Attack on American citizens is a way more powerful message than attack on German or some other "second class" citizenry :)
But also, it is American elected officials who deployed the program on American taxpayers money. Therefore, American citizens, unknowing to themselves, have become a major investor into the greatest surveillance network in history, which spies back on them and the rest of the world.
Chomsky takes the anti-American, or anti-government side of any and all debates and writes whiny essays full of sarcastic jabs that preach to a choir of the faithful. He makes no attempt to consider the side of government(or whoever he as casting as the villain at the moment of his self righteous spiel). It's as much of a tragedy to take him seriously as it is to take radical right think tank garbage seriously.
Excellent! I always wanted to read a completely unbiased (and totally not cherry-picked and wasn't compiled by a fanatical detractor) resource on Chomsky's collected works.
G-d forbid you read something critical that changes your mind. Much better to hide behind 'criticism is written by people who dislike him, so not worth reading' defense. Perhaps you should consider that they dislike him for a reason.
What I can tell you is that the man is vile - read up on his excuses for Pol Pot, Stalin and the like.
His further assertion that Noam Chomsky attributed the deaths of the Pol Pot era to ''nothing but'' a war-induced famine is an outright lie. Mr. Chomsky (and the present writer, who was co-author with Mr. Chomsky of his published works on Cambodia) went to great pains to stress that there was no doubt that the Khmer Rouge was committing serious crimes, although we took no position on their scale (which was very uncertain at the time).
The point is rather is not that he is pro ONE particular horrible regime. Rather that he is quick to support ANY (or most) regimes that are anti-american, regardless of what it's actually like - such as Mao's China (in the middle of madness of Cultural Revolution), USSR, etc. The last article you quoted says exactly that - he is quick to support any 'underdog', regardless of if they are good or bad guys.
Bear in mind, though, that "having made statements that, in some way, support X" and "being predominately in favor of X" are two radically different things, if you're trying to get at truth and not just score political points. I am not in favor of dictatorship just because I observe that Stalin correctly believed that 2+2=4. I have not seen anything that leads me to believe that Chomsky is wrong substantially more frequently, or in substantially worse ways, than others who pontificate on the global situation, so I try to challenge his arguments where I disagree with them and don't brush off the person - he is clearly an intelligent man.
<Quote>
Excellent! I always wanted to read a completely unbiased (and totally not cherry-picked and wasn't compiled by a fanatical detractor) resource on Chomsky's collected works.
Clearly, this is it.
</quote>
Well, clearly you will also want to read the criticisms leveled against the hokey "logic" and arguments employed by Bogdanor himself. It is difficult to take Bogdanor seriously as a contribution to the body of knowledge on the topics covered by Chomsky over decades and decades of in-depth study when Bogdanor argues from an unabashedly pro-Israeli nationalist point of view. Views often basted with copious amounts of neo-con jingoism.
This site is a collection of articles written by scores of writers of various political persuasions over decades.
I would expect Chomsky supporters with an iota of critical thinking to be able to read them and see for themselves how reliable they are (and not just jump to wikipedia to check who assembled them).
Right. Since we are all in favour of being critical (which is all good), can we only look at some of the main points Bogdanor compiles against Chomsky which he parades them as hoaxes. This in order to see who the true hoaxer is (Chomsky or Bogdanor?):
Your article main point is that 'Chomsky's lies are not lies - they are things that reasonable men can disagree about'. As someone who actually grew up in USSR and knows a lot about its history, I can tell you that reasonable men (ie historians) do not disagree about these things.
The more time passes from each issue, the more clear it becomes - which is why he's not taken seriously anymore. His excuses for tyrannical regimes just because they were anti-American are blatant.
We should all be thankful that we don't live in a world he wishes were true - that was already done on massive scale in Russia and millions have suffered as a result.
I am a huge fan of Snowdens, of ending the Orwellian institutionalization of our democratic society, and even of Chomsky's statements in this instance but in Soup10's defence, Noam Chomsky IS an anti-American/anti-Government liberal socialist anarchist (in fact that is how he would describe HIMSELF) who uses linguistic gymnastics to de-construct cultural norms in a way the reflects his own ideology. As such he almost exclusively preaches to those already with a natural sympathy towards his world-view, in such language as is meant to incite.
Finally, while Chomsky is obviously a genius well beyond the trite use of that word; he undoubted can be described as both self righteous and egotistical regardless of their justification.
Honestly, Soup10's only real mistake was in suggested that Chomsky's ideas should not be taken seriously. Even if one doesn't agree with him, many will based solely on the position he holds in the pantheon of liberal intelligentsia. Meaning that his words are likely to effect the debase of this issue going forward and should not, therefore, be lightly cast aside.
The belief that America should not be constrained by the morality of its actions. Essentially the same Nixonian argument "when the president does it, that means it's not illegal", which becomes "when the United States does it, that means it's not immoral or illegal".
Chomsky would never describe himself as anti-American. He's a critic of power structures. His focus is on U.S. power structures because (a) they're the most impactful and (b) in the classic prophetic/dissident tradition, he believes that one ought to criticize one's own house before condemning others. That's actually an act of loyalty, or can be, despite its inevitably being met with anger at the time. History tends to take the opposite view, of course.
I've heard Chomsky speak about his feelings toward the U.S. a couple times in interviews and it was quite clear that he's devoted to it. (IIRC he even described it as "the greatest country in the world", or agreed with a questioner who so described it. I remember being surprised that he didn't demur at that.) He talked about how he feels much more comfortable with American values than anywhere else he's traveled. But he clearly doesn't like to talk about himself, let alone proclaim national sentiments, so there aren't many instances of this.
The concept "anti-American" is an interesting one. The counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or military dictatorships, something I wrote about many years ago (see my book Letters from Lexington). Thus, in the old Soviet Union, dissidents were condemned as "anti-Soviet." That's a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture. In contrast, people with even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with ridicule and contempt. Suppose someone in Italy who criticizes Italian state policy were condemned as "anti-Italian." It would be regarded as too ridiculous even to merit laughter. Maybe under Mussolini, but surely not otherwise.
Actually the concept has earlier origins. It was used in the Bible by King Ahab, the epitome of evil, to condemn those who sought justice as "anti-Israel" ("ocher Yisrael," in the original Hebrew, roughly "hater of Israel," or "disturber of Israel"). His specific target was Elijah.
It's interesting to see the tradition in which the people you refer to choose to place themselves. The idea of leaving America because one opposes state policy is another reflection of deep totalitarian commitments. Solzhenitsyn, for example, was forced to leave Russia, against his will, by people with beliefs very much like those you are quoting.
His 'worldview' is essentially 'the U.S. shouldn't interfere with the self-determination of other countries'. It's an uncontroversial position enshrined in international law. It only becomes problematic when you feel the need to defend U.S. actions that contradict what is essentially simple elementary morality.
I'm an American, and my e-mails, text messages, phone calls, and I guess even this post I am making right now is being eavesdropped on by the NSA. Snowden informed me of this.
The fourth Amendment to the Constitution is: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
When I was young, there was a president named Richard Nixon. It's probable he sent a bunch of burglars to the Democratic National Committee campaign headquarters at the Watergate hotel to do some espionage to try to fix the election his way. It's known he tried to illegally cover up this break-in - there's an audio tape of him doing this. He also was involved in a more extensive and illegal effort to fix the election and eavesdrop and conduct espionage on his political opponents. Later revelations showed the FBI was going beyond its mandate as well, sometimes to the ignorance of the Congress (such as an FBI-run political campaign against Martin Luther King Jr.) This happened in my lifetime, so fears of such things are not out of place. The tyrannical English king acted the same way in the 18th century, it's probably why fresh in the founding fathers midns they put such things in the Constitution.
Chomsky praises Snowden, and opposes bureaucratic attacks on the fourth amendment consitutional rights of Americans. For this you call him "un-American". Supporting the fourth amendment constitutional rights of innocent Americans to not have their fourth amendment rights violated is anti-American?
Here is what Chomsky says about the charge of "anti-American":
Chomsky: The concept "anti-American" is an interesting one. The counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or military dictatorships, something I wrote about many years ago (see my book Letters from Lexington). Thus, in the old Soviet Union, dissidents were condemned as "