Noam Chomsky: Still an Ass.

Is an ignorant pawn any worse than a stupid king?

Right. If only actors would stick to acting and oil men to oil, we'd all be better off. But, on the other hand, maybe Chomsky and Penn and even Castro would be a better deal than, say, Perception or Reagan or Bush? Well, I'd like to rescue Chomsky and Penn from that company, anyway...

I don't play chess very well...but I think that perhaps the new world order is already out of the hands of the thinkers...

Not at all---he has every right to be a hypocritical, elitist , leftwing, intellectual but I also have every right to criticize him any time he steps out his professional role as a very well qualified professor of linguistics.

I would agree there....it worked for Orville Redenbacher....

Chomsky is one of those figures that leave people either in awe of him, or hating him. Few who know his writings can say they don't care one way or the other. That alone is a sign of extraodinary. I don't quite agree with his methods in writing, but I would never label him an ass. world order has never been in the hands of the thinkers, not in the past either. That does not mean thinkers are useless, does it. And if one of them manages to stir debates and controversies at least so-so noticeable to the public eye of this country, I say right on! Few manage it. I'd give him some credit.

Tartar

Why---I think I'd make a very good President but I would instantly fire the director of the CIA and replace him with Georgeob 1

EBrown:

That someone is intelligent, or even brilliant, does not mean that he or she is automatically qualified to comment on every subject. I find Chomsky's comments on international politics to be extreme examples of a brilliant mind having convinced itself that it knows more than anyone else on a topic simply because it is brilliant. Theorizing from known or agreed upon principles works well in a field such as linguistics. But Chomsky steps outside of his field, and displaying a good deal of ignorance in the subject matter, and a risible shallowness of analytic ability, deigns to inform the lesser mortals with whom he consorts on international affairs. His pronouncements are not simply often misguided, they frequently reveal a profound ignorance of diplomatic development and method, the meaning of national sovereignty to both governments and populations, and the history behind the world as it is currently constituted. Like so many who admire him, he seems to believe that his wonderful, quick grasp in matters linguistic means that he has the same ability to see and analyze in other matters. When it comes to politics and international diplomacy, he's clueless, and doesn't know it.

I never suggested that he should be silenced, and have never supported stifling dissent. If you know anything about what i post here, you'd know that about the only absolute i believe in in political matters is that dissent should never be silenced; and you'd know that i'm one of the biggest critics of American politics here. Finding Chomsky ridiculous does not automatically make me a censor, nor a dupe of conservative politics.

Perception, Please back up your name calling.

Why do you consider Chomsky hypocritical? His actions have always matched his rhetoric.

Why do you consider Chomsky 'elitest'? He seems to almost always taken the side of the people against the Elitists.

I won't argue with 'intellectual', but what's the problem with that? and 'leftwing' is a meaningless term too.

If you would like to speak about the issues regarding Chomsky's views and actions vis a vis Cuba, start another thread and I all for it.

But to attack the man's views on politics in general becuase he is too "intellectual" seems almost laughable.

Setanta,

Ok, I guess I can accept your view. But I don't share it.

What I am reacting to is the broad general expression of dislike for this man and his policies without reason. (Well, in a manner you have now given your reasons).

There is no doubt that Chomsky's views are out of the mainstream, but I don't think that makes them invalid. I don't think he is ignorant of international diplomacy. Rather my interpretation is that he refuses to accept it as it is.

I don't think "ignorance" is a fair word to use to describe Chomsky's views.

Chomsky's is very good at pointing out where US policy is ilogical and inconsistant with its stated goals and values. He also points out long range trends in the relationship between the US and the world.

People who disagree with Chomsky seem to be saying "Of course there are inconsistencies. This is international politics and this is the way things have to be. You can't expect the US (or anyone else) be logical or consistant".

This is a philosophical difference between Chomsky and the Political Establishment. To be honest I don't know where I stand between expecting a morality based on logic and accepting the real political situation.

But Chomsky is both logically correct, knowledgable and highly entertaining as well. His ideas are based on historical facts and a moral logic that is undisputable. Whether US policy should or even could be based on them is debatable.

But the US is better for his ideas. Should this type of system of moral logic inform all of our policies - perhaps not. But they are an important part of our intellectual culture. Our nation is better because Chomsky and others are willing to bring them into our consciousness.

I was curious about the period after Ass. Is this an abbreviation for Asset?

Chomsky has as much right as anyone else to have an opinion and to state it.

If this isn't the case, we should begin by asking cavfancier to only speak about cooking, and to be rude to him, and about him, if he is so rash as to offer an opinion on any other subject.

I guess we should all be listing our academic qualifications and only speak to those subjects.


pffffffffffffffffffffffft

I don't recall that Cav makes public pronouncements about, nor seeks to have his opinions on international politics published. If he did, and they were sufficiently popular, he'd likely continue to have those dedicated to his ideas. And he would then become a public figure, making him a target for the comments of anyone wishing to take a verbal or written pot shot at him. And, all of the foregoing being the case, were he the most brilliant chef that history has ever known, that simple fact would not authorize a claim for his experise in any other endeavor.

I guess I'll stick to matters involving the papacy.

I did find some amusement on this thread, particularly this gem offered by Cav....




Doesn't it fill you with a sense of relief knowing that those two great minds are at work.

I, for one, shall sleep well tonight.

The world is in the process of being saved.

Thank you, Brad. Thank you, Jennifer.

Jealous Dummies
"Chomsky is both logically correct, knowledgable and highly entertaining as well. His ideas are based on historical facts and a moral logic that is undisputable."

That sure does piss off some of the dummies that post here.

Mr Bengal Tiger wrote:

Why do you consider Chomsky hypocritical? His actions have always matched his rhetoric.

Because I believe he would throw his power around if placed in a position as say Wolfowitz who is his opposite on the Political spectrum. He would of course use his power to roll back the military to the same insignificant level as before WWII so that he and his anarchist pals could take over the country in a bloodless coup.

You further wrote:

Why do you consider Chomsky 'elitist'? He seems to almost always taken the side of the people against the Elitists.

There you just confirmed it-----who are THE people-----it's those poor ignorant saps who Mr. Chomsky and his pals want to lead to the promised land. You elitists are all alike---and you obviously consider yourself one----you don't consider yourself "one of the people" and neither does he.

He takes the side of "THE" people against the elitists on the other side.

Pistoff wrote:

"Chomsky is both logically correct, knowledgable and highly entertaining as well. His ideas are based on historical facts and a moral logic that is undisputable."

What is his moral logic that is so "undisputable" --- first of all I believe you probably mean indisputable but then maybe not ---- I'm just one of the dummies who post here.

Care to answer my question Mr. Pistoff----what is his "moral logic" that is so indisputable?

How the heck did I get dragged into this?

We needed a victim, an' you were ready to hand, now pipe down . . .

No wonder Bush got to be president.