Since I ended my last post with a reproach for Hillary Clinton, it is only fair that I pass on the news—which doesn’t seem to have gotten a lot of attention– that she has in fact come out against threatening added sanctions against Iran. In a letter to Sen. Carl Levin, she diplomatically avoids referring to the pending legislation, but she makes clear that she regards its provisions as potentially damaging to the negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program. Here is the text of her letter.
7 comments
Have a comment?
Buy my book
Michael T February 3, 2014 at 2:37 pm
The question of new Congress-imposed sanctions is shaping up to be a huge, huge battle. The hand of Netanyahu will be pulling the AIPAC strings. Craven Senators who teethe on the AIPAC tit for their election campaigns will maneuver to dress themselves in the sanctimony of defending Israel while betraying the interests of the American people and, it is worth adding, the people in Israel who do not want ALL the land and do want to rule over the wreckage of the middle east after Iran is subdued militarily, and temporarily.
Let’s see if Hilary can stick to her guns when the big Jewish contributors in New York and California parade their undying support of the Israeli right by turning up at the wailing wall with Netanyahu for photo ops and laying flowers on Sharon’s grave.
tonygreco February 4, 2014 at 11:10 am
Fortunately, AIPAC, facing unaccustomed resistance, seems to be backing down, at least for now, as the NY Times reports today.
Maximus Peperkamp February 7, 2014 at 3:27 pm
I heard you on the radio in Chico, California. I once had a brief phone conversation with Chomsky. He was offended and ended the conversation because I asked him about his tone of his voice, which, for all his linguistic knowledge, informs me that he is used to speaking at, not with people. Chomsky elicits outrage due to his uni-directional communication. His stern mentalistic perspective, seen from a behaviorist view, is in denial of how his behavior is and has been determined by his environment. Maximus Peperkamp, M.S.Verbal Behaviorist
tonygreco February 8, 2014 at 11:55 am
Interesting observations, and credible. In my book, I briefly discuss Chomsky’s intellectual intolerance, but mostly I avoid discussing the form and style, as opposed to the content, of his communications. But I do think that Chomsky’s style tends to suggest smugness and intolerance, which makes it ill-suited to persuading readers who are not already in agreement.
maximus peperkamp February 20, 2014 at 10:24 pm
Thanks for the compliment. However, my comment was not about Chomsky’s style. What I was referring to was the pretension of spoken communication, which I have coined Noxious Verbal Behavior(NVB). Those who engage in NVB produce a sound, which can be considered as an aversive stimulus. According to B.F. Skinner, Verbal Behavior is behavior that is under the control of consequences that are mediated by other people, who can interchangeably function as a speaker or as a listener. In NVB, however, the speaker does not become a listener and the listener is basically not even allowed to be a speaker; in other words, there is no exchange. In NVB, which, by the way, covers 95% of how people communicate, people speak AT each other. In Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), by contrast, people speak WITH each other. In SVB people co-regulate each other, whereas in NVB people dys-regulate each other. SVB is bi-directional, but NVB is uni-directional. The contingencies of reinforcement for SVB are entirely different than those that set the stage for NVB. That is why SVB implies the absences of NVB and visa versa. If you would like to talk with me about this, you can skype with me. My skype name is limbicease
It needs by made clear while we speak, because written words are under the control of different contingencies than spoken words. I hope to hear from you or from anyone who might read this and be interested in talking about this. Kind greetings, Maximus Peperkamp
tonygreco February 21, 2014 at 10:09 pm
Sounds very sensible, though outside of my field. I probably will not be following up with you on this. Thanks anyway.
Maximus Peperkamp February 23, 2014 at 9:12 am
Thanks for your response. You write “sounds sensible” yet, I didn’t say anything, nor did you hear anything. I only wrote something and you read it and wrote something back. We didn’t talk, we wrote to each other. In other words, you imagined you heard me say something. This is what most people today whose spoken communication doesn’t matter do, they read and write and image to be part of a conversation. This is of course an illusion, a bubble which sooner or later is going to burst. I understand why most people don’t want to talk with me. I insist on the fact that we are not talking with each other. Spoken communication is not some exclusive field (mine or yours). To see it that way shows a limited understanding of what it is. Politics is all about talking AT people not WITH people. If we know what spoken communication really is, we could address and solve our problems. You don’t need to be polite with me. We all know that you won’t skype with me, so why write “I probably will not be following up with you on this.” Why not write “I will certainly not talk with you!” Sure, you may insist that you could still change your mind, but chances of that happening will not to be determined by probability, but by the all-or-nothing impact of authentic human interaction. Kind greetings,
Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist