Noam Chomsky Lecture

bobbyjoe

Chomsky is giving a lecture for Amnesty International in the RDS tomorrow.

Have researched him a bit on the web opinion ranges from genus to commie traitor. Thought manufacturing consent is a great book as is his one on 911.
He makes good arguements but seems to be the only person making them, except for maybe George Manibot.

Any opinions on him?

starn

If anyone has a ticket for this. I will pay top dollar

shoutman

do you have any information on the lexture?

Time, do you need a ticket etc. Presumably he will be talking about the abuse of human rights.

cheers

bobbyjoe

shoutman wrote:

do you have any information on the lexture?

Time, do you need a ticket etc. Presumably he will be talking about the abuse of human rights.

cheers

I'd say all the tickets are gone. Amnesty members got priotity. The demand was so much they had to move it from Trinity to the RDS.


http://www.amnesty.ie/content/view/full/4635/

Described by The New Yorker as 'one of the greatest minds of the 20th century', Noam Chomsky will give the 2006 Amnesty Lecture in the Shelbourne Hall, RDS D.4 at 7pm on January 18th, the theme of which will be 'The War on Terror'.

Please note the change of venue.

Please be aware that all tickets for the Noam Chomsky lecture have now been allocated. You are welcome to contact us to enter your name on the waiting list.
Please be patient as we are handling an unprecedented number of calls and emails. In the event of cancellation by any of our members, your name will move up the list. Priority is still for Amnesty members.

Tickets will be sent by post on or before January 11th.

Amnesty International is filming the lecture and will make it available in due course. Recording or filming of the event is therefore not possible. We are in the process of making the lecture available on the web. For further details, please refer back to this web page, which will continue to be updated.

Goodshape

shoutman wrote:

do you have any information on the lexture?

Time, do you need a ticket etc. Presumably he will be talking about the abuse of human rights.

cheers

AFAIR, it's free but because it's Chomsky booking was essential.

I myself failed to book

Snickers Man

bobbyjoe wrote:

Chomsky is giving a lecture for Amnesty International in the RDS tomorrow.

Have researched him a bit on the web opinion ranges from genus to commie traitor. Thought manufacturing consent is a great book as is his one on 911.
He makes good arguements but seems to be the only person making them, except for maybe George Manibot.

Any opinions on him?

Only what I've read recently.

Richard Delevan wrote a very thought-provoking piece Anti-Chomsky piece in the Sunday Tribune a couple of weeks ago. Thought-provoking, only because it was so full of vitriol, describing all who might demur from accepted American wisdom concerning the 'War on Terror' as 'nipple-pierced Dalkey-reared skate rats' that it prompted one to investigate his claims using the power of Google.

Hardly surprisingly, Delevan was for the most part talking through his backside , as a lengthy letter to the editor published in the following week's paper made clear.

A much better piece appeared in the Times more recently which was fairer to Chomsky but offered the reasonable criticism that 'he's great at identifying wrongs but not so good at suggesting solutions.'

As a vocal critic of America's aggressive expansionist foreign policy and its consequent support for murderous regimes, as long as they're 'our' murderous regimes, he is regarded by many in the US as a traitor.

Others find him to be an articulate, eloquent and courageous example of the best in the American civic model, one who is constantly self-critical and demands that America live up to the noble standards set for its government in its Constitution and Laws.

I personally would rather Chomsky over any of those towel-head-hating, cheeseburger-arsed frat boys who infest the cable news channels, Weblogs and, occasionally, the opinion pages of Irish newspapers.

Ajnag

A much better piece appeared in the Times more recently which was fairer to Chomsky but offered the reasonable criticism that 'he's great at identifying wrongs but not so good at suggesting solutions.'

I think that's part of it, Part of the problem with Chomsky is that his critics often offer nothing better then vitrol to challenge him. Another critism I find with chomsky is that he live's in a bubble to some extent, most of the questions put to him often only seek to enforce the dogma that surounds the various cause's attracted to him.

