Noam on stuff

[Chaos]

I need more than a load of hot air to change my mind, and I suspect most here, on either side of the coin, feel similarly.

Are you aware that you just pegged the irony meter? Building a man of straw to burn in effigy doesn't help your presentation of points.

The free and open discourse is alive and well. It's all over this thread. That you can't find a way to convince people that your position is valid -- thanks in part to your ad hom laden prose -- is not an indication of a free society in tatters, but in your shortcomings in presenting your case.

Did someone delete your posts?

Let's look at a sampling of your outbursts for a moment, shall we?

Hypberbole, overstatement, and a lack of facts in the strawman "you guys" when marksman and E Garret spell out their objections to Chomsky's style with great detail throughout the thread.

Me, I'll freely admit to poking you in the eye once you started shouting. Have I once told you to shut up? No, I've suggested that if you complain about people objecting to America bashing in your posts, then you might want to post where people won't react to it. You are of course free to choose. You on the other hand demanded that E Garrett shut up.

The guy you are dumping on is such a one way quasher of dissent. EGarrett to Merko:

But a polite fellow like EGarrett, with whom you disagree, seems to anger you.

The personal attack, name calling, troll, seems to have come from du, mein herr. Also, to troll is to post inflammatory posts in the hopes of eliciting an emotional response. That you choose to respond emotionally to a post, however, is not evidence that a post was a troll, but that you are prone to emotional responses. (This is clearly in evidence by your posting in this thread after the first few. I know how it works, I've done it too. )

So you now try to tar him with a brush of your own invention.

This is unfortunate, as your first post in this thread, was IMO well worth reading, and an angle I would not have considered in the same light. In a forum, part of the value is to see a wide spectrum of ideas. That is why, like EGarrett remarked to Merko, Chaos, that while I often disagree with you, I read your posts since some of them provide a fine insight.

Why you want to cry that people are trying to "quash dissent" is beyond me. If your arguments or points are weak, expect them to be pilloried. If they reflect a common bias, expect that to be pointed out as well.

OK, back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

DR

Nobody forced EGarett to misrepresent my statements. Nobody forced him to refuse to admit that he had written the wrong thing and that my response to what he wrote instead of what he claims he meant was, in fact, spot-on. Nobody forced you and EGarett to make personal attacks on me.

You see, you´re not the first people here who think personal attacks are a legitimate part of discussion, and this is not the first time I´ve been the target of this. It´s been three years of this crap, and I´ve just about had it. I will NOT take personal attacks and then go back to discussion like nothing happened. If you want to have a discussion, stay clear of this ****.

 

[robinson]

Understanding Power, The New Press, 2002 had all the source material listed online.

 

[marksman]

Hey! What do you know! I was wrong on that. I also found his notes for Hegemony or Survival, which I've been looking for. Thanks!

 

[Merko]

Non sequitur. He didn't make that comment in this article. Nor was the topic of the article "Does Bolivia fit with my preconceived political theories." His article was about a general statement and he used a discrete data point as evidence.

What is wrong about using discrete data points?

It's not difficult to find other articles by Chomsky on Latin America. If you can't figure out what he's trying to say, well, I don't think you can blame that on Chomsky. Lots of people can. You seem to be implying that they all have completely different interpretations, but that doesn't really seem to be the case. People agreeing with Chomsky on some issue generally really do agree also with each others on that issue.

You're trying to nit-pick about one very short article by pointing out that it doesn't present all of Chomsky's theories in detail, and because it relies on the reader being familiar with Chomsky's general ideas. Well you know what.. if Chomsky tried to do that with every short article he wrote, nobody would read those articles. There would be nothing new to read in them, just a repeat of the same old article.

So what he does, is adding new 'discrete data points'.

The topic somebody asked is why people don't like Chomsky. I gave my answer: his articles are poorly researched and skew the facts to fit his theories.

You've tried to show this, but you failed miserably. You found no flaws in his facts, and when you tried to point out a 'skew', you presented something much more skewed yourself.

Clinton was born in poverty. He was raised in an abusive household of an alcoholic and as far as I can tell his stepdad may have owned n auto dealership, but didn't make much money at it, if at all. (See aforementioned alcoholism.) Until you, I never heard much dispute that Clinton came from the lower class. For evidence, I urge you to read his autobiography.

Err, 'autobiography' and 'evidence' doesn't fit too well together. Since when was abuse or alcoholism conditions of poverty? Poverty is about wealth and property. Someone co-owning an auto dealership has plenty of property. Perhaps such a person is not necessarily rich, but it is definitely very far from 'abject poverty'. Most people in the US can only dream about co-owning an auto dealership.

In Latin America, the middle class is the economic elite, because the vast majority of people are poor. (Unlike the United States, which has a very large middle class.) That's one of the major distinctions between developing nations and developed nations.

That is just hilarious. No, the economic elites in Latin America are very, very, very rich. They own enormous land areas. They have luxurious villas. Expensive boats. Stuffed foreign bank accounts. They throw extraordinary parties.

Well, since you seem to claim specific knowledge of Mexico, here is an article with plenty of sources dedicated to showing how filthy rich the rich people in Mexico really are.

I've lived in Mexico.

Well - I guess you just didn't meet anyone from the economic elite then. No shame in that. But really - you haven't got a clue.

It only seems that way to you because you seem to have no actual knowledge of economic reality in Latin America, which might explain why you are so prepared to accept CHomsky's facts as accurate representations.

That is also hilarious. I live in Latin America...

No. Chomsky is describing trends in Latin America. There were many elections in Latin America at the time, and most of them don't fit the "trend" that Chomsky is advocating.

Uh, I've provided plenty of examples that do fit the trend, and you have provided none that don't. I'm sure we can find a few examples that don't fit the trend. However, a trend occurs when something happens frequently, it does not have to be an absolute rule. In Latin America, the trend applies to most of the major nations - Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Chile. I believe Colombia is an exception, don't bother researching it. I concede Colombia doesn't follow the trend.

I gave you the evidence. For some reason, you don't think being middle class in a third-world nation qualifies as being in the economic elite.

Yeah. I actually have some kind of clue of what the economic elites of Latin America are like.

You say you don't care about his conclusions. What is it you like?

I repeat myself: Because he is a good source of facts.

There I emphasized the plural. Has he put forward "cases"? No.

He has.
Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.

Getting tired..

I can't educate you about Latin American history on a message board.

Well, I find no problem to educate you. A few google searches easily provide what must be a complete revelation to you, the existance of a super-rich Latin American economic elite.

I don't know what most people's rate of inaccuracies are. But in the article I examined closely, and detailed above, I didn't find much if it all that was accurate. (By "accurate" I meant both factually true and supportive of the thesis of the article in which they were presented.) If his rate of success is typical, then most people are wrong all of the time.

This is really odd. What he wrote in that article was no doubt supportive of the thesis of the article. Even you don't seem to claim otherwise. You merely say that it isn't enough data, etc. Well, that might be arguable, but that does not mean the data does not support the thesis - or that the thesis is not correct.

Will you please stop accusing me of disagreeing with Chomsky politically?

Ok. Then let me state it in another way: you seem to be living in a different universe than Chomsky. Your understanding of the economic development of Asia, for example, is so fundamentally different from that of those of us who find ourselves in agreement with Chomsky, that it is no wonder you cannot even understand what he's trying to say. He might just as well speak a language that you don't understand.

Your complete ignorance of the economic realities in Latin America are another example, and much easier to prove. No wonder you can't understand Chomsky's references to Latin American economic elites, when you're not even aware of the existence of these elites in the first place!

That's absurd. The nuclear research is integral to making nuclear bombs!

So what? You're just avoiding the issue. Can, or can not, US and Israeli threats act as a contributing cause for a hypothetical Iranian decision to build nuclear weapons?

Yet Chomsky's article is about this year's (technically 2006's) elections! HChomsky isn't making statements about the last 30 years! Have you actually read the article we're discussing?

Uh. History is a series of moments.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Nobody forced you and EGarett to make personal attacks on me.

Of course not, I offered you a snide remark free of charge, on my own initiative. It was custom crafted just for you by the Keebler elves, deep in the bowels of my bowels. No need to write to thank me.

You see, you´re not the first people here who think personal attacks are a legitimate part of discussion, and this is not the first time I´ve been the target of this. It´s been three years of this crap, and I´ve just about had it. I will NOT take personal attacks and then go back to discussion like nothing happened. If you want to have a discussion, stay clear of this ****.

And this **** refers to what? Your emotional posts? This forum? This topic? EGarrett?

Chaos, your first reply to a post I initiatied, the one about Pat Conroy, was an emotion laden, and **** laden, collection of snide remarks.

Pot, meet Kettle.

DR

 

[marksman]

What is wrong about using discrete data points?

Are you kidding me? Discrete data points are useless to an analysis. Anecdotal evidence is useless is you are tying to evidence trends (as the thesis of the article in quesiton makes clear). There is no trend evidenced by Chomsky's sole data point!

It's not difficult to find other articles by Chomsky on Latin America.

Did I say otherwise?!

If you can't figure out what he's trying to say, well, I don't think you can blame that on Chomsky. Lots of people can.

No. Lots of people assume he agrees with them. (You are one of them.) Then they interpret what he writes to fit their viewpoints.

You're trying to nit-pick about one very short article by pointing out that it doesn't present all of Chomsky's theories in detail

No. I'm using this article as an example of his shoddy scholarship in his political writings.

because it relies on the reader being familiar with Chomsky's general ideas.

No, it relies on the reader not having any historical background n the topic on which he is speaking.

So what he does, is adding new 'discrete data points'.

No, he doesn't. He throws a lot of rhetorical spaghetti at the wall and hopes people don't look at it too closely.

You found no flaws in his facts, and when you tried to point out a 'skew', you presented something much more skewed yourself.

No, I didn't. It only seems skewed to you because you very clearly have no background in Latin American History.

Err, 'autobiography' and 'evidence' doesn't fit too well together.

Sure they do, when it presents facts.

Since when was abuse or alcoholism conditions of poverty?

Link/
Link
Link
You assumed that because Clinton's father owned a business, they must be affluent. Not all business owners are aflfuent, and according to CLinton's autobiography and every article describing Clinton's childhood, his upbringing was not affluence.

You made an erroneous assumption and then criticized me for not agreeing to it.

Someone co-owning an auto dealership has plenty of property.

Assumption! Stop arguing from ignorance. Not every "co-owner" of a business is affluent. Do you know if Clinton's stepdad made any money from this co-ownership? Do you know the proportion of ownership? DO you know if his stepdad spent the money on his stepchild's welfare or... possibly... drank any profits?

No, you don't. Or you wouldn't have made such a bald-faced pronouncement.

That is just hilarious. No, the economic elites in Latin America are very, very, very rich. They own enormous land areas. They have luxurious villas. Expensive boats. Stuffed foreign bank accounts. They throw extraordinary parties.

Wow. You really don't know a thing about Latin America, do you? Where do you get your fact, other than from chomsky.info?

Have you ever been to Latin America? Have you ever studied Latin America?

Well, since you seem to claim specific knowledge of Mexico, here is an article with plenty of sources dedicated to showing how filthy rich the rich people in Mexico really are.

Did you read the links, or did you just google Mexico and superich and assume it supports your statement. Do the links describe hos affluent the few people ni Mexico's middle class are? Does it explain whether Mexico's middle class is also part of the elite? (Hint: they are.)

I gave you a link to an actual economic analysis of Latin AMerican wealth distribution. DId you read it? Did you uinderstand it? Did you see how the wealth distribution in Mexico (and almost all of the other Latin American economies) is structured? No. You didn't. If you had, you'd understand that Latin America's middle class is firmly in theeconomic elite of the nation. You wouldn't assume that the middle class in Latin America is the same as the Middle Class in Western Europe or North America (meaning North of Mexico).

And you certainly wouldn't have responded with a link to "Limits to Growth", a group that describes itself as an anti-immigration advocacy organization. I cited to academic scholarship and you try to support your interpretation of Chomsky with more demagoguery.

That is also hilarious. I live in Latin America...

How odd, then that your TAM itenirary has you traveling between Punta Gorda, Florida and Gothenburg, Sweden. Or how you identify yourself as Swedish (and here). And as a Swedish citizen. I suppose you're now going to suddenly claim expatriate status, even though your entire posting history on this board has been to extol your personal and direct knowledge of goings on in Sweden. Suddenly, you live in Latin America.

So, you're pretty much an abject and not very skilled liar.

He has.

Those articles don't show elections demonstrating Latin America's growing independence from America. They show other things, which, I suppose, you assume mean that.

So what? You're just avoiding the issue. Can, or can not, US and Israeli threats act as a contributing cause for a hypothetical Iranian decision to build nuclear weapons?

Not if they occur after the commencement of the program, which even Chomsky obliquely acknowledged was commenced back in the 1970's when Iran was an ally of the US.

Uh. History is a series of moments.

No. Time is series of mements. History is the study of connected events.

At any rate, I find your disseminations to be both transparent and frustrating. You may now have the last word as I will not repsond to you in this thread in the future.

 

[Darth Rotor]

At any rate, I find your disseminations to be both transparent and frustrating. You may now have the last word as I will not repsond to you in this thread in the future.

Here's the second ice pack, the wall did not appear to crack one bit.

DR

 

[EGarrett]

Nobody forced EGarett to misrepresent my statements. Nobody forced him to refuse to admit that he had written the wrong thing and that my response to what he wrote instead of what he claims he meant was, in fact, spot-on. Nobody forced you and EGarett to make personal attacks on me.

In other words, you're now attempting to completely ignore Noam Chomsky (i.e., the topic of the entire thread), in favor of trying to force the conversation into bickering over semantics. That's really great.

(and it's also hypocritical...you get mad that I leave out the word "population" then throw out "criterium" and refuse to acknowledge that you did it?)

You see, you´re not the first people here who think personal attacks are a legitimate part of discussion, and this is not the first time I´ve been the target of this. It´s been three years of this crap, and I´ve just about had it. I will NOT take personal attacks and then go back to discussion like nothing happened. If you want to have a discussion, stay clear of this ****.

I see. So, the difference between the rest of us...who are all targets of personal attacks constantly in this forum...and you...are that you are hypersensitive and so self-centered that you've never noticed how often it happens to everyone else?

 

[Merko]

There is no trend evidenced by Chomsky's sole data point!

There is a trend. Chomsky has discussed it many times (I provided a few links). He discusses it again. He adds another data point.

No. Lots of people assume he agrees with them. (You are one of them.) Then they interpret what he writes to fit their viewpoints.

That is an empirically verifiable suggestion. If it was the case, these 'lots of people' would in fact hold different positions. Alternatively, they would all hold the same position, they are all just misunderstanding Chomsky in the same way. The first possibility doesn't fit observation, the second just makes no sense.

No, I didn't. It only seems skewed to you because you very clearly have no background in Latin American History.

Look who's talking.

[irrelevant links about alcoholism]
Wow. So because many poor people are alcoholics, all alcoholics are now poor? So I guess George W Bush is (was?) also poor then, because he used to abuse alcohol? Hmm, I remember someone mentioning something about 'skewed facts'...

