Letters to the Editor
-
Dialog of the deaf
I fully agree on the clueless nature of our media interlocutors, and the pro-administration slant fed by them. Unlike, say the BBC, where opposing viewpoints, and more importantly emic viewpoints, are frequently aired, over here the 'experts' are invariably fellow Americans. A bizarre dialog between ourselves on matters impacting the lives and deaths of other people.
However, much as I respect the Iraqi opinions that were quoted, I still wonder if the elimination of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath regime could have turned out differently under a more competent and principled US administration. Bosnia didn't turn out all that bad after our military intervention. Only force stopped the killing fields in Cambodia and in Rwanda, albeit local or neighboring force. There are occasions where the grip of a tyrant is so overwhelming and brutal that judicious application of external force is the only way to spare generations from fear and despair. Isolationism is not the answer to rank incompetence or military misadventures.
-
C'mon, dcutler
dcutler: Now it is a legitimate question to ask, now, in retrospect if he was correct. Were these actually independent Iraqi citizens or was he talking to representatives of the Iraqi government? He thought the latter, but your point is that in retrospect there is every reason to believe that it was the former.
The media thought Scott Ritter was a representative of the Iraqi government, let alone any stray Iraqi who had anything to say about it. In the run-up to the war, anyone who thought there should be no invasion was a "Saddam-lover", either in the pay of the Iraqi government or clearly delusional. File it under people-who-say-things-that-the-media-doesn't-want-to-hear.
-
It never ceases to amaze
How propagandistic the press is. The best part of those excerpts is Jennings.. "I don't know how we get people on the phone".
How do these people call themselves journalists???
-
dcutler
Actually recall viewing the exchange from which you have given the transcript. At the time of viewing, I had very, very different interpretation than the one you have given to this transcript. At the time of viewing, I believe the Peter Jennings thought he had been "pranked" possibly by the Iraqi government or maybe even another media source. The surprise wasn't that "real Iraqi's" were expressing displeasure at the bombing. The surprise was that he did not believe he was speaking to "real Iraqi's."
Having not seen the segment, I'm obviously limited in my ability to address this - you may very well be right - but it doesn't make sense to me for a couple of reasons -
(1) The second of the two Iraqis was explicitly identified (by Jennings and by the Iraqi) as a Ba'ath Party member and member of Saddam's Parliament. Why would a "prankster" or someone looking to propagandize on behalf of Saddam candidly acknowledge his status? That would undermine the whole point.
(2) What would have led Jennings to assume it was fake? What both Iraqis were saying was perfectly sensible and to be expected. There was hardly anything shocking, bizarre, or suspicious about any of it.
-
Aych
Formal education doesn't have to be bad . Luckily , I was blessed with two teachers that saw this coming , even worse than what it was then (70's, 80's). One spent a whole week on propoganda, techniques, and historical examples , including this country . It came up from time to time otherwise .(Imagine how she'd be crucified now, esp if she came to the attn. of the RWNM?) Another saw her job not as teaching what to think, but as getting us to think, and giving us at least the beginnings of how to start doing it. "The rest is up to you, your job, for the rest of your lives . Don't ever stop."
Forgot who mentioned it , but the disbelieving reaction to Chomsky is familiar. Whenever I tried to refute the Osama-Saddam "connection" (among other things) before the war , the usual reaction was a blank stare, and maybe a comment, that suggested that I was making it up. I was the crazy one .
-
bamage
Cornell, in the 80's anyway, was ACLU-like in their promotion of free speech.
The floating sky island Laputa was one of the locations Lemuel Gulliver visited in Jonathan Swift's satire of the same name.
The rulers of Laputa were so cerebral and disconnected from everyday reality that they had servants whose sole job was to stimulate their auditory organs when in the opinion of the servant something was being said that the rulers should hear.
These servants were known as "flappers" for the bladder they used to stimulate their master's ears, mouth and eyes.
We have "flappers" today and to become consciously aware of their presence is an unusual thing for Americans.
Chomsky is a deep and original thinker as well as a keen observer. I think he is far closer to right about our culture than he is to being wrong.
-
Repeat
I posted this opinion yesterday:
Should Sinan Antoon and Ali Fadhil get a wider, MSM hearing, they will get branded as terrorists by both the noise machine and the Bush team.
-
@ tempus
Link TV, in particular the show Mosaic. Translations of state-owned and private ME news shows. And, the only place I can think of one can see Amy Goodman's show out on the west coast. One of the only reasons I miss not having satellite any more...
-
Inspired typo of the day:
the creation terrorists
— susan sunflowerAlso known as the religious right or dominionists. Meet me on the west rim of the Grand Canyon.
-
Course of Study
... I think [Chomsky] strongly overstates the degree of cultural indoctrination that goes on in a healthy university environment.
Cornell, in the 80's anyway, was ACLU-like in their promotion of free speech. -- bamage
My recollection from my undergraduate experience in the early 80s is that the students I'd meet in the Political Science Department, or Economics, were less likely to think independently than the students I met over in the Science building. They were more literate and better socialized, but less independent-minded. Some of the best and most independent thinkers I encountered were those who chose "weird" majors like Chinese -- not completely unmarketable but hard and unique. The courses of study favored by bloody-minded conformists looking for credentials without uncomfortable exposure to The Other -- that's where mental lockstep was common.
My understanding is that Chomsky has tenure at MIT. Mental lockstep was pretty uncommon at MIT -- period. So I'd like to know where Chomsky taught (sabbatical leaves?) to get that viewpoint. Times change though. Perhaps the Baby Boomers have been unusually successful at turning their kids into tools.