Pages: 1 2
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-06-28 02:04:06)
I don't know how you are drawing parallels to your government going into OTHER countries and over throwing elected governments and installing US friendly dictators to my countries struggle for freedom.<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
And ireland has a clean past? Your countryman's hands are just as or even more bloody than some terrorists. The kicker her is that the murders(yes i call them murders) are mostly over religion. So please lets not compare apples to oranges. Noone is inocent.
Last edited by JahManRed (2006-06-28 06:30:17)
Point of order: these acts of war were not over religion but over sovereignty and resistance to colonial rule.<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
And ireland has a clean past? Your countryman's hands are just as or even more bloody than some terrorists. The kicker her is that the murders(yes i call them murders) are mostly over religion. So please lets not compare apples to oranges. Noone is inocent.
I'd say Mr. Chomsky has a credibility problem. Namely, he is a hypocrite.April 2006, REASON Magazine wrote:
...Chomsky's life is strikingly inconsistent with his stated ideals...
- Chomsky joined the faculty of MIT not as a member of the Linguistics Department but as part of the Research Laboratory of Electronics. Lab professors were blessed with lighter teaching loads, higher salaries and extensive support staff. The only catch was that their work, reports Schweizer, "was funded entirely by the Pentagon and a few multinational corporations." The professor saw no problem in railing against the entire defense establishment while he drew a salary from the same and conducted research the generals found useful.
-The MIT mandarin often identifies with the working class and calls himself a socialist, but he acquired one home in Lexington, Massachusetts, valued at $850,000 and another estate in Wellfleet worth at least $1.2 million. The Wellfleet home is smack dab in the middle of a state park, and any further developments are prohibited by law. The radical historian Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States is one of the few neighbors who could afford to buy in.
-Chomsky is dead set against tax havens and has railed against trusts as tools for the rich to perpetuate structural inequality. And yet, "A few years back he went to Boston's venerable white-shoe law firm Palmer and Dodge and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in 'income-tax planning,' set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets against Uncle Sam." When questioned about this, Chomsky told Schweizer, "I don't apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren."
..."[Chomsky] offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam."
Last edited by whittsend (2006-06-28 08:51:15)
In summary:whittsend wrote:
I'd say Mr. Chomsky has a credibility problem. Namely, he is a hypocrite.April 2006, REASON Magazine wrote:
...Chomsky's life is strikingly inconsistent with his stated ideals...
1. Chomsky joined the faculty of MIT not as a member of the Linguistics Department but as part of the Research Laboratory of Electronics. Lab professors were blessed with lighter teaching loads, higher salaries and extensive support staff. The only catch was that their work, reports Schweizer, "was funded entirely by the Pentagon and a few multinational corporations." The professor saw no problem in railing against the entire defense establishment while he drew a salary from the same and conducted research the generals found useful.
2. The MIT mandarin often identifies with the working class and calls himself a socialist, but he acquired one home in Lexington, Massachusetts, valued at $850,000 and another estate in Wellfleet worth at least $1.2 million. The Wellfleet home is smack dab in the middle of a state park, and any further developments are prohibited by law. The radical historian Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States is one of the few neighbors who could afford to buy in.
3. Chomsky is dead set against tax havens and has railed against trusts as tools for the rich to perpetuate structural inequality. And yet, "A few years back he went to Boston's venerable white-shoe law firm Palmer and Dodge and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in 'income-tax planning,' set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets against Uncle Sam." When questioned about this, Chomsky told Schweizer, "I don't apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren."
..."[Chomsky] offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam."
Last edited by whittsend (2006-06-28 10:08:18)
It's actually more like finding a way to get Phillip Morris to pay for publicizing the dangers of smoking. I find this analogy lacking.whittsend wrote:
Responding by the numbers:
1) For someone as critical of the military industrial complex as Mr. Chomsky to benefit from it in this way is troubling to anyone who accepts what he has to say about it at face value. This would be akin to the Surgeon General taking a position on the board of Phillip Morris.
Here in Vancouver, the average home resale for the month of May 2006 was $518,176 CAN, or $461,827 in US dollars. The key word here is AVERAGE. If you say that is exorbitant, I will agree. If you say two or even three times the average is "opulent", I will ask you what word then is suitable to describe living arrangements many hundreds of times in excess of that value. Chomsky is a noted linguist, and is the author of many books on that subject alone. Frankly, I am surprised he can't afford to spend more.whittsend wrote:
2) It is inconsistent for a socialist who regularly condemns the wealthy to live in the type of opulence Mr. Chomsky does. To have such opulence in the middle of a state park adds insult to injury.
