blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Nov, 2003 10:22 pm
set

If you are still here...I'm sorry, somehow I totally missed your reply to me way back.....really, was just joking and meant no offence at all.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Nov, 2003 10:27 pm
I thought the one-page interview with Chomsky in today's NY Times Magazine was interesting. Worth a read (blatham posted the link a few posts ago) for anyone who actually wants to see want the man has to say, rather than continuing to share their pre-conceived notions about what a bastard he is.

Then again, I suppose a source like the NY Times is worse than suspect to the Chomsky haters..
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Nov, 2003 10:32 pm
Dart, I read the article and the NY Times is one of my favorite papers, my take from that article is an unfavorable one. I have exaplained why.

It's not blind hatred of him, he simply seems to have taken an ideology a bit too far and in supporting it often takes some liberties that are not sound.
0 Replies
 
Hazlitt
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Nov, 2003 11:29 pm
I just read the Chomsky interview from the NYT and am in agreement with much of what he said. I thought Deborah Solomon was a very hostile interviewer.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 12:33 am
I linked the NY Times piece without reading. When I did read it, I was pretty disgusted with the interviewer for trying to set him up on the Israel question, and pretty disgusted with the NY Times for even bothering with such a shallow interview.

Craven

I'm not just sure where you get the notion that Chompsky gains/needs an identity as a dissident. He is one, but I don't know how you can draw a personality flaw from that. His reputation as a scholar was established early, through his linguistics work, and that work has influenced and changed ideas in many related fields, cognitive science, education, sociology, etc.

His comments on Cuba which you took exception to weren't of the 'look out! this is imminent!' variety, and they aren't completely whimsical (he does compare to Grenada, though I'm not sure you remember that one).

I do like the fellow. Though he is strident, I believe there are times and causes for stridency. And I certainly consider that the worldview he 'describes' is far closer to being true than to being false.

Is it possible you didn't want to find him compelling?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 12:50 am
blatham wrote:

I'm not just sure where you get the notion that Chompsky gains/needs an identity as a dissident.


I don't think he needs it. I actually think he could do without it.

Quote:
He is one, but I don't know how you can draw a personality flaw from that.


Not personality, perspective. I am contending that his arguments seem driven by ideology more so than being driven to ideology.

Quote:
His reputation as a scholar was established early, through his linguistics work, and that work has influenced and changed ideas in many related fields, cognitive science, education, sociology, etc.


Ok.

Quote:
His comments on Cuba which you took exception to weren't of the 'look out! this is imminent!' variety, and they aren't completely whimsical (he does compare to Grenada, though I'm not sure you remember that one).


Cuba's been tried, the incident he referenced was a PR strike at Carter, and represents no danger to Cuba. Cuba has never been safer from the US since the revolution.

Quote:
I do like the fellow.


That's why I'm avoiding superlatives.

Quote:
Though he is strident, I believe there are times and causes for stridency.


I agree, irrational extremism on one side needs it's equivalent on the other.

Quote:
And I certainly consider that the worldview he 'describes' is far closer to being true than to being false.


I expected as much. Takes all sorts. ;-)

Quote:
Is it possible you didn't want to find him compelling?


I have no reason to desire leftists whose arguments I disagree with. Frankly I wish all the people who make me cringe in debates held ideologies I disagree with. I'd much rather the offkey singer was from the other choir.

Is it possible that you want to?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 09:04 am
I said
Quote:
I'm not just sure where you get the notion that Chompsky gains/needs an identity as a dissident.

You said
Quote:
I don't think he needs it. I actually think he could do without it.
I say...Then, we all three agree. His passion (he has said) lies with the academic questions he pursues, and the vocal dissidence arises out of his sense of community responsibility.

I said
Quote:
He is one (a dissident) but I don't know how you can draw a personality flaw from that.

You said
Quote:
Not personality, perspective. I am contending that his arguments seem driven by ideology more so than being driven to ideology.
I say...'seems' is an appropriate qualifier given the...um...uh...hell, let me just lay it on the line...that your familiarity with his writing is rather like having heard someone speak about the smell of the paper of a restaurant menu which features a daily special of Mennonite rolkuken, then deciding that there ain't no way you're eating that thing!

I said something and you said
Quote:
ok
I say...actually, I'm at a loss here.

