideals yet unfinished (etc). Plenty of scope in that machine to deal with all that and more without having to worry about Lefts, Rights, or inbetweens.
Anyway, after another flick back to the introduction and then a few minutes of pondering and digestion whilst nibbling chocolate and listening to flowing water, I decided that "tilting at windmills" would be the most apt label to file "the war ..." under for now.
I did enjoy much of the imagery mind you, and it is all fun until someone loses an eye ...
-=-=-=-=--=- quote off -=-=-=-=-=-=--=-
-=-=-=-=-=- quote on -=-=-=-=-=-=-
The writing style of Lucy and Mickler now make so much more sense now that I realise they are (probably) largely attempting to use the lense and paradigm of Derrida and Deconstruction. In light of the following quote from wikipedia on the topic of deconstruction, it's also easy to infer reasonable motivations for them to write the book, for if indeed Lucy & Mickler are (or would like to be considered as) notable and/or serious deconstructionists, then their book is an example of "kicking against the goads", and the goads in this case are the "conservatives" who allegedly level at "deconstructionism" and "post-modernism".
Wikipedia asserts that: "In popular media, deconstruction has been seized upon by conservative writers as a central example of what is wrong with modern academia. Editorials and columns come out with some frequency pointing to deconstruction as a sign of how self-evidently absurd English departments have become, and of how traditional values are no longer being taught to students. Conservatives frequently treat deconstruction as being equivalent to Marxism."
Personally (and I'll let the reader deconstruct their own path as to what lense and paradigm I'm about to use), I'm not too interested in expressions of democracy that are about giving undue voice, rights, and resources to "minority groups" that have a history of demonstrably being a destructive and negative influence on the long term well-being of "majority groups" as well as civilisation and progress as a whole (regardless of whether democracy is the form of government being used) and besides, there are plenty of examples in our more recent history that show what disaster ensues when the "human
nature" element fails to be factored in when the more socialistic, and/or anti-authoritarian and/or, dare I say, permissive minded dream up their "brotherhood of man" socialistic utopias.
Thus I view democracy to be at its best and most efficient and sensible when it is about ensuring that the majority to get what the majority are in general agreement about, and available resources are allocated accordingly. Well, most of the time.
-=-=-=-=-=- quote off -=-=-=-=-=-
Anyhoo, enough of my own form of deconstruction ... it being just as valid as Naill's or anybody else's, yes ?
My sympathy to those who actually knew him and those who will miss him, especially his wife, kids, and, presumably, sister.
Niall was 57 and you can read (as published in today's "The West Australian") an article titled "Vale free-flowing Niall" by his friend John Kinsella, here:
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/entertainment/arts/a/24210356/vale-free-flowing-niall/
regarDS