Norm Pie-in-the-sky Chomsky

[nicky g]

Ah, I see. I don't know if political systems really can be said to have opposites, but I take your point.

[MMMMMM]

Well, the closest things to their opposites, anyway;-)

[brad]

well US is torturing right now, despite our opinion.

youre eating gmo food, btw. we'll see how that works out. did anyone ask you if u mind being a guinae pig?

also its confirmed chem/bio warfare as part of 'drug war' in columbia. who cares brown short people arent human anyway screw them they dont own stock.

[morgan]

I don't see Chomsky as a preacher, any more than anyone with a microphone and opinions and good public speaking skills would be.

I guess it is true that he does seem to have a solution for everything. But I doubt he would be taken very seriously if he didn't.

Also I think one problem that (American) critics of Chomsky often share is that they take too personally his anti-american stance. America is the most powerful nation, and home of the most powerful coorporations, hence he attacks the US. He is not intrinsically anti-america. I don't mean to imply this is the case with you Zeno, I just wanted to point it out as a general comment.

I don't really know too much about Chomsky so I shouldn't say too much. I've only read one of his interviews-turned-to-books and am just now starting Manufacturing Consent. But near as I can tell he is a good-guy [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] . That's just my opinion. Take care,

Morgan

[IrishHand]

I still think it significant that the opposites of things Chomsky rails against are even worse.

That's a ridiculous argument. I think we spend way too much on the military, but of course spending way too little on the military is equally problematic if not more so. I think the US health system is way too privatized, but of course a completely state-owned health care apparatus would have as many if not more problems assocaited with it. I think far too much money is wasted on legal services, but of course having no legal services would result in civil anarchy.

No sensible person says "this is bad, we must do the opposite"...a sensible person says "this is bad, let's make it better." You really should Chomsky before you take your shots at him. Overall, I believe you'll find that he's quite sensible.

[MMMMMM]

It's not an argument, it's an observation;-)

[Zeno]

“Your suggestion that Chomsky proposes particular solutions "for everything" is particularly thick.”

Thick as a brick. I was smiling when I type out that sentence in full caps to grab the eye.


“This post is another example of how difficult it is to lay a glove on Chomsky. Just once I'd like to see someone criticize the guy by pointing out something he's said that's untrue or illogical, and offer facts instead of an adjective-ridden rant in rebuttal.”


Mr. Chomsky has written scores of books (some in collaboration) given 100’s if not thousands of speeches, lectures, interviews etc and out of this vast minutia he is factual with everything he ever said and never uttered an illogical statement? Never one mistake? He has all the pertinent facts for everything he discusses and draws all the proper interpretations and inescapable conclusions with impeccable logic? Not one single person as every been able to “lay a glove on Chomsky” in this respect? (Did I, by accident, just prove something by logic?). Pope Chomsky the infallible! My I kiss his ring?

Well, obviously my initial post does not given this omniscient being his proper respect. On the day when he boards that golden chariot that wheels His Eminence up into the clouds to join the pantheon of immortals that litter the utopian heavens; I want to be in the host that sees him off and shouts – Hallelujah!

How’s that for “an adjective-ridden rant in rebuttal”.


In my opinion, at the base of Mr. Chomsky’s craft is one underlying galling assumption:


You cannot think for yourself little man, Trust me, I will do all the thinking for you.

Which leads me directly to:


Do not quote polls to a misanthrope. I care nothing for supposed new geographic or political definitions thrown out and then mauled over by self-seek politicians, wowsers, and moralistic crusaders as if there was some significance to them. Some leaders are defying their populations? Good. What logic dictates that whatever the mob wants the mob is suppose to have? Or that every leader is supposed to be a slave to polls? Or be lead by the irrational passions of an easily manipulated herd? Is no one supposed to think for himself or herself, including governmental leaders and policy makers? These are rhetorical questions. I neither want nor expect answers.

I’m off to read my new book, listen to some music, and try to enjoy a little civility before the madness descends.

Le Misanthrope

[andyfox]

I recommend a book by James C. Scott called Seeing Like a State, for examples and analysis of "how certain schmes to improve the human condition have failed."