Noam Chomsky: “Dominance and Its Dilemmas”
A s always, Chomsky adds a bit of perspective. If you want to talk about Big Media bias, it's against people like him. People who have lost the two-party paradigm and are looking at our world in terms of the power of economics. This guy is famous the world over, but you will never see him on the O'Reilly factor.
11.10.03
Conservatives are crying foul yet again. It seems this time the Big Media is conspiring to deceive the American people, trying to convince the herd that there is some sort of chasm between Saddam's true colors and those with which he was painted before the war. I know some of you are thinking, "Hey, isn't this the same big media that ooed and awed with every shock and awe?" And to you I would say pipe down someone is trying to play victim here. As bright young conservatives point out, if Big Media wasn't so busy hugging trees and kissing poor babies, they'd have noticed David Kay's assessment of Saddam's threat proves justification for the war: "We have found people, technical information and illicit procurement networks that if allowed to flow to other countries and regions could accelerate global proliferation." [fanfare]
It is amazing how many people see no disconnect between the prewar mythologies and the postwar realities.
"Finding an illicit procurement network justifies war": There used to be a time I when assumed that kind of bull oozed from a hole that some public relations specialist used as a mouthpiece when on TV defending party lines. But no more. It seems there are a multitude of folks out there who honestly do not have the mental capacity to recognize when they've been duped if such recognition requires they admit their President overstated the case for war to insure it took place- and on his timeline.
We didn't go to war because Saddam was bad. We didn't go to war because Saddam was a threat. We supposedly went to war because Saddam was such an imminent threat that a hasty, unilateral, preemptive war was the God-given duty of the leader of the free world.
Saddam gave us access to scientists and is allowing spy plane fly-overs.
Too little.
Saddam is destroying his missiles.
Too late.
We will have the full support of the United Nations Security Council if we wait sixty more days.
No time, boys; trust me this threat is so imminent...
It reminds me of a cop shooting an unarmed man. The cop’s defense? The man had a knife buried in the backyard. Good job, there officer. Who knows when he would have dug that rusty old thing up and run about the neighborhood wrecking havoc? Oh, and also, inscribed on the knife: good luck with the Iranians, love, the cop, 1981.
It is amazing how many people see no disconnect between the prewar mythologies and the postwar realities.
"Finding an illicit procurement network justifies war": There used to be a time I when assumed that kind of bull oozed from a hole that some public relations specialist used as a mouthpiece when on TV defending party lines. But no more. It seems there are a multitude of folks out there who honestly do not have the mental capacity to recognize when they've been duped if such recognition requires they admit their President overstated the case for war to insure it took place- and on his timeline.
We didn't go to war because Saddam was bad. We didn't go to war because Saddam was a threat. We supposedly went to war because Saddam was such an imminent threat that a hasty, unilateral, preemptive war was the God-given duty of the leader of the free world.
Saddam gave us access to scientists and is allowing spy plane fly-overs.
Too little.
Saddam is destroying his missiles.
Too late.
We will have the full support of the United Nations Security Council if we wait sixty more days.
No time, boys; trust me this threat is so imminent...
It reminds me of a cop shooting an unarmed man. The cop’s defense? The man had a knife buried in the backyard. Good job, there officer. Who knows when he would have dug that rusty old thing up and run about the neighborhood wrecking havoc? Oh, and also, inscribed on the knife: good luck with the Iranians, love, the cop, 1981.
10.10.03
8.10.03
TCS: Tech Central Station - An Open Letter to Arnold Kling:
Type M arguments must not be to the exclusion of Type C arguments. In fact, in many good political arguments they go hand in hand, as surely as cause and effect.
Having once exposed the fallacies of a given policy, there is left a begging question in the minds of many: “if what you argue is true, then how come the president and his legion of wonks don’t see it this way.” Explaining the underlying politics behind dubious policies is an attempt to answer this question.
Do you suggest writers argue party politics while ignoring the overarching themes of the Republican Party? For example, how stretched is that mind that realizes public funds for private schools agrees generally with the principle that privatization is good for business. How strained is the eye who sees Bush unceasingly working towards tax policies whose overriding concern is America Inc. How deaf the mute, that didn’t hear the rumors of war several months before the word "Iraq" left the president’s lips, left his lips just in time to give voters a picture of democratic candidates standing behind their president in a time of war. Were congressional elections the motivation for war? Of course not. Was the timing suspect? Not if you’re Karl Rove.
Type M arguments must not be to the exclusion of Type C arguments. In fact, in many good political arguments they go hand in hand, as surely as cause and effect.
Having once exposed the fallacies of a given policy, there is left a begging question in the minds of many: “if what you argue is true, then how come the president and his legion of wonks don’t see it this way.” Explaining the underlying politics behind dubious policies is an attempt to answer this question.
Do you suggest writers argue party politics while ignoring the overarching themes of the Republican Party? For example, how stretched is that mind that realizes public funds for private schools agrees generally with the principle that privatization is good for business. How strained is the eye who sees Bush unceasingly working towards tax policies whose overriding concern is America Inc. How deaf the mute, that didn’t hear the rumors of war several months before the word "Iraq" left the president’s lips, left his lips just in time to give voters a picture of democratic candidates standing behind their president in a time of war. Were congressional elections the motivation for war? Of course not. Was the timing suspect? Not if you’re Karl Rove.
5.10.03
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)