You assumed that because Clinton's father owned a business, they must be affluent. Not all business owners are aflfuent, and according to CLinton's autobiography and every article describing Clinton's childhood, his upbringing was not affluence.

I never claimed the Clintons were affluent. I claimed Clinton did not rise from abject poverty, as you put it. The skewing continues..

Does it explain whether Mexico's middle class is also part of the elite? (Hint: they are.)

Oh, the skewing, the skewing! You didn't claim that some Latin American middle class candidates are bought, co-opted, in bed, choose your term, with the super-rich. They are. You claimed they were affluent. They were not. You didn't claim the middle class was somehow 'part of the elite'. You claimed:

In Latin America, the middle class is the economic elite, because the vast majority of people are poor.

(my emphasis)

Note how you're now trying to skew this from 'economic elite' to just 'elite' since you were obviously wrong by a few hundred thousand percents' margin. And it's not longer the elite, but only 'part of it'.

But of course even this is nonsense. Being middle-class in Latin America gives no free ticket to the elite, much less the economic elite. Sucking up to the real elite might give you a few bones though, if you're good at it. But that is not different from the US.. as mr Fukuyama, among others, have discovered.

And you certainly wouldn't have responded with a link to "Limits to Growth", a group that describes itself as an anti-immigration advocacy organization.

Why should I not, when they provide accurate information, and to the point? And provide plenty of credible sources? I didn't cite them for their anti-immigration stance.

How odd, then that your TAM itenirary has you traveling between Punta Gorda, Florida and Gothenburg, Sweden. Or how you identify yourself as Swedish (and here). And as a Swedish citizen. I suppose you're now going to suddenly claim expatriate status, even though your entire posting history on this board has been to extol your personal and direct knowledge of goings on in Sweden. Suddenly, you live in Latin America.

So, you're pretty much an abject and not very skilled liar.

You'll get an 'E for effort'. I have never been in Florida and my itinerary certainly doesn't mention it. If you had a better grasp of Latin American geography, you would probably have figured this out by looking at the rest of my itinerary (I don't blame you for not being knowledgeable about Punta Gorda, a rural town with 5,000 inhabitants).

What do you want, a picture of me shaking hands with the President? Oh wait, I just forgot, being middle-class doesn't give me access to the elite, not even in this banana republic..

One word of advice though: Don't be so quick calling people liars. It's not good for your credibility.

Those articles don't show elections demonstrating Latin America's growing independence from America. They show other things, which, I suppose, you assume mean that.

They all have Latin America's growing independence from America as a central theme. You don't have to agree with it. But you can't claim he hasn't kept making the case.

Not if they occur after the commencement of the program, which even Chomsky obliquely acknowledged was commenced back in the 1970's when Iran was an ally of the US.

I can just imagine the deliberations of the Irani:
Khamenei: "Do you think we should build the bomb, or is it wiser to cancel the program?"
Ahmadinejad: "I don't know. If we get those centrifuges we'll have sanctions over us in no time. I guess we could cancel a few of those showcase projects for the poor, but still.. this would hurt our important undertakings as well."
Khamenei: "But doesn't it seem to be just a matter of time before the US or Israel bomb us given the current development? Look what they did to Iraq, even though everyone knew Hussein gave up those weapons like the dog he was. And they keep threatening us... even if we ride this crisis out - I fear the Republic is doomed if we do not act."
Ahmadinejad: "Well, we could probably build the bomb in 2-3 years.. Israel might destroy some of our facilities, so let us say 4. But the US seems to have its hands full for a few years, so I guess we could do it, insh'Allah."
Khamenei: "Right! And then those filthy Jews will keep their hands off, or we'll NUKE them! Even the US won't touch us then! [evil laughter]"
Ahmadinejad: "Yes.. this seems like a good argument. However, it doesn't work."
Khamenei: "What!?"
Ahmadinejad: "We can't build the bomb to fend off US and Israeli threats, because we didn't think about that 30 years ago."
Khamenei: "Rats!"