Chomsky *DID NOT* endorse Kerry!

Let's keep things straight, shall we? This is what Chomsky actually said, in the interview later claimed by the Guardian reporter to be the one in which he 'endorsed' Kerry:

Kerry is sometimes described as Bush-lite, which is not inaccurate, and in general the political spectrum is pretty narrow in the United States, and elections are mostly bought, as the population knows.

That is his only mention of Kerry.

But despite the limited differences {between Kerry and Bush} both domestically and internationally, there are differences. And in this system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes.

My feeling is pretty much the way it was in the year 2000. I admire Ralph Nader and Denis Kucinich very much, and insofar as they bring up issues and carry out an educational and organisational function - that's important, and fine, and I support it.

However, when it comes to the choice between the two factions of the business party, it does sometimes, in this case as in 2000, make a difference. A fraction.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/voices/story/0,12820,1168160,00.html

So his actual statement boils down to: Bush Lite (Kerry) is a fractionally lesser evil compared to Bush Regular, so choosing which one to vote for is not a toss-up and might possibly mean important differences in outcome, particularly at home.

That's not an endorsement.

Or, between the two factions of the business party, he feels the difference between the two on this occassion is significant when amplified by the office of the presidency.

It's no explicit endorsement, but the Guardian got it right. Between Bush and Kerry, it's clear he feels there is a difference and it's clear he doesn't prefer Bush.

Don't be so desperate that you abandon your grip on reality.

What he said was analogous to: 'If you're forced to choose between being beaten and being thrown off a cliff, choose the beating because at least you can get a cab to the hospital after'. That's not an endorsement of being beaten!

3. endorsement - formal and explicit approval; "a Democrat usually gets the union's endorsement"

The Guardian got it wrong. There's no approval involved in what he said, formal or informal, explicit or implied.

Mine would say 'Chomsky *DID* endorse Kerry!!'

Seriously though--between Bush and Kerry, he prefers Kerry. That's all I take away from this. The Guardian calls it an endorsement, and while it isn't that explicit, for all intents and purposes, it is a statement of preference.

and frightened that I wouldn't have a word to say. Because an event like that would make clear to me that something really important was going on and I was failing to even see, much less understand it. And that would scare me waxen.

The actual situation, though, is quite different. He's saying there's a very small difference between the two of them, especially in domestic policy, and since that might translate to a difference in outcome, it's not a coin-flip. It's not an endorsement of Kerry. He's not expressing approval! Kerry is Bush Lite, which is what a lot of us here have been saying with varying degrees of sadness and dismay for months. Of course Bush Lite is better than Bush Regular, but only for very tiny, possibly only nominal values of 'better'.

My objection is to the inappropriate exultation in the other thread. It has an air of 'now EVEN CHOMSKY has endorsed Kerry, so that validates our choice and all you grumblers should stfu'. And it's based on an uncritical acceptance of a journo's bad reporting. It's a bit like the thread about the VVAW meeting--is it true, is it false? Nobody wants to know, they just want to emote.

I can appreciate why you characterise Chomsky's statement as a 'preference', but I think that calling it an 'anti-preference' would be closer to the truth: it's about which is worse, not which is better; they're both solidly on the wrong side of the dividing line.

Chomsky is a jackass... a boring one at that. He takes his pre-worked framework (America is the Evil Imperialist) into which he pours facts.

Because America is Evil anyone who for any reason ends up opposing America is GOOD.

In Chomsky's world even Pol Pot was essentially a good guy.

Simplistic view of Chomsky, but boiled down to its essence... it's correct.

Have you read Chomsky? THat Pol Pot story is patently false and has been debunked over and over.

Chomsky and his research team hunt out the facts through exhaustive scholarship. If his dead-on conclusions make you uncomfortable or "bore" you, then you are missing the boat.

I find Chomsky's analyses of power and propaganda to be absolutely invaluable. If you've ever read the likes of Manufacturing Consent or Propaganda and the Public Mind, you would realize this.

However, I do not find all of his POLITICAL analyses to be quite so credible. For example, his assertion that the ONLY purpose of the Marshall Plan as being to extend US self-interest throughout Western Europe and Japan following the Second World War is a little bit off. While the self-interest of the US certainly had something to do with it, there may also have been humanitarian ends considered as well -- and to refuse to acknowledge this duality results in a rather misguided conclusion constructed mainly to fit into a preconceived view of the world.

Of course, looking at his comments on US actions during the Cold War seems to be supported by recent works from people considered not quite so far out of the "mainstream", like Chalmers Johnson.

All in all, he's quite insightful -- especially when it comes to talking about how power functions in the role of foreign affairs. But he's also human, and should not be elevated to the level of infallibility, as many of his supporters seem to do.

I suspect the reason Chomsky discounts the likelihood of human feelings playing a part is that many more people suffered than were succored, and the type of succor offered was quite specific.

Have you read Chomsky? That Pol Pot story is patently false and has been debunked over and over.

It has only been debunked in the irrational minds of Chomsky dittoheads. Everyone else knows he was dead wrong on that analysis.

As anyone who knows anything about Chomsky would realize, your post is laughable bullshit, truly beneath contempt. Neither Freepers nor the mainstream media distort or lie more blatantly than you have done here - with such a post, you forfeit any moral claim to look down on them.

Anyone interested in the truth about Chomsky's actual attitude towards Pol Pot could find it in a few seconds with Google. He makes 2 main points: 1) deaths resulting from the early '70's US bombing of Cambodia are virtually unmentioned in the US media, while Pol Pot's crimes from several years later are loudly amplified in the propaganda system; & 2) the US media treatment of Pol Pot is an example of the concept of "worthy victims."

For example, Ed Herman (Chomsky's co-author in several joint efforts) writes, in "Double standards in coverage of Suharto and Pol Pot":

Suharto was a ruthless dictator, a grand larcenist and a mass killer with as many victims as Cambodia's Pol Pot. But he served U.S. economic and geopolitical interests, was helped into power by Washington, and his dictatorial rule was warmly supported for 32 years by the U.S. economic and political establishment....But Suharto's killings of 1965-66 were what Noam Chomsky and I, in The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, called "constructive terror," with results viewed as favorable to Western interests. His mass killings in East Timor were "benign terror," carried out by a valued client and therefore tolerable. Pol Pot's were "nefarious terror," done by an enemy, therefore appalling and to be severely condemned. Pol Pot's victims were "worthy," Suharto's "unworthy."

http://www.fair.org/extra/9809/suharto.html

To refer to this type of precise, nuanced thought as "saying that Pol Pot was a good guy" demonstrates that you either lack the ability to understand what you are reading, or you're simply not interested in accuracy.

Glad someone has the patience to refute this display of ... nevermind.

Thanks. :)

And of course people are going to leave out or put in whatever suits their particular agenda. But this election is a dilemma--it is a choice between two men that aren't what we would prefer. If you're interested in making a change in the White House this year, you're either for Kerry, for Bush, or you're part of the scenery. Chomsky has long preferred to be part of the scenery, and in the context of his writings, this is as close as he will come to endorsing a major party candidate for the presidency.

That said, I agree it is not an endorsement. I would say it is a statement of preference for one of two options he doesn't at all care for.

to make the point that it's not an endorsement. Notice how she does not address the substance of Chomsky's point, which is that you should vote for Kerry. For some reason, we are expected to ignore what Chomsky says because "It's not an endorsement"

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It comes down to Kerry not being Bush.

He understands this:

"That's not only true for international affairs, it's maybe even more dramatically true domestically. The people around Bush are very deeply committed to dismantling the achievements of popular struggle through the past century. The prospect of a government which serves popular interests is being dismantled here. It's an administration that works, that is devoted, to a narrow sector of wealth and power, no matter what the cost to the general population. And that could be extremely dangerous in the not very long run."

This is so important.

that is the crux of his argument for Kerry as opposed for Bush.

I disagree that he did not endorse Kerry, He did endorse Kerry.

Who cares what an expert in linguistics says about politics? Really. His work in the field of semiotics is unparalleled. But remind me again why I should take his political opinion as being held in any higher regard than anyone else?

I don't--but I do care what an expert in politics (who just happens also to be an expert in psycholinguistics) says.

I'm just curious. I'm not even saying I disagree with everything Chomsky says. I've just never understood what makes him a political expert.

Manufacturing Consent is the only thing I've read by him where his area of expertise (linguistics) works hand in hand with politics/media. And if he wants to talk about the language of politics then I'll listen. But when he starts talking about foreign and domestic policy outside of the realm of linguistics I'm not sure what makes him an expert of any sort?

it's that his analyses explain my observations, map onto my own understanding, and offer additional insights that seem intuitively reasonable. And, most importantly, his theories have predictive power.

What would make someone a political expert in your judgement?

is in politics. Or who has worked in politics directly. Or who had held or run for office.

I'm nto saying those things make someone politically infallible. Just that Chomsky has no more political experience than you or I. Which doesn't mean he's not qualified to speak, as we all are. And as unfortunately people like Rush or Hannity or whoever are. Which is to say nothing other than being American citizens and having a right to speak. Just because someone speaks eloquently doesn't mean they are right as far as what they are speaking about.

I love reading and listening to Al Franken speak. But that doesn't necessarily make him an expert in politics whose opinions should be used to sway my opinion one way or another. I like listening to him articulate in a humorous way what I am feeling. But it doesn't make him an astute political mind.

To transplant some zen for a moment: where did the first expert come from?

Plenty people become acknowledged experts without credentials, or with credentials in some other field. The only thing any credential really does is reassure people who haven't the expertise themselves, and sometimes serve as a 'union card'.

I've a friend who went from high-school graduate to master's degree with no bachelor's degree in between. Her 'credential' for admittance to grad school was an interview.

To paraphrase Burns: 'The rank is but the minter's stamp--the person's the gold, for a' that'.

He says in speech after speech that really anyone can become well-versed and knowledgeable about politics. You just need to put in the time reading the news articles, government and NGO reports, and then putting the pieces together. Which of course is more than most of us have time for, to become expert, but to become knowledgeable is within anyone's grasp, with or without "credentials." Chomsky rejects the notion that he is doing something that someone else couldn't do. He does state that he is particularly good at assimilating information and analysis; but other than that, he has the luxury of sitting and reading for a living.

The biggest lie perpetrated on the American public, in Chomsky's view, is that they have to look to leaders for direction.

than (whom?), but his strength in linguistics means that he can express himself with great precision. He's also used his great intellect towards getting to the bottom of whatever interests him. To a large degree, the same things interest us too. So READ him, as critically as you will, but READ him.

pnorman
STAND UP, KEEP FIGHTING http://shows.implex.tv/wellstone/

My area of studies is communications and language. I love what he has to say on those subjects.

But he just seems like someone who the left has gravitated to simply because he tells us what we want to hear in an eloquent way, not because he is an expert in the field.

Which is fine, I'm more than happy to listen. But too many people regard him as some sort of political higher authority come down from the mountain to instill his political wisdom on us.

on.

about his SPOT-ON conclusions about the genocidal tragedies of American imperialism so you won't be "bored."

Jesus.

but his political ramblings mean nothing in the grand scheme--he is not an elected official, a political operative, or even a mere pundit.

When it comes to politics, he's just a loudmouthed bore.

What makes Chomsky knowledgeable - as he himself admits - is that he has the time to sit and read news articles from hundreds of different sources, read government reports, declassified documents, and NGO reports; assimilate the information; and then form an analysis. He does not claim any special ability.

In fact, he believes anyone can become knowledgeable and be an authority about politics if they just put in the effort.

I realize, however, that that sticks the craw of most self-styled pundits and the people who hang on their every word hoping for enlightenment.

Since when does someone need special training to speak knowledgeably about politics and world events?

"However, when it comes to the choice between the two factions of the business party, it does sometimes, in this case as in 2000, make a difference. A fraction.

That's not only true for international affairs, it's maybe even more dramatically true domestically. The people around Bush are very deeply committed to dismantling the achievements of popular struggle through the past century. The prospect of a government which serves popular interests is being dismantled here. It's an administration that works, that is devoted, to a narrow sector of wealth and power, no matter what the cost to the general population. And that could be extremely dangerous in the not very long run."

Sounds like most ABB-ers I know.

as far as I'm concerned. How many people vote in accordance with Chomsky? Judging by what I read on this board, people who speak against Kerry will remain against Kerry no matter who endorses him. I'd rather an endorsement that influences undecided voters.

2-3 of which are going to retire in the next 4 years.

See Kerry's voting record at Public Citizen, and let's talk fractions. Fractions like Yucca Mountain and ANWR and Price-Anderson and campaign finance reform and bankruptcy protection and food safety and Kyoto and renewable energy and generic drugs and CAFE standards and clean drinking water and John Ashcroft.

Please, Noam.

next....

:hi:

which has risen under Democratic Presidents?

How about the fraction of births to teenagers, which has gone down under a Democratic President?

Or a fraction of crime which also increases greatly? How bout a fraction of hopelessness, suicide, abuse... ???

Next...

Which decrease in democratic administrations. Next

I agree that it was a tepid endorsement, or none at all. Noam's article pretty much sums up my feelings about Kerry, and about the 2k4 G.E.

As I've said before, Kerry Wasn't my first, second, or third choice in this primary. I'll vote for him come November, though.

Bush/Cheney 9 more months!

Chomsky is so far to the left on the political spectrum that damned near EVERYONE looks 'right' to him. :puke:

But given that, if even HE thinks the differences are "dramatic" that should carry some weight with serious minded progressives.

He said the differences were actually very small, but in a country with great power, small differences in policy can translate into large differences in world outcome.

Chomsky is much more of an anti-authoritarian than he is a dyed-in-the-wool "leftist."

You've bought into the "radical leftist" label for this incredibly astute scholar. What a shame.

He's a 'Wobbly' in 21st Century clothing.

I don't see any comparison between Chomsky and the IWW. The IWW did far more for the people of this nation and the labor movement than that N.Chomsky ever did.

I saw a thread that said Chomsky backed Kerry. I guess that could be construed as true in as much as what you quote above as well.

And beyond that, who cares?

I think 'backs' Kerry is a bit strong, too. It seems to imply an approving view, which isn't really the case. 'Less disapproving' is closer to the mark.

Backing someone, simply means you encourage voting for them, and it sounds quite clear that Mr. Chomsky is indeed doing just that.

He said it was "not inaccurate". He did NOT say it was accurate, but Mairead, who complains because Chomsky did not say "endorse", will listen to that journalist when he claims that Chomsky said Kerry was Bush-lite.

She believes the journalist when he says something she likes (ie Chomsky says Kerry is Bush-lite) but doesn't believe the journalist when he says something Mairead doesn't like (ie Chomsky "endorsed' Kerry)

is closer to the truth than your explanation.

In most dictionaries, it carries the idea of 'approval', not a slightly smaller degree of disapproval. I.e., it's a positive thing, not a less-negative thing. The only way less-negative can be interpreted as positive is if you slide the zero over. And if you're going to slide the zero over, how can you possibly complain when BushCo slides it over, too?

with his use of that word.

I feel you are looking at the word in a technical political sense. This was written in the UK where the more native meaning of the word is embraced? :shrug:

Comparing Kerry with Bush and thinking that one is barely different than the other is petulant ignorance.

From my readings and viewing movies and other media from Chomsky, he hates everybody except himself.

As an anti-authoritarian who believes that all authority must be questioned and justified, Chomsky IS usually expressing justified contempt of our leaders, almost across the board (though he did say in the article that he likes Dennis Kucinich). However, to twist this into ego-mania makes me question whether you really have seen or read anything by Chomsky. Because he makes it very clear that he has trust in the convictions and leadership abilities of average people, when given enough information to make decisions.

Viewed at the proper scale, the differences between Kerry and Bush are small. One believes in pre-emptive war followed by hoarding the loot; the other believes in pre-emptive war followed by sharing the loot with select allied nations. This difference admittedly has great consequence over short timescales and due to the power and influence of the United States. But in reality, and in its consequences to average human beings, the difference is negligible.

Only on the environment could there be said to be a significant difference between Bush and Kerry in objective view from which Chomsky writes, IMO.

Civil rights, women's rights, healthcare issues, education reform, choices of SCOTUS judges...

No difference? Bullocks.

Well, you cite all the good domestic issues - but let's face it, civil rights, women's rights, right to health care, and the right to education are all people's movements and hardly traceable to any one person, certainly no political leader. I'm not counting on my elected officials to grant me the rights I'm guaranteed as a human being.

My argument is that who is in charge of the U.S. is not as important with domestic issues than it is with foreign affairs, mainly because the public is well kept in the dark about what the U.S. does to non-U.S. citizens.

Now, you may argue that Kerry "re-engaging the international community" is a really big difference, i.e. should we share our imperialist loot with other nations or shut them out? I don't see a big difference, unless you take the political "discourse" you see on, say, CNN to be the entire gamut of possible debate; then, of course, there is a large perceived difference. That's why Kerry and Edwards and the debate moderators can sit on stage with a straight face as if there were some kind of difference between them, as if it really mattered to normal human beings which one was selected.

Still, no one - not even Chomsky - said "no difference." Small and perhaps meaningful, given the overwhelming influence of the U.S.

At least this time around.

it 'can' be.

Because Chomsky does not say he "endorses" Kerry, Mairead argues that his argument should be ignored. But when Chomsky describes Kerry as Bush-lite as "not inaccurate", she interprets that as "Chomsky say Kerry is Bush*-lite" even though he never said that, and never said it was accurate.

Kerry or Bush. Philosophy aside, he obviously prefers Kerry. I don't care how brilliant Chomsky is, he is accountable to no one, save his erudite following. He has a responsibility, like the rest of us, to ensure that this destructive republican regime is defeated. The "limited differences" remark is ridiculous, no matter that it is couched in the "important differences in outcomes" qualification.

Which is it Chomsky? "Limited differences", or "important differences"?

And they accuse Kerry of straddling the fence. :eyes:

I think you misspelled 'is repelled less by'. It's pretty clear that he doesn't 'prefer' Kerry except in the same way (as in my earlier example) one might 'prefer' to be beaten rather than thrown off a cliff. If there's any 'prefer' in there at all, it's certainly on a wholly different order to preferring choco over vanilla ice cream.

I don't have time for intellectual memes. Another Bush term will be a disaster. Intellectual musing is no substitute for direct action to elevate our candidate. Mealy-mouthed, qualified statements of support are weak, uninspiring, destructive, and boring.

edit:sp

Poor choice of words or outright mendacity? Unless this was phoned in at the last minute I don't know why this would be missed by editors. Maybe spin is just so common nobody bothers with it anymore.

He's never endorsed anyone so I don't know why this thread clarifying his statement is coming across as some kind of insult.

Sad to see a perceptive, thoughtful person like Chomsky ridiculed on here by people that are obviously unqualified to make any kind of comment either way. Interesting to note the usual dismissive labels for him or anyone else who dares not follow the script.

from the same interview:

the present group in power is particularly cruel and savage...

It comes down to this; Kerry is basically just a different face of the "business party", but the face that the bush* repesents is "particularily cruel and savage". Therefore, while both candidates embody the same general paradigm, Kerry, at least, is not of the "cruel and savage" bent that bush* is.

Less evil, less beastly -- not really an endorsement, imho, simply a common sense way of delineating what sort of choice we actually are faced with.

Less evil, less beastly works for me. I am under no illusions that Kerry represents any kind of way out of the fundamental dysfunction that is stifling our democracy. But he, at least, is not "cruel and savage".

I think of it as first aid. One must first prevent the patient from bleeding to death. Returning the patient to health and functionality is a whole other matter -- but the requirements for health are moot if the patient bleeds to death before any remedies can be applied.

sw

I hope that all but the staunchest Kerry supporters can agree with this. However, that would mean admission that Bush is only quantitatively not qualitatively different from other presidents. As Chomsky noted and you emphasized, he is a particularly shameless and repugnant version of U.S. president. It's a worthy cause to unify to defeat him, but it won't solve our problems.

I really appreciate that someone read my post! ;-)

I was at one of the peace marches yesterday, in St. Paul, MN. I had conversations with several random folks there, and ALL of them were unhappy about Kerry, saying they didn't think they could stand to vote for him, etc.

I gave them all the same rap, that this is an EMERGENCY situation, that we HAVE to get bush* out of office and our only means of doing so is by voting for Kerry -- a Hobson's choice though it is.

Getting bush* out of office is only the FIRST step to taking back our country. We know that Kerry is not the solution, he's part of the problem -- BUT, he IS the MEANS to bringing the problem closer to our reach.

sw

Maybe I saw you at the protest in St. Paul, too-- I was there despite the 40 mph wind with many other MN4DK folk (fellow DUer dpbrown was behind the speaker most of the time, btw)! And you're right-- the peace people didn't think too highly of the junior senator from MA.

I agree with your assessment of the current situation. The differences (at least internationally) between Kerry and Shrub aren't as great as I'd like, but Shrub and his thoroughly evil minions are SO BAD that I'll vote for Kerry simply for that reason.

But for me and many other progressives, our REAL jobs will start November 3, when we continue to put pressure on the Kerry administration to address the issues we've worked for: a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine that follows pre-1967 borders, an end to our position as the #1 arms dealer in the world, a foreign policy based on human rights not corporate rights, etc.

So I'm looking forward to November 2, because I know the REAL work will start the next day.

The fact is that the US has been an imperialistic nation since before it won it's independence. We were practicing imperialism, genocide, etc when we were still a colony under British rule, and once we won our independence, it didn't stop. One of our earliest Presidents, Jefferson, acquired the Louisiana Territories from France, which didn't own it, and then proceeded to implement a policy of genocide against the Indians.

Kerry is running in an election, not a revolution. It's unreasonable to think that an election is going to change the system, which was designed by the Framers to maintain itself, not destroy itself. The argument that this election will not fundamentally change our political and/or economic system is like complaining about how a glass of OJ in the morning won't result in world peace.

have the idea that Bush is somehow qualitatively different from other presidents and that Kerry will be more than a return to the status quo, but something that is actually GOOD for America. They don't see a Kerry presidency simply as triage.

So when I hear the pragmatists smile smugly and say, "Good, even Chomsky is ABB" as if being ABB were a worthy end of itself, I want to correct them and say, "And then in four years Chomsky wants to kick your fucking Business Party president out of the White House."

so I guess that blows your stereotype out of the water.

Furthermore, I really can't understand how you can agree with my previous post --which claims that the choice between quantity and wuality is a "False dichotomy"-- and then turn around and argue that Kerry does not represent a qualitative difference. I suspect you didn't pay attention to what I wrote and just agreed for the heck of it.

;)

Progress happens in small steps. Your right to say that America is bleeding now, and first aid is needed.

Once the *patient* is on the road to recovery, then we can talk about running a marathon...

That's all there is to it. Not the primary election, in which he obviously prefered other candidates. The general election.

source of information, in which case I'm sure we all hope you'll share it with us.

Now in terms of a technical *formal* political endorsement, that hasn't happend.

Pardon my frank approach here but ... who cares? ;)

The greater point here is this:

Chomsky recommends voting for Kerry because the Bush administration is wreckless and dangerous.

You do, as far as I can tell. And so you should. And so should I (and I do). And so should we all.

When has ignorance ever been helpful? Isn't it always in our interest to understand things as clearly and unsparingly as possible?

before?

I don't think parsing words takes from his powerful message that Bush is dangerous and must be defeated.

SYLLABICATION: en·dorse
PRONUNCIATION: n-dôrs
VARIANT FORMS: also in·dorse (n-)
TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: en·dorsed, en·dors·ing, en·dors·es
1. To write one's signature on the back of (a check, for example) as evidence of the legal transfer of its ownership, especially in return for the cash or credit indicated on its face. 2. To place (one's signature), as on a contract, to indicate approval of its contents or terms. 3. To acknowledge (receipt of payment) by signing a bill, draft, or other instrument. 4. To give approval of or support to, especially by public statement; sanction: endorse a political candidate.
...
http://www.bartleby.com/61/68/E0136800.html

...to vote the way Chomsky votes this fall, it looks like that's a vote for Kerry.

He sees a possibility, AND that it is no more than a possibility.

"there are differences. And in this system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."

Differences that can and have translated into large outcomes for decades!

In the words of Paul Wellstone:

"The differences make a difference in the lives of ordinary Americans."

Mr. Chomsky appears to be slowly smelling the coffee?? *snif snif* ;)

Chomsky quite clearly states the obvious truth about the two parties, followed by the obvious truth about their inequivalence. His comments to me read as:

Bush is worse than Kerry so between these two we choose the less bad option.

So he is saying vote Kerry. Its an endorsement.

V

Chomsky has, as best as I can tell, placed himself in the "Anybody but Bush" camp. While he is consistent (and accurate, IMHO) that the differences between the two parties remain relatively minimal -- they are still really just different sides of the same coin controlled by various business interests -- those minimal differences CAN and DO have huge consequences, given the amount of power that control of the US government amounts to. Therefore, considering the criminality of the current administration, it is imperative to get them out of office.

You can deny that this is an "endorsement" all you want, but in reality it is -- albeit one given in a rather roundabout way and with a warning to not expect too much in the way of fundamental change.

This entire exercise is a waste of time and amounts to little more than political masturbation.

interest that it mean, then 'endorsement' implies 'approval'--a positive emotion--and I see nothing at all approving in what he's quoted as saying. Nothing.

You don't take it as any kind of "endorsement". Many other do.

In the end analysis, who the fuck cares? It's not like you're going to change each others' minds -- but rather only strive for the smug self-satisfaction of feeling "right". :eyes:

Then again, there's a LOT of that going on on these boards....

Pretty cynical. No, probably based on a single posting, no one's mind will be "changed." But after reading a post one may choose to investigate something on one's own - like perhaps actually read Noam Chomsky instead of branding him an ego-maniac or pink-o communist - and that could lead to shifting a belief.

Whether or not Chomsky really endorsed Kerry or merely considers him the lesser of two evils is a valid point of discussion - I don't see why it's political masturbation any more than anything else on this board. In fact, it seems pretty substantive compared to some of the propaganda floating around earlier in the primaries.

um, you very obviously do? And so do I. And so, obviously, do many others.

Am I standing on your toes somewhere? I'm trying to work out what brought this on. Surely it's always in our interests to understand things as clearly as possible--even when it doesn't feel good? When has being ignorant and mystified ever been helpful to us?

This is the 2nd post of your in this thread where you tell a poster that s/he "obviously cares"

pseudointellectuals on DU who don't.

Yeah, sure, the great majority of us are voting for Kerry in November, but I don't see why it's not valid to debate whether or not one endorses Kerry (STFU and drink the Kool-Aid) or whether one endorses Kerry (as triage).

Some were making the smug claim (in other threads) that Chomsky endorsed Kerry more or less in the former sense. And some want to engage them in a (pseudo)intellectual discussion of what it means to endorse Kerry in the latter sense. All political masturbation, right?

Anyway, I'm not sure Chomsky would agree with your characterization of him as an intellectual.

anyone should STFU...that interpretation is borne of a group of people so intent on portraying themselves as victims that they rely on rhetorical devices to claim the underdog status.

Some might have made the claim that it was an endorsement, I didn't, but I DID acknowledge that Chomsky recognizes as we all do, that Bush needs to go even though getting rid of Bush only handles Bush, not the bigger task of swinging the pendulum back to a more equitable existance.

Try not to confuse your own interpretations with what others actually say...it will strengthen your grip on reality.

toss in an unnecessary ad hominem attack on some unnamed group DU'ers who according to you are pseudointellectuals. That was not exactly STFU, but it seemed to have the same motive: stifle the debate. Now, we were debating something in this thread, then along comes posts #62, #71, and yours that state outright or, yes, imply that the whole debate is basically pointless, political masturbation, or for pseudointellectuals. If you're only going to post a single sentence and in that sentence throw in an ad hominem attack on unspecified people, expect it to be misunderstood.

There were no ad hominem attacks in nsma's post, so why make that up? I bet you don't even know what an ad hominem attack is.

If you're only going to post a single sentence and in that sentence throw in an ad hominem attack on unspecified people, expect it to be misunderstood

said the poster after posting a single sentence about nsma posting an ad hominem attack.

My post was longer than one sentence - but this is ridiculous. Branding people pseudointellectuals is an ad hominem attack - it's not based on logic or fact. That's fine, I've thrown in a few myself during the course of debate. But I'm done with this side-bar, sorry.

http://education.gsu.edu/spehar/FOCUS/EdPsy/misc/Fallacies.htm#hominem

Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive).

"The phrase argumentum ad hominem translates literally as 'argument directed to the man.'" The abusive variety occurs when one attacks the other person rather than the other persons argument.

nsma's post was not directed towawrds any individual. It was directed towards those who are "psuedo-intellectuals". She didn't say you, or anybody else, was a "psuedo-intellectual". She merely noted their presence on DU

No one has said or done anything to shut you up. If you can't get that simple fact straight, then why should we think you got the bigger picture right?

But the major thrust of the post seemed to be that all the pseudointellectuals need to stopping whining and get on board. If you want to see my arguments, read my other posts in this thread. If you want to argue with what I said in them, then reply to them.

I guess you're defending them because nsma's STFUs are so powerful and effective.

But the major thrust of the post seemed to be that all the pseudointellectuals need to stopping whining and get on board.

I don't remember seeing that in nsma's post. Maybe you imagined it?

Sweet endorsement. Another reason to vote for Kerry.

DAMN YOU CHOMSKY!!!!