News Roundup - July 30, 2008
TOP STORY - Ecuador says US must leave Manta air base (Associated Press)
Colombia - US-Based Lawyers to Defend Victims of Paramilitaries (Inter Press Service)
Ecuador - Chevron hires lobbyists to squeeze Ecuador in toxic-dumping case (Newsweek)
Mexico - Mexicans vote 'no' on oil reform (Associated Press)
United States - International Republican Institute Gives Donors Access to McCain (New York Times)
United States - Noam Chomsky Interviewed by Vincent Navarro (Canadian Dimension)
United States - Obama On NAFTA: Name This “Change We Can Believe In” (Council on Hemispheric Affairs)
Venezuela - Taking Stock of the Bolivarian Revolution: Changing Venezuela by Taking Power (American Armageddon)
Venezuela - New Hampshire accepts Venezuelan heating oil (Concord Monitor)
World - WTO Talks Collapse Amidst Developing Countries' Reluctance to Sacrifice Food Security (Center for Economic and Policy Research)
posted by Justin Delacour | 11:52 PM
5 Comments:
Justin, Noam Chomsky's thoughts on US culture and this election are very compelling, and indicative of why he will be known as one of the most progressive, insightful thinkers that the US has ever produced.
And, as usual, the US establishment will go to great lengths to malign the man (by grossly distorting his positions).
And, as usual, the US establishment will go to great lengths to malign the man (by grossly distorting his positions).
Indeed. Conventional political scientists tend to malign Chomsky not only out of ignorance but also out of envy. He's much smarter than the vast majority of them, and they know it.
"My only regret is that I did not get to meet Mr. Chomsky before his death . . ."
Uh, you're a moron, anonymous. The New York Times even came out and admitted that it mistranslated that statement from Chavez. Ask any native Spanish speaker who's listened to the speech. Chavez was referring to the death of John Kenneth Galbraith, not Chomsky.
Justin, I think you recognize something very elemental about the ideological coding in the entire US society as a whole. To generalize: the institution of the university will develop the types of discourse that are commensurate with the larger imperialist project of the nation.
Is it any wonder why Huntington and Milton Friedman are such abiding luminaries in the social sciences? Indeed, all generalizations are contingent on the marginal exceptions--but the rule stays pretty stable over the decades.
What I experienced during grad school in English (critical theory and cultural studies were my areas of interest) is that the professors "might" disseminate one hand-out of a Chomsky essay--but they piled on the post-structuralist reading.
My interests were propaganda, following Chomsky and some of the Frankfurt School philosophers, and it was conveyed to me through various forms of 'flack' and negative feedback that I was pushing the limits.
In all, grad school was a fairly alienating and disappointing experience. However, I did get to see, first hand, the constraints that function to reproduce the status quo. More, what I learned from this experience has been integral toward my present day projects.
Justin, believe me, your influence on democratically minded, curious young people in the years to come will be crucial.
I have recently listened to an excellent interview with a English prof. named Mark Edmundson. The many has done some very compelling work with Freud and the authoritarian impulse. This is good stuff, and it is helpful toward my nascent analysis of the increasing ecological crisis. How do people become complacent in the face of rampant despoilation, and hyper-alienated from the natural world in general? There are many lines of thinking that are required to develop a strong discourse with respect to these phenomenon. More, our ability to develop a compelling discourse will be central toward developing the necessary descriptive scientific and social metaphors in order to tamp down the cultural pathology.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home