If anyone here do's go, think of something good if there is a q&a, Im sure he's probably sick of the same questions about how bad policys were etc, etc. He's probably dieing for a good argument

GypsumFantastic

If you enjoy sly omissions, grave distortions, historical errors, fabricated quotes, and scholarly fakery, then Chomsky is certainly your man. I remember one infamous example where he cited *himself* as a source to back up his argument in one of his books.

No wonder historian Arthur Schlesinger called him 'an intellectual crook'.

Given his support for the totalitarianism of people like Pol Pot, and for Holocaust revisionists, then I would suggest that attributing his anti-US diatribes as being rooted in a noble belief in some US ideal is naive in the extreme.

sceptre

starn wrote:

If anyone has a ticket for this. I will pay top dollar

This isn't the forum for requesting tickets. And even over on the FS Tickets section, paying more than face value (in this case nothing) isn't allowed either I'm afraid.

Just in case anyone else wants to use this as a ticket request thread, discussion thread is fine.

Lemming

GypsumFantastic wrote:

If you enjoy sly omissions, grave distortions, historical errors, fabricated quotes, and scholarly fakery, then Chomsky is certainly your man. I remember one infamous example where he cited *himself* as a source to back up his argument in one of his books.

No wonder historian Arthur Schlesinger called him 'an intellectual crook'.

Given his support for the totalitarianism of people like Pol Pot, and for Holocaust revisionists, then I would suggest that attributing his anti-US diatribes as being rooted in a noble belief in some US ideal is naive in the extreme.

That's a fairly heft accusation. I assume that you do of course have linkage to support this accusation

Incidentally, is anyone else here going to the lecture?

bobbyjoe

GypsumFantastic wrote:

If you enjoy sly omissions, grave distortions, historical errors, fabricated quotes, and scholarly fakery, then Chomsky is certainly your man. I remember one infamous example where he cited *himself* as a source to back up his argument in one of his books.

No wonder historian Arthur Schlesinger called him 'an intellectual crook'.

Given his support for the totalitarianism of people like Pol Pot, and for Holocaust revisionists, then I would suggest that attributing his anti-US diatribes as being rooted in a noble belief in some US ideal is naive in the extreme.

He seems to cite a lot more than your average political books must be the scientific training. Calling him anti-US etc seems to come from his opposition to the Iraqi war and American actions in Nicaragua and Guatemala. Also calling him pro-Pol Pot etc is simplistic, its the "your against the war in Iraq so you must support Saddam and think he's great" arguement.

Manic Moran

The man is a self-described anarchist, with no greater qualifications in the realm of international (or domestic) politics than I do.

He may be a recognised genius in his professional field of linguistics, but I really think he receives far more attention than he deserves.

So how was the speech anyway?

NTM

mike65

If you type Noam Chomsky into google it explodes!

I did find this amusing passage from his bio

In his 1973 book For Reasons of State, Chomsky argues that instead of a capitalist system in which people are "wage slaves" or an authoritarian system in which decisions are made by a centralized committee, a society could function with no paid labor. He argues that a nation's populace should be free to pursue jobs of their choosing. People will be free to do as they like, and the work they voluntarily choose will be both "rewarding in itself" and "socially useful". Society would be run under a system of peaceful anarchism, with no state or government institutions. Work that was fundamentally distasteful to all, if any existed, would be distributed equally among everyone.

Not to mention

Chomsky was more positive in his assessment of Communist movements in Asia, praising what he considered to be grassroots aspects of both Chinese and Vietnamese communism, such as in his 1968 essay, "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship,", where he claimed there were "certain similar features" with the Spanish anarchist movement of the 1930s (which he greatly admires), while at the same time cautioning that "the scale of the Chinese Revolution is so great and reports in depth are so fragmentary that it would no doubt be foolhardy to attempt a general evaluation." In December 1967, while participating in a forum in New York, he said that in China "one finds many things that are really quite admirable", and that "China is an important example of a new society in which very interesting and positive things happened at the local level, in which a good deal of the collectivization and communization was really based on mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry that led to this next step.

Of course saying this at the time of the Cultural Revoltion suggests Chomsky was'nt paying much attention.

Away with the fairies then...however the usual suspects will pack the place out and whoop and cheer in all the right places. I wonder if he'll do any media work (Late Late Show, Prime Time etc) while he's here?

Mike.

lostexpectation

Manic Moran wrote:

The man is a self-described anarchist, with no greater qualifications in the realm of international (or domestic) politics than I do.

He may be a recognised genius in his professional field of linguistics, but I really think he receives far more attention than he deserves.
NTM

Isn't 3/4 of his lectuers here about linguistics etc, anyway, that's his day job.

i think some people are going to very disappointed if the go to the wrong lecture

SHAKESPEARE_SIS

For those with no ticket for the Amnesty lecture - he's also in UCD tonight and over the coming days,

http://www.ucd.ie/news/jan06/011306_chomsky.htm

Sand

That's a fairly heft accusation. I assume that you do of course have linkage to support this accusation

Incidentally, is anyone else here going to the lecture?

He seems to cite a lot more than your average political books must be the scientific training. Calling him anti-US etc seems to come from his opposition to the Iraqi war and American actions in Nicaragua and Guatemala. Also calling him pro-Pol Pot etc is simplistic, its the "your against the war in Iraq so you must support Saddam and think he's great" arguement.

This is an article that attempts to tackle him and the cult of personality built up around him, including his support for Pol Pots regime. I guess the "our son of a bitch" works both ways.

He appeals to the same crowd as Michael Moore does, end of. I dont really need to buy a Chomsky book or read any of his articles or attend any of his lectures. Ive got a good idea of what his position is already. Indeed, I can predict the future - in every conflict or foreign policy between now and his death that involves the US - and even plenty that dont, hell lay the blame firmly at the door of the US. See? I saved you all that money and time youd have wasted buying his stuff.

stevejazzx

mike65 wrote:

If you type Noam Chomsky into google it explodes!

I did find this amusing passage from his bio



Not to mention



Of course saying this at the time of the Cultural Revoltion suggests Chomsky was'nt paying much attention.

Away with the fairies then...howver the usual suspects will pack he place out and whoop and cheer in all the right places. I wonder if he'll do any media work (late Late Show, Prime Time etc) while he's here?

Mike.

You use two small paragraphs (one of them alomost 40 years old-the 1968 reference) to undermine a man generally acknowledged as a great modern mind.
Hmmmm and then you say he was away with the fairies. hmmmm again.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm again!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Zombrex

Sand wrote:

This is an article that attempts to tackle him and the cult of personality built up around him

I don't normally agree with Sand, but I think people should be a bit more causious in involving them in what Sand calls the "cult of personality"

By all means listen to what Chomsky says, agree with him disagree with him, but I think there is far too much "This guy is great, I will let him make up my mind on political views" going on in the modern world, be it Chomsky, Michael Moore, Gerry Adams, Bill O'Reilly etc etc.

Challange everything, if only in your own mind. No one is perfect or completely imperfect, Gandi was a racist (seemingly), Hitler loved dogs.

We should be careful not to put people just on a pedistal and say "Yes, they speak for my views"

Not saying anyone here is doing that mind, but you certainly see a cult of personality around Chomsky, as if he has the answers or the correct view on things and we should all be paying attention

Goodshape

blahblahblah.

Of course you can pick holes in Chomsky. Show me a person in the world that is infallible. There isn't one.

Point being that wheather or not you agree with his Point A, his Points B thru C could be the most interesting thing you hear all year. Does his failure with Point A automatically make Points B & C invalid? I don't think so.

By all accounts he's a very intelligent guy with outstanding linguistic abilities and some very interesting ideas (wheather right or wrong -- and (surprise surprise) sometimes he's both). No one's asking you to give up your mother to him ffs.

I hate all this black-and-white us-and-them crap.

Snickers Man

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Given his support for the totalitarianism of people like Pol Pot, and for Holocaust revisionists,

These were two of the allegations made by Delevan which were refuted.

On the subject of 'support for Holocaust Deniers' the evidence would appear to be a preface that he wrote for a book by a French writer of that ilk. In it he speaks not at all about the ideas represented in the book but rather argues that the author should be free to express them and to hold his premises up for scrutiny so that the public could evaluate the veracity and validity of his claims.

I believe such freedom in America is enshrined in the First Amendment.

As for 'supporting Pol Pot' I think again that he was comparing the (justifiable) media outrage about Khmer Rouge atrocities with the comparitive silence in response to other smaller but no less vicious outrages perpetrated by US allies in the region. That's a long way from 'supporting Pol Pot'.

Sand

I hate all this black-and-white us-and-them crap.

Really? Because thats all he and his tribute act, and *his* rival Coulter deal in. Ive never seen, nor heard of Chomsky taking anything other than a extreme view on events.

stevejazzx

Wicknight wrote:

I don't normally agree with Sand, but I think people should be a bit more causious in involving them in what Sand calls the "cult of personality"

interesting thread, i don't think that most of the people who've posted here have even read any of his stuff!
'cult of personality'? No.

bobbyjoe

Sand wrote:

This is an article that attempts to tackle him and the cult of personality built up around him, including his support for Pol Pots regime. I guess the "our son of a bitch" works both ways.

He appeals to the same crowd as Michael Moore does, end of. I dont really need to buy a Chomsky book or read any of his articles or attend any of his lectures. Ive got a good idea of what his position is already. Indeed, I can predict the future - in every conflict or foreign policy between now and his death that involves the US - and even plenty that dont, hell lay the blame firmly at the door of the US. See? I saved you all that money and time youd have wasted buying his stuff.

You haven't read his book, articles or attanded a lecture but have a good idea about his position????

Anyone who questions the Republican party line gets smeared Murtha, Wilson etc. Looking through anyones writings and he's written a lot of course anyone could find lots of mistakes, conflicts of interest etc..

At least he's not afraid to say what he thinks. The lazy method of calling anyone anti-Iraq war as a Chomsky or Michael Moore follower is boring. I'm no fan of Moore F911 could have been a lot better but he had to include entertainment value to get more people to see it.

As Goodshape says there is no black and white with us or against us thats just lazy pigeon holeing. Just cos you go to a lecture by the guy doesn't mean that you have to take every word he says as gospel.

bobbyjoe

Sand wrote:

Really? Because thats all he and his tribute act, and *his* rival Coulter deal in. Ive never seen, nor heard of Chomsky taking anything other than a extreme view on events.

Coulter is nowhere near a rival to him.

Zombrex

Goodshape wrote:

Of course you can pick holes in Chomsky. Show me a person in the world that is infallible. There isn't one.

That was kinda my point. No one should accept what Chomsky says, or his opinion on matters, just because he said it.

Sand

You haven't read his book, articles or attanded a lecture but have a good idea about his position????

And what I actually said...

I dont really need to buy a Chomsky book or read any of his articles or attend any of his lectures. Ive got a good idea of what his position is already.

Close enough to be somewhat similar, different enough to mean something else entirely. Chomsky and Moore would be proud.

Anyone who questions the Republican party line gets smeared Murtha, Wilson etc. Looking through anyones writings and he's written a lot of course anyone could find lots of mistakes, conflicts of interest etc..

A) Chomsky is as least as much an enemy of the Dems as the Reps (Hes on record as saying Clintons bombing of a Sudanese factory was worse than Bin Ladens WTC attack), so its not about questioning the Rep line. Hes an anarchist, he wants to remove any form of government wed recognise, regardless of whose running it.

He has made repeated "mistakes", and repeatedly talks complete crap. I certainly dont rate him any higher than Michael Moore in the political analysis. Hes apparently a wonderful linguist. Great - he should stick to what he knows though.

Coulter is nowhere near a rival to him.

I didnt say what I meant clearly there- by tribute act I was referring to Moore and Coulter as *his* rival. Though, Coulters the exact same as Chomsky - talks crap, loose with facts and has her own cult of personality to boot.

bobbyjoe

Sand wrote:

And what I actually said...

Close enough to be somewhat similar, different enough to mean something else entirely. Chomsky and Moore would be proud.