I must confess books of his I have read probably have not represented his views as well as have articles in Reason magazine. I have not noticed this theme in his work.whittsend wrote:
3) If you don't realise that Mr. Chomsky is vocal about the evils of perpetuating the role of the wealthy in society, especially through the types of trusts spoken of here, you don't know much about Mr. Chomsky. This is the clearest example of hypocrisy listed.
I would have thought it was obvious he is politically motivated. I still don't see how his actions are in direct opposition to his stated views? Which stated views? Which books of his have you actually read, incidentally?whittsend wrote:
His credibility is suspect because one must wonder about the motives of one with such outspoken views when his actions are in direct opposition to those stated views. You don't suppose he could be *gasp* politically motivated?
There's a magazine shop a few blocks from here. It's huge, it's filled wall to wall with magazines, and there's a few crazy guys who seem to spend their whole lives in there. It's almost as if they think they can actually read them all. Have I seen you in there, methodically working your way from one end to the other, with little regard for whether Chomsky's face is on this cover or that one?whittsend wrote:
If you had actually read the magazine, rather than just judging the pictures, you would realise that their reviews of Ayn Rand on her 100th birthday was hardly fawning praise. Ever hear the expression, 'Don't judge a book by it's cover' ? Why do you suppose people say that? READ.
You should try pointing out some of these inconsistent positions. It's not easy, which is why so many of his opponents have to resort to obfuscation and not-even-accurate personal attacks. He's not a liberal, and has never run for political office, and to compare him to Michael Moore only hurts your credibility.whittsend wrote:
Nice try at obfuscation, but the fact remains that Mr. Chomsky's positions are inconsistent at best. He is an armchair liberal, is a political animal, and his opinions are barely more credible than those of Michael Moore.
Because you judged the magazine based on the picture on the cover of that issue. I had never mentioned it before them, so your claiming that I am lecturing you about a plethora of magazines is disingenuous.spastic bullet wrote:
If there's something valuable in that issue of Reason that applies here, why not just post it instead of lecturing me about reading every article ever written in every magazine with Ayn Rand on the cover?
The 'soundness' of his ideas are highly debatable. His logic is such that he doesn't feel the need to apply to himself.spastic bullet wrote:
his ideas are uncommonly sound, and based in a quite consistent logic.
Thats why I respect his views, he has been on both sides of the fence.whittsend wrote:
I'd say Mr. Chomsky has a credibility problem. Namely, he is a hypocrite.April 2006, REASON Magazine wrote:
...Chomsky's life is strikingly inconsistent with his stated ideals...
- Chomsky joined the faculty of MIT not as a member of the Linguistics Department but as part of the Research Laboratory of Electronics. Lab professors were blessed with lighter teaching loads, higher salaries and extensive support staff. The only catch was that their work, reports Schweizer, "was funded entirely by the Pentagon and a few multinational corporations." The professor saw no problem in railing against the entire defense establishment while he drew a salary from the same and conducted research the generals found useful.
-The MIT mandarin often identifies with the working class and calls himself a socialist, but he acquired one home in Lexington, Massachusetts, valued at $850,000 and another estate in Wellfleet worth at least $1.2 million. The Wellfleet home is smack dab in the middle of a state park, and any further developments are prohibited by law. The radical historian Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States is one of the few neighbors who could afford to buy in.
-Chomsky is dead set against tax havens and has railed against trusts as tools for the rich to perpetuate structural inequality. And yet, "A few years back he went to Boston's venerable white-shoe law firm Palmer and Dodge and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in 'income-tax planning,' set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets against Uncle Sam." When questioned about this, Chomsky told Schweizer, "I don't apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren."
..."[Chomsky] offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam."
It's okay -- you indicated at no time a preference for comprehensive responses (see my original summary of Reasonmagazine's criticisms, in particular: "1. Your paycheck is hush money"; and "2. You must either (a) extol the virtues of the system, or (b) renounce property"), so there was no precedent to uphold. Feel free to continue to ignore whatever you feel cannot be effectively refuted.whittsend wrote:
I don't see the point in a comprehensive response...
So, if I might paraphrase... "WAAAAAAAA!!!" You don't want to state your position, or in this case, cite something to support it, because the bad man questioned the credibility of one of your... no, your only quoted source. I'm saw-wee.whittsend wrote:
Because you judged the magazine based on the picture on the cover of that issue. I had never mentioned it before them, so your claiming that I am lecturing you about a plethora of magazines is disingenuous.spastic bullet wrote:
If there's something valuable in that issue of Reason that applies here, why not just post it instead of lecturing me about reading every article ever written in every magazine with Ayn Rand on the cover?
Maybe to those who can actually be bothered to "see the point in a comprehensive" debate, they are. I mean "it is". I guess we'll just take your word for it.whittsend wrote:
The 'soundness' of his ideas are highly debatable.spastic bullet wrote:
...his ideas are uncommonly sound, and based in a quite consistent logic.
Chomsky talks about the use and abuse of state-level power, as I said. Show me how this level of analysis can apply to any but the most powerful individuals. You can't. The state is phenomenally powerful. I thought you were a libertarian?whittsend wrote:
His logic is such that he doesn't feel the need to apply to himself.
Once again, you're "punishing" me for not taking Reasonmagazine seriously. I now don't get to respond to any specific criticisms because I dared to question their not-at-all "fawning praise" of a deranged old cow who genuinely thought she was the best thing since Aristotle. AND Homer. Gimme a break.whittsend wrote:
If you are stating that you aren't aware of Chomsky's very public views on wealth in society being contrary to his lifestyle as noted in Reason, you are either not as well informed about his opinions as you claim, or you are being disingenuous again.
The issue with Rand on the cover is only being discussed at all because you dredged it up in an effort do smear the source; it is only tangential to the discussion, and your insistance on deriving information from the cover of an issue which isn't even tangential to the Chomsky discussion continues to be disingenuous. I'm no expert on Chomsky, but I have read enough interviews, and heard him rant often enough to have a pretty solid handle on what the guy is about. If you wish to claim that my understanding is lacking (I disagree, but) that is fair enough. Your continuing efforts to demean a magazine based on the cover of one issue, however, are truly disappointing....in your words, "it's beneath you." Perhaps there is more than one story about Rand on an issue featuring her on the cover? Perhaps differing contributers disagree on her value and contribution? Never mind, you saw the cover of an issue (not even the one from which the article in contention came!) and that is enough.spastic bullet wrote:
So, if I might paraphrase... "WAAAAAAAA!!!" You don't want to state your position, or in this case, cite something to support it, because the bad man questioned the credibility of one of your... no, your only quoted source. I'm saw-wee.whittsend wrote:
Because you judged the magazine based on the picture on the cover of that issue. I had never mentioned it before them, so your claiming that I am lecturing you about a plethora of magazines is disingenuous.spastic bullet wrote:
If there's something valuable in that issue of Reason that applies here, why not just post it instead of lecturing me about reading every article ever written in every magazine with Ayn Rand on the cover?
Strange, I don't recall reading another article featuring criticism of him. Care to be specific (after all, if you are going to demand specificity, why shouldn't I)?spastic bullet wrote:
Btw, I went to their site, but they've got such a hate-on for Chomsky, he seems to be in every other issue in some way or another.
Here I will have to concede that a search for relevant data has been unsuccessful. I'm unable to find any but the most vague pronouncements that tax havens are bad. Still, knowing his principles, I continue to believe that it is disengenous of you to state that Chomsky has nothing against those who act in the manner he has found to be acting in himself. He clearly does not hold himself to the principles to which he holds others. Or, perhaps he feels he does his part by exposing the evils of our society, and at the same time enriching his own fortunes? Bad news for Mr. Chomsky is that we already are aware of the evils, and his solutions are worse than useless. So, in the end, his contribution is....nothing.spastic bullet wrote:
Be specific about your criticisms, or admit they're just a bunch of fallacious deflections from his actual points.
whittsend wrote:
The 'soundness' of his ideas are highly debatable.spastic bullet wrote:
...his ideas are uncommonly sound, and based in a quite consistent logic.
The man refers to himself as a libertarian socialist, and before you give me the, "I thought you were a libertarian..." nonsense again, it is time you understood what that really means. First of all, Chomsky himself distances himself from libertarianism in the US, which he labels (inaccurately) as 'anarcho-capitalism.' He believes in a system where government is minimalised (so far so good), and people's inherent concern for one another will provide for the needs of all. Please. That is fantasy, and to say his ideas are sound is to agree that, given the choice, will care for our bretheren of our own free will. Now, if this is your idea of 'sound', we can stop discussing it right now; we have no common ground on which to base a discussion, so continuing this is pointless.spastic bullet wrote:
Maybe to those who can actually be bothered to "see the point in a comprehensive" debate, they are. I mean "it is". I guess we'll just take your word for it.
You don't need to read Reason to understand what Chomsky is about - he tells it to anyone who will listen with frequency. And, again, I will say that it is disingenuous to portray him as other than hostile to actions such as he has been shown to take.spastic bullet wrote:
Once again, you're "punishing" me for not taking Reasonmagazine seriously. I now don't get to respond to any specific criticisms because I dared to question their not-at-all "fawning praise" of a deranged old cow who genuinely thought she was the best thing since Aristotle. AND Homer. Gimme a break.whittsend wrote:
If you are stating that you aren't aware of Chomsky's very public views on wealth in society being contrary to his lifestyle as noted in Reason, you are either not as well informed about his opinions as you claim, or you are being disingenuous again.
Pages: 1 2