All things Chomsky

[I think not]

Re: RE: All things Chomsky

C'mon Rev he's pretty boring to listen to You got to admit

Well, as a linguist he has a very precise, analytical way with words, mrm. Some may find this boring, but what he says is actually quite interesting. Besides, how do you make diatribes on neo-imperialism exciting for the masses?

By creating non-existent conspiracy theories.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I've always found Chomsky to be very interesting to listen to. As a linguist he is very aware of how politicians and the mass media lie to us and attempt to control us. Not only is that very interesting, but it's important information to have.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: All things Chomsky

I may not be OLD enough to remember that..... :wink:

LOL, nice try Jay, I meant I remember reading about it.

Sure, sure....

I was ELEVEN when Mr Peanuts got elected, I had my mind on Star Wars back then (among other things), well actually when I was 12. Do the math

Lets see Peanuts was elected in 1955.....its 2005, thats 50 years plus 12...your 62...


Just kidding. :wink:

 

[mrmom2]

I agree with you but oh man listen long enough and you will fall asleep

 

[Twila]

Non existant conspiracy theories. Isn't this an oxymoron?

 

[Twila]

It's funny to watch these sorts of discussion unfold.

It's like 2 people on opposite sides of a fence trying in vain but desperately to convince the person on the other side that their side is better. When we all know that it's about perspective.

(FFS. I can't wait till I can post with out having to edit them continuously)

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: All things Chomsky

Non existant conspiracy theories. Isn't this an oxymoron?

You're right Twila, thanks for correcting me, I meant to say.

Non existent conspiracies.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: All things Chomsky

It's funny to watch these sorts of discussion unfold.

It's like 2 people on opposite sides of a fence trying in vain but desperately to convince the person on the other side that their side is better. When we all know that it's about perspective.

(FFS. I can't wait till I can post with out having to edit them continuously)

Not really, some lefties on this board will insult you when they get cornered, and they have the "authority" to get away with it, Rev ring a bell?

 

[peapod]

Hey twinks, I wonder if I feel the same way about castro as yer self. Personally I don't get it. The american government backed the dictator before castro. They are fussy about their dictators I guess. My uncle goes to cuba all the time. So I have a different picture I guess. Did you know scarface is based on a rather nasty clever trick castro played. Excellent movie tho. Most of all tho the name of this thread makes me hungry....

 

[Hard-Luck Henry]

Re: RE: All things Chomsky

... It's like 2 people on opposite sides of a fence trying in vain but desperately to convince the person on the other side that their side is better. When we all know that it's about perspective.

You're right, Twila, it is about perspective, and from my perspective I am being conspired against.

And pea - I like the Chomsky pun. Most amusing. :lol:

 

[Twila]

from my perspective I am being conspired against.

I hear they have medecine to cure that........At least that's what the voices in my head told me.

 

[Twila]

Pea, I believe that Castro was handed a pig/lemon and he made bacon/lemonade....

I do believe we probably do feel the same way.....I think you may be my twin...

 

[peapod]

you got them to uh twinks..Nasty buggers those voices....oh the doorbell just rang...maybe its the rev :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: He better not have those dogs with him 8O

 

[Toro]

Its been over a decade since I read anything about Chomsky. Though I generally don't agree with him I find him interesting, and he makes me think. But he is an ideologue and like all ideologues, will spin events to fit the ideology.

In a speech he made in 2000 or 2001 in Manhattan, he was asked about the performance of the US economy and why it has performed so well. He got onto employment and said that the reason why unemployment was so low was because the prison population had gone up thus there was less people to count towards the employment payrolls. The problem with that explanation was that the prison population rose by about 1.5 million during the 1990s and employment grew by about 20 million.

One of the other things that made me very skeptical was watching the documentary about him named after his book and filmed in the early 1990s, " Manufacturing Consent". In it, he said that the reason why the media focussed on sports so much is to distract the population from other, more serious issues. That, of course, is nonsense.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: All things Chomsky

Its been over a decade since I read anything about Chomsky. Though I generally don't agree with him I find him interesting, and he makes me think. But he is an ideologue and like all ideologues, will spin events to fit the ideology.

In a speech he made in 2000 or 2001 in Manhattan, he was asked about the performance of the US economy and why it has performed so well. He got onto employment and said that the reason why unemployment was so low was because the prison population had gone up thus there was less people to count towards the employment payrolls. The problem with that explanation was that the prison population rose by about 1.5 million during the 1990s and employment grew by about 20 million.