I said
Quote:
I like the fellow
Quote:
You said That's why I'm avoiding superlatives.
I say...you're avoiding superlatives only because you don't write them well...you trip over the future pluperfect and get tangled in your modifiers dangling and you know that your superlatives end up looking like an old Dutch whore in a schoolgirl uniform (though I'm less judgemental about that than you)

Then you said a bunch of other stuff
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 10:15 am
Blatham,

You know nothing of the degree of familiarity I have with Noam. Buhbye.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 10:59 am
Re the NY Times interview: The paper features a one-page interview (with large photo) every week. They are, by definition, superficial, but I don't agree that the interviewer did a hatchet job on Chomsky. His comments on Israel, which I'm sure infuriated many, were provocative. What he said made me think about the situation in a new way, so kudos to Noam.

BTW (and maybe you explained this earlier, blatham): What's with "Chompsky"?
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 11:12 am
Yes, I wondered too! Blatham is usually an ace at spelling.

I once worked for a Chomsky-like person -- a quite famous professor who was about as outspoken as Chomsky is. Which taught me to value the voices from the universities: they believe academic freedom is related to freedom in general. Like, duh-uh-h!

Quite apart from the fact that they're right to speak out -- we are all right to speak out -- it speaks ill of this country that there are some who are still trying to shut other people up. The "shut up" syndrome has been made ridiculous lately by Bill O'Reilly, but it is serious when there are people who genuinely believe others should shut up when it comes to the nation's politics. Okay, liberals have been vocal about the embarrassments of folks like that "bell curve" guy, Murray, but the great thing about liberals is that they are just that -- liberal. Liberals can close their ears and sometimes do, but they don't try to close the ears of others.

(Haven't read the Chomsky interview yet -- haven't picked up paper yet -- but look forward to it particularly if NC takes some healthy swipes at Israel.)
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 11:34 am
Noam Chomsky:
Quote:
"Yesterday and today, my friends and I visited Tanh Hoa province. There we were able to see at first hand the constructive work of the social revolution of the Vietnamese people. We saw luxurious fields and lovely countryside. We saw brave men and women who know how to defend their country from brutal aggression, but also to work with pride and with dignity to build a society of material prosperity, social justice, and cultural progress. I would like to express the great joy that we feel in your accomplishments.

"We also saw the ruins of dwellings and hospitals, villages mutilated by savage bombardments, craters disfiguring the peaceful countryside. In the midst of the creative achievements of the Vietnamese people, we came face to face with the savagery of a technological monster controlled by a social class, the rulers of the American empire, that has no place in the 20th century, that has only the capacity to repress and murder and destroy.

"We also saw the (Ham Ranh) Bridge, standing proud and defiant, and carved on the bills above we read the words, 'determined to win.' The people of Vietnam will win, they must win, because your cause is the cause of humanity as it moves forward toward liberty and justice, toward the socialist society in which free, creative men control their own destiny.

"This is my first visit to Vietnam. Nevertheless, since the moment when we arrived at the airport at Hanoi, I've had a remarkable and very satisfying feeling of being entirely at home. It is as if we are renewing old friendships rather than meeting new friends. It is as if we are returning to places that have a deep and personal meaning.

"In part, this is because of the warmth and the kindness with which we have been received, wherever we have gone. In part, it is because for many years we have wished all our strength and will to stand beside you in your struggle. We are deeply grateful to you that you permit us to be part of your brave and historical struggle. We hope that there will continue to be strong bonds of comradeship between the people of Vietnam and the many Americans who wish you success and who detest with all of their being the hateful activities of the American government.

"Those bonds of friendship are woven of many strands. From our point of view there is first of all the deep sympathy that we felt for the suffering of the Vietnamese people, which persists and increases in the southern part of your country, where the American aggression continues in full force.

"There is, furthermore, a feeling of regret and shame that we must feel because we have not been able to stop the American war machine. More important still is our admiration for the people of Vietnam who have been able to defend themselves against the ferocious attack, and at the same time take great strides forward toward the socialist society.

"But, above all, I think, is the feeling of pride. Your heroism reveals the capabilities of the human spirit and human will. Decent people throughout the world see in your struggle a model for themselves. They are in your debt, everlastingly, because you were in the forefront of the struggle to create a world in which the chains of oppression have been broken and replaced by social bonds among free men working in true solidarity and cooperation.

"Your courage and your achievements teach us that we too must be determined to win--not only to win the battle against American aggression in Southeast Asia, but also the battle against exploitation and racism in our own country.

"I believe that in the United States there will be some day a social revolution that will be of great significance to us and to all of mankind, and if this hope is to be proven correct, it will be in large part because the people of Vietnam have shown us the way.

"While in Hanoi I have had the opportunity to read the recent and very important book by Le Duan on the problems and tasks of the Vietnamese revolution. In it, he says that the fundamental interests of the proletariat of the people of all the world consists in at the same time in safeguarding world peace and moving the revolution forward in all countries. This is our common goal. We only hope that we can build upon your historic achievements. Thank you."
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 11:35 am
He does take some swipes, Tartarin. Questions how there ever can be peace in the Mideast if Israel continues as a self-declared Jewish state. Interestingly, Edward Said had advocated a one-state solution re Israel and Palestine, in which everyone would have equal rights in the whole area. Of course, this will never happen, because the Palestinians would outnumber the Jews. Hence all the cookie-cutter boundaries and fences.

And lest I be accused of anti-Jewish feelings, I'll finish with something Chomsky said in that interview: Someone criticizing the Italian gov't isn't automatically anti-Italian...
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 11:51 am
There is something so regressive about the "Jewish state," so unexpected from so many European/Russian immigrants with so much liberal secularity in their heritage. To continue in a situation so ingrown. So stifling. It must be agonizing to be a secular Jew in Israel, particularly one who opposed the settlements from the get-go. My sympathy is divided equally between that group and the Palestians who have been displaced.

I don't like segregation. I don't like gated communities. I don't like artists' colonies. I don't like military bases. Diversity is a whole lot more interesting -- and ultimately much safer.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 01:02 pm
In response to a request for the man himself to visit here:

Dear Mr. Mesbur,

Appreciate your inquiry, but I'm afraid I can't do much about it. The
deluge of e-mail is so enormous that I have to put off attachments and
websites until I find a little free time -- which is very rare. I already
spend 6-7 hours a day responding to specific inquiries and requests, and
getting involved in some kind of exchange is utterly hopeless, beyond
physical limits. I am involved in one, at Znet (zmag.org), a regular forum
where I respond to inquiries. If anyone has some specific inquiry, they
can write me, either directly or at Znet. That's all I can do, I'm afraid.

Noam Chomsky

Just in case anyone is interested. He takes a while, but clearly will answer even the most ridiculous e-mail requests, and you have to respect that.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 01:11 pm
Maybe Blatham is alluding to Noah really chomping down on the conservative's illusions. What gets me in these pages is the equation of making all liberals leftists. Not so. Most of the founding fathers were liberals -- they wanted to make individual assessments of what is best in government and not pidgeonhole their political philosophy. They hated the idea of a two party system but feared that it was inevitable. Equally laughable is the characterization of conservatives as objectivists. Not so. Too much of their political philosophy is burdened down with Christian dogma.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 01:30 pm
The True Believers are doing what they can to make the word liberal a highly pejorative term. It's all part of trying to position Bush as a centrist. The contortion involved here is almost comical, especially for those of use who are old enough and can remember when the word liberal was an epithet used by the left wing to describe people like Hubert Humphrey.

Funny how the same word can be misused by polar opposites...
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 01:44 pm
Liberal and conservative have been made into dirty words because of the extreme radicals associated with left and right. The true meanings are now irrevocably blurred.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 01:51 pm
The difference, though, is that people still self-identify themselves as conservatives. Take Bush, our compassionate conservative leader. Ain't nobody, as far as I know, who calls himself or herself a liberal.

The word has been totally demonized...
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 02:01 pm
Well, the main interpretation seems to be liberal or conservative with money. In other words, liberals just spend, spend, spend and conservatives are tight, tight, tight. However, I don't know any of them that can handle their liquor.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 06:19 pm
gopusa recently had an interesting article on the strategy of appearing to be centrist while campaigning.

it's sometimes a bit frightening to read - when they are talking about the value of lying to get elected - it's for the public's good, doncha know - but it is definitely worth keeping an eye on. I know I learned quite a bit about what is recommended to get more right-wing candidates elected in Canada.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 06:14:54