NYT Article: Police Surveillance of Cyclists as Political Dissidents

wrote in
oups.com:


Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/ny...l?pagewanted=1
&
ei=5094&en=10dca8926beae1ec&hp&ex=1135314000&partn er=homepage


"Undercover New York City police officers have conducted covert
surveillance in the last 16 months of people protesting the Iraq war,
bicycle riders taking part in mass rallies and even mourners at a
street vigil for a cyclist killed in an accident, a series of
videotapes show."


Just more evidence that the USA really has sleep-walked its way into a
state of Corporate Fascism, as argued by commentators ranging from
Noam Chomsky through to the comedian Bill Hicks.

The situation in New York is quite odd. On one hand, we're shoveling
money into bicycle facilities. On the other hand, the City really has
it in for Critical Mass.

The solution to this situation is for Critical Mass to (non)organize
rides to WORK in the MORNING rather than on Friday nights when everyone
is trying to get to the theatre for their $104 shows.



No one can doubt that Chomsky is a bona-fide genius and not just some
'conspiracy nut'. When a young man Chomsky virtually invented modern
linguistics. There is, surprisingly enough, even a useful wikki page
on Chomsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

What kind of bike does he ride, and how long is his commute? In anthro
at school, our professor shared his lab notes about an ape subject named
Nim Chimsky. Any relation?

--ag

Mike Kruger wrote in part:

In linguistics, Chomsky is a bona-finbe genius. Genius isn't all that
transferrable, however. Just because you have achieved brilliance in an
academic field does not mean you are brilliant in all fields, or even more
than one. In politics, Chomsky is on the far, far fringe.

I see him as sort of a 'radical' inflammatory pundit-professor. In the
end, his informative rants are undermined by an inability to control
his emotions (anger, primarily), which leads to an overreaching that is
ultimately fatal to his arguments. To Chomsky, government conspiracy
and thought control determine pretty much everything, there are no
accidents, there is no democratic choice that has any significant role
in shaping events. Obviously not true, but his writings contain much
more detail and fact-based scholarship than is typical, and this is
useful scholarship that unfortunately is obscured by the 'message.' It
is true that the more you know about history of US foreign policy, the
more angry you get, and ol' Noam knows a great deal. But ultimately he
ignores an entire huge portion of the story, namely that people are
fundamentally stupid and sheep-like and largely complicit in their own
repression and ignorance. (In Chomsky-world, people are not born
stupid, they are made and KEPT that way by sneaky govt.
indoctrination.) As a relentless critic of US policy he performs what I
believe to be a vital role in democracy--makes people think and be less
sheep-like.

Robert

thimk

Mike Kruker wrote:

In linguistics, Chomsky is a bona-finbe genius. Genius isn't all that
transferrable, however.

Yeah, I suppose you could say William Shockley was a genius at physics,
but that doesn't mean there was any wisdom in his social and political
views.

--
Paul Turner

"Mike Kruger" wrote in message
et...
wrote in message

Can't you do better than Noam Chomsky and some comedian I've never heard
of?

Yeah, if he can't even spell "Norm", then schkrew him.

wrote:
Mike Kruger wrote in part:

In linguistics, Chomsky is a bona-finbe genius. Genius isn't all
that transferrable, however. Just because you have achieved
brilliance in an academic field does not mean you are brilliant in
all fields, or even more than one. In politics, Chomsky is on the
far, far fringe.

I see him as sort of a 'radical' inflammatory pundit-professor. In the
end, his informative rants are undermined by an inability to control
his emotions (anger, primarily), which leads to an overreaching that
is ultimately fatal to his arguments. To Chomsky, government
conspiracy and thought control determine pretty much everything,
there are no accidents, there is no democratic choice that has any
significant role in shaping events. Obviously not true, but his
writings contain much more detail and fact-based scholarship than is
typical, and this is useful scholarship that unfortunately is
obscured by the 'message.' It is true that the more you know about
history of US foreign policy, the more angry you get, and ol' Noam
knows a great deal. But ultimately he ignores an entire huge portion
of the story, namely that people are fundamentally stupid and
sheep-like and largely complicit in their own repression and
ignorance. (In Chomsky-world, people are not born stupid, they are
made and KEPT that way by sneaky govt. indoctrination.) As a
relentless critic of US policy he performs what I believe to be a
vital role in democracy--makes people think and be less sheep-like.

