NYT Article: Police Surveillance of Cyclists as Political Dissidents

[Bill Sornson]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>>
>> But you apparently think that "people are fundamentally stupid and
>> sheep-like and largely complicit in their own repression and
>> ignorance", so Chomsky changes their very nature?!?
>>
>> Typical elitist left-wing arrogance.
>>
>> Bill "by the way, he's not alone in that inability to control
>> emotions (primarily anger) thing" S.
>>
>>
> From the Wikipedia article:
>
> In Chomsky's view there is little reason to believe that academics are
> more inclined to engage in profound thought than other members of
> society and that the designation "intellectual" obscures the truth of
> the intellectual division of labour: "These are funny words actually,
> I mean being an 'intellectual' has almost nothing to do with working
> with your mind; these are two different things. My suspicion is that
> plenty of people in the crafts, auto mechanics and so on, probably do
> as much or more intellectual work as people in the universities.
> There are plenty of areas in academia where what's called 'scholarly'
> work is just clerical work, and I don't think clerical work's more
> challenging than fixing an automobile engine—in fact, I think the
> opposite... So if by 'intellectual' you mean people who are using
> their minds, then it's all over society." (Understanding Power, p. 96)

Tell it to r15704274518... (The quote was HIS, not Chomsky's.)

 

[Bill Sornson]

max wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> [oy!]
>
> did you breathe while you wrote that, or are you a rilly fast typist?

Boilerplate.

 

[Mike Kruger]

"SB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:52:11 +0000, Mike Kruger wrote:
>
>>>
>> In linguistics, Chomsky is a bona-finbe genius. Genius isn't all that
>> transferrable, however. Just because you have achieved brilliance in an
>> academic field does not mean you are brilliant in all fields, or even
>> more
>> than one. In politics, Chomsky is on the far, far fringe.
>
> No, he's not. He's right on. He seems on the fringe because
> the rest of the western world is disgustingly to the right. Peace, love
> and understanding are only for songs and peoples' personal inner circles
> in our current corporate dominated society where ignorance and selfishness
> prevails.
>
I said Chomsky is far from the mainstream of political thought.
You said Chomsky is far from the mainstream of political thought.
We seem to be in agreement.
A Merry Christmas (or other Holiday as appropriate) to you, me, and Chomsky.

 

[Mike Kruger]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> ... his writings contain much
> more detail and fact-based scholarship than is typical, and this is
> useful scholarship that unfortunately is obscured by the 'message.' ...

Didn't agree with all of it, but enjoyed your post -- particularly this
point.

 

[Mike Kruger]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:uPWqf.7510
>
> Now if you don't consider Chomsky a liberal, then, well... never mind.
>
Personally, I wouldn't say Chomsky is a liberal.

I wouldn't say ****** was a conservative, or Stalin was a liberal, either.

There are many colors of the political spectrum besides "conservative" and
"liberal".

 

[Mike Kruger]

"Paul Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Kruker wrote:
>
>> In linguistics, Chomsky is a bona-finbe genius. Genius isn't all that
>> transferrable, however.
>
> Yeah, I suppose you could say William Shockley was a genius at physics,
> but that doesn't mean there was any wisdom in his social and political
> views.
>
Exactly! Thanks for the example.

 

[Mike Kruger]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> 3) 'Americans don't do irony', or so I have heard.
>
You heard wrong.

<http://www.investor.reuters.com/business/IndustryOverview.aspx?industry=ISTEEL&target=%2Fbusiness%2Fbussecindustry%2Fbussecindfake%2Fbussecindoverview>
"The US is the worlds third largest producer of crude steel, after China and
Japan, manufacturing over 9% of total global output in 2004. However, steel
consumption in the US far outweighs production, meaning that the US is a net
steel importer."

So, we don't do enough irony, and have to import some from the U.K. (where
irony is always in surplus, or so I have heard). But we produce quite a
lot.

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:

> people who are miserable and fearful don't tend to buy toys.

>From what I have read the opposite is very often true, mnay people buy
consumer good because they are unhappy and have empty meaningless
lives. 'Retail therapy' and all that.


> People also said Bush attacked Iraq for "political gain". Hell, it nearly
> cost him the election...

OK, to be more accurate it was in the interests of those who have the
real power for the American military machine to invade Iraq and so Bush
helped them to make this possible. After all this is all part of 'the
deal'. I.e. 'We get a bozo like you into the Whitehouse, but in return
once you are there you will dance to our tune.' People like Bush are
expendable and the corporate machine will simply fund the election of
another puppet next time round if his popularity ratings get too low.
Hell, to make doubly sure they fund both 'parties' so they can't lose
as whoever wins will be beholding to them once in 'power'...

 

[[email protected]]

Mike Kruger wrote:

> > 3) 'Americans don't do irony', or so I have heard.
> >
> You heard wrong.
>
> "The US is the worlds third largest producer of crude steel, after China and
> Japan, manufacturing over 9% of total global output in 2004. However, steel
> consumption in the US far outweighs production, meaning that the US is a net
> steel importer."
>
> So, we don't do enough irony, and have to import some from the U.K. (where
> irony is always in surplus, or so I have heard). But we produce quite a
> lot.

Ha ha ha ha. Good one!

That said, it is ironic that you should bring up the subject of irony,
sorry iron, given that Bush imposed illegal tariffs on steel imports
(including British steel) back in 2002. Yet another example of the USA
ignoring international agreements when it suits it...

Daily Telegraph 05/03/2002
Bush risks trade war with tariffs on steel
By Toby Harnden in Washington, Sarah Womack and Sophie Barker

PRESIDENT BUSH risked provoking a trade war with Europe last night when
he imposed tariffs of up to 30 per cent on steel imports despite a
last-minute appeal by Tony Blair not to damage British interests. The
tariffs, ranging from eight per cent to 30 per cent, take effect on
March 20 and cover flat-rolled steel and other steel product imports
from Europe and around the world. Mr Blair's spokesman said: "We
recognise the US steel industry has to restructure, but we do not
believe it is in the interests of the world economy that it should
impose tariffs."

....Under Mr Bush's plan, steel imported from Canada and Mexico will be
exempt from the duties, as will imports from developing countries such
as Argentina, Thailand and Turkey. Corus, created from the merger of
British Steel with the Dutch Hoogovens, will be more affected than its
European rivals by American steel tariffs or quotas.

America is the second largest export market for Corus after Europe. The
company sends 740,000 tonnes of steel there a year, four per cent of
its total annual production...

EU officials have indicated that tariffs could result in Europe
imposing its own restrictions on imports from the US. Any levy is
expected to be challenged at the World Trade Organisation.Digby Jones,
the CBI director general, warned that imposing tariffs in the US would
put British jobs at risk and could lead to foreign steel firms selling
products to countries other than America, including the UK.

"The US should be setting an example to the world about what free trade
really means," he said. "It means global free trade, not American free
trade."

 

[[email protected]]

Mike Kruger wrote:
>
> This reminds me of a story from a few years ago, that a Chinese
> "intelligence" agent in the US had picked up a copy of the Onion (a
> midwestery satire newspaper) and reported its military speculations as fact.
> This led to a minor diplomatic tiff between China and the U.S., until the
> source of the "intelligence" was discovered.

So, as a cyclist do you think passages such as the following are
genuinely funny or do they perhaps risk validating what many people who
are hostle to cyclists already think...

'Bicycles have their proper place, and that place is under small boys
delivering evening papers.'

'the people I see on bicycles look like organic-gardening zealots who
advocate federal regulation of bedtime and want American foreign policy
to be dictated by UNICEF.'

'Bicycles are quiet and slight, difficult for normal motorized humans
to see and hear. People pull out in front of bicycles, open car doors
in their path, and drive through intersections filled with the things.
The insubstantial bicycle and its unshielded rider are defenseless
against these actions. It's a simple matter of natural selection...'

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote in part:
> ...The money from
> the sale of Iraqii oil goes into a trust fund that is the property of
> the Iraqii people. Several plans are being evaluated, and one llikely
> one involves each citizen getting a yearly check from the proceeds.
> Hardly theft on the grand scale you imagine.

Ha! Where's MY check? Before the invasion this
administration claimed over and over that the entire
debacle would be paid for by Iraqi oil. WHOOPS.

> Support of dictatorships around the world during the Cold War was a
> complicated issue, with in some cases very unfortunate consequences. At
> the time the options were limited, with the destruction of the world
> the result of a wrong move. Now that the Cold War is over, and the
> dynamic has changed, the situation no longer limits the US to having to
> suppport such dictators.

Then why do we still do it?

> Which is a good thing. The only long-term
> solution to peace in the world is the elimination of repressive,
> non-democratic regimes. Free societies do not attack each other. As
> outlined in the Bush Doctrine, the pursuit of this goal is the policy
> of the US.

What a joke. Open your eyes. US policy involves support for
non-democratic regimes in the Middle East, Central Asia, the Far
East and Africa.

> It is clear I am not going to change your mind, and you are not
going
to change mine.

You might change your mind after doing some research.

Robert

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> people who are miserable and fearful don't tend to buy toys.

>> From what I have read the opposite is very often true, mnay people
>> buy
> consumer good because they are unhappy and have empty meaningless
> lives. 'Retail therapy' and all that.

I think you're confusing depressed with oppressed.


>> People also said Bush attacked Iraq for "political gain". Hell, it
>> nearly cost him the election...

> OK, to be more accurate it was in the interests of those who have the
> real power for the American military machine to invade Iraq and so
> Bush helped them to make this possible. After all this is all part of
> 'the deal'. I.e. 'We get a bozo like you into the Whitehouse, but in
> return once you are there you will dance to our tune.' People like
> Bush are expendable and the corporate machine will simply fund the
> election of another puppet next time round if his popularity ratings
> get too low. Hell, to make doubly sure they fund both 'parties' so
> they can't lose as whoever wins will be beholding to them once in
> 'power'...

Cue the Snidly Whiplash theme and twirl that pointy mustache!

Bill "bwa-ha-ha (evil laugh representation)" S.

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] writes:

> So, as a cyclist do you think passages such as the following are
> genuinely funny or do they perhaps risk validating what many people who
> are hostle to cyclists already think...

The P.J. O'Rourke article pretty much follows the
rec.autos.driving party line. It's all very
unoriginal stuff, oft-repeated over the last
century and well into this one. So the validating
is already done. We've been stuck with these attitudes
probably since bicycles were invented.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[[email protected]]

Tom Keats wrote:

> The P.J. O'Rourke article pretty much follows the rec.autos.driving party line...

Exactly! But the question remains, is it genuine satire or is its
intention, at best, just to give the car-centric a cheap laugh by
playing up to their prejudices?

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote in part:
>> ...The money from
>> the sale of Iraqii oil goes into a trust fund that is the property of
>> the Iraqii people. Several plans are being evaluated, and one llikely
>> one involves each citizen getting a yearly check from the proceeds.
>> Hardly theft on the grand scale you imagine.
>
> Ha! Where's MY check? Before the invasion this
> administration claimed over and over that the entire
> debacle would be paid for by Iraqi oil. WHOOPS.

And if it did (or eventually does), you'll say we stole from the Iraqi
people. Convenient no-win.

Bill "ride time" S.

 

[Tony Raven]

Tom Keats wrote:
>
> The P.J. O'Rourke article pretty much follows the
> rec.autos.driving party line. It's all very
> unoriginal stuff, oft-repeated over the last
> century and well into this one. So the validating
> is already done. We've been stuck with these attitudes
> probably since bicycles were invented.
>
>

ITYM since cars were invented ;-)

"Toad the terror, the traffic-queller, the Lord of the lone
trail, before whom all must give way or be smitten into nothingness
and everlasting night."
Wind in the Willows, Kenneth Graham

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Ha! Where's MY check? Before the invasion this
> > administration claimed over and over that the entire
> > debacle would be paid for by Iraqi oil. WHOOPS.
>
> And if it did (or eventually does), you'll say we stole from the Iraqi
> people. Convenient no-win.

Ah yes. 'No-win.' That's a good way to describe
this war as it was conceived by the civilian
ideologues who took us there. But what Americans
will be held accountable, other than soldiers I mean?

Robert

 

[di]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
>> The P.J. O'Rourke article pretty much follows the rec.autos.driving party
>> line...
>
> Exactly! But the question remains, is it genuine satire or is its
> intention, at best, just to give the car-centric a cheap laugh by
> playing up to their prejudices?
>


Is anyone else tired of this fruitcake?

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Ha! Where's MY check? Before the invasion this
>>> administration claimed over and over that the entire
>>> debacle would be paid for by Iraqi oil. WHOOPS.
>>
>> And if it did (or eventually does), you'll say we stole from the
>> Iraqi people. Convenient no-win.
>
> Ah yes. 'No-win.' That's a good way to describe
> this war as it was conceived by the civilian
> ideologues who took us there. But what Americans
> will be held accountable, other than soldiers I mean?

Wait for it.

Bill "now it's REALLY ride time" S.

 

[Tony Raven]

[email protected] wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Ermmm. You do know that P J O'Rourke is a famous satirist, formerly of
>> National Lampoon and Rolling Stone, don't you.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, of course. But reading it much of the humour seems about as thin
> as that of Jeremy Clarkson when he 'jokes' about cyclists being 'lefty
> museli munchers' or how he will run cyclists down 'for fun' if the get
> in his way at traffic lights.
>

You won't enjoy his proposals for Public Transport in the WSJ then.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006428


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham