Chomsk- down

So, the truth about Chomsky has been a large part of my family discussion at supper time when I go home for the weekend during the school year. My father doesn't believe his efforts. But then again my father has beef with a lot of my beliefs. It was brought to my attention that he and I are different quite obtusely in my Environmental Management class last year when the professor, said that the strangest circumstance would be if your father worked on an oil rig and was sponsoring your education in environment at McGill. Well, that hit pretty close to home. My father, Giles- a somewhat frigid but at times delightful English man- is a senior petroleum geologist for Northern and Indian affairs. He works for the government and is presently pushing a pretty good case for the MacKenzie Delta pipeline project. This debate has been going on for a long time- he's worked for the past decade at least on the project and only now are the debates going on. I see them in the newspaper all the time. Anyways, he's pretty into it. On the other side, there are a bunch of environmental lobbyists that are pushing to have the project closed because of severe environmental consequences. Not to mention, the aboriginals up there want their fair cut of the benefits which, as we have seen throughout the world and in our class, if really hard to compliment with an adequate budget. Needless to say that we kind of clash heads on the subject. However, every time we bring it up he reminds me that he is paying for my tuition. My point is that we shall never really agree, and sometimes its better to keep quiet.

So, the discussion on Chomsky is not trite. He believes that language and the manner in which the media is constructed creates a status quo of misinformation. Here we shall discuss his efforts beyond linguistics, though I will not take these as benign. His work in that area does really apply to us here. What is more important is his critical approach to the media and to politics in general. My father says he's radical and most people would agree with him. However, his approach mirrors the manner in which I have come to understand the current international order and the way in which the hierarchical status quo maintains this system. Through various devices, the news and the general media have created an environment where "truth" becomes a rather subjective mechanism to instill certain values and thought processes into the general population who are lacking their own devices to question and/or fight back against the assumed information. This creates an environment of misinformation.

Case in point: Don't take the truth for granted.
Second Case in point: Don’t confuse fact and fiction.

This may seem an adequate and simplistic conclusion for a group of students that are constantly rummaging through ideas and theories, and questioning the validity or strength of various biases. Still, sometimes our conclusions are not the obvious ones. The creation of misinformation or the control of the way ideas are instigated helps companies and multinational corporations gain capital by supporting this idea of "democracy" and freedom" in a capitalist system that exploits the developing world. At this point, there is a needed influx of information from alternative sources that allows us to maintain a subjective point of view rather than leading us with biased, or withheld information. It is important to realize that the critical eye has had enough with the glut of lies that has been labeled as truth by the US government.

An example: all the wars that we have entered

Chomsky is considered a political dissident in the United States for his stance on foreign policy strategies abroad and the manner in which there have been several incidents of double standard within the country itself.
(A good example to bring up here might be the recent resignation of Donald Rumsfeld and the subsequent debate over his involvement in what some might deem "acts of war", i.e. there is a law suit against him that claims that he has violated both the U.S. Constitution and international laws against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. This example shows the double standard. The consequence of the current system is that Rumsfeld will probably not be tried for his actions, and thus will not be held responsible. If the United States cannot show leadership in the field where it puts so much money and effort, how can its actions be legitimized in the international arena? )

The most important point I think for Chomsky is that the US says it promotes freedom and democracy in all of its efforts, but in fact, US foreign policy is based around strategy and the way in which it wants its interests answered. This has given them incentive to further their efforts in globalization and further exploitation and marginalization of the third world. Rather than help in overcoming economic tensions, they perpetuate them.

Chomsky argues that the current US system has three arms: the media, the government and the economy, and that all three support each other. Through propaganda, there becomes this ideal of conformity where it becomes very hard to question the legitimacy of the government. Chomsky uses the word “flak” to characterize the concerted and intentional efforts to manage public information. This creates a propaganda model, a theory that alleges systematic biases in the mass media and seek to explain them in terms of structural economic causes. Chomsky is a strong advocate for free speech and supports alternative media sources. Granted that alternative media also have their own biases, the information they dispel does not need to be associated to a profit margin, product sales, etc. We must look at them critically, but the plethora of different sources now allows us to make our own decisions and look into the matter in the way that we want to achieve a new view of the subject, rather than it being imposed on us.

The following link has been my homepage for the last 7 years. It was suggested to me by a dear teacher of mine named Bertram Young who taught sociology and development at John Abbott College in the West Island. Unfortunately, during my last year at that school, Bert was in a horrific car accident which stole his life. The ironic thing was that he was an avide supporter of taking his bicycle everywhere he went, rather than taking a vehicle. This was countered when his wife was admitted to the hospital for some breathing difficulties. Upon one of his drives to the hospital, he was hit by a drunk driver that was coming back from a college night out. Bert's determination and positive drive for change will always support the source of my inquisitive nature. His pursuit in deconstructing the pros and cons of development agencies pushed me to do what I am doing today.

Feature site:
http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm