All things Chomsky

[Toro]

Re: RE: All things Chomsky

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.

Chomsky doesn't know much about economics. Full-stop. On jobs, you missed my point. America is a jobs machine. Chomsky and other ideologues of the left argue that America's economy is an illusion and try to back into their biases by pointing out things like the prison population. For the at least the last three decades, America has created 20 million jobs a decade on average, and average wage growth has been 3%. And contrary to what the critics argue, most of those jobs have not been in low-paying services industries. (You can get all the statistics here http://www.bls.gov/) On a year over year basis, sometimes employment falls, as is the case recently. But over time, the US has created way more jobs than the more socialistic models of Europe. Given a choice between being on the dole and having a low-paying job, its better to have a low-paying jobs.

Though I find him interesting, and I believe he certainly adds something to the debate, I disagree with the fundamental premise of what Chomsky argues. He offers an interpretation and analysis of events that I believe are incorrect. I think he asks good questions about why the media tends to not ask hard questions about bad things governments do, but I do not believe it is solely or even mainly because corporations control the media. The media does not control the population or the government.

 

[jimmoyer]

Good analysis Toro.

 

[peapod]

"Roll over George Orwell" 8O

Ministry of truth-----mind control operation----code name "newspeak"

Bushspeak----mind control operation---code name bush talk for witless lemmings

 

[jimmoyer]

Hey peapod ???

I'm not sure any of us are any better than sports fans. We animate our arguments with passion, wading through all of the contradictory statistics to say why our team is better than yours.

We are no better than being sports fans.

If we were, then the classic sense of argument and debate would have some give and take, some progress in agreement.

If we all have the soft bigotry of low expectations for certain sets of mankind then don't we all lead inevitably to a totalitarian mind set?

 

[Toro]

"Roll over George Orwell" 8O

Ministry of truth-----mind control operation----code name "newspeak"

Bushspeak----mind control operation---code name bush talk for witless lemmings

That's a very interesting comment. I wouldn't disagree that Bush is trying to influence the media. But I wouldn't say the reason is because corporations are pulling strings. Media does influence the political process, no doubt, but so do many other factors.

 

[peapod]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1222-28.htm

 

[Derry McKinney]

On jobs, you missed my point.

I didn't miss your point at all, you were trying to misconstrue what Chomsky was saying and I corrected you.

Your analysis sucks too, Toro. You want to accuse people of being ideologues? Here's a mirror, have a look.

 

[Toro]

On jobs, you missed my point.

I didn't miss your point at all, you were trying to misconstrue what Chomsky was saying and I corrected you.

Your analysis sucks too, Toro. You want to accuse people of being ideologues? Here's a mirror, have a look.

That's hilarious.

 

[Derry McKinney]

You may find it funny...small minds being easily amused and all of that...but it is you who is clinging to a worldview that has been coming increasingly under fire because of the path that it has led us down.

It is also you has tried to pull things off-topic as a way of avoiding the fact that you misinterpreted Chomsky's stance.

Your analysis deals only in profitability, not humanity, not ecology, not reality. Your supposition that even a low-paying job is better than no job evades the reality that real wages have been slipping for decades, that people are working longer and harder for less and less, and that we can't all work at MacDonalds when your flawed and inhumane theories leave us unemployed.

You have also once again evaded the fact that George Bush created a net loss in jobs for the first time since the depression.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: All things Chomsky

You may find it funny...small minds being easily amused and all of that...but it is you who is clinging to a worldview that has been coming increasingly under fire because of the path that it has led us down.

It must be hard being you, carrying around the world on your shoulders like that every day.

It is also you has tried to pull things off-topic as a way of avoiding the fact that you misinterpreted Chomsky's stance.

Its true. I'm a little fuzzy on Chomsky. Its been a bit over a decade since I last really read anything of his, what, since I came out in the real world and decided to start reading relevant things and all. So you can excuse me if I don't recall things quite as well. See I always thought he was critical of the US model. But you're saying I'm misinterpreting what he's been saying. Oh, I guess Chomsky commends the US economy. Well, thank you for clearing me up on that. You have shown me the error of my ways.

Your analysis deals only in profitability, not humanity, not ecology, not reality. Your supposition that even a low-paying job is better than no job evades the reality that real wages have been slipping for decades, that people are working longer and harder for less and less, and that we can't all work at MacDonalds when your flawed and inhumane theories leave us unemployed.

WRONG! I don't feel like parsing through the statistics so you can do it yourself here http://www.bls.gov/. Real wages have not been falling. Admittedly, real wages haven't risen much either the last few decades, but after-tax real wages have. Not only that, but real incomes for households have risen double digits since 1990. Now, maybe its different in Canada - and I imagine it is - but the economic engine of the US has done better than any major western economy over the last few decades by far. People are also not working longer. The average numbers of hours worked per week has fallen, not risen. That's hard for the Left to take so they try to rationalize this by using anecdotes and selective facts instead of looking at the whole picture.

You have also once again evaded the fact that George Bush created a net loss in jobs for the first time since the depression.

Now its you deliberately distorting and changing the debate. It's amusing. Often when the Left is under fire, they resort to "Well, well, whatabout Bush, huh?" as if someone who is calling them out must be a Bush supporter. If you must know, the world experienced the biggest bubble of all time in the 1990s. It deflated during Bush's term. When bubble's deflate, credit contracts, restricting growth. Simple stuff. The bubble had nothing to do with Bush.

 

[Derry McKinney]

Its true. I'm a little fuzzy on Chomsky.

So you thought you'd dive into a thread about him.

See I always thought he was critical of the US model. But you're saying I'm misinterpreting what he's been saying. Oh, I guess Chomsky commends the US economy.

I think I see your problem. It goes back to you caring only about the economic side of things. Chomsky is critical of western, but especially American political culture and where it has taken us. Is there a financial component to that? Yes there is. It is not the only component though, and by looking only at that one part of it, you twist the overall meaning. In other words it isn't Chomsky's shortcomings that keep you from understanding, it is your shortcomings that keep you from thinking.

Real wages have not been falling. Admittedly, real wages haven't risen much either the last few decades, but after-tax real wages have.

I guess I should have qualified that by pointing out that the wage gap has grown. The disproportionate wealth of a few make it possible to diddle the numbers, but there are more people working for less money.

Your dive to "household income" is pretty funny as well. You are trying to compare a world where most families had one main breadwinner to families where there are two breadwinners.

If you must know, the world experienced the biggest bubble of all time in the 1990s. It deflated during Bush's term. When bubble's deflate, credit contracts, restricting growth.

And what's going to happen when the housing bubble we are in bursts? What's going to happen when the automobile bubble bursts? Those are the main drivers of the US economy right now.

As for whether or not you are a Bush supporter...if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

 

[missile]

I have never read any of his writings,but he must be intelligent or else the Right wouldn't hate him so much.

 

[jimmoyer]

Hang in there, everybody.

Derry? Toro is honorably debating you. Do you want the boredom of lap dog agreement?

And Derry? The only reason why any of us who disagree want to even converse with you is because we do know you are intelligent, aware, passionate.

Let's not get tunnel visioned into our own totalitarian views of the universe.

Everyone else is wrong and only I have the monopoly on truth.

I'm sorry, but I'm automatically suspicious of anyone not being able to handle the heat of disagreement.

Yeah we all get angry and amazed someone else can
think differently. And I do not mean to imply moral equality to all arguments, for some are better than others, but it always gets to that point of disgust where I can see two, obviously intelligent people get to that point of not wanting to talk anymore.

Let's take a more kinder view here of each other.

I think Toro has some valid points and I do disagree with you Derry, but I know both of you are intelligent and that is worth continuing the conversation.

 

[Derry McKinney]

Derry? Toro is honorably debating you. Do you want the boredom of lap dog agreement?

Toro has been tossing up an area of expertise that he may or not have in attempt to belittle anybody who disagrees with him. While doing so he has misrepresented the writings of Chomsky even while saying that they are "a little fuzzy" in his mind.

If you knew anything about Chomsky or others like him, or even me, you would find that your assertion of anybody on what you consider the left being, "tunnel visioned into our own totalitarian views of the universe," is not only highly inaccurate, but very insulting as well.

Everyone else is wrong and only I have the monopoly on truth.

That does seem to be the view of Toro, and even yourself, Jim. The continued assertions that nobody on the left can understand finances, that everybody who puts forth a viewpoint that you deem to be on the left, and that any concern outside of of a corporatist economic view is necessarily flawed is a long-running theme among some posters here.

I'm sorry, but I'm automatically suspicious of anyone not being able to handle the heat of disagreement.

I'm automatically suspicious of anybody who shows up at board; makes claims about his expertise that cannot be verified; claims secret knowledge that later turns out to be publicly available from a source that is biased at best; and then tries to discredit anybody or anything that he disagrees with.

You aren't really asking that I be nice to him, Jim. What you are really asking is that I accept his points as being valid. They are not valid and I do not accept them.

 

[peapod]

Are you at a hubbley bubbley jimmy

 

[Twila]

Political leanings does not make an opinion more or less informed.

To call some one a lefty or a righty does not make your argument any stronger

 

[The Philosopher]

When I met and talked with Chomsky for an hour last year I couldn't help but notice the hairy nose he had. Every time I asked a question to him and he answered to all of the philosophy-linguistics department his hairy nose would always stick out.

 

[Twila]

That's hilarious. Glad it was you and not me.....I have a wondering mind. I'd have been unable to focus on anyting but the catapillar escaping his nose. I'd have most definatley mentioned it to him and embarrassed both of us beyond believe. I also wouldn't have been able to focus on anything he'd say.....

 

[peapod]

Ya I met the chomp to, he told me the funniest joke...hahahhaha
here it is

Question: What is a recent philosophy Ph.D.'s usual question in his or her first job mr. chompsky
Answer: "Would you like french fries with that, sir?"

 

[jimmoyer]

LOL, peapod !! That pebble you threw, clonked me on the head, okay? Happy ?



And Derry!

If you want the debate narrowed to just who knows Chomsky better then keep it narrowed to that only.

Although Toro admitted he was no "Noam" scholar, he was arguing the points you were gleaning from the great and powerful Chomsky.

Although I agree essentially with Toro's arguments, I think we can all agree that skepticism from every side of every argument is mentally healthy.

Someone called me a thread killer on another matter where these differing systems of thoughts are all pure breds, and that socialism and capitalism mixed as a mutt dog is much better than the shrill, hyper, strident tone of purebred capitalism or socialism.

Chomsky won great acclaim for linguistics and has won notoriety for his stern and severe disapproval of capitalistic America and I have one book by him at home regarding the American Mandarins and he was right about most of it.