One of the other things that made me very skeptical was watching the documentary about him named after his book and filmed in the early 1990s, " Manufacturing Consent". In it, he said that the reason why the media focussed on sports so much is to distract the population from other, more serious issues. That, of course, is nonsense.

Noam Chomsky speaks nonsense? Ridiculous.

 

[Derry McKinney]

The problem with that explanation was that the prison population rose by about 1.5 million during the 1990s and employment grew by about 20 million.

Chomsky has written a fair bit about that. The prison thing is just part of the equation and I'll bet that he said, "for example" or something similar as a preface to the question.

His argument is that many people do not get counted in the "official" paperwork because they aren't looking for work for some reason. They are in prison, they've given up looking, they have a record and can't get a job, or some other reason.

The point is that governments diddle the numbers and say that "unemployment" is low because they aren't counting everybody.

I've seen and read enough Chomsky to know that he didn't blame the way the government diddles numbers solely on the prsion population.

 

[Toro]

The problem with that explanation was that the prison population rose by about 1.5 million during the 1990s and employment grew by about 20 million.

Chomsky has written a fair bit about that. The prison thing is just part of the equation and I'll bet that he said, "for example" or something similar as a preface to the question.

His argument is that many people do not get counted in the "official" paperwork because they aren't looking for work for some reason. They are in prison, they've given up looking, they have a record and can't get a job, or some other reason.

The point is that governments diddle the numbers and say that "unemployment" is low because they aren't counting everybody.

I've seen and read enough Chomsky to know that he didn't blame the way the government diddles numbers solely on the prsion population.

Thanks for responding.

Many people do not get counted in the official statistics. This is true. There are many ways to adjust for this, but whatever way you look at it, employment grows, as it has done so for a long time in America. For the last 30 years, America has created about 20 million jobs per decade.

When I first moved down to America in the mid 1990s, I was stunned at the shortage of labour. I was driving in Buckhead in Atlanta, and there was a giant sign advertising for workers. The construction company could not find workers and had to advertise for them. An oil company called Kerr-McGee set up recruitment tables outside of prisons to recruit convicts who had just been released. Fast food outlets were advertising for workers on their signs outside instead of meal deals. McDonald's was paying $7 US (C$10) plus benefits to start in Ohio.

 

[peapod]

Kerr-McGee ????? Oh ya baby, what a great employer they were. Just don't piss them off, they might run you off the road ( I say murder tho) if you happen to be contaminated by radiation from there sloopy workplace :twisted:

 

[Derry McKinney]

My point was that you either misunderstood what Chomsky was saying, or you didn't hear it all, Toro.

Your appraisal of the sports thing in "Manufacturing Consent" is wrong too. Again, sports was just used as one example.

The bread and circuses theory of staying in control has been around since at least the ancient Romans. We are very much manipulated by the media. They control what we watch and what information we have and, through that, they control what we think about and how we think about it.

America's job creation hasn't been all that spectacular either. There are a lot of people either not working or working at low wage/no benefit jobs. Bush actually managed a net loss of jobs in his first term...first time that's happened since the Depression. In addition to that, he's decimated union jobs and shipped high paying jobs overseas.

 

[Hard-Luck Henry]

I agree, Derry. "The sports thing" is just an example, albeit a valid one. The real point is that the owners of the large media corporations decide what the public will or won't be allowed to hear. Let me give a "for instance" ...

You'll all recall the producer of 60 minutes (the outstanding Mary Mapes) who was sacked over the 'forged' memos regarding the sugarcoating of George Bush's military service record, and the 3 CBS executives who were forced to resign over the issue? And how the issue was hardly raised on CBS again? Of course, CBS should have taken more care with the story, but how many people lost their jobs for repeating bogus claims by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in relation to Kerry's time in Vietnam? Or for misreporting 'The Legend of Jessica Lynch'? Or claiming Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons programme, or was buying uranium from Niger, or had a hand in 9/11?

The answer is NONE.

So why might that be? Well, some clues might be found in the words of 60 minutes' presenter Dan Rather: "George Bush is the President, he makes the decisions and, you know, as just one American, if he wants me to line up, just tell me where". Or this, from the chairman of Viacom (owners of CBS): "we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."