In speaking on modern industrial civilization, Noam Chomsky...

...states that at this stage of history either one of two things is possible:

1)The general population will take control of it's own destiny and will concern itself with community interests guided by values of solidarity, sympathy, and concern for others

Or alternatively,

2) There will be no destiny for anyone to control.

So the poll question is: Which alternative do you think is most likely for humanity?

-----------------------------------------

Short 2 1/2 minute video from which this commentary is taken:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KSxYEzSpFdc

I don't know when and where Chomsky gave this speech, sorry.

The general populace will skate along, trying to keep up just enough interest to wrestle some bits of "destiny" away from the powerful. Both groups will stumble blindly along the cliff's edge of human destruction - not falling over the edge will take effort, and minimal effort will be expended.

He is a very bright fellow who did seminal work in linguistics. But his historical views are so strained, I'm surprised anyone listens to him on political issues.

and I won't even call you an ass, that would be childish.

You are "woefully misinformed."

MIT funded Chumpsky stated that SY Hersh
was full of shit today on a Pacifica broadcast.
Hmmm, let me see, who is more credible?
Sy Hersh, Pulitzer prize winner or
military industrial complex funded Numb Chumpsky,
who shills as a "progressive intellectual" for the gate keepers
of the so called left?

Gee, I just cant' make up my mind...
BHN

...That doesn't sound like something Chomsky would say. Can you provide a link to transcripts for his remarks?

"Q: What do you think of Hersh's reporting?

Chomsky: He is a terrific reporter and I am sure that he is reporting exactly what was told him, but his sources are intelligence officials and diplomats, unnamed, and their task is not to tell people the truth. Their task is to tell people what they want them to hear, maybe true, may not be true, but you got to understand that any report by any reporter from an unidentified intelligence or diplomatic source is reporting what they want you to believe. OK, maybe what they want you to believe is correct, maybe they have some other reason and so on, but you always have to understand that.
However, I have no sources at all, but I drew pretty much the same conclusions ..."

(my transcript)

You can buy the official transcript (or MP3) here:
http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/CHON188.shtml

Anyone who writes off Chomsky's entire body of work and contributions to anti-Truthiness, by spouting Reich Wing rhetoric
A. hasn't read him B. got their "opinion" from someone else C. can't be serious


So yes I will put you on "I" and you can continue to :hide: your head in the sand :hi:

organized murderers of the "defense" industry, but he constantly and consistently, works to enlightening the recipients of their indoctrination to look at what is really going on and how they (mostly off-spring of and future rulers) can, and must, change it.

He is one of the good guys, really.

...with your assessment of Chomsky.

In linguistics. I suspect the majority of people who fall for his political writings don't have the technical aptitude to understand his scientific work. There just aren't that many people who understand generative grammars and complexity hierarchies. I know that most people who understand his scientific writings are less than persuaded by his political work.

nt

In every issue of foreign policy, Chomsky sets the sins of the US as the whole context. If he spent a quarter as much -- a tenth as much! -- effort detailing the sins of other nations involved, he would begin to approach a reasonable starting point. But that seems not to interest him. If Chomsky didn't originate the praxis, popular among the radical left, of excusing every failure of a leftist regime by way of its contact with the rest of the world, generally, and the US in particular, he sure as hell popularized it.

it's his country and it is quite imperialistic and people are in the dark about it for the most part.

Whether or not he discusses the wrongs of other countries does not affect his assessment of ours.

An historian may focus where he wants. But if his focus on subject causes him to overlook a broader context for judgment, especially when judgment is precisely the purpose of his work, then the result is not so much history as it is polemic. It becomes as formulaic and misguided as the kind of jingoistic history that can see no wrong in America, that justifies or ignores every sin it has committed. The cure for that kind of right-wing nonsense is not its mirror reflection, which is sort of what Chomsky gives, but broader perspective and more nuance. (See, being liberal, I can use that word.)

Asking that he be more nuanced in his arguments hardly qualifies him as an ass - unless you meant to describe him as a Democrat symbolized by the donkey, AKA "ass".

except insofar as any critique necessarily does.

His is one of the most generative minds of our generation. And, it looks like you might use "nuance" but you don't understand it.

We all live in AMERICA and are concerned with ITS government. It's a rational hiearchy.

...said, written, or done that would lead a reasoned, rational person to conclude that he is an ass?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2030207&mesg_id=2030207

You can see my comments on it there. It makes perfect sense if you assume that Hezbollah and the Iranian Ayatollahs are entirely innocent and have only an interest in peace and justice. Otherwise, it's pretty silly.

...offer NOTHING with which to back it up. I think you don't like Chomsky because he speaks blunt, honest truth about the U.S. and Israel.

I'm under no pretense about the nature of Israel or of US support for it. See, that's the funny thing. I think the creation of Israel was a mistake. I think the Palestinians were done wrong.

But I also think it is pretty damn stupid to pretend that the Palestinian cause hasn't become a bete noire for some of the most reactionary forces in the mideast, to think that Iran's interest is any more innocent than the US's, or to believe that all would be peace and light if only Israel would back down a little. And Chomsky would see that, if he delved into the ideology and sins of the Ayatollahs or Hezbollah with even a tenth the ferocity that he does with regard to the US and Israel.

He won't do that, of course.

and discredited Sy Hersh's reporting today-
Need we say more?
FUCK CHUMPSKY and his military industrial complex
funded diatribes.
BHN

Only if you want anyone to know what the hell you are talking about.

- Make7

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2003/corporation-0612.html

You might want to cruise the link to the corporate/ Industry/ MIT news room
while you are visiting the MIT web site.

Maybe, just maybe, you see something that
will enlighten you as to who who funds Mr. Chomsky.

Then again, maybe not.
I would wager to guess though, that the biggest
Phama Cartels in the world have a little clout over at MIT...
Not to mention the Shell company and certain defense contractors...

BHN

If you did, you probably would have actually said something.

If you don't believe me when I say you don't know what you are talking about, go to this link and see if you can connect the dots.

- Make7

Can't say the same about your "is an ass" comment.

Maybe the most popular worldwide.

He always says that what he does in the line of compiling and analyzing publicly available information is something that you don't need professional qualifications for--any informed citizen could and should do as much.

I agree.

I must say, even if I didn't agree with you, I WOULDN'T put you on ignore.

That said, Noam Chomsky is brilliant, but naively believes that if we just shoo away the cockroaches (corporations, the Grand Conspiracy) that our food (democracy) won't rot.

What about OUR ROLE, Noam?!????

It seems that if everyone got on board (and knew that everyone else was) with living simply and with solidarity and community interests/world interests - we could make such a difference.

So many people are controlled by the idea that life is a game to see who can exploit the most people the most and win the most toys - and if everyone stopped playing - what a difference it would make.

As long as most people think that that is the game that others are playing - they will keep trying to win - or at least to play. It's the reason we aren't part of the Kyoto treaty - it would suggest that we not play as hard. Stop using the most resources.

And there is no future for our planet for in these games.

...caused by not more than a few neurons in the heads of men, wired wrongly by society in a snowballing circle of self-destructive devolution.

If we ever needed a global age of enlightenment, we need it now.

The road warrior film is so prescient, the metaphor of the gang dominated thuggish
world where bush is the great humongous, and mel gibson is a child of that world,
who in real life never crossed over to that community to help them survive the thugs.

We must make that community in our every moment, and it will be real in our own lives,
and its the best we can ask on a planet of stupid selfish idiots.

Control our destiny? Isn't that what got us into this mess? If you want a different outcome, you have to do things differently.

His linguistics smacks of the same fallacies.

You pose (a) or (b), assuming that it's either all (a) or all (b) (when neither is necessarily exhaustive, and both a and b can be correct for different subsets of the data). But both (a) and (b) are in keeping with the desired approach, but beg so many questions that resolving the issue would take years and dispute.

But while people are arguing about *that* fallacy, they don't notice that (c) through (q) haven't actually been ruled out, but the question-poser has achieved a second end: The discourse has been shifted so those solutions, *not* in keeping with the general methodology the question-poser likes, are entirely off the radar screen.

near Noam himself, the defense is misguided. I was arguing that it was Chomsky, on par with his linguistics work, that made the logical error. Not the poster of this thread, either here or in his (her?) seminal works on phonological and syntactic theory.

powerful - already forwarded to several people

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

but it's not good for anything else.

I reply with an equally worthless link
http://moonbatcentral.com/wordpress/?p=1429