But you apparently think that "people are fundamentally stupid and
sheep-like and largely complicit in their own repression and ignorance", so
Chomsky changes their very nature?!?

Typical elitist left-wing arrogance.

Bill "by the way, he's not alone in that inability to control emotions
(primarily anger) thing" S.

SB wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:52:11 +0000, Mike Kruger wrote:

In linguistics, Chomsky is a bona-finbe genius. Genius isn't all that
transferrable, however. Just because you have achieved brilliance in an
academic field does not mean you are brilliant in all fields, or even more
than one. In politics, Chomsky is on the far, far fringe.

No, he's not. He's right on. He seems on the fringe because
the rest of the western world is disgustingly to the right. Peace, love
and understanding are only for songs and peoples' personal inner circles
in our current corporate dominated society where ignorance and selfishness
prevails.

IOW, "I and that very small percentage of the population that agrees
with me are centrists. Everyone else is on the fringe and they are all
disgusting, hateful, ignorant, selfish people."

Thank god the "true believers" on both the left and right think that
this type of foaming at the mouth proselytizing is effective
persuasion. That helps prevent their lunacies from spreading.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

cycle-one wrote:

Gee and ere I thought I was the last reactionary.

Does anyone else consider as an added benefit the lack of control the state
can exert by eschewing kars and all the attendant licensing;and living a
cycling life?

Not arf. I've recently (after a four year break) rejoined the "car
owning democracy" as Thatch called it, and have had plenty of time over
the last week to ponder this relationship with the private car.

ISTM that they are both the ultimate in the physical manifestation of
the aspirational ******** we are all conditioned to believe in while at
the same time acting as a really good distraction for the bewildered
herd. People everywhere spend ages moaning about traffic, roads, cameras
etc. while nicely missing the really important things we should all be
bitching about (insert refs to our slide into a totalitarian
dictatorship here).

I agree that being without a car does remove oneself from a whole raft
of govt. interference. As does avoiding air travel.... I can hardly bear
to go into airports these days as they seem to have moved from being
places where one gets on/off an aeroplane to places where you get your
fear levels topped up/reinforced. Coppers with guns? No thanks.

While we (ok, I) are putting the world to rights, may I also add that I
am incredibly ****ed off that I need a passport to get to France.
Indeed, Mrs B on a recent flight from Manchester to Edinburgh was
required to show her passport. "Papers! Papers!" indeed.

Then again, compare my journey to work via cycle and car. On the bike I
get chance to destress and ponder the interconnectedness of all things,
in the car I just feel my life and will to keep kicking slowly ebbing away.

No wonder they don't like cyclists.

Love,

Che

Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/ny...rtner=homepage

Oh my god, the police are WATCHING people in public places! How awful!
yawn

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Bill Sornson wrote:

But you apparently think that "people are fundamentally stupid and
sheep-like and largely complicit in their own repression and ignorance", so
Chomsky changes their very nature?!?

I would say that reading Chomsky or Bill Buckley or David
Brooks or Tierney or Ayn Rand or Nietzsche or Plato or
C.S. Lewis or St. Augustine or Kazantzakis or Michael Herr
or any number of others who somewhat have their s#*! together,
regardless of political leanings, would help folks begin to
overcome what appears to me to be a natural human tendency
toward not knowing, or caring, what in the hell is going on.

Typical elitist left-wing arrogance.

Whatever you say man.

How do you define 'left-wing' and what makes you think
I am part of it?

Robert

wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:

Typical elitist left-wing arrogance.

Whatever you say man.

How do you define 'left-wing' and what makes you think
I am part of it?

I mostly meant the mind-set you ascribe to Chomsky; however, your expressed
views qualify pretty well, too (Read: more liberals think that "people
are fundamentally stupid and sheep-like and largely complicit in their own
repression and ignorance" than do conservatives.)