dagblog - Comments for "Deconstruction-leave it to a linguist to do it right "

Good point, Emma. Maybe not

Red Planet — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 02:20:30 +0000

In reply to I dunno. I like Chomsky but

Good point, Emma. Maybe not PC but a good point.

In my 1940s-50s white, middle-class, segregated southern childhood, Geronimo was one of the heros.

Security is a bug, not a

jollyroger — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 02:15:53 +0000

In reply to Whatever the motive was, it

Security is a bug, not a feature

Ahh, the cave, the wall, the

jollyroger — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 02:13:51 +0000

In reply to If you dig Gregory (and I

Ahh, the cave, the wall, the shadows...

I think the analogy goes to

jollyroger — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 02:11:29 +0000

In reply to I dunno. I like Chomsky but

I think the analogy goes to the choppers

I dunno. I like Chomsky but

EmmaZahn — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:30:00 +0000

In reply to Deconstruction-leave it to a linguist to do it right

I dunno. I like Chomsky but I am not convinced that calling the operation Geronimo traces back any further than to shouting Geronimo when parachuting from airplanes or when charging into a light-brigade scenario. It was a common trope when playing cowboys and indians as a child. Cowboy movies and television programs were as common then as CSI programs are now. With the disappearance of hostile American Indians from from popular culture, how many of today's military can even connect Geronimo with Apache.

Sure the linguistic roots of the words are in the conquest of native peoples but the use of them militarily and in sports usually signifies a respect for specific individuals and tribes as well as their warrior cultures. Not at all the same thing as the Luftwaffe using Jew or Gypsy.

Whatever the motive was, it

Anonymous — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:07:33 +0000

In reply to Deconstruction-leave it to a linguist to do it right

Whatever the motive was, it could hardly have been security. As in the case of the “supreme international crime” in Iraq, the bin Laden assassination is another illustration of the important fact that security is often not a high priority for state action, contrary to received doctrine.

If you dig Gregory (and I

moat — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:32:00 +0000

In reply to Well, I'm not sure I quite

If you dig Gregory (and I do), then it is enough to say that the enemy of your enemy may not be your friend.

Maybe it would be helpful to regard the German air force component you refer to as a precursor of a certain kind. Like those unintended consequences neo-cons (Hitchens, Rumsfeld, and Clinton, etc.) trouble themselves with. In other words, it is not the case that using a powerful tool is a guarantee of a result. There is a misplaced sense of confidence in the use of tools that is influencing outcomes.

Any attempt to reflect upon rhetoric requires a reality, a location outside the cave. That is what should be worked upon. The rest is dross.

Well, I'm not sure I quite

jollyroger — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:18:53 +0000

In reply to I don't agree that there is

Well, I'm not sure I quite have my arms around your point, but. parenthetically, ever since Gregory Bateson died, I always figured it was between Me, Noam, and Ray Kurzweil (Yes, I have an inflated estimate of my own intellect-so sue me...) and I'm thinkin I can outlast Noam but maybe not Ray...That said, I thought the bit about the Luftwaffe was a real gem.

I don't agree that there is

moat — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:43:52 +0000

In reply to Deconstruction-leave it to a linguist to do it right

I don't agree that there is an immediately given take-away, like a fish sandwich at a drive-thru, because Chomsky pointed out the package used to deliver the sandwich. But he does do a good job of explaining why the process pissed off so many people.