| От | Alexandr |
| К | Alex |
| Дата | 07.08.2000 23:37:00 |
| Рубрики | Прочее; |
re: Георгию, за Хомского - спасибо
Alexandr (07.08.2000 23:37:00)| От | Vladimir |
| К | |
| Дата | 14.08.2000 09:11:00 |
Вот ссылки на работы Хомского в сети
Noam Chomsky некоторые работы и линки:
www.middleeast.org/1999_01_25.htm - "The hypocricy of it al" (Monthly Magazine,
January, 1999) - Общая статья про США (написана еще до войны)
www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/9903-current_bombings.htm - "The Current Bombings:
Behind the Rhetoric " - про бомбардировки Косова
www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/Noam_Chomsky.html - здесь можно найти много
чрезвычайно ценного материала. (КУЧА более ранних работ)
protest.net/view.cgi?view=1281 - "An Appeal from American Jews to the Green Party of
Germany" by Noam Chomsky et al. (воззвание америк. евреев к партии зеленых
гериании)
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3761/article1.html/ -The True Nature of the "Free
Market" (разбор мифа о "Свободной торговле")
Alexandr (07.08.2000 23:37:00)| От | Alexandr |
| К | |
| Дата | 08.08.2000 00:04:00 |
These are my favorites.
Although Chomsky speaks rather nasty about the USSR. He is even worse than "Voice of America" (being an opposicioner he is more efficien) I some of his articles though.
" Take the New York Times. It’s a corporation and sells a product. The product is audiences. They don’t make money when you buy the newspaper. They are happy to put it on the worldwide web for free. They actually lose money when you buy the newspaper. But the audience is the product. The product is privileged people, just like the people who are writing the newspapers, you know, top-level decision-making people in society. You have to sell a product to a market, and the market is, of course, advertisers (that is, other businesses). Whether it is television or newspapers, or whatever, they are selling audiences. Corporations sell audiences to other corporations. In the case of the elite media, it’s big businesses.
.........
the general population is "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders." We have to keep them out of the public arena because they are too stupid and if they get involved they will just make trouble. Their job is to be "spectators," not "participants."
They are allowed to vote every once in a while, pick out one of us smart guys. But then they are supposed to go home and do something else like watch football or whatever it may be. But the "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders" have to be observers not participants."
"We learn more about the victorious principles by recalling that these same representative figures of liberal intellectual life had urged that Washington's wars must be waged mercilessly, with military support for ``Latin-style fascists,...regardless of how many are murdered,'' because ``there are higher American priorities than Salvadoran human rights.'' Elaborating, editor Michael Kinsley, who represented ``the left'' in mainstream commentary and television debate, cautioned against unthinking criticism of Washington's official policy of attacking undefended civilian targets. Such international terrorist operations cause ``vast civilian suffering,'' he acknowledged, but they may be ``perfectly legitimate'' if ``cost-benefit analysis'' shows that ``the amount of blood and misery that will be poured in'' yields ``democracy,'' as the world rulers define it. Enlightened opinion insists that terror is not a value in itself, but must meet the pragmatic criterion. Kinsley later observed that the desired ends had been achieved: ``impoverishing the people of Nicaragua was precisely the point of the contra war and the parallel policy of economic embargo and veto of international development loans,'' which ``wreck[ed] the economy'' and ``creat[ed] the economic disaster [that] was probably the victorious opposition's best election issue.'' He then joined in welcoming the ``triumph of democracy'' in the ``free election'' of 1990.[25]"http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9709-davie-1.html
"The U.S. alone vetoed the Declaration on the Right to Development, thus implicitly vetoing Article 25 of the UD as well.
It is unnecessary to dwell on the status of Article 25 in the world's richest country, with a poverty level twice that of any other industrial society, particularly severe among children. Almost one in four children under six fell below the poverty line by 1995, far more than other industrial societies, though Britain is gaining ground, with "One in three British babies born in poverty," the press now reports, as "child poverty has increased as much as three-fold since Margaret Thatcher was elected" and "up to 2 million British children are suffering ill-health and stunted growth because of malnutrition." Thatcherite programs reversed the trend to improved child health and led to an upswing of childhood diseases that had been controlled, while public funds are used for such purposes as illegal projects in Turkey and Malaysia to foster arms sales by state-subsidized industry. In accord with "really existing free market doctrine," public spending after 17 years of Thatcherite gospel is the same 42 1/4% of GDP that it was when she took over.
In the U.S., subjected to similar policies, 30 million people suffered from hunger by 1990, an increase of 50% from 1985, including 12 million children lacking sufficient food to maintain growth and development (before the 1991 recession). 40% of children in the world's richest city fell below the poverty line. In terms of such basic social indicators as child mortality, the U.S. ranks well below any other industrial country, right alongside of Cuba, which has less than 5% the GNP per capita of the United States and has undergone many years of terrorist attack and increasingly severe economic warfare at the hands of the hemispheric superpower."
Alexandr (07.08.2000 23:37:00)| От | Сысой |
| К | |
| Дата | 08.08.2000 08:45:00 |
Замечательно!
В принципе можно начать и со статей - все быстрее будет и без книжной воды.