Re: Chomsk was: Endless debates (was Burning Fat for Energy

[Guest guest]

>Probably because he is very intellectual, and that rubs a lot

>Americans the wrong way (all

>those polysyllabic words, you know). Present company excluded of

>course.

>

>Naomi

What really amazes me about Chomsky is that I learned about him in

*Computer Science* class. Yeah, the same one! He has these amazing

theories about linguistics that are used in designing computer languages

and in discussing how kids learn language. The guy was way before his

time ... when I learned his theories I thought he was nuts, but he

was *right*. Yeah, I can understand why he isn't a household word!

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

OF Course - multiple points of view never hurts. How can it? The problem is

that Chomsky's point of view is generally not available to a mainstream

audience, and is virtually never encountered on shows like Nightline.

Chomsky's approach - which is to evaluate one's own country's behavior (in

his case, the United States) with the same criteria that one evaluates other

countries, is by its very nature more objective that the approach taken by

the U.S. Media. Chomsky is totally about objective - and that's why his

views sound so alien to most people in the U.S.

>

>> Ultimately, we came to a stalemate, from the best of my memory,

> because we

>> came to a disagreement over whether it is more important or not to

> use multiple

>> sources when one or more source is ideological in nature. I hope

> I'm not

>> misrepresenting your view here, but if I am, it's not deliberate,

> it's because it

>> was a while ago. From memory, I thought that it is always best to

> use

>> multiple sources on something, but that it is moreso when a source

> is ideological, or

>> when the person holds an ideology that relates to that issue. I

> don't recall

>> whether or not you believed that it is important to use multiple

> sources (I

>> think you did), but you didn't believe that the ideology of a

> source makes a

>> difference.

>

> This is the last place I ever thought I'd see a reference to Chomsky.

> I'm always amazed

> what I find on this group.

>

> What a coincidence too-I just got " Manufacturing Consent " from

> Netflix, but have only

> seen around 30 minutes of it (I have a toddler who long ago

> discovered the on/off switch

> so movie watching is haphazard at best).

>

> I agree, it would be best to get multiple sources for political

> information, but that's not

> easy in the U.S (and Chomsky talks about why it's not in the movie).

> You really have to

> search for alternative points of view, especially progressive ones; I

> don't think Fox will be

> airing a segment on Chomsky anytime soon, or my local news station

> for that matter.

> Probably because he is very intellectual, and that rubs a lot

> Americans the wrong way (all

> those polysyllabic words, you know). Present company excluded of

> course.

>

> Naomi

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Chomsky's politics are, in a way, very simple. Simply - take your core

ethics, and view the United States in the same way that you view other

countries, other issues, other people. He makes no comprises in applying

those concepts, and is not deluded by the propaganda that is as thick here

as anywhere on the face of the earth. An absolutely brilliant person.

>

>

>> Probably because he is very intellectual, and that rubs a lot

>> Americans the wrong way (all

>> those polysyllabic words, you know). Present company excluded of

>> course.

>>

>> Naomi

>

> What really amazes me about Chomsky is that I learned about him in

> *Computer Science* class. Yeah, the same one! He has these amazing

> theories about linguistics that are used in designing computer languages

> and in discussing how kids learn language. The guy was way before his

> time ... when I learned his theories I thought he was nuts, but he

> was *right*. Yeah, I can understand why he isn't a household word!

>

>

>

> Heidi Jean

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I realize I've been rather absent lately, but please (and I mean everyone,

not just you, Gene) use the POLITICS tag!

>OF Course - multiple points of view never hurts. How can it? The problem is

>that Chomsky's point of view is generally not available to a mainstream

>audience, and is virtually never encountered on shows like Nightline.

>

>Chomsky's approach - which is to evaluate one's own country's behavior (in

>his case, the United States) with the same criteria that one evaluates other

>countries, is by its very nature more objective that the approach taken by

>the U.S. Media. Chomsky is totally about objective - and that's why his

>views sound so alien to most people in the U.S.

-