Which part of your argument you raise is watertight? North Korea announced that it had developed cure for Ebola, Aids and MERS that the South Koreans are struggling to contain. North Korea is a communist state, cut off from t ... read full comment
Which part of your argument you raise is watertight? North Korea announced that it had developed cure for Ebola, Aids and MERS that the South Koreans are struggling to contain. North Korea is a communist state, cut off from the global financial system. Are the North Korean hands destructive when they have managed such feat? It is even more evidently productive than that the South Koreans so where is the watertight in your argument against socialism as stifling productivity? You are are just limited in knowledge and you won't take your time to do proper research before you pour ignorance in this forum.
Danny Amakye 8 years ago
What sensible thing have you written?
What sensible thing have you written?
Danny Amakye 8 years ago
I have always had my doubts about that man.
I have always had my doubts about that man.
Nana Yaw 8 years ago
Japan, the EU and USA spent billions of dollars to rebuild these countries after 2nd world war and the Korea war as their puppet states. Japan was forced in a "mafioso shake down" style to pay over 8 billon dollars in the lat ... read full comment
Japan, the EU and USA spent billions of dollars to rebuild these countries after 2nd world war and the Korea war as their puppet states. Japan was forced in a "mafioso shake down" style to pay over 8 billon dollars in the late 50s to South Korea. Marshall Plan built Germany and the USA and EU built and continue to support Israel. Africa as a continent has not received 5% of the assistance Israel receives yearly. France, UK and the USA are directly responsible for the suffering of Africa and other developing countries they do not like. They use the CIA to create chaos and carnage in Africa and elsewhere!!!
francis kwarteng 8 years ago
Dear Baidoo,
It appears each time you are exposed you get angrier and come out with more lies and distortions of the facts. Anyway, I will not resort to “insults” and aspersions as you do because I still respect you no ... read full comment
Dear Baidoo,
It appears each time you are exposed you get angrier and come out with more lies and distortions of the facts. Anyway, I will not resort to “insults” and aspersions as you do because I still respect you no matter what.
Like I said to you before, I come to Ghanaweb to have fun as well as to share the little I have with my readers. Thus I will cut out the aspersions and deal with the facts as I see them.
I still will continue to expose his right-wing lies nonetheless with alternative facts. That said, let us get down to business by exposing your lies and distortions. According to you, “This is what Noam Chomsky wrote in his book,”
“suppose, that is, that American policy ceases to be dominated by the principles that were crudely outlined by President Truman almost twenty years ago, when he suggested in a famous and important speech that the basic freedom is freedom of enterprise and that the whole world should adopt the American system, which could survive in America only if it became a world system.”
And you attribute this quote to Noam Chomsky. And you also claim Chomsky “took” this statement from President Harry S. Truman. Good. But you set a big trap for yourself as you do not seem to have read the “quote” correctly. This is what you wrote:
“THE FACT IS PRESIDENT HARRY S. TRUMAN NEVER MADE THAT STATEMENT.”
The above statement alludes to a situation where you are claiming Chomsky directly quoted President Truman verbatim. THAT IS A LIE. In fact you so trapped in your confusion that you can’t seem to have a clear or precise understanding of what you have said mean. And here is why:
If Baidoo correctly wanted to attribute a quote which Chomsky in turn attributed to President Truman, then there should have been another “quote” embedded within Baidoo’s parenthetic attribution to Chomsky. In other words, there should “probably” have been an “inner quote” for President Truman and an “outer quote” for Chomsky.
This may sound like Chomsky’s linguistic theory of “recursion” as it relates to syntax category (and mathematics and computer programming, artificial intelligence). Let us not deviate from the topic, however. As the quote stands the real authorship is not clear.
Fortunately for us, there is enough in Baidoo’s misplaced attribution to show that Chomsky’s allusion to President Truman’s unnamed speech was a summary, a reprise, or a paraphrase, not a statement directly lifted from President Truman’s unnamed speech.
Evidently Baidoo could not distinguish between a summary and a verbatim quote!
In the quote we come across the phrase “crudely outlined,” “that is,” “a famous and important speech,” “only if” and the words “could,” “suggested,” “outlined,” “almost,” “suppose,” and “should (NOT MUST).” What is more, the indefinite article, “a,” standing tall before the phrase “famous and important speech” indicates A SPEECH, possibly a particular which.
Here, we clearly see a scholar demonstrating analytic and authorial circumspection in reinterpreting a document, a public speech in that regard.
In fact, the words “suppose,” “could,” “suggested,” and the phrases “only if” and “crudely outlined” certainly point to a reader of a text who makes room for exegetical errors and interpretive elasticity. Further, the word “crudely” does not necessarily conceptually ascribe to insightful factual certainty on the basis of interpretation and/or re-interpretation of a given text.
We see this all the time in sign language, translations/transcriptions and transliterations and the transmission problems of oral literature (translation studies/translation criticism).
We see this phenomenon in word-problems in Business Mathematics and Algebra (as well as Analytics, simulation, mathematical modeling, music theory, meteorology, genetics, prehistoric cave paintings/rock art and fine art). We see how the various translated versions of the Bible, for instance, somehow correlate to Christendom (the different divisions in Christianity).
We are here also dealing with localization, linguistics, semiotics, and philology. We will dare pontificate that even if President Truman were alive here today he could probably not give us an exact or precise rendition of his speech. He may probably recall the substance of his speech but not its exact wording unless, of course, he has eidetic or photographic memory. President Truman was not known to have possessed that kind of memory.
More so, no human brain stays the same in terms of its synaptic behavior and transmission chemistry. Age, diet, stress, and genetics all have to do with it. The Feminist Bible (New International Version), the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible, the canonical text and the Kebra Nagast of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and the Jehowah’s Witnesses’ “The New World Holy Translation of the Holy Scriptures” constitute a few notable examples.
Let us continue: Chomsky thus merely gave a rendition of a speech, not a verbatim quote, as Baidoo fraudulently wants to impose on his unsuspecting readers. Baidoo also makes his confused dilemma worse by making the following timid and uncritical statement, an egregious lie:
“IF HE [CHOMSKY] DID MAKE IT ELSWEHER I AM NOT AWARE. AS FAR AS I CAN SEE NOAM CHOMSKY MADE IT UP. IT WAS A COMPLETE FABRICATION, YET HE GAVE REFERENCE TO THAT FALSEHOOD AND UNMITIGATED LIE, WHICH DOES NOT EVEN QUALIFY FOR A WHITE LIE.”
Does Baidoo want to be taken serious with his unreliable and needless circumlocution? The word “ELSEHWERE” and the phrase “I AM NOT AWARE” show Baidoo’s intellectual timidity scholastic cluelessness. The second and third paragraphs are thrown at readers without verifiable evidential support.
What does Baidoo expect readers to do as far as evaluating the intellectual merit or strength of his arguments, without providing evidence to collaborate his claims, is concerned?
More so, why did Baidoo mention Alvin Toffler’s “Power Shift,” Chomsky’s “American Power and the New Mandarins” (Did Baidoo ever find it meaningful to read Chomsky’s essay “The Responsibility of Intellectuals?” at all. NOTE: BIDOO DOES NOT TELL HIS READERS THAT SERIOUS CRITICS OF ALVIN TOFFLER NOTE HIM FOR HIS WEAK ARGUMENTS, UNREALISTIC PROGNOSTICATIONS, AND FACTUAL OVERGENERALIZATION), as well as the quote he attributes to Chomsky but being “conveniently” silent on the Truman speech in question, though the Truman speech in question is all over the place. Historians and scholars refer to the speech in question as “ADRESS ON FOREIGN ECONOMIC POLICY.”
President Truman gave this speech in March 6, 1947 at Baylor University (Waco, Texas). The university awarded him a honorary doctorate on that occasion. The said speech reads in part:
“At this particular time, the whole world is concentrating much of its thought and energy on attaining the objectives of peace and freedom. These objectives are bound up completely with a third objective--reestablishment of world trade. In fact the three-peace, freedom, and world trade--are inseparable…
“Now, as in the year 1920, we have reached a turning point in history. National economies have been disrupted by the war. The future is uncertain everywhere. Economic policies are in a state of flux. In this atmosphere of doubt and hesitation, the decisive factor will be the type of leadership that the United States gives the world.”
“WE ARE THE GIANT OF THE ECONOMIC WORLD. WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT, THE FUTURE PATTERN OF ECONOMIC RELATIONS DEPENDS UPON US. THE WORLD IS WAITING AND WATCHING TO SEE WHAT WE SHALL DO. THE CHOICE IS OURS. WE CAN LEAD THE NATIONS TO ECONOMIC PEACE OR WE CAN PLUNGE THEM INTO ECONOMIC WAR.”
“THERE MUST BE NO QUESTION AS TO OUR COURSE…”
“THERE IS ONE THING THAT AMERICANS VALUE EVEN MORE THAN PEACE. IT IS FREEDOM. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP-FREEDOM OF SPEECH FREEDOM OF ENTERPRISE. IT MUST BE TRUE THAT THE FIRST TWO OF THESE FREEDOMS ARE RELATED TO THE THIRD…SO OUR DEVOTION TO FREEDOM OF ENTERPRISE, IN THE UNITED STATES, HAS DEEPER ROOTS THAN A DESIRE TO PROTECT PROFITS OF OWNERSHIP. IT IS PART AND PARCEL OF WHAT WE CALL AMERICAN…”
“…This program is designed to restore and preserve a trading system that is consistent with continuing freedom of enterprise in every country that chooses freedom for its own economy …”
“OUR PEOPLE ARE UNITED. THEY HAVE COME TO A REALIZATION OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES. THEY ARE READY TO ASSUME THEIR ROLE OF LEADERSHIP…”
A closer look at the entire speech does not contain the quote, the exact wording we mean, which Baidoo attributes to Chomsky (and President Truman). Clearly then, Baidoo has no case whatever making the quote he attributed to Chomsky part of President Truman’s speech. It is so because the attribution lacks the internal or “inner quote” we discussed before. However, the word “dominated” in the quote Baidoo attributes to Chomsky is extremely important.
It is important because President Truman made American values, “freedom of enterprise” for instance, the focus of his foreign policy as well as the standard of international relations. The phrase “DECISIVE FACTOR” “THE TYPE OF LEADERSHIP THAT AMERICA GIVES THE WORLD” in the second paragraph of our quote and the sentence “THEY ARE READY TO ASSUME THEIR ROLE OF LEADERSHIP…” in the last paragraph of our quote both probably lend credence to Chomsky’s re-interpretation of the said speech.
Perhaps, one “best” way to interpret President Truman’s speech is by understanding America’s “desire” to work with other nations from around the world towards global peace and international relations subject to her [America’s] avaricious calculations to impose her unquestioned leadership, values, and standards on the rest of the world.
The fact that the UN is headquartered in the United States itself speaks to the latter’s uncompromising stance to exert her leadership over the rest of the world (America has since the establishment of the UN resisted all attempts to have the headquarters of the UN rotated around the globe).
Importantly, I used the word “ONE” because another person might take a long look at President Truman’s speech and come up with a different (if multiple) interpretation. This view is not out of the range of exegetical possibilities. It is why I am currently engaged with Baidoo in intellectual and exegetical spats. Let us also quickly add that beginning a sentence with the word “SUPPOSE,” as in the quote Baidoo attributes to Chomsky, should have signaled to the former that Chomsky was engaging President Truman in a manner characteristic of rhetorical hypothesis (linguistic probability).
This position takes into account the speech’s underlying presuppositions (assumptions), America’s immediate post-war behavior in international politics, public consensus on Americans’ avaricious intentions to see their country lead the world no matter what, and the special interest of American corporatism to break through the gridlock of externalized protectionism.
On the other hand, Baidoo should have taken it upon himself to closely read President Truman’s original speech and given us his own rendition measured against those of Alvin Toffler’s and Chomsky’s. In other words, Baidoo’s needless confusion is merely a question of interpretation, context, and perspective. We should also not overlook the fact that Baidoo’s attribution contains the word “PRINCIPLES.”
Moreover, if my interpretation of Baidoo’s attribution is correct, then the word “PRINCIPLES” is also Chomsky’s, not President Truman’s. The word “PRINCIPLE” could mean many things, including “an assumption,” “a theory,” “a belief,” “a rule,” add a measure of elasticity to Chomsky’s interpretive take on the speech. After all, President Truman did not use “principles” in his speech or describe the point-by-point statements as “PRINCIPLES.” It is merely an external imposition.
The other question is: Why did President Truman, scholars, and historians label the speech “Address on Foreign Economic Policy,” with emphasis on the word “FOREIGN.” Why not “INTERNAL”? The point is that the first edition of Chomsky’s book “American Power and the New Mandarins” came out in out in 1969, some 22 years after President Truman’s speech, giving Chomsky ample time to evaluate the foreign policy implications of the speech. Chomsky has ample time to reflect on President Truman’s legacy, that is! He has successfully done the same with his profound theories on language and syntax category (see his Generative/Transformational Grammar), the basis of essential aspects of artificial intelligence, computer programming, etc.
Thus Baidoo can’t read time out of Chomsky’s exegetical take on the speech.
The questions is: Why did Baidoo not try to explore the reasons behind Chomsky’s intentions to stand by his interpretation of President Truman’s speech in the second edition (2002) of “American Power and the New Mandarins,” some 33 years after the first edition and after 33 years of active engagement with his critics, local and international? This regrettably leaves a huge gaping hole in Baidoo’s analysis.
On the other hand President Truman’s other speech “The Truman Doctrine,” presented to the US Congress six days after the “Address on Foreign Economic Policy,” cannot undergo exegetical extrapolation exclusive of each other.
The so-called “Truman Doctrine” sets the tone for America’s strategic containment of the USSR, the Cold War. America thus put itself in a strategic position of exerting its hegemony cultural-economic imperialism over the world by way of containing fascism and the USSR. The Marshall Plan for Europe (and Asia) idea originated during this same period, under President Truman. 1947 is the same date scholars generally situate the inception of the Cold War. It was during this period that the ideas of George Kennan, Charles Bohlen, William Harriman, Dean Acheson, and John McCloy became so important.
It is within the immediate context of the Cold War that the practical ramifications of President Truman’s speech gained traction. In fact, President Truman invoked the historical reasons that gave birth to the Second Imperial War (WW2) as justification to propose American leadership and values as post-war solutions to a world in seeming perpetual conflict. That proposal turned into American exceptionalism and global hegemony.
America under President Truman’s had assumed global leadership by the time WW2 was over (Baidoo may do well to discuss Franklin Roosevelt, Henry Wallace (founder of the Department of Nuclear Studies (American University?), Thomas Pendergast, and Harry Truman; the latter’s story will never be complete without the others, particularly Pendergast. Baidoo should tell us more about the “Pendergast Machine,” “St. Louis Machine,” Robert Hannegan, why the Americans wanted to displace the British Empire and take over the world including Europe, why Wallace’s travels in Africa taught him how the British Empire/French Empire had set Africa back 100 years…Baidoo should also tell us Roosevelt did not support his Truman’s re-election (1940). TIME IS NOT ON MY SIDE).
There are probably more profound revelations about President Truman in Kuznick’s work than in Chomsky’s (Kuznick is Director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University/ historian; Baidoo should take a look at Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” if he had not already!).
We should however have to state that John Maynard Keynes had predicted the factors that led to the Second Imperial War (WW2), and even warned the West against the terms that were struck at the Versailles Treaty/Paris Peace Conference (see his book “The Economic Consequences of the Peace”), which the Western powers largely ignored. But there is so much the book “The Untold History of the United States” (Dr. Peter Kuznick & Oliver Stone) reveals about America’s foreign policy and clandestine arrangements that Chomsky’s “American Power and the New Mandarins” does not cover.
Like Chomsky’s literary works, Kuznick’s is based on recently declassified documents and archival records. Baidoo seems to give the impression that only Nagasaki and Hiroshima (declassified documents expose ideas that are still taught about Truman, the Atomic Bombs on Japan, which are blatant lies according to the same declassified records.
One was Truman receiving a telegram from the Japanese Emperor in which he [the latter] called for peace, though Truman would bypass the peace overture and drop the bombs on the Japanese; the other was that the Japanese relying on the Russians to secure a better deal for them with the Americans; and more than 100 Japanese cities were bombed (by the Americans).
Baidoo may not have known that at least 100 Japanese cities were bombed (though he, like most people around the world, mentions only two: Nagasaki and Hiroshima). In the end, President Truman conceptualized his post-war universe from the standpoint of America’s strategic and tactical interests, values, standards, and “forced” leadership imposition on that universe.
But, then again, foreign aid was used to buy off sovereignties, to induce and bribe others in exchange for the consciences of leaderships sympathetic to American (or Western) hegemony, and to entrench America’s global leadership and political-economic expansionism. In doing so, America had hoped to break the expanding monopoly of Marxist ideology across the world. This is the larger context within which Chomsky’s hypothetical rendition of President Truman’s speech must be understood.
Notwithstanding the above, Baidoo does not tell us the CIA got George Orwell to write “Animal Farm” (we have already provided a list of texts on this question) and the British which did not know what was going on between the CIA and Orwell did everything within its power to ensure “Animal Farm” (“1984”) won’t find a publisher. Reason? The British and the Russians were on the same side of the war and therefore the former did not want to offend the latter (see Orwell’s working preface (“The Freedom of the Press”) for “Animal Farm.” Let us remind Baidoo the assistance which the West (America) offered the Nazis and the so-called “communists” (Chinese and Russians):
The First six titles by the late Dr. Sutton C. Sutton (These texts link the West to the “crimes” committed by the so-called Russian “communists”).
1) Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
2) Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development (1917-1930)
3) Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development (1930-1945)
4) Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development (1945-1965)
5) National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union
6) Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler
7) IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation (expanded version) (Edwin Black)
8) Nazi Nexus: America’s Corporate Connections to Hitler’s Holocaust (same author)
9) War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race (expanded version)
10) The Hundred-Year Marathon (Michael Pillsbury)
11) The Untold History of the United States (Oliver Stone & Peter Kuznick)
12) The Nazi Hydra in America: Suppressed History of a Century (Wall Street and the Rise of the Third Reich) (John Hawkins/Glen Yeadon)
13) America’s Nazi Secret: An Insider’s Story (John Loftus)
Additional Texts:
a) THE HALF HAS NEVER BEEN TOLD: SLAVERY AND THE MAKING OF AMERICAN CAPITALISM (Edward E. Baptist)
b) THE KAISER'S HOLOCAUST: GERMANY’S FORGOTTEN GENOCIDE AND THE COLONIAL ROOTS OF NAZISM (Casper Erichsen & David Olusoga; READ THE “WHITAKER REPORT (1985), United Nations).
c) CAPITALISM AND SLAVERY (ERIC WILLIAMS)
d) MEDICAL APARTHEID: THE MEDICAL HISTORY OF MEDICAL EXPERIMENTATION ON BLACK AMERICANS FROM COLONIAL TIMES TO THE PRESENT (Harriet Washington)
e) SLAVERY BY ANOTHER NAME: THE RE-ENSLAVEMENT OF BLACK AMERICANS FROM THE CIVIL WAR TO WORLD WAR TWO (Douglass A. Blackmon).
f) KING LEOPOLD’S GHOST: A STORY OF GREED, TERROR, AND HERORISM IN COLONIAL AFRICA (Adam Hochschild)
g) THE BLACK JACOBINS: TOUSSAINT L’OUVERTURE AND THE SAN DOMINGO REVOLUTION (CLR JAMES)
h) BLOOD AND SOIL: A WORLD HISTORY OF GENOCIDE AND EXTERMINATION FROM SPARTA TO DARFUR (Ben Kiernan)
i) THE NEW JIM CROWISM: MASS INCACERATION IN THE AGE OF COLORBLINDNESS (MICHELLE ALEXANDER)
j) GREENSPAN'S BUBBLES: THE AGE OF IGNORANCE AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE (William Fleckenstein)
k) CAPITAL IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY (Thomas Picketty)
ON WINSTON CHURHILL
To begin with, make time to read Winston Churchill's "The River War: An Historical Account of the Re-conquest of Sudan" and "The Story of the Malakand Field Force: An Episode of Frontier War" and Richard Toye's "Churchill: The World That Made Him and the World He made,"
Read also Johann Hari's article "Not The Finest Hour: The Dark Side of Winston Churchill" (The Independent, Oct. 28, 2010).
When you are done reading the three books and essay about Churchill ( if you haven't already), then you should understand the magnitude of problem I have if I am to address your faulty arguments by, among other things, questioning your sources and admirers beginning with a figure like Churchill.
For instance, I wish you had address why Winston Churchill was not happy with the relative lack of effectiveness of British ammunitions (guns, etc.) slaughtering and conquering Sudanese and establishing the presence of the British Empire in Sudan!
In other words, Churchill wanted a more effective arsenal that would have made British conquest of the Sudan easier.
All errors are mine.
Have a nice day.
Done.
GORGORDUTOR 8 years ago
COOL CALM & COLLECTED!!! TRUE AFRICAN INTELLECT.
COOL CALM & COLLECTED!!! TRUE AFRICAN INTELLECT.
Philip Kobina Baidoo 8 years ago
Don’t worry I am used to your subtle insults. You can say Philip is an idiot, a moron or ignorant. No, ignorant is too soft, because we can all be ignorant one way or the other. Maybe a madman will do. If you do not underst ... read full comment
Don’t worry I am used to your subtle insults. You can say Philip is an idiot, a moron or ignorant. No, ignorant is too soft, because we can all be ignorant one way or the other. Maybe a madman will do. If you do not understand your own actions then there is no point in even having any discourse with you. What is the meaning when you list 391 works for my perusal? Assuming I will read one book every day. How long do you think it will take me to complete that? If you haven’t really analysed it let me dissect it for you. It implies that if I have not read those books then, clearly, I don’t have a clue as to what I am driving at. You think you are offering a wonderful opposition, which your funs maybe wild about it, but not me. You are missing one important thing. If you are dead serious about a discourse you summarise what you have read, and not ask me to go and read a whole book. It is just like having a live debate and you tell your audience that my facts are in book, A, B, C etc.; therefore, you can go and check it out. You will be laughed at on stage.
Do you know the number of microeconomic text books on the market? It is uncountable. What about calculus, biology physics etc.? It’s the same answer. You can read ten macroeconomics text books that will be totally different from what I will read. So, if you read one book on logic it doesn’t mean that I have to read the same book to comprehend logic. This is what you have to understand; I don’t need to read your books in order to understand a topic. What you are on about is very funny; you make me use language that I don’t want to. You are playing holy angel now, but you started the insults. The fact that I use vulgar ones does not make you holier. Go and check what you have written and analyse it. Besides, check all my post; I don’t insult people. And as far as you are concerned I am only returning it in kind.
YAW 8 years ago
In that case Mr Baidoo, stop re-arranging your prejudices for our consumption. When did you become an authority on DDT,Socialism,Communism or Capitalism? Kwarteng, tries his utmost to broden
In that case Mr Baidoo, stop re-arranging your prejudices for our consumption. When did you become an authority on DDT,Socialism,Communism or Capitalism? Kwarteng, tries his utmost to broden
YAW 8 years ago
Kwarteng, tries his utmost to broaden the scope of the readers. He does not come across as a compartmentalized-thinker.
Kwarteng, tries his utmost to broaden the scope of the readers. He does not come across as a compartmentalized-thinker.
francis kwarteng 8 years ago
Dear Baidoo,
WHY SHOULD I SUMMARIZE FOR YOU? HAVE I EVER ASKED YOU TO SUMMARIZE ANY OF YOUR TEXTS FOR ME?
I HARDLY ASK OTHERS TO SUMMARIZE TEXTS FOR BECAUSE I ALWAYS WANT TO READ THEM IN ORDER TO FORM MY OWN OPINIONS. ... read full comment
Dear Baidoo,
WHY SHOULD I SUMMARIZE FOR YOU? HAVE I EVER ASKED YOU TO SUMMARIZE ANY OF YOUR TEXTS FOR ME?
I HARDLY ASK OTHERS TO SUMMARIZE TEXTS FOR BECAUSE I ALWAYS WANT TO READ THEM IN ORDER TO FORM MY OWN OPINIONS.
THIS IS WHAT SOME OF MY MENTORS (SUCH AS DR. KWAME BOTWE-ASAMOAH) DOES TO ME. DR. BOTWE-ASAMOAH WILL WANT ME TO READ A TEXT, FORM MY OWN OPINIONS, AND THEN COME BACK TO DEBATE HIM.
HE AND I HAVE HAD SEVERAL DEBATES AND DISCUSSIONS AND IN NONE OF THESE HAS HE IMPOSED HIS INTEPRETATION OF ANY TEXT ON ME.
IN SOME MY DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM I HAD ASKED HIM TO TELL ME WHAT A TEXT HE MENTIONS SAYS, BUT HE HAS PUSHED THAT BACK, SAYING I SHOULD GO AND READ THE TEXT HIMSELF.
AND YOU KNOW WHY? HE WANTS ME TO READ THE TEXT(S) MYSELF IN ORDER TO FORM MY OWN OPINIONS.
YOU ARE AN ADULT AND THEREFORE CAN'T SUMMARIZE ANY TEXT FOR YOU. DID I ASK YOU TO SUMMARIZE CHOMSKY'S WORK AND ACHIEVEMNTS FOR ME, OR PRESIDENT TRUMAN'S SPEECH FOR ME?
DID I ASK YOU TO SUMMARIZE ALVIN TOFFLER'S WORKS FOR ME? NO. AND YOU KNOW WHY? I CAN READ THEM MYSELF AND FORM MY OWN OPINIONS (WITHOUT ASSISTANCE). I DON'T NEED YOU TO THAT FOR ME (FOR THE MOST PART)! I AM AN ADULT.
PLEASE YOU HAD BETTER GO READ THE TEXTS FOR YOUR OWN GOOD (SO YOU CAN INFORM ENLIGHTEN YOURSELF, YOUR NARROW WORLDVIEW, AND YOUR ARTICLES (this is not an insult).
REMEMBER THAT SOME GHANAWEB COMMENTATORS HAVE RECOMMENDED SOME TEXTS FOR ME (WHICH I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF LET ALONE READ). I AM CURRENTLY READING ONE. I DID NOT ASK SUCH GENEROUS GHANAWEN COMMENTATORS TO SUMMARIZE THE TEXTS.
ALSO REMEMBER THAT THEY SUGGESTED THESE TEXTS IN THE MIDST OF DEBATES ON GHANAWEB. AFTER ALL, THE POINT OF READING OTHER THAN ASKING THEM TO SUMMARIZE THE TEXTS FOR ME IS THAT THE MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE TEXTS THEY RECOMMEND FOR ME AND THE CONCLUSIONS I DRAW FROM THEM MAY NOT COINCIDE WITH THEIRS. YOU SEE THIS FROM YOUR OWN CONSISTENT DISTORTIONS OF FACTS (eg. the President Truman's speech and Chomsky's interpretation of the same speech).
And who says all books on logic are the same?
Who says all books on biology (even on the same subject matter) are the same?
Who says all books on physics (even on the same subject matter) are the same?
Who says all books on macroeconomic (even on the same subject matter) texts are the same?
Who says all books on calculus (eeven on the same subject matter) are the same?
Where are these misguided ideas of yours coming from (this is not an insult)?
How many books on logic (types and advanced levels of claassification), biology (types and advanced levels of claassification), microeconomics( types and advanced levels of claassification), philosophy (types and advanced levels of claassification), physics (types and advanced levels of claassification), accounting(types and advanced levels of claassification), etc., have you read (though I don't claim to have read all the books in the books in the world; no one has and can't).
(BUT NO TWO BOOKS ON THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER ARE THE SAME. NO EDITIONS OF THE "SAME" BOOKS ARE THE SAME. OTHERWISE WHY HAVE EDITIONS. Certain times I wonder which planet you live on)?
Do you even think the same subject matter on logic, physics, biology, mathematics, economics, etc., are treated with the same level of methodological expertise by different authors?
Why are certain texts "better" and more patronized than others? Why do some works win awards and others not (though politics sometimes play a role in recognizing some authors' works)?
Can you tell me any works on the theory of relativity that compares with Einstein's?
Can you tell me any piece of mathematical work that compares with Euclid's "Elements" in that little-known ancient world?
Can you tell me theoretical works on the theory of Afrocentricity that compare with Dr. Molefi Kete Asante's works on the theory of Afrocentricity?
Can you tell me any single work of fiction from Africa that has impacted the world of literature than Achebe's "Things Fall Apart"?
Which Ancient Greek's historical collections compares with Herodotus' "Histories"?
Which religious texts come close to the Bible and the Koran in terms of patronage, sales, etc?
Is the Book of Mormon the same as the Bible since Mormons/Christians allegedly worship the same God? How about the Koran and Bible?
What do you have to say the Kebra Nagast and other canonized/uncanonized writings of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the writings of the Egyptian Orthodox Coptic Church and those of the Russian and Greel Orthodox Churches...?
What of the writings of Shakespeare, Leo Tolstoy, Du Fu, Khalil Gibran, Li Bai...
I have provided the texts for you to read in order to fill in most of the gaps in your thinking.
Most of these ideas come from your onw British government (declassified documenst and archival records) and declassified documents from other parts of the world.
For instance, you should read declassified documents on George Orwell (and the M-15) before even venturing to say anything about Orwell.
You should also have read Churhill writings (and declassified documents) on his views on Black Africans and colonized peoples in general before venturing to say a word about him.
And you should provide readers
Now my alleged "insutlts" are no longer direct "insults" but suble insults.
Is it because you cannot provide any evidence that I insulted you when I asked you to provide explicit evidence of the alleged insult(s)?
Are you really a Christian as you claim? For the same of argument, do you have to insult soneone because he/she insulted you?
I even wonder why you are running from your lies and distortions to dabble in additional lies and distortions, rather than dealing with the substantive issues, such as lying and distorting facts about Chomsky? What sort of character are you?
You have asked me to go and read where I leveled "subtle insults" at you and could find nothing. You are making it hard on yourself by shifting the poles, from direct insults to you to subtle insults.
Can't you differentiate between direct insults and subtle insults just as you failed to differentiate between a summary and a verbatim quote? You are adapting the same strategy of misattribution ala Chomsky to me!
You are too Machiavellain for a self-prclaimed Christian, Kobina Philip Baidoo, Jr. I don't know if you do this consciously. You should have understood by now why I asked Marcus Ampadu not to say in your articles that you are "A PRINCIPLED MAN."
In conclusion, go and read the texts I have recommended for you by comparing them with your own sources. You can then come back to Ghanaweb and tell readers your findings. So far I am familiar with all your sources. It is why I am able to expose your lies, distortions, misrepresentations, misparahrasings, analytic errors and failures, etc. I HAVE MORE TO SAY BUT LET ME END IT EHER.
I look forward to your next article.
Have a great weekend.
Thanks.
Philip Kobina Baidoo 8 years ago
You are missing my point. If you catalogue 391 books how do you expect me to go through that before I come back? You are just squelching the debate; it doesn't help. You think I don't have anything to do with my time, but to ... read full comment
You are missing my point. If you catalogue 391 books how do you expect me to go through that before I come back? You are just squelching the debate; it doesn't help. You think I don't have anything to do with my time, but to read your three hundred and ninety one books? Until you revise your attitude we are not going to get anywhere. I don't tell you to go and read the books I have read. If there is the need for me to reference them I quote them. And if you disagree it is up to you to counter it.
frank miscione 8 years ago
Mr. Baidoo,
I don't have time to read hundreds of books on these matters. The point is that the people you are providing your opinion about have read all these books and are engaged in a continuous examination and analysis ... read full comment
Mr. Baidoo,
I don't have time to read hundreds of books on these matters. The point is that the people you are providing your opinion about have read all these books and are engaged in a continuous examination and analysis of the facts at a pace that requires them to read all these books. When you engage yourself to these matters be prepared receive harsh criticism. I don't Mr.
Kwarteng is out to insult you. Its the opposite he is inviting you to get engaged at their level. I for one can not conceive of that commitment.
francis kwarteng 8 years ago
Dear Baidoo,
Did you not totally agree with SAS when he asked me to summarize my texts?
And are you also saying I don't have anything to do with my time?
I think Frank Miscione has said it all. I think you will bene ... read full comment
Dear Baidoo,
Did you not totally agree with SAS when he asked me to summarize my texts?
And are you also saying I don't have anything to do with my time?
I think Frank Miscione has said it all. I think you will benefit a lot to swallow his wisdom hook, line and sinker!
Thanks.
Elliot Ness 8 years ago
Is your point to discredit another scholar's obscure quote to gain traction? What have you contributed to the dialogue?
Is your point to discredit another scholar's obscure quote to gain traction? What have you contributed to the dialogue?
francis kwarteng 8 years ago
Dear Baidoo,
I will like you to read Antobam's insightful and enlightening piece (there is a lot in the piece that will show you what is going in the world today in terms of political economy and different classes of it):
... read full comment
Dear Baidoo,
I will like you to read Antobam's insightful and enlightening piece (there is a lot in the piece that will show you what is going in the world today in terms of political economy and different classes of it):
The man, Akufo-Addo, has sinned and sinned grievously. He has broken the overriding cardinal rule of the mate-me-ho clan. It is very clear to all Ghanaians that one of the top sacred tenets of the New Patriotic Party is to never say anything good about Kwame Nkrumah. And a true mate-me-ho will only talk about “evil” Kwame Nkrumah. So, it is certainly shocking when Mr. Akufo-Addo gave a puzzling answer when he was recently asked by the “Africa Report” how come many of his proposed policies have leftist or socialist tinge when his party claims consistently to be “rightist.”
This is what Mr. Akufo-Addo said, “These are the policies that have developed Korea and Japan. My understanding is that the United States was the first country to have free secondary education. It’s difficult to call America a country on the left. These are tools of development.”
All of us are fallible humans and are guilty sometimes of rhetorical contradictions and double-talk, so Mr. Akufo-Addo, who clearly had not thought through thoroughly his politic-speak, couldn’t stop there and proceeded to expand on his response this way, “You couldn’t build a modern economy with a mass of illiterate and ill-educated people. I don’t see this as Nkrumahist or leftist.”
Here we go again. The fact that Akufo-Addo invokes Nkrumah in order to try so hard and unsuccessfully to distance the not-so-dissimilar socialist-tinged free secondary education he has constantly proposed to Ghanaians away from Nkrumah’s well appreciated, nationally transformative, and timely expanded free educational system makes Akufo-Addo seem disoriented about where he stands ideologically.
It is also so conspicuous that Akufo-Addo couldn’t bring himself to admit that he is aware that Kwame Nkrumah introduced and expanded free primary, secondary, and university education in Ghana and it was an excellent policy then; and that he wants to emulate Nkrumah. Of course, Akufo-Addo probably wouldn’t be where is today if it weren’t for Nkrumah’s educational expansion policies. Yet Akufo-Addo explains that his proposed social program of free secondary education is neither socialist nor has any leftist flavor, but Nkrumah’s was.
My dear NPP people, I would like to make an earnest request to you to search and search Akufo-Addo well. You better put the man under the microscope and seriously interrogate him. Why? Because Akufo-Addo might be a closet Nkrumahist! Do you remember J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI Director, who was a closet homosexual but who persistently enforced U.S. laws on sexual deviancy and relentlessly pursued homosexuals of his time? Do you also remember the notorious masochistic televangelist Jimmy Swaggart (Mr. I Have Sinned) who used his pulpit and preached against prostitution, publicly berated prostitutes and damned them to hell, but was video-taped patronizing their services? A lot of people choose to publicly express their abhorrence and distaste for certain people and ideas only for political, ethnocentric, and career expediency, but probably harbor private thoughts of love and adoration for the same people and issues they claim to hate.
I personally doubt that Akufo-Addo is a closet Nkrumahist. Still, a true mate-me-ho would never have mentioned Nkrumah in any positive light but would have attributed educational improvements and all other national development achievements immediately after Ghana’s independence to Danquah, and Danquah only. Akufo-Addo only tried to debase Nkrumah’s educational achievements, as it is typical of all mate-me-ho people, but missed esteeming Danquah instead, as it is also typical of their usual replacement historical rewritings.
I believe strongly that Akufo-Addo is a staunch dyed-in-the-wool mate-me-ho. He has said so himself. And, of course, it is a well-known fact that the obscurantist adherence and the herd internalization of the separatist tribal dogma often dressed up euphemistically as the Danquah-Busia-Dombo “tradition,” and of course, the restrictive self-imposed Akan identification, have always been Akufo-Addo’s repeated sentimental ritualistic mate-me-ho incantation.
All the same, the fact is he is your man; so, you better look him in the eye, search his heart, and make him deny even the slightest appreciation for any of Nkrumah’s accomplishments, because the mysterious explanation of his planned revival of Nkrumah’s educational achievements has left my head spinning wildly.
When Akufo-Addo’s proposed social programs are probed further, a thousand and one questions do pop up. First, is Akufo-Addo going to pay for his free secondary education with a hundred percent of the funding coming from private sources? If he can accomplish that, that will definitely be a miracle and will make him a true rightist! Or, is he going to make all of us pay for it? Then he might as well admit that he is a closet Nkrumahist or a socialist in disguise! If he is, then when is he going to come out of the closet? Or is he waiting to be president and then spring a surprise on us?
Additionally, by trying so fruitlessly to run away from Nkrumah, does Mr. Akufo-Addo have under his sleeve some strangely whimsical ideology resembling a yet to be discovered quasi-socialism or quasi-capitalism? If that is the case, what will be an acceptable healthy mix or an optimal blend of rightist and leftist economic, political, and social programs for Ghana and Ghanaians? It is also important to let Akufo-Addo know that in spite of the adoption of both ideologies over time by many countries, an optimal healthy mix of these polar ideological principles has eluded many governments around the globe. When Akufo-Addo finds his ideal ideological mix what name is he going to give it? Economists around the world can’t wait!
Also, is America a pure unadulterated rightist and capitalist country even with its numerous government-funded social programs? America has government-funded public pre-school, kindergarten, primary, middle, and secondary educational systems; social welfare programs comprising monthly stipends, housing assistance, and food stamps for the poor and other challenged Americans; Medicare and Medicaid programs for doctor visits, prescription drugs, and hospitalization costs of uninsured or inadequately insured Americans; social security retirement benefit payments; workers’ compensation payments for on-the-job injuries; PELL grants and other educational assistance at the university level; and the list goes on.
Again, with all these programs, is America a true capitalist country? Or America admittedly has some leftist tinge? Also, how does one define America’s ideological blend? Furthermore, what then does that make Korea and Japan when all of the three countries cited by Akufo-Addo have a decent amount of government-funded social welfare programs? Maybe, Akufo-Addo can clear up that confusing capitalist/socialist or rightist/leftist contradiction, because he is the one who injected Nkrumah leftist insult in his conversation with “Africa Report.”
I think that Akufo-Addo supporters should be serious and admonish him that just offering such abstruse explanations on very costly and generationally life-changing programs, such as free education, will not cut it. How he plans to finance this and his other proposed programs is the critical issue here; but we really don’t care about Akufo-Addo’s ideological stance.
In some ways, I wonder if Akufo-Addo is trying to woo Nkrumahists for their votes next year. If he is, then that’s being too slick. Motives and intentions can’t be hidden behind the veil of obscure empty political speeches forever.
........................................................................................................................................................
Philip Kobina Baidoo 8 years ago
You have never understood my position. You just use one thousand words to describe one word. I have written several times that my beef is about the creation of wealth. All the social brouhaha is not something that I worry too ... read full comment
You have never understood my position. You just use one thousand words to describe one word. I have written several times that my beef is about the creation of wealth. All the social brouhaha is not something that I worry too much about.
francis kwarteng 8 years ago
Dear Baidoo,
I have clearly understood your position.
Wealth is not created only through you brand of capitalism.
Do you have any idea how your brand of "capitalist" wealth creation has deprived billions of wealth? ... read full comment
Dear Baidoo,
I have clearly understood your position.
Wealth is not created only through you brand of capitalism.
Do you have any idea how your brand of "capitalist" wealth creation has deprived billions of wealth?
In fact your brand of "capitalism" has not existed anywhere in human history. This is what Kobina Antobam's seems to be telling you.
More so, the substance of Antobam's article represents a serious indictment of your pure "capiatlism" theology which, once again, does not exist anywhere except, perhaps, in the cloudy heads of right-wingers (some of whom are thieves and kleptomanics anyway).
Now your central arguments on wealth creation through your brand of "capitalism" is in tatters. Baidoo's single piece shatters them. Antobam's is simply more realistic of the world we live in than your isolationist world of emotional parochiality.
I hope you have learnt something from Antobam. MIND YOU, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION PERFECTLY WELL. THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY THERE.
Have a great weekend.
Thanks.
GORGORDUTOR 8 years ago
IGNORAMUS IDIOTICUS AFRICANENSIS
IGNORAMUS IDIOTICUS AFRICANENSIS
MARCUS AMPADU 8 years ago
In KOBINA PHILIP BAIDOO, JR. EXPOSED!. Kwarteng went the extra miles to lay out the inconsistencies, the unpardonable errors, and the insults of Baidoo's piece; and I can hazard a guess that in the next Nkrumahism, The Can of ... read full comment
In KOBINA PHILIP BAIDOO, JR. EXPOSED!. Kwarteng went the extra miles to lay out the inconsistencies, the unpardonable errors, and the insults of Baidoo's piece; and I can hazard a guess that in the next Nkrumahism, The Can of Worm I Opened - Bra Baidoo will be more apoplectic.
But let me jump in this fray.
Noam Chomsky was born December 7, 1928 in Philadelphia. Since 1955, he's taught linguistics, a field he has distinguished himself in, and his theories of linguistics have become world famous. Dr. Chomsky is also a famous philosopher at MIT. He has received countless honors & awards.
I am amazed at how Baidoo got the nerve to castigate such a scholar. Dr. Chomsky has written many books on social issues and political economy.
"In a saner world, his tireless efforts to promote justice would have long since won him the Nobel Peace Prize".
Arthur Naiman.
It does not make sense to attack such an eminent Professor because of your frustrations with Kwarteng and his ilk.
francis kwarteng 8 years ago
Dear Marcus,
Baidoo has no clue what he's saying about Noam Chomsky.
You can understand why my exposure of his lies about Chomsky undermines the substance of his article.
You see, the man can't tell the difference b ... read full comment
Dear Marcus,
Baidoo has no clue what he's saying about Noam Chomsky.
You can understand why my exposure of his lies about Chomsky undermines the substance of his article.
You see, the man can't tell the difference between a summary and a verbatim quote.
This is what happens to writers who simply want to discredit others they simply don't like by, among other things, closely reading and questioning their assumptions of their sources.
I will continue to expose Baidoo's lies (since I am lucky to be familiar with his sources)! Like you said, I also believe frustration is undermining Baidoo's work. This is clear in his articles, particularly this one.
Have a great weekend.
Thanks.
DESSIE 8 years ago
"intellectual war" of two enemies,
"intellectual war" of two enemies,
Bassing kamal 8 years ago
I have being following yr (Mr Baidoo) articles with keen interest and a kind of mixed reactions,on one hand the man(Mr Kwateng) you call your "intellectual adversary"
so I ask myself why would you people use your hard earn ... read full comment
I have being following yr (Mr Baidoo) articles with keen interest and a kind of mixed reactions,on one hand the man(Mr Kwateng) you call your "intellectual adversary"
so I ask myself why would you people use your hard earned "book Knowledge"to bear in our ailing economy rather than intellectually arrogant at each other.Mr Baidoo ,I always become confuse in the course of reading yr "fine "articles because u don't go straight to the point.
You see whether capitalism or socialism or did u people say communism it is not important to the man on the street until you bring yr book knowledge to bear on the economy rather than narrowly viewing each other as "intellectual adversaries".the holy truth.oh yeah
Doreen Muir 8 years ago
This is so poorly written that the failure of its argument is almost...almost...secondary
This is so poorly written that the failure of its argument is almost...almost...secondary
Amatfromnyc 8 years ago
You don't understand Marxism if you think it's evil. That's when I stooped reading. Also, your writing is subpar and English is a second language for me as well, if this is your excuse.
You don't understand Marxism if you think it's evil. That's when I stooped reading. Also, your writing is subpar and English is a second language for me as well, if this is your excuse.
MSR 8 years ago
What a terribly written article!!! Try taking a journalism class for writing. Does anybody really care if you used a dialup modem and it was painfully slow? A lot of fluff without much effort at getting to the point. You coul ... read full comment
What a terribly written article!!! Try taking a journalism class for writing. Does anybody really care if you used a dialup modem and it was painfully slow? A lot of fluff without much effort at getting to the point. You could have written this in 2 short paragraphs, but that would show how empty it is.
Philip Kobina Baidoo 8 years ago
No one is a hero to his critics. This is what Lord Shaftesbury had to say about William Shakespeare. He said, ‘Shakespeare is a coarse and savage mind.’ Alexander Pope, when quizzed on Shakespeare’s work quipped, ‘One ... read full comment
No one is a hero to his critics. This is what Lord Shaftesbury had to say about William Shakespeare. He said, ‘Shakespeare is a coarse and savage mind.’ Alexander Pope, when quizzed on Shakespeare’s work quipped, ‘One must eat.’ Voltaire described Shakespeare as a barbarian who composed monstrous farces called tragedies. This is snippets of the critics of just one author. Thank you.
JD 8 years ago
One of your claims is that Marxism is evil. Have you actually read Karl Marx's seminal works along with neo-marxists like Althusser and Bourdieu? Yes, his view about the evolution of a classless society is inconceivable but m ... read full comment
One of your claims is that Marxism is evil. Have you actually read Karl Marx's seminal works along with neo-marxists like Althusser and Bourdieu? Yes, his view about the evolution of a classless society is inconceivable but many of his ideas are still topical. I'm no Marxist, but I won't be making spurious arguments about the irrelevance of Marxism when social inequalities and the alienation of ground level workers are so prevalent in modern society. You haven't offered a coherent point to back your assertion. So is your brief criticism of Choamsky.
Peter Maximilian HM 8 years ago
Integrity is a big word. And making points is truly subjective, as is being right.
Integrity is a big word. And making points is truly subjective, as is being right.
Prof Lungu 8 years ago
READ: "... You can lobby to have the black congressional caucus honouring a race hustler like Al Sharpton who feeds on the corpses of his fellow black people. And you will be telling me to celebrate that? Not a chance in hel ... read full comment
READ: "... You can lobby to have the black congressional caucus honouring a race hustler like Al Sharpton who feeds on the corpses of his fellow black people. And you will be telling me to celebrate that? Not a chance in hell..."
OUR COMMENT: We do not know if this has occurred to any of you readers.
But, this latest essay from Philip Kobina Baidoo Jnr reads a lot like the so-called "manifesto"/confession, by the racist, deluded lad from Charleston, South Carolina, who killed 9 African American 17 June, while they worshiped with him in the historic Mother Emmanuel Church in downtown Charleston.
The resemblances are all in the premise, the structure, and above all the substance and emphasis. This is the type of communication (Talking Point), we would expect from Alex Jones, Fox News, David Horowitz, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh, etc. These are people who will rail against "ObamaCare" and the Affordable Health Care law, even as their parents, spouses, children, and in some cases, themselves, receive Social Security and government pensions and benefits, month-after-month-after month.
Daily, these are racist, bigoted sources for the most part, except they are confederate-flag-waiving, money-making/fund-raising enterprises intended to precisely facilitate separation of white-power-fanatics from their money, each step of the way.
Except, still, by being on this forum, our Philip Kobina Baidoo Jnr has been communicating to us he is a Ghanaian national, of African parentage.
Rather odd, we will say, even for a person who claims he was a "leftist", when he could not think for himself!
And so, we find all of this bizarre to the highest degree, reading these words from Mr. Baidoo at this crucial stage/time!
So, now, we know where this record, this Baidoo literature, is most likely headed!
Peace!
francis kwarteng 8 years ago
Dear Prof. Lungu,
How are you?
I guess you must have known why I did not respond to the Al Sharpton part of Baidoo's essay.
Well, for Baidoo's information a White-American author, Robert W. Wood, once compared Hilla ... read full comment
Dear Prof. Lungu,
How are you?
I guess you must have known why I did not respond to the Al Sharpton part of Baidoo's essay.
Well, for Baidoo's information a White-American author, Robert W. Wood, once compared Hillary Clinton to Al Sharpton when he [Wood] wrote: "SHE IS AS SLICK AS AL SHARPTON."
I also guess Baidoo knows how many prominent Whites have been compared to Al Sharpton.
As you can see Baidoo just writes without giving serious and critical thought to his assumptions, arguments, and conclusions. We all know this. One commentator MSR (JOURNALISM 101) brought this out.
