Michael D Kicks Ass

Hal1

Did he bite someone? :eek:.

kingtubby

I do not know much about the Israeli/Palestine politics so I do not have a very strong view on the matter.

Michael D Higgins seemed to lose his cool very quickly and that whole radio conversation spiralled out of control very early on. I wouldn't think he is a very convincing debater based on this.

DEFTLEFTHAND

I remember this from the Right Hook. They were broadcasting from a pub in Galway. The leprechaun became riled when he lost his way in the debate, with local voters watching, the pressure came on and it all got too much for the little fella.

Johro

I've been a fan of Michael D since way back when he had a regular column in the Hot Press when it was still in its infancy, I watched him use his far superior intelligence in political battles in the Dail, the little man is a giant in many ways. I supported him in his bid for presidency and I think all Irish people should be proud of him and his record, especially on human rights issues and for always speaking his mind and being honest. I wish there were more like him. And he's absolutely right, politicians, especially in the US but not exclusively, push through their political agendas by fear mongering.
I've not often heard him that angry, but he has reason, and I hope more people will see through the bullcrap that emanates from that particular corner of the political circus that is the Republicans.

Johro

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I remember this from the Right Hook. They were broadcasting from a pub in Galway. The leprechaun became riled when he lost his way in the debate, with local voters watching, the pressure came on and it all got too much for the little fella.

Taking the piss out of his small stature doesn't make him less right.

Johro

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Does he still "kick ass" when he rubberstamps whatever is put in front of him?... or does he perish the thought of rocking the boat because he is too cosy in the viceregal lodge?. Higgins puts on a good show, but at the end of the day he is still an establishment stooge. No amount of grandiose, self-righteous moralising will change that.

That's got to be a joke. Michael D has been at the forefront at all sorts of protests and supported many a cause in more than just words, you could not be more wrong.
If somebody said 'what's the opposite of Michael D?', then yeah, what you say stands.

marcsignal

Wompa1 wrote: »

What's going on with this? I read this morning that it has gone "viral" in America? Anybody have the source for where it went viral?

I'm in America, have not heard it mentioned on the radio or tv and have not seen it trend on YouTube or Twitter over here

I never heard it before, although I understand It's been about for 2 years or thereabouts.
A friend of mine in California had it on her FB on Tuesday last.
I found it there.

joseph brand

Tea Party referred to as The American Taliban.

Clip from The Newsroom. Check it out.

SamHarris

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Chomsky speaks truth to power - he irritates both the right and left. There is no conspiracy. Also, you need to actually listen to what he has to say rather than swallow right wing tapas sound bites like those pricks Limbaugh and Beck serve.

Yes yes I recognise the enormous academic shortfalls of Chomskies work so I must be a massive fan of Limbaugh and Beck :rolleyes:

Again, if his theories were not so widely dissproven, he would be taught in universities around the world, given how revolutionary his thesis would be, again if it actually had any academic merit. But then Im sure its just because those damn Media and Political scientist faculties are unable to see past their extreme right wing views in your estimation. You realise he is a highly regarded LINGUIST, right?

Trully his supporters are creationists of media and social criticsm - I guess I just need more faith.

SamHarris

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I have little interest in the millionaires pantomime that is the US presidential election. The Irish health care system is not without fault but at least ultimately everyone is covered regardless of wealth.

Missed the point completly. Oh well. Didnt realise you were one of those Chomsky fan bois. Couldnt be bothered debating anything with people of that... type. Its a religion, not something that can be engaged with rationaly. Ciao.

karma_

SamHarris wrote: »

Missed the point completly. Oh well. Didnt realise you were one of those Chomsky fan bois. Couldnt be bothered debating anything with people of that... type. Its a religion, not something that can be engaged with rationaly. Ciao.

You are being completely disingenuous in regards to Chomskys academic work and reputation, completely and demonstrably so. For someone throwing about the 'rationality' word, your not exhibiting much of it.

SamHarris

karma_ wrote: »

You are being completely disingenuous in regards to Chomskys academic work and reputation, completely and demonstrably so. For someone throwing about the 'rationality' word, your not exhibiting much of it.

Christ. His LINGUISTIC academic work is of academic worth.

Notice how he did not publish any articles in respected journals that deal with media? Even he is aware in his own way of the intelectual vapidity of his theory.

Instead he bipassed the normal methods of establishing new models of media criticism and went striaght to the masses. There are always going to be people that want to believe what he says.

This is why there is so little interest in even engaging with his work on an academic level.

You can either accept extremly well established media theories, backed up by thousands of articles in numerous journals and endorsed by academics all over the world or you can swallow whole the work of an academic of another discipline, of an extreme political persuasion, with no independent peer reviewed work or even low levels of acceptance within the community.

I really don't care which model you choose to endorse, but the choice is clear for anyone concerned with having extreme positions confirmed widely, or at all, by mainstream academics of the discipline before taking it as gospel. You can also be a creationist for all I care, they have similar levels of academic consensus, you can make as many CT's as you want for why that is the fact remains the same.

No interest in discussing it further, if you want to make a thread for Chomsky knock yourself out. Or, better yet, read some peer reviewed thoeries and see exactly why they do a far better job of explaining modern media.

karma_

SamHarris wrote: »

Christ. His LINGUISTIC academic work is of academic worth.

Notice how he did not publish any articles in respected journals that deal with media? Even he is aware in his own way of the intelectual vapidity of his theory.

Instead he bipassed the normal methods of establishing new models of media criticism and went striaght to the masses. There are always going to be people that want to believe what he says.

This is why there is so little interest in even engaging with his work on an academic level.

You can either accept extremly well established media theories, backed up by thousands of articles in numerous journals and endorsed by academics all over the world or you can swallow whole the work of an academic of another discipline, of an extreme political persuasion, with no independent peer reviewed work or even low levels of acceptance within the community.

I really don't care which model you choose to endorse, but the choice is clear for anyone concerned with having extreme positions confirmed widely, or at all, by mainstream academics of the discipline before taking it as gospel. You can also be a creationist for all I care, they have similar levels of academic consensus, you can make as many CT's as you want for why that is the fact remains the same.

No interest in discussing it further, if you want to make a thread for Chomsky knock yourself out. Or, better yet, read some peer reviewed thoeries and see exactly why they do a far better job of explaining modern media.

It's just as well you have no wish to discuss it further, I'm not exactly sure how deep a hole you were going to dig for yourself.

SamHarris

karma_ wrote: »

It's just as well you have no wish to discuss it further, I'm not exactly sure how deep a hole you were going to dig for yourself.

Im sure. Im going to go ahead and assume you know just about as much about how academia works as you do about Cuban history

Eve_Dublin

I heart Michael D.


Hope I look just like him when I'm 71....only more beardy.

karma_

SamHarris wrote: »

Im sure. Im going to go ahead and assume you know just about as much about how academia works as you do about Cuban history

Sam, you are of course free to assume what you like.

K3lso

Michael D Higgins is a bonafide idiot.

He blamed Austrian Economics for the banking collapse (cringe). Another me feiner is all he is. Labour my arse - he wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

sdanseo

Fair play Michael D. Jesus anyone giving him stick for calling someone a wanker 2 years ago must really have nothing better to do.

token101

K3lso wrote: »

Michael D Higgins is a bonafide idiot.

He blamed Austrian Economics for the banking collapse (cringe). Another me feiner is all he is. Labour my arse - he wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

Why don't you go up the Aras and set yourself alight to test your theory?

K3lso

token101 wrote: »

Why don't you go up the Aras and set yourself alight to test your theory?

Why would I want to do that?

You assume that hobbit in the Park is worth it.

token101

K3lso wrote: »

Why would I want to do that?

You assume that hobbit in the Park is worth it.

Every theory needs proof.

Nodin

karma_ wrote: »

You are being completely disingenuous in regards to Chomskys academic work and reputation, completely and demonstrably so. For someone throwing about the 'rationality' word, your not exhibiting much of it.

Bit like his namesake, betimes.

Colmustard

I like Micheal Grahan I think he is gas, its the reason I tune in on Friday. But he was a bit out of his depth there.

SamHarris

Nodin wrote: »

Bit like his namesake, betimes.

Your welcome to list his published articles on media and politics, in an academic journal, to prove that he is at least concidered an academic in those areas. Ive never found one.

karma_

SamHarris wrote: »

Your welcome to list his published articles on media and politics, in an academic journal, to prove that he is at least concidered an academic in those areas. Ive never found one.

http://www.fifth-estate-online.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Mullen-Klaehn-Sociology-Compass-essay.pdf

It's an essay regarding his book - Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media

The author certainly considers him relevant.

SamHarris

karma_ wrote: »

http://www.fifth-estate-online.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Mullen-Klaehn-Sociology-Compass-essay.pdf

It's an essay regarding his book - Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media

The author certainly considers him relevant.

An essay on his book!? My god! Move over Samuel Huntington.

Of course he is important, there is always enough people out there that take on board everything a famous academic says. That does not even begin to amount to having an academic impact. Or being in any manner an authority on a subject.

Ill just wait for his many articles, considering he is such an influential contributer to the field... You really ought to start googling things before jumping in with large assertions. Or, please god, before you whole heartedly subscribe to a what amounts to an opinion piece.

Being a respected academic in one field by no means makes you one in all. This should be common sense.

karma_

SamHarris wrote: »

An essay on his book!? My god! Move over Samuel Huntington.



Ill just wait for his many articles, considering he is such an influential contributer to the field... You really ought to start googling things before jumping in with large assertions. Or, please god, before you whole heartedly subscribe to a what amounts to an opinion piece.

Sam, I'm not going to involve myself in a lengthy debate with you over this because frankly the 4000 new citizens thread is a hell of a lot more entertaining, however...

You asked for proof of this -

prove that he is at least concidered an academic in those areas

I have shown you an academic paper which shows he is considered relevant academically in both politics and media. Take this one on the chin my friend.

SamHarris

karma_ wrote: »

Sam, I'm not going to involve myself in a lengthy debate with you over this because frankly the 4000 new citizens thread is a hell of a lot more entertaining, however...

You asked for proof of this -



I have shown you an academic paper which shows he is considered relevant academically in both politics and media. Take this one on the chin my friend.

Ha! Sure, there is an article on the man, That MUST mean he is a repected academic in the field. Im sure there are articles on Rush Limbaugh for christ sake.

Your free to post all those articles when you get a chance, Nodin to. Im patient.

Ill let you bail though, we both know they dont exist. If you want you can start a thread in politics explaining why a linguistic professor is to be taken extremly seriously when discussing poltics and media in a trash book. I cant wait to hear his views on biology to.

Just to point out - a direct quote from your article "the PM has received very little attention within the field of
media and communication studies, the wider social sciences"

"first wave of criticism – in the late 1980s, following the book’s
publication, and in the 1990s – was marked by hostility, indifference and ⁄ or an outright
dismissal of the PM and its findings."

karma_

SamHarris wrote: »

Ha! Sure, there is an article on the man, That MUST mean he is a repected academic in the field. Im sure there are articles on Rush Limbaugh for christ sake.

Your free to post all those articles when you get a chance, Nodin to. Im patient.

Once more, I have shown you that he is considered relevant in both Politics and media, which is what you asked of me. There is no need to list any further articles because it's been conclusively answered.

SamHarris

karma_ wrote: »

Once more, I have shown you that he is considered relevant in both Politics and media, which is what you asked of me. There is no need to list any further articles because it's been conclusively answered.

:rolleyes: sure. Well Ill let you go.

karma_

SamHarris wrote: »

:rolleyes: sure. Well Ill let you go.

In fairness, you have little choice.

SamHarris

karma_ wrote: »

In fairness, you have little choice.

True that.

karma_

SamHarris wrote: »

Just to point out - a direct quote from your article "the PM has received very little attention within the field of
media and communication studies, the wider social sciences"

Please don't do this, I almost missed your ninja edit.

we would suggest that the PM is even more
relevant today than when it was initially advanced.

Is this not an academic paper on Politics and Media?

Is the word 'relevant' not there in black and white in the conclusion of said paper?

This answers your question -

prove that he is at least concidered an academic in those areas

There is no need to keep going round in circles here.

SamHarris

Oh so now I said he wasnt relevant in a broad sense?

Cute, but no, I said he was not a respected academic in the field who's work was not taken seriously by those that specialise in his hobbies. Your article, one of the very few that bother dealing with his extreme views, fully supported that ascertian.

karma_

SamHarris wrote: »

Oh so now I said he wasnt relevant in a broad sense?

Cute, but no, I said he was not a respected academic in the field who's work was not taken seriously by those that specialise in his hobbies. Your article, one of the very few that bother dealing with his extreme views, fully supported that ascertian.

You did not read the paper fully then, or you somehow missed the conclusion, even though I have quoted it above. Show some grace man, on the chin, none of us can win in every thread, but it's fun to have a go isn't it!

Channel Zero

I thought he went pretty easy on him myself. He showed a lot of constraint considering the history of Ireland and the "free market" forces that came into play during the famine times.

Michael D knows his history very well that's for sure. He did well to reign in his utter contempt for the Tea Party policies of Paul Ryan and his ilk when you think about it. So rather than castigating the man 'losing it', we should congratulate him for his restraint imo.

Bill Black explains the connection very well here. He compared Paul Ryan to Charles Trevelyan. Not an unfair comparison.. :

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/08/why-is-paul-ryan-an-irish-catholic-praising-the-dogmas-that-drove-the-great-hunger.html#more-3031

SamHarris

karma_ wrote: »

You did not read the paper fully then, or you somehow missed the conclusion, even though I have quoted it above. Show some grace man, on the chin, none of us can win in every thread, but it's fun to have a go isn't it!

So let me get this straight, the author agrees with me completly about the academic standing of his work, but believes personally it should be different. But, critically, it is not.

The position this supports is that people think Chomsky should be taken more seriously in an academic environment, by definition that means he is not right now.

Is basic reading comprehension not part of the curriculum anymore?


So there are no articles published by Chomsky himself? Wow, even he is aware that it wouldnt hold up to actual discussion...