A) Chomsky is as least as much an enemy of the Dems as the Reps (Hes on record as saying Clintons bombing of a Sudanese factory was worse than Bin Ladens WTC attack), so its not about questioning the Rep line. Hes an anarchist, he wants to remove any form of government wed recognise, regardless of whose running it.

He has made repeated "mistakes", and repeatedly talks complete crap. I certainly dont rate him any higher than Michael Moore in the political analysis. Hes apparently a wonderful linguist. Great - he should stick to what he knows though.



I didnt say what I meant clearly there- by tribute act I was referring to Moore and Coulter as *his* rival. Though, Coulters the exact same as Chomsky - talks crap, loose with facts and has her own cult of personality to boot.

So you read some of his books from the library or something?

Any examples of the complete crap he talks?
Don't see a cult of personality around him or Coulter. Thats what a lazy person usualy says to write someone off. Same as media whore.

bobbyjoe

bobbyjoe wrote:

Thats what a lazy person usualy says to write someone off. Same as media whore.

Carefull now please.
Asking the question is fine here but dont couch it in personal insults.

Goodshape

Wicknight wrote:

That was kinda my point. No one should accept what Chomsky says, or his opinion on matters, just because he said it.

My comment wasn't directed at you at all (many tabs open - hadn't seen your post when I hit reply). I agree with the points you made.

Sand -- so what if Chomsky is black-and-white, the point is to use his information, among other sources, to form your own opinions.

Saying the man is 100% full of **** based on a few indiscretions is just stupid, imho.

Not that I'm saying you have to like him at all, just don't dismiss everything he has to say.


(and I happen to agree with his anarchist stance.. although I am open to debate on the matter)

Sand

Any examples of the complete crap he talks?

I already linked to an article that satisfies your demands, googled it in about 5-10 seconds. You couldnt be arsed even opening it apparently - any particular reason I should waste my time digging out another one?

I even linked a prime example of the crap he talks - unless youre going to argue that Clintons bombing of a factory suspected of being used for nerve agent production in the middle of the night when there was no workforce is worse than Bin Ladens WTC attacks in the middle of the rush hour? Its not quite up to that standards of Coulters "convert them to christianity" spiel but its a contender.

Don't see a cult of personality around him or Coulter.

Right, its their masterful political analysis that generates them headlines and sells out the RDS..... People have only the vaguest idea of what Chomsky is about and what he stands for - only a few posts ago he was apparently a martyr of those who oppose the US Republican party. I reckon itll be a shock to a lot of those attending that hes not a Clinton fan, Irelands 2nd Kennedy.

Goodshape 20:55pm

Sand -- so what if Chomsky is black-and-white, the point is to use his information, among other sources, to form your own opinions.

Goodshape 18:52pm

I hate all this black-and-white us-and-them crap.

The only thing consistent in that flip flop Goodshape, is support of Chomsky. And people question that theres a cult of personality around him?

And Chomsky has no information that can be taken seriously - hes a linguist, with no other standing or expertise and a track record of misinformation to rival the CIA and extremely questionable value judgements that have seen him taking at least as many immoral positions on various dictatorships, events and groups as the governments he criticises. And whilst a state may point to realpolitick concerns as an exscuse for their less than heroic conduct, he has none as the self appointed moral guardian of the world with no other concerns whatsoever.

(and I happen to agree with his anarchist stance.. although I am open to debate on the matter)

Dont worry, itll pass - anarchism relies on rigid application to the law to work - most importantly 100% community support of the law by boycotting of those who refuse to submit to lawful judgements. You think thats even remotely possible when human history has repeatedly demonstrated the threat individuals with money, popular appeal or both pose to any system governed by the people? An anarchist revolt on Friday would end up as a police state dictatorship by Monday. Look at the article Mike cited with Chomskys utopia - you think a society like that would last a wet weekend? Im not unsympathetic to anarchists views on the dangers of state power, but their system would devolve to tyranny like so many early attempts at democracy.

Goodshape

My opinion of things is rearly as simple black and white. I didn't say I believed Chomsky was either, what I said was I don't care wheather he is or not. He's a good resource of 'liberal' ideas and information and someone who has aided in my forming of opinions in the past.