For a guy thats supposedly really smart Ive often wondered why he can't see the fairly obvious evidence of conspiracy. Makes one wonder if hes purposely trying to thwart the effort to find the truth.
Chomskys logic is basically that the conspirators would have realized that trying to assassinate Kennedy was way too risky so they would never have tried it.
This is an attempt to claim that everyone is cautious and that there are no people out there that engage in dangerous behavior. A simple look at the wide spectrum of behaviors that humans engage in would show this to be incorrect.
When you look at Operation Northwoods its hard to imagine a more risky plan yet the joint chiefs were willing to try it and they even signed their names to the documents. Curtis Lemay was known to have overflown Russian airspace during the 1950s in an attempt to provoke the Russians and had advocated the use of of a nuke strike. Talk about risky.
Chomskys logic falls flat. There are and have been crazy people out there in high positions of power that are not risk averse in the least.
Welcome to the forum, Steve. If history teaches us anything, it's that people in positions of power are generally risk-takers, often recklessly so. Most of the Kennedy men certainly qualify (especially the father and Joe Jr.), along with every other powerful, wealthy family. Go back to Alexander the Great, Hannibal, various Roman emperors, Napoleon, Hitler, etc. They have a very inflated opinion of themselves and their infalibility. Sometimes they become downright delusional. The CIA-led coups in Iran and Guatemala were basically giant bluffs using propaganda to great effect.
Chomsky just has ideological blinders that prevent him from fitting conspiracies into his framework.
Steve Minnerly Wrote:For a guy thats supposedly really smart Ive often wondered why he can't see the fairly obvious evidence of conspiracy. Makes one wonder if hes purposely trying to thwart the effort to find the truth.
Chomskys logic is basically that the conspirators would have realized that trying to assassinate Kennedy was way too risky so they would never have tried it.
This is an attempt to claim that everyone is cautious and that there are no people out there that engage in dangerous behavior. A simple look at the wide spectrum of behaviors that humans engage in would show this to be incorrect.
When you look at Operation Northwoods its hard to imagine a more risky plan yet the joint chiefs were willing to try it and they even signed their names to the documents. Curtis Lemay was known to have overflown Russian airspace during the 1950s in an attempt to provoke the Russians and had advocated the use of of a nuke strike. Talk about risky.
Chomskys logic fall flat. There are and have been crazy people out there in high positions of power that are not risk averse in the least.
Steve, if you haven't read it, take a look at:
http://www.ctka.net/reviews/Chomsky_Sick...genio.html
It's not about the assassination per se, but about his resistance to any notion that JFK's policies differed from those of other "liberals" of his time. It's an old argument, reinforced by Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest (see
http://www.ctka.net/2011/Halberstam_pt1.html,
http://www.ctka.net/2011/Halberstam_Pt2.html); it's a line we have heard over and over again in The Nation (Alexander Cockburn). Chomsky and Cockburn represent its most extreme forms.
I really have such mixed feelings about his politics, much of which I agree with. And of course, being in computer science, the debt which programming lanugage theory owes him is very big as well.
Tracy Riddle Wrote:Chomsky just has ideological blinders that prevent him from fitting conspiracies into his framework.
He's not the only one. I would say most of the academic Left shares this Popperian view, or some post-structuralist/neo-marxist Foucault-influenced admixture which sees history as subject to impersonal, structural forces and fault lines and not in terms of individual agents, whether singular or collective.
Tracy wrote - They have a very inflated opinion of themselves and their infalibility.
_________________________________________________
Ah now why didn't i think of that point. Excellent observation. On other forums i have noted that those that make a lot of money or who are in high positions of power often have inflated egos.
I think you just came up with a far better reason for discounting Chomskys logic than i did.
Oh and many thanks for the welcome. I'm rather intimidated being around some of the renowned researchers that populate this forum. When I read their stuff I begin to realize that the depth of their knowledge is astounding and I am a bit scared of making a stupid mistake and looking like a fool.
Ever since that fatal day back in 1985 when i first became interested in the JFK assassination i have become obsessed with it. I cannot understand anyone that would claim it's not interesting but to each their own.
Steve Minnerly Wrote:When I read their stuff I begin to realize that the depth of their knowledge is astounding and I am a bit scared of making a stupid mistake and looking like a fool.
Steve, welcome from me, too, though I don't really have the weight of a regular here. I empathize entirely with the above statement.
Quote:Ever since that fatal day back in 1985 when i first became interested in the JFK assassination i have become obsessed with it.
Easy to do ...
Albert wrote - And of course, being in computer science,
__________________________________________________
Thats wonderful Albert
I got my computer science degree back in 2000 (at the age of 46 ) just in time for the dot com crash. Unfortunately after the crash i was not "senior level" and was never able to obtain employment in the field again.
But one door closes and another opens. I have since returned to my original interest in classical guitar which would be a bit more interesting if i could just make money at it but as Warhol said "the real artists are the ones not making money from their art".
Albert wrote - Steve, welcome from me
_______________________________________________
Many thanks Albert. I already like this place.
Steve Minnerly Wrote:Albert wrote - And of course, being in computer science,
__________________________________________________
Thats wonderful Albert
I got my computer science degree back in 2000 (at the age of 46 ) just in time for the dot com crash. Unfortunately after the crash i was not "senior level" and was never able to obtain employment in the field again.
But one door closes and another opens. I have since returned to my original interest in classical guitar which would be a bit more interesting if i could just make money at it but as Warhol said "the real artists are the ones not making money from their art".
Well, my goodness. "Small world" as they say. I used to teach medieval literature and culture, but then decided academia was not for me, so I returned to school in 1998 and got a degree in C.S. as well (in 2001), just in time for the dot-com crash, too. I got involved in distributed/parallel scientific programming (which was not my first interest) largely because of the narrowed opportunities at that moment.
I also have (up until recently) been a rather serious non-professional classical pianist, but that joy has been taken from me of late due to focal dystonia (just as I was finding more time to actually play with others, too -- the irony of fate...)
Albert Rossi Wrote:Steve Minnerly Wrote:Albert wrote - And of course, being in computer science,
__________________________________________________
Thats wonderful Albert
I got my computer science degree back in 2000 (at the age of 46 ) just in time for the dot com crash. Unfortunately after the crash i was not "senior level" and was never able to obtain employment in the field again.
But one door closes and another opens. I have since returned to my original interest in classical guitar which would be a bit more interesting if i could just make money at it but as Warhol said "the real artists are the ones not making money from their art".
Well, my goodness. "Small world" as they say. I used to teach medieval literature and culture, but then decided academia was not for me, so I returned to school in 1998 and got a degree in C.S. as well (in 2001), just in time for the dot-com crash, too. I got involved in distributed/parallel scientific programming (which was not my first interest) largely because of the narrowed opportunities at that moment.
I also have (up until recently) been a rather serious non-professional classical pianist, but that joy has been taken from me of late due to focal dystonia (just as I was finding more time to actually play with others, too -- the irony of fate...)
Boy this is just too much !
Synchronicity in action. I was briefly a Java web developer back when JSPs and EJBs were the thing.
Very sorry to hear about your inability to practice your music . You appear to be very brave in the face of such a struggle. Whenever i encounter difficulties i always remember Proust ( and RFK ) writing about how painful experiences are what we learn the most from in life . Thats actually a very optimistic fact when you think about it.
You are in my prayers. Stay strong my friend.