About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 6:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff, just out of curiosity, do you read audio books for a living?

http://www.blackstoneaudio.com/audiobook.cfm?ID=3321

Crowded Land of Liberty
Crowded Land of Liberty
by Dirk Chase Eldredge
read by Jeff Riggenbach
Unabridged

Audio Sample

The number of legal immigrants accelerated in the 1990s to an average of more than a million a year. That was up from just over 300,000 a year in the 1960s and 600,000 a year by the 1980s. When the number of illegal immigrants is added to this, the total inflow during the 1990s was approximately 12 million. That compares with 500,000 in the 1930s. Crowded Land of Liberty examines how this developed into a crisis contributing to overcrowded schools, soaring demand for social services, new burdens on taxpayers, increased urban congestion, and heightened job competition. The author explains how recent waves of immigration differ from those of earlier eras, and he explores new public policy alternatives.


Post 1

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 7:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's one of several things I do for money, yes.

JR


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 12:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Not allowed to talk about." Right. Free-speech standards in the U.S. will never catch up to those of Chomsky's beloved Vietnam.

Post 3

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 9:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thats one man I would love to see a video of running down the street and getting shot by someone. He defines sedition

Post 4

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 10:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Do you support our policy? That's the one you're not allowed to talk about

As despicable as Noam Chomsky is, he makes a good point.  One can not be 'for the troops' but 'against the war' and remain internally consistent.  Yet plenty of people who oppose the war in Iraq are more than happy to drive around with those ribbons on their cars.  It makes me want to print a bumbersticker that says

I support our troops and thier cause

Michael F Dickey


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 10:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In this case, Chomsky is right. "Support our troops" is a classic propaganda slogan, and for the reasons he says. The real issue is whether you support the occupation, not the troops. "Support the troops" turns the issue into whether you wish good or ill of group of soldiers, who may be your countrymen. It is a shorthand way of saying that if you don't support the mission the soldiers have been assigned to, you wish them ill and therefore you are unpatriotic and maybe even a traitor. It is a slogan that justifies any war, any time, by any government.

Post 6

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 12:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"That's the one you're not allowed to talk about."

Not being allowed to talk about something is very different that not getting a positive reaction when you talk about something. I remember Madonna responding to criticism of her anti-war song by saying how awful it was that she didn't have the freedom to talk about her viewpoint, when in fact she had just released a WHOLE DAMN SONG about her viewpoint and was at that very moment BEING INTERVIEWED about her viewpoint. People confuse freedom with acceptance. All but the most banal viewpoints is going to generate some dissent, but receiving criticism does not mean you are not allowed to talk about it. When people moan about their freedom of speech, the mean they want everyone to listen and accept what they say.

On the quote's subject, he says that good propaganda is meaningless. Not true. Effective propaganda aims for a strong emotional reaction that blots out reason and solidifies people into a single way of thinking. I like wikipedia's explanation:

"The aim of propaganda is to influence people's opinions actively, rather than to merely communicate the facts about something.... propaganda is often presented in a way that attempts to deliberately evoke a strong emotion, especially by suggesting non-logical (or non-intuitive) relationships between concepts."

"Support our troops" is meaningless, and as a result not very good propaganda. Yuppies attaching magnetic yellow ribbons to their SUVs are not supporting a particular viewpoint. They are doing a popular thing that has little meaning, and therefore little influence, over how they think.

Edited to add: It can be spun as "if you don't support war you don't support the troops" but I've also seen it as "I support the troops and therefore want them home and NOT at war." Better propaganda is less ambiguous.
(Edited by Angela Lucas
on 6/23, 12:40pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 1:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think he's on to something.  Listen to any modern day American thug politician, Bush, Clinton, take your pick and basically all of their speeches can be summed up as 'I'm for good and against evil'  all platitudes and sound bites -- 'I believe education in important'  'Children are our future'  'I believe the people of Iraq should be free' but what they aren't doing is talking about their philosophical positions or the details of their proposals except in the most brief of ways, that almost never gets talked about in any detail on TV by pundits or in the newspapers.  And frankly I have always gotten a strong impression that they really don't want to and want the discussion to be as uninformed and one-dimensional as possible.  How do you think people like Bush and Clinton get elected in the first place?  They appeal to emotion and familiarity.  Whether people can have the discussion or not is besides the point -- are people having the discussion beyond sound-bites and are the right people having the discussion and in the right venues.   

Post 8

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 5:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Comedian Bill Hicks once said he supported the first Gulf War, but was against the troops.

Post 9

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 5:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Some people are missing the quintessential Chomskyism in this quote. Saying "that's the one you're not allowed to talk about" is far more insidiously propagandistic than any "support the troops" slogan. It is an absolutely false -- and therefore, nonsensical -- statement that is meant to support anti-Americansim by suggesting counterfactual conspiracies.

You can possibly make an argument about "support the troops" -- similar to the argument Linz makes in defense of his term "Saddamite." But there is absolutely no excuse or justification for claiming that "you are not allowed to talk about" matters of policy in the United States of America.

Alec

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.