Well, Baidoo should be telling us more about Rachel Dolezal and many others like her. Let me stop here before I begin to expose more of Baidoo's analytic failures and errors.
I will save this for his next article!
Thanks.
Baloney Buster 8 years ago
You are parroting Arthur Schlesinger's ignorant rant against Chomsky in the Commentary in the face of Chomsky's principled and steadfast opposition to the terrorist invasion of Vietnam by the US. Don't pretend that it's your ... read full comment
You are parroting Arthur Schlesinger's ignorant rant against Chomsky in the Commentary in the face of Chomsky's principled and steadfast opposition to the terrorist invasion of Vietnam by the US. Don't pretend that it's your own rant!
Carlos Decourcy Lascoutx 8 years ago
the worms are not just in your can. as
you are an absolutist they are all over
in everything you do. nothing and no one
is perfect, neither black or white but
gray. monism has many flaws, e.g.,
money and monarchy are not ... read full comment
the worms are not just in your can. as
you are an absolutist they are all over
in everything you do. nothing and no one
is perfect, neither black or white but
gray. monism has many flaws, e.g.,
money and monarchy are not equity(true
justice), and communism, the way Russian and Chinese practice it, is a cruel joke(North Korea). theocracy is
holier than thou or i(hypocrisy).
Chomsky doesn't lie when he talks
about the USA. his facts are correct
and come from govenment declassified
papers(the record). what is false is
his career as a linguist as he managed
to fly over the subject in theory rather than deal with the mechanics
the subject demands by breaking words
(etymology/consonant shifts/Nauatl,
the real PIE). keep going, you are making progress, but there are many more stations to visit down the line
before you are complete, if ever that
happens as education(study)is lifelong.
Claudia 8 years ago
Chomsky characterized Truman's remarks- " he suggested in a famous and important speech that the basic freedom is freedom of enterprise and that the whole world should adopt the American system" - he didn't quote them. This ... read full comment
Chomsky characterized Truman's remarks- " he suggested in a famous and important speech that the basic freedom is freedom of enterprise and that the whole world should adopt the American system" - he didn't quote them. This writer is off base. It's easy to understand how the reference might be hard to find though.
Prof Lungu 8 years ago
Claudia,
You make the correct point!
It was "suggested" - like in "Wink-Wink" fashion!
ITEM: "...The trade-agreement negotiations that will accompany consideration of the Charter, should enable countries that are now ... read full comment
Claudia,
You make the correct point!
It was "suggested" - like in "Wink-Wink" fashion!
ITEM: "...The trade-agreement negotiations that will accompany consideration of the Charter, should enable countries that are now in difficulty to work their way out of it by affording them readier access to the markets of the world. This program is designed to restore and preserve a trading system that is consistent with continuing freedom of enterprise in every country that chooses freedom for its own economy. It is a program that will serve the interests of other nations as well as those of the United States..."
Address on Foreign Economic Policy, Delivered at Baylor University.
March 6, 1947
THE TRUMAN SPEECH
READ:
"...President Neff, ladies and gentlemen, members of the faculty of this great school and its pupils:
I can't tell you how very much I appreciate this honor which you are conferring upon me.
I am particularly touched by your remembrance of my mother.
It is with a real sense of gratification that I meet with you today on the beautiful campus of Baylor University in Waco. I congratulate you on the outstanding achievements of this great university during the one hundred and one years of its existence. I am sincerely grateful for the degree of Doctor of Laws that you have bestowed upon me, and I am honored to become a fellow alumnus of the distinguished men and women of this institution who have contributed so much to make our country great.
At this particular time, the whole world is concentrating much of its thought and energy on attaining the objectives of peace and freedom. These objectives are bound up completely with a third objective--reestablishment of world trade. In fact the three-peace, freedom, and world trade--are inseparable. The grave lessons of the past have proved it.
Many of our people, here in America, used to think that we could escape the troubles of the world by simply staying within our own borders. Two wars have shown how wrong they were. We know today that we cannot find security in isolation. If we are to live at peace, we must join with other nations in a continuing effort to organize the world for peace. Science and invention have left us no other alternative.
After the First World War, the United States proposed a League of Nations, an organization to maintain order in the world. But when our proposal was accepted and the League was established, this country failed to become a member.
Can any thoughtful person fail to realize today what that mistake cost this Nation and cost the world?
This time we are taking a different course. Our country has taken a leading part in building the United Nations, in setting up its councils, its committees and commissions, and in putting them to work. We are doing everything within our power to foster international cooperation. We have dedicated ourselves to its success.
This is not, and it must never be, the policy of a single administration or a single party. It is the policy of all the people of the United States. We, in America, are unanimous in our determination to prevent another war.
But some among us do not fully realize what we must do to carry out this policy. There still are those who seem to believe that we can confine our cooperation with other countries to political relationships; that we need not cooperate where economic questions are involved.
This attitude has sometimes led to the assertion that there should be bipartisan support for the foreign policy of the United States, but that there need not be bipartisan support for the foreign economic policy of the United States.
Such a statement simply does not make sense.
Our foreign relations, political and economic, are indivisible. We cannot say that we are willing to cooperate in the one field and are unwilling to cooperate in the other. I am glad to note that the leaders in both parties have recognized that fact.
The members of the United Nations have renounced aggression as a method of settling [p.168] their political differences. Instead of putting armies on the march, they have now agreed to sit down around a table and talk things out. In any dispute, each party will present its case. The interests of all will be considered, and a fair and just solution will be found. This is the way of international order. It is the way of a civilized community. It applies, with equal logic, to the settlement of economic differences.
Economic conflict is not spectacular--at least in the early stages. But it is always serious. One nation may take action in behalf of its own producers, without notifying other nations, or consulting them, or even considering how they may be affected. It may cut down its purchases of another country's goods, by raising its tariffs or imposing an embargo or a system of quotas on imports. And when it does this, some producer, in the other country, will find the door to his market suddenly slammed and bolted in his face.
Or a nation may subsidize its exports, selling its goods abroad below their cost. When this is done, a producer in some other country will find his market flooded with goods that have been dumped.
In either case, the producer gets angry, just as you or I would get angry if such a thing were done to us. Profits disappear; workers are dismissed. The producer feels that he has been wronged, without warning and without reason. He appeals to his government for action. His government retaliates, and another round of tariff boosts, embargoes, quotas, and subsidies is under way. This is economic war. In such a war nobody wins.
Certainly, nobody won the last economic war. As each battle of the economic war of the thirties was fought, the inevitable tragic result became more and more apparent. From the tariff policy of Hawley and Smoot, the world went on to Ottawa and the system of imperial preferences, from Ottawa to the kind of elaborate and detailed restrictions adopted by Nazi Germany. Nations strangled normal trade and discriminated against their neighbors, all around the world.
Who among their peoples were the gainers ? Not the depositors who lost their savings in the failure of the banks. Not the farmers who lost their farms. Not the millions who walked the streets looking for work. I do not mean to say that economic conflict was the sole cause of the depression. But I do say that it was a major cause.
Now, as in the year 1920, we have reached a turning point in history. National economies have been disrupted by the war. The future is uncertain everywhere. Economic policies are in a state of flux. In this atmosphere of doubt and hesitation, the decisive factor will be the type of leadership that the United States gives the world.
We are the giant of the economic world. Whether we like it or not, the future pattern of economic relations depends upon us. The world is waiting and watching to see what we shall do. The choice is ours. We can lead the nations to economic peace or we can plunge them into economic war.
There must be no question as to our course. We must not go through the thirties again.
There is abundant evidence, I think, that these earlier mistakes will not be repeated. We have already made a good start. Our Government has participated fully in setting up, under the United Nations, agencies of international cooperation for dealing with relief and refugees, with food and agriculture, with shipping and aviation, with loans for reconstruction and development, and with the stabilization of currencies. And now, in order to avoid economic warfare, our Government has proposed, and others have agreed, that there be set up, within the United Nations, another agency to be concerned [p.169] with problems and policies affecting world trade. This is the International Trade Organization.
This organization would apply to commercial relationships the same principle of fair dealing that the United Nations is applying to political affairs. Instead of retaining unlimited freedom to commit acts of economic aggression, its members would adopt a code of economic conduct and agree to live according to its rules. Instead of adopting measures that might be harmful to others, without warning and without consultation, countries would sit down around the table and talk things out. In any dispute, each party would present its case. The interest of all would be considered, and a fair and just solution would be found. In economics, as in international politics, this is the way to peace.
The work of drafting a world trade charter was begun by the United States. It was carried forward by a Preparatory Committee of eighteen nations meeting in London last fall. It should be completed at a second meeting of this Committee in Geneva, beginning on April tenth.
The progress that has already been made on this project is one of the most heartening developments since the war.
If the nations can agree to observe a code of good conduct in international trade, they will cooperate more readily in other international affairs. Such agreement will prevent the bitterness that is engendered by an economic war. It will provide an atmosphere congenial to the preservation of peace.
As a part of this program we have asked the other nations of the world to join with us in reducing barriers to trade. We have not asked them to remove all barriers. Nor have we ourselves offered to. do so. But we have proposed negotiations directed toward the reduction of tariffs, here and abroad, toward the elimination of other restrictive measures and the abandonment of discrimination. These negotiations are to be undertaken at the meeting which opens in Geneva next month. The success of this program is essential to the establishment of the International Trade Organization, to the effective operation of the International Bank and the Monetary Fund, and to the strength of the whole United Nations structure of cooperation in economic and political affairs.
The negotiations at Geneva must not fail.
There is one thing that Americans value even more than peace. It is freedom. Freedom of worship--freedom of speech freedom of enterprise. It must be true that the first two of these freedoms are related to the third. For, throughout history, freedom of worship and freedom of speech have been most frequently enjoyed in those societies that have accorded a considerable measure of freedom to individual enterprise. Freedom has flourished where power has been dispersed. It has languished where power has been too highly centralized. So our devotion to freedom of enterprise, in the United States, has deeper roots than a desire to protect the profits of ownership. It is part and parcel of what we call American.
The pattern of international trade that is most conducive to freedom of enterprise is one in which the major decisions are made, not by governments, but by private buyers and sellers, under conditions of active competition, and with proper safeguards against the establishment of monopolies and cartels. Under such a system, buyers make their purchases, and sellers make their sales, at whatever time and place and in whatever quantities they choose, relying for guidance on whatever prices the market may afford. Goods move from country to country in response to economic opportunities. Governments may impose tariffs, but they do not dictate the quantity of trade, the sources of [p.170] imports, or the destination of exports. Individual transactions are a matter of private choice.
This is the essence of free enterprise. The pattern of trade that is least conducive to freedom of enterprise is one in which decisions are made by governments. Under such a system, the quantity of purchases and sales, the sources of imports, and the destination of exports are dictated by public officials. In some cases, trade may be conducted by the state. In others, part or all of it may be left in private hands. But, even so, the trader is not free. Governments make all the important choices and he adjusts himself to them as best he can.
This was the pattern of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Unless we act, and act decisively, it will be the pattern of the next century.
Everywhere on earth, nations are under economic pressure. Countries that were devastated by the war are seeking to reconstruct their industries. Their need to import, in the months that lie ahead, will exceed their capacity to export. And so they feel that imports must be rigidly controlled.
Countries that have lagged in their development are seeking to industrialize. In order that new industries may be established, they, too, feel that competing imports must be rigidly controlled.
Nor is this all. The products of some countries are in great demand. But buyers outside their borders do not hold the money of these countries in quantities large enough to enable them to pay for the goods they want. And they find these moneys difficult to earn. Importing countries, when they make their purchases, therefore seek to discriminate against countries whose currencies they do not possess. Here, again, they feel that imports must be rigidly controlled.
One way to cut down on imports is by curtailing the freedom of traders to use foreign money to pay for imported goods. But recourse to this device is now limited by the terms of the British loan agreement and by the rules of the International Monetary Fund. Another way to cut down on imports is by raising tariffs.
But if controls over trade are really to be tight, tariffs are not enough. Even more drastic measures can be used. Quotas can be imposed on imports, product by product, country by country, and month by month. Importers can be forbidden to buy abroad without obtaining licenses. Those who buy more than is permitted can be fined or jailed. Everything that comes into a country can be kept within limits determined by a central plan. That is regimentation. And this is the direction in which much of the world is headed at the present time.
If this trend is not reversed, the Government of the United States will be under pressure, sooner or later, to use these same devices to fight for markets and for raw materials. And if the Government were to yield to this pressure, it would shortly find itself in the business of allocating foreign goods among importers and foreign markets among exporters and telling every trader what he could buy or sell, and how much, and when, and where. This is precisely what we have been trying to get away from, as rapidly as possible, ever since the war. It is not the American way. It is not the way to peace.
Fortunately, an alternative has been offered to the world in The Charter of the International Trade Organization that is to be considered at Geneva in the coming month. The Charter would limit the present freedom of governments to impose detailed administrative regulations on their foreign trade. The International Trade Organization would require its member nations to confine such controls to exceptional cases, in the immediate future, and to abandon [p.171] them entirely as soon as they can be abandoned.
The trade-agreement negotiations that will accompany consideration of the Charter, should enable countries that are now in difficulty to work their way out of it by affording them readier access to the markets of the world. This program is designed to restore and preserve a trading system that is consistent with continuing freedom of enterprise in every country that chooses freedom for its own economy. It is a program that will serve the interests of other nations as well as those of the United States.
If these negotiations are to be successful, we ourselves must make the same commitments that we ask all other nations of the world to make. We must be prepared to make concessions if we are to obtain concessions from others in return. If these negotiations should fail, our hope of an early restoration of an international order in which private trade can flourish would be lost. I say again, they must not fail.
The program that we have been discussing will make our foreign trade larger than it otherwise would be. This means that exports will be larger. It also means that imports will be larger. Many people, it is true, are afraid of imports. They are afraid because they have assumed that we cannot take more products from abroad unless we produce just that much less at home.
This is not the case. The size of our market is not forever fixed. It is smaller when we attempt to isolate ourselves from the other countries of the world. It is larger when we have a thriving foreign trade. Our imports were down to a billion dollars in 1932; they were up to five billion in 1946. But no one would contend that 1932 was a better year than 1946 for selling goods, or making profits, or finding jobs. Business is poor when markets are small. Business is good when markets are big. It is the purpose of the coming negotiations to lower existing barriers to trade so that markets everywhere may grow.
I said to the Congress, when it last considered the extension of the Trade Agreements Act, and I now reiterate, that domestic interests will be safeguarded in this process of expanding trade. But there still are those who sincerely fear that the trade agreement negotiations will prove disastrous to the interests of particular producing groups. I am sure that their misgivings are not well founded. The situation briefly is this:
(1) The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act has been on the books since 1934. It has been administered with painstaking care and strict impartiality. Some 30 agreements with other countries have been made. And trade has grown, to the great benefit of our economy.
(2) This Government does not intend, in the coming negotiations, to eliminate tariffs or to establish free trade. All that is contemplated is the reduction of tariffs, the removal of discriminations, and the achievement, not of free trade, but of freer trade.
(3) In the process of negotiations, tariffs will not be cut across the board. Action will be selective; some rates may be cut substantially, others moderately, and others not at all.
(4) In return for these concessions, we shall seek and obtain concessions from other countries to benefit our export trade.
(5) Millions of Americans-on farms, in factories, on the railroads, in export and import businesses, in shipping, aviation, banking, and insurance, in wholesale establishments and in retail stores--depend upon foreign trade for some portion of their livelihood. If we are to protect the interests of these people, in their investments and their employment, we must see to it that our [p.172] trade does not decline. Take one of these groups as an example: we exported in 1946 over three billion dollars worth of agricultural products alone, mostly grain, cotton, tobacco, dairy products, and eggs. If we should lose a substantial part of this foreign market, the incomes of over six million farm families would be materially reduced and their buying power for the products of our factories greatly curtailed.
(6) There is no intention to sacrifice one group to the benefit of another group. Negotiations will be directed toward obtaining larger markets, both foreign and domestic, for the benefit of all.
(7) No tariff rate will be reduced until an exhaustive study has been made, until every person who wishes a hearing has been heard, and careful consideration given to his case.
(8) In every future agreement, there will be a clause that permits this Government-or any other government--to modify or withdraw a concession if it should result, or threaten to result, in serious injury to a domestic industry. This is now required by the Executive order 1 which I issued on February the 25th, following extensive conferences between officials in the Department of State and the majority leaders in the Senate.
1 Executive Order 9832 "Prescribing Procedures for the Administration of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Program" (3 CFR, 1943-1948 Comp., p. 624).
All these points--the history of trade-agreement operations, the way in which negotiations are conducted, the protection afforded by the safeguarding clause--should provide assurance, if assurance is needed, that domestic interests will not be injured.
The policy of reducing barriers to trade is a settled policy of this Government. It is embodied in the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, lathered and administered for many years by Cordel Hull. It is reflected in the Charter of the International Trade Organization. It is one of the cornerstones of our plans for peace. It is a policy from which we cannot--and must not--turn aside.
Those among us--and there are still a few--who would seek to undermine this policy for partisan advantage and go back to the period of high tariffs and economic isolation, I can only say this: Times have changed. Our position in the world has changed. The temper of our people has changed. The slogans of 1930 or of 1896 are sadly out of date. Isolationism, after two world wars, is a confession of mental and moral bankruptcy.
Happily, our foreign economic policy does not now rest upon a base of narrow partisanship. Leaders in both parties have expressed their faith in its essential purposes. Here, as elsewhere in our foreign relations, I shall welcome a continuation of bipartisan support.
Our people are united. They have come to a realization of their responsibilities. They are ready to assume their role of leadership. They are determined upon an international order in which peace and freedom shall endure.
Peace and freedom are not easily achieved. They cannot be attained by force. They come from mutual understanding and cooperation, from a willingness to deal fairly with every friendly nation in all matters-political and economic. Let us resolve to continue to do just that, now and in the future. If other nations of the world will do the same, we can reach the goals of permanent peace and world freedom.
Source: www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=12842
Paul 8 years ago
If I'm counting lies of Chomsky vs. the Media and War Propagandists he's battling, then comparably speaking, Chomsky comes out smelling like a rise.
If I'm counting lies of Chomsky vs. the Media and War Propagandists he's battling, then comparably speaking, Chomsky comes out smelling like a rise.
francis kwarteng 8 years ago
Dear Paul,
This is just by the way:
Title: 10 Brilliant Quotes by Noam Chomsky on How Media Really Operates in America: Chomsky's observations about propaganda and corporate media are always useful to keep in mind.
... read full comment
Dear Paul,
This is just by the way:
Title: 10 Brilliant Quotes by Noam Chomsky on How Media Really Operates in America: Chomsky's observations about propaganda and corporate media are always useful to keep in mind.
1. "The major media-particularly, the elite media that set the agenda that others generally follow-are corporations “selling” privileged audiences to other businesses. It would hardly come as a surprise if the picture of the world they present were to reflect the perspectives and interests of the sellers, the buyers, and the product. Concentration of ownership of the media is high and increasing. Furthermore, those who occupy managerial positions in the media, or gain status within them as commentators, belong to the same privileged elites, and might be expected to share the perceptions, aspirations, and attitudes of their associates, reflecting their own class interests as well. Journalists entering the system are unlikely to make their way unless they conform to these ideological pressures, generally by internalizing the values; it is not easy to say one thing and believe another, and those who fail to conform will tend to be weeded out by familiar mechanisms."
From Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies
2. “If the media were honest, they would say, Look, here are the interests we represent and this is the framework within which we look at things. This is our set of beliefs and commitments. That’s what they would say, very much as their critics say. For example, I don’t try to hide my commitments, and the Washington Post and New York Times shouldn’t do it either. However, they must do it, because this mask of balance and objectivity is a crucial part of the propaganda function. In fact, they actually go beyond that. They try to present themselves as adversarial to power, as subversive, digging away at powerful institutions and undermining them. The academic profession plays along with this game.”
From Lecture titled "Media, Knowledge, and Objectivity," June 16, 1993
3."The leading student of business propaganda, Australian social scientist Alex Carey, argues persuasively that “the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy."
From World Orders: Old and New
4. "The public relations industry, which essentially runs the elections, is applying certain principles to undermine democracy which are the same as the principles that applies to undermine markets. The last thing that business wants is markets in the sense of economic theory. Take a course in economics, they tell you a market is based on informed consumers making rational choices. Anyone who’s ever looked at a TV ad knows that’s not true. In fact if we had a market system an ad say for General Motors would be a brief statement of the characteristics of the products for next year. That’s not what you see. You see some movie actress or a football hero or somebody driving a car up a mountain or something like that. And that’s true of all advertising. The goal is to undermine markets by creating uninformed consumers who will make irrational choices and the business world spends huge efforts on that. The same is true when the same industry, the PR industry, turns to undermining democracy. It wants to construct elections in which uninformed voters will make irrational choices. It’s pretty reasonable and it’s so evident you can hardly miss it."
From lecture titled"The State-Corporate Complex:A Threat to Freedom and Survival," at the The University of Toronto, April 7, 2011
5. "The Obama campaign greatly impressed the public relations industry, which named Obama ‘Advertising Age’s marketer of the year for 2008,’ easily beating out Apple computers. A good predictor of the elections a few weeks later. The industry’s regular task is to create uninformed consumers who will make irrational choices, thus undermining markets as they are conceptualized in economic theory, but benefiting the masters of the economy. And it recognizes the benefits of undermining democracy in much the same way, creating uninformed voters who make often irrational choices between the factions of the business party that amass sufficient support from concentrated private capital to enter the electoral arena, then to dominate campaign propaganda."
From Hopes and Prospects
6. "Control of thought is more important for governments that are free and popular than for despotic and military states. The logic is straightforward: a despotic state can control its domestic enemies by force, but as the state loses this weapon, other devices are required to prevent the ignorant masses from interfering with public affairs, which are none of their business…the public are to be observers, not participants, consumers of ideology as well as products."
From article "Force and Opinion" in Z Magazine
7. "The first modern propaganda agency was the British Ministry of Information a century ago, which secretly defined its task as “to direct the thought of most of the world” — primarily progressive American intellectuals, who had to be mobilized to come to the aid of Britain during World War I."
From article "Destroying the Commons"in Tom Dispatch
8. "One of the questions asked in that study was, How many Vietnamese casualties would you estimate that there were during the Vietnam war? The average response on the part of Americans today is about 100,000. The official figure is about two million. The actual figure is probably three to four million. The people who conducted the study raised an appropriate question: What would we think about German political culture if, when you asked people today how many Jews died in the Holocaust, they estimated about 300,000? What would that tell us about German political culture?"
From Media Control
9. "You don’t have any other society where the educated classes are so effectively indoctrinated and controlled by a subtle propaganda system – a private system including media, intellectual opinion forming magazines and the participation of the most highly educated sections of the population. Such people ought to be referred to as “Commissars” – for that is what their essential function is – to set up and maintain a system of doctrines and beliefs which will undermine independent thought and prevent a proper understanding and analysis of national and global institutions, issues, and policies."
From Language and Politics
10. “Citizens of the democratic societies should undertake a course of intellectual self defense to protect themselves from manipulation and control, and to lay the basis for meaningful democracy.”
From Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies
Which part of your argument you raise is watertight? North Korea announced that it had developed cure for Ebola, Aids and MERS that the South Koreans are struggling to contain. North Korea is a communist state, cut off from t ...
read full comment
What sensible thing have you written?
I have always had my doubts about that man.
Japan, the EU and USA spent billions of dollars to rebuild these countries after 2nd world war and the Korea war as their puppet states. Japan was forced in a "mafioso shake down" style to pay over 8 billon dollars in the lat ...
read full comment
Dear Baidoo,
It appears each time you are exposed you get angrier and come out with more lies and distortions of the facts. Anyway, I will not resort to “insults” and aspersions as you do because I still respect you no ...
read full comment
COOL CALM & COLLECTED!!! TRUE AFRICAN INTELLECT.
Don’t worry I am used to your subtle insults. You can say Philip is an idiot, a moron or ignorant. No, ignorant is too soft, because we can all be ignorant one way or the other. Maybe a madman will do. If you do not underst ...
read full comment
In that case Mr Baidoo, stop re-arranging your prejudices for our consumption. When did you become an authority on DDT,Socialism,Communism or Capitalism? Kwarteng, tries his utmost to broden
Kwarteng, tries his utmost to broaden the scope of the readers. He does not come across as a compartmentalized-thinker.
Dear Baidoo,
WHY SHOULD I SUMMARIZE FOR YOU? HAVE I EVER ASKED YOU TO SUMMARIZE ANY OF YOUR TEXTS FOR ME?
I HARDLY ASK OTHERS TO SUMMARIZE TEXTS FOR BECAUSE I ALWAYS WANT TO READ THEM IN ORDER TO FORM MY OWN OPINIONS. ...
read full comment
You are missing my point. If you catalogue 391 books how do you expect me to go through that before I come back? You are just squelching the debate; it doesn't help. You think I don't have anything to do with my time, but to ...
read full comment
Mr. Baidoo,
I don't have time to read hundreds of books on these matters. The point is that the people you are providing your opinion about have read all these books and are engaged in a continuous examination and analysis ...
read full comment
Dear Baidoo,
Did you not totally agree with SAS when he asked me to summarize my texts?
And are you also saying I don't have anything to do with my time?
I think Frank Miscione has said it all. I think you will bene ...
read full comment
Is your point to discredit another scholar's obscure quote to gain traction? What have you contributed to the dialogue?
Dear Baidoo,
I will like you to read Antobam's insightful and enlightening piece (there is a lot in the piece that will show you what is going in the world today in terms of political economy and different classes of it):
...
read full comment
You have never understood my position. You just use one thousand words to describe one word. I have written several times that my beef is about the creation of wealth. All the social brouhaha is not something that I worry too ...
read full comment
Dear Baidoo,
I have clearly understood your position.
Wealth is not created only through you brand of capitalism.
Do you have any idea how your brand of "capitalist" wealth creation has deprived billions of wealth? ...
read full comment
IGNORAMUS IDIOTICUS AFRICANENSIS
In KOBINA PHILIP BAIDOO, JR. EXPOSED!. Kwarteng went the extra miles to lay out the inconsistencies, the unpardonable errors, and the insults of Baidoo's piece; and I can hazard a guess that in the next Nkrumahism, The Can of ...
read full comment
Dear Marcus,
Baidoo has no clue what he's saying about Noam Chomsky.
You can understand why my exposure of his lies about Chomsky undermines the substance of his article.
You see, the man can't tell the difference b ...
read full comment
"intellectual war" of two enemies,
I have being following yr (Mr Baidoo) articles with keen interest and a kind of mixed reactions,on one hand the man(Mr Kwateng) you call your "intellectual adversary"
so I ask myself why would you people use your hard earn ...
read full comment
This is so poorly written that the failure of its argument is almost...almost...secondary
You don't understand Marxism if you think it's evil. That's when I stooped reading. Also, your writing is subpar and English is a second language for me as well, if this is your excuse.
What a terribly written article!!! Try taking a journalism class for writing. Does anybody really care if you used a dialup modem and it was painfully slow? A lot of fluff without much effort at getting to the point. You coul ...
read full comment
No one is a hero to his critics. This is what Lord Shaftesbury had to say about William Shakespeare. He said, ‘Shakespeare is a coarse and savage mind.’ Alexander Pope, when quizzed on Shakespeare’s work quipped, ‘One ...
read full comment
One of your claims is that Marxism is evil. Have you actually read Karl Marx's seminal works along with neo-marxists like Althusser and Bourdieu? Yes, his view about the evolution of a classless society is inconceivable but m ...
read full comment
Integrity is a big word. And making points is truly subjective, as is being right.
READ: "... You can lobby to have the black congressional caucus honouring a race hustler like Al Sharpton who feeds on the corpses of his fellow black people. And you will be telling me to celebrate that? Not a chance in hel ...
read full comment
Dear Prof. Lungu,
How are you?
I guess you must have known why I did not respond to the Al Sharpton part of Baidoo's essay.
Well, for Baidoo's information a White-American author, Robert W. Wood, once compared Hilla ...
read full comment
You are parroting Arthur Schlesinger's ignorant rant against Chomsky in the Commentary in the face of Chomsky's principled and steadfast opposition to the terrorist invasion of Vietnam by the US. Don't pretend that it's your ...
read full comment
the worms are not just in your can. as
you are an absolutist they are all over
in everything you do. nothing and no one
is perfect, neither black or white but
gray. monism has many flaws, e.g.,
money and monarchy are not ...
read full comment
Chomsky characterized Truman's remarks- " he suggested in a famous and important speech that the basic freedom is freedom of enterprise and that the whole world should adopt the American system" - he didn't quote them. This ...
read full comment
Claudia,
You make the correct point!
It was "suggested" - like in "Wink-Wink" fashion!
ITEM: "...The trade-agreement negotiations that will accompany consideration of the Charter, should enable countries that are now ...
read full comment
If I'm counting lies of Chomsky vs. the Media and War Propagandists he's battling, then comparably speaking, Chomsky comes out smelling like a rise.
Dear Paul,
This is just by the way:
Title: 10 Brilliant Quotes by Noam Chomsky on How Media Really Operates in America: Chomsky's observations about propaganda and corporate media are always useful to keep in mind.
...
read full comment
you one ignorant ass