Chomsky is giving a lecture for Amnesty International in the RDS tomorrow.
Have researched him a bit on the web opinion ranges from genus to commie traitor. Thought manufacturing consent is a great book as is his one on 911.
He makes good arguements but seems to be the only person making them, except for maybe George Manibot.
Any opinions on him?
If anyone has a ticket for this. I will pay top dollar
do you have any information on the lexture?
Time, do you need a ticket etc. Presumably he will be talking about the abuse of human rights.
I'd say all the tickets are gone. Amnesty members got priotity. The demand was so much they had to move it from Trinity to the RDS.
Described by The New Yorker as 'one of the greatest minds of the 20th century', Noam Chomsky will give the 2006 Amnesty Lecture in the Shelbourne Hall, RDS D.4 at 7pm on January 18th, the theme of which will be 'The War on Terror'.
Please note the change of venue.
Please be aware that all tickets for the Noam Chomsky lecture have now been allocated. You are welcome to contact us to enter your name on the waiting list.
Please be patient as we are handling an unprecedented number of calls and emails. In the event of cancellation by any of our members, your name will move up the list. Priority is still for Amnesty members.
Tickets will be sent by post on or before January 11th.
Amnesty International is filming the lecture and will make it available in due course. Recording or filming of the event is therefore not possible. We are in the process of making the lecture available on the web. For further details, please refer back to this web page, which will continue to be updated.
AFAIR, it's free but because it's Chomsky booking was essential.
I myself failed to book
Only what I've read recently.
Richard Delevan wrote a very thought-provoking piece Anti-Chomsky piece in the Sunday Tribune a couple of weeks ago. Thought-provoking, only because it was so full of vitriol, describing all who might demur from accepted American wisdom concerning the 'War on Terror' as 'nipple-pierced Dalkey-reared skate rats' that it prompted one to investigate his claims using the power of Google.
Hardly surprisingly, Delevan was for the most part talking through his backside , as a lengthy letter to the editor published in the following week's paper made clear.
A much better piece appeared in the Times more recently which was fairer to Chomsky but offered the reasonable criticism that 'he's great at identifying wrongs but not so good at suggesting solutions.'
As a vocal critic of America's aggressive expansionist foreign policy and its consequent support for murderous regimes, as long as they're 'our' murderous regimes, he is regarded by many in the US as a traitor.
Others find him to be an articulate, eloquent and courageous example of the best in the American civic model, one who is constantly self-critical and demands that America live up to the noble standards set for its government in its Constitution and Laws.
I personally would rather Chomsky over any of those towel-head-hating, cheeseburger-arsed frat boys who infest the cable news channels, Weblogs and, occasionally, the opinion pages of Irish newspapers.
I think that's part of it, Part of the problem with Chomsky is that his critics often offer nothing better then vitrol to challenge him. Another critism I find with chomsky is that he live's in a bubble to some extent, most of the questions put to him often only seek to enforce the dogma that surounds the various cause's attracted to him.
If anyone here do's go, think of something good if there is a q&a, Im sure he's probably sick of the same questions about how bad policys were etc, etc. He's probably dieing for a good argument
If you enjoy sly omissions, grave distortions, historical errors, fabricated quotes, and scholarly fakery, then Chomsky is certainly your man. I remember one infamous example where he cited *himself* as a source to back up his argument in one of his books.
No wonder historian Arthur Schlesinger called him 'an intellectual crook'.
Given his support for the totalitarianism of people like Pol Pot, and for Holocaust revisionists, then I would suggest that attributing his anti-US diatribes as being rooted in a noble belief in some US ideal is naive in the extreme.
This isn't the forum for requesting tickets. And even over on the FS Tickets section, paying more than face value (in this case nothing) isn't allowed either I'm afraid.
Just in case anyone else wants to use this as a ticket request thread, discussion thread is fine.
That's a fairly heft accusation. I assume that you do of course have linkage to support this accusation
Incidentally, is anyone else here going to the lecture?
He seems to cite a lot more than your average political books must be the scientific training. Calling him anti-US etc seems to come from his opposition to the Iraqi war and American actions in Nicaragua and Guatemala. Also calling him pro-Pol Pot etc is simplistic, its the "your against the war in Iraq so you must support Saddam and think he's great" arguement.
The man is a self-described anarchist, with no greater qualifications in the realm of international (or domestic) politics than I do.
He may be a recognised genius in his professional field of linguistics, but I really think he receives far more attention than he deserves.
So how was the speech anyway?
If you type Noam Chomsky into google it explodes!
I did find this amusing passage from his bio
Not to mention
Of course saying this at the time of the Cultural Revoltion suggests Chomsky was'nt paying much attention.
Away with the fairies then...however the usual suspects will pack the place out and whoop and cheer in all the right places. I wonder if he'll do any media work (Late Late Show, Prime Time etc) while he's here?
Isn't 3/4 of his lectuers here about linguistics etc, anyway, that's his day job.
i think some people are going to very disappointed if the go to the wrong lecture