|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
manlyboy

Joined: 01 Aug 2004 Location: Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mark Steyn on Chomsky:
| Quote: |
"I'd barely heard of Noam Chomsky before 9/11. I'd dipped into Manufacturing Consent, but I kept dozing off, usually in the middle of phrases like "premises of discourse." But, insofar as I understand it, the premise of its discourse is this--everything you read, hear, or see in a newspaper, magazine, radio, or TV show is part of one almighty shell trick designed to serve �the elite domination of media and marginalization of dissidents.� Reality is a mere Matrix, to use a now-discredited pop-culture allusion. The media are the blue pill: You take them and the facade of normality persists. Noam is the red pill: Read him and you'll understand how deep the rabbit hole really goes.
�The great advantage of declaring that reality is a racket is that you can never be proved wrong. For two years, the Left has been chugging down red pills way beyond the recommended dosage, and they're now so deep down the rabbit hole they'll never get back. None of this seems to trouble the Left's icons: Nothing they predict ever happens--millions dead in Afghanistan, millions dead in Iraq, humanitarian disaster, etc. Nonetheless, it's Bush and Blair who are the 'liars,' even though most of the alleged �lies� fall into the category of not-yet-fully-verifiable circumstantial inferences, and most of them get a little more firmed up with each month--Mohamed Atta's ties to Baghdad, Saddam's nuclear shopping in Africa, etc.
"Meanwhile, the lefty superstars simply move on to a new fantasy. In Noam's rabbit hole, the buck never stops with him. Ask about the "silent genocide" he said was going on in Afghanistan in October 2001 and Noam replies, 'That is an interesting fabrication.' He doesn't deny that he used the words 'Looks like what's happening is some sort of silent genocide'; he simply denies that the words mean what they appear to mean to anyone whose first language is non-university English. What a great country! Where else can you get rich by convincing people that your getting everything wrong is merely conclusive proof of the pervasive distortions of �the prevailing moral and intellectual culture�? I can see why an ambitious college kid might want to be Noam Chomsky, but I can't see why he'd want to read Noam Chomsky.� |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Location: city of paper
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| manlyboy wrote: |
| Mark Steyn on Chomsky: |
So this guy tried reading Manufacturing Consent, didn't understand it [premises of the discourse WTF!!?!??], and then wrote a rant against what he thinks it said, 'the left' and intellectuals. Pretty damning evidence, I'd say.
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - CNN interview |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003 Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wouldn't scoff too much at "Manufacture of Consent." As an undergrad I took one subject with the journalism dept, and one day in curiosity (and with some scepticism) I asked one of the professers (a guy in his 50s who had previously worked for several promininent papers, including one owned by Murdoch) if as an employee of Murdoch he'd been told what he could and could not write about. He explained that he and his collegues had never been explicitly told...they just knew roughly where the line was drawn. Any reporter who strayed too far across that line could soon find himself no longer employed. Since then, I have heard other journalists mention their need to politically self censor in order to retain their jobs. One retired female journalist in the US is quite outspoken about it. I can't remember her name...Helen something?... She says that for decades she had to self censor as an employee of mainstream media outlets, and that it is only now as an independent that she can write freely - and then in doing so she can only get her work printed in independent papers.
I was also quite fascinated in the run up to the Iraqi war. For example, the claim of Saddam's MWDs was not widely discredited in the mainstream press at that time. Alternative media sources gave very clear repudiations of this claim, using various evidence and souces. Later, quite some time after the war had started, the story broke in the mainstream media that the MWD claim was spurious, not based on good evidence, etc. Much of the evidence against MWD that they quoted I had already read many times long before from alternative sources. I don't believe for a minute that the mainstream press had only just become aware of these sources/contradictory evidence/information. The information and evidence contradicting the MWD claim had been there all along. They had deliberately chosen not to examine/debate it.
At the time of the lead up to the war, it was put to Ruport Murdoch that all his newspapers/TV outlets were pushing the war. He freely admitted that this was so and said something like "anything that will bring the price of oil down to 20 dollars a barrel is a good thing." His vast media empire stretches across the globe and has enormous power in that it can help sway public opinion.
I've also noticed that when I read an article in the English language Israeli papers that makes some concession to the Palestinian point of view, I sometimes see these same articles reprinted in US media - with one interesting feature...they are reprinted word for word - and yet the section putting across something favorable to the Arab's side of the story is largely omitted. Now that is very curious indeed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cubanlord

Joined: 08 Jul 2005 Location: In Japan!
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| manlyboy wrote: |
| Mark Steyn on Chomsky: |
So this guy tried reading Manufacturing Consent, didn't understand it [premises of the discourse WTF!!?!??], and then wrote a rant against what he thinks it said, 'the left' and intellectuals. Pretty damning evidence, I'd say.
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - CNN interview |
thanks for the link gaj. Do you happen to have a link to the interview? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cubanlord

Joined: 08 Jul 2005 Location: In Japan!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Woland
Joined: 10 May 2006 Location: Seoul
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sundubuman wrote: |
| so as to avoid the same "death tax" simpleton Republican farmers want to repeal so that their children can reap the rewards of their HARD WORK |
Once more the BIG LIE.
This from Paul Krugman's New York Times column on June 5th of this year:
"And the cost of tax cuts is far larger than the savings from benefit cuts. Under current law � what I once called the Throw Mama From the Train Act of 2001 � the estate tax is scheduled to be phased out in 2010, but return in 2011. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, making repeal permanent would cost more than $280 billion from 2011 to 2015. That's more than four times the savings from the Deficit Reduction Act over the same period.
Who would benefit from this largess? The estate tax is overwhelmingly a tax on the very, very wealthy; only about one estate in 200 pays any tax at all. The campaign for estate tax repeal has largely been financed by just 18 powerful business dynasties, including the family that owns Wal-Mart.
You may have heard tales of family farms and small businesses broken up to pay taxes, but those stories are pure propaganda without any basis in fact. In particular, advocates of estate tax repeal have never been able to provide a single real example of a family farm sold to pay estate taxes."
Krugman closes with this riposte to those who want to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent:
"In the interest of stiffening those spines, let me remind senators that this isn't just a fiscal issue, it's also a moral issue. Congress has already declared that the budget deficit is serious enough to warrant depriving children of health care; how can it now say that it's worth enlarging the deficit to give Paris Hilton a tax break?"
Here's a bit more on the estate tax from Krugman's June 9th column:
"The federal estate tax had its origins in war. As America moved toward involvement in World War I, Congress � facing a loss of tariff revenue, but also believing that the most privileged members of society should help pay for the nation's military effort � passed the Emergency Revenue Act of 1916, which included a tax on large inheritances.
But today's Congressional leaders have a very different view about wartime priorities. "Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes," declared Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader, in 2003."
and
"It's interesting, by the way, that advocates of estate tax repeal apparently aren't interested in a genuine compromise � raising the estate tax exemption from its current value of $2 million to $3.5 million while leaving the tax rate on estate values in excess of $3.5 million unchanged � even though such a compromise would preserve most of the revenue from the estate tax while exempting 99.5 percent of estates from taxation.
So a more precise statement of the DeLay Principle would be that nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes for very, very wealthy people, like the tiny minority of Americans who are heirs to really big estates.
Americans from an earlier era might have been puzzled by the DeLay Principle. They still believed in the principle enunciated by Theodore Roosevelt, who called for an inheritance tax in 1906: "The man of great wealth," said T.R., "owes a peculiar obligation to the state."
But the DeLay Principle isn't really that hard to understand: it's just like the Roosevelt Principle, but the other way around. These days, the state � or rather, the political coalition that controls the state, and depends on campaign contributions to maintain that control � owes a peculiar obligation to men of great wealth. And nothing is more important than cutting these men's taxes, even in the face of a war."
That Teddy Roosevelt - damn communist!
Oh, and "Chumpsky"? Really, namecalling at that level lowers you, sdbm (oh, Friend of Paris! - see, this is the more sophisticated level you should aim for). It makes you comes across as a whiny loser who can't win an argument on an internet board with honest facts.
Just to let you know - I'm off for Chuseok and won't be looking at this place for a week after this. Sorry. But I'm sure future commentary about Chomsky would have been at the same non-factual level and besides, his defense seems in pretty good hands to me.
EDITED TO ADD COLORS AND BOLDING FOR EASIER READING |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005 Location: $eoul
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't have a strong opinion about Chomsky because I'm unfamiliar with him except for his contribution to Logic - the aforementioned Universal Grammar.
However, I've gone off him recently, because I saw a vid on Youtube of him talking about 9/11. His comments showed he hadn't the faintest idea what he was talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cubanlord

Joined: 08 Jul 2005 Location: In Japan!
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
WOW! You guys weren't kidding when you said Chomsky spoke his mind!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Location: city of paper
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cubanlord wrote: |
 |
What in that interview leads you to ?
(by the way, that's not the video of the transcript I posted the link to) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cubanlord

Joined: 08 Jul 2005 Location: In Japan!
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| cubanlord wrote: |
 |
What in that interview leads you to ?
(by the way, that's not the video of the transcript I posted the link to) |
ah. sorry. Thought it was. Regardless, it's an interesting interview.
Shock...well...I was very surprised at his bluntness. It's about time someone more reputable than a politician or an actor/actress spoke their mind regarding the current administration (and those past).
Last edited by cubanlord on Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ody

Joined: 27 Jan 2003 Location: over here
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Demophobe wrote: |
| Otis prods the left.... |
EXACTLY.
bigbird, don't waste your time. otis is a total troll. -and (sadly) a superficial one at that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
captain kirk
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chomsky is the greatest, really. I was reading a history of the 14th Century by another author, a historian, and the self-interest of governments is more clearly seen then.
For example there was the notion of chivalry, as we see in the legendary Kights who rescue damsels in distress. Who fight for good and might is right.
But what happened alot back in the 14th Century was Knights pillaging, looting, raping wherever. Because they were commoners they were fit to plunder. It didn't matter what side they were on. Not part of the upper class = expendable nobodys. This caused serf/peasant uprisings (which, against armoured knights, lancers, bowmen didn't fare well).
Chomsky pokes at the veneer and chips it away revealing the inner workings of self-interest motivating the ruling, upper echelons, the elite, nowadays, when it's harder to see (more discerning public, correspondingly whiter wash).
What he's doing is very brave and risky. He's up there with the Dalai Lama IMO.
Last edited by captain kirk on Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:20 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nasigoreng

Joined: 14 May 2004
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| if Chomsky's ideas were put into practice in S.Korea, would individuals be able to accumulate enough capital to open English academies and pay native speakers +2.000.000 won/ month? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ChopChaeJoe
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Location: Seoul
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Getting beyond some arbitrary number of won, what do we really deserve as English teachrs?
Do you feel that you deserve more or less?
I definitely feel that I deserve more.
Probably the girl at McDonalds feels the same way.
We are being screwed. we choose to live with it is all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Woland
Joined: 10 May 2006 Location: Seoul
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChopChaeJoe wrote: |
Getting beyond some arbitrary number of won, what do we really deserve as English teachrs?
Do you feel that you deserve more or less?
I definitely feel that I deserve more.
Probably the girl at McDonalds feels the same way.
We are being screwed. we choose to live with it is all. |
This is what Marx called "the alienation of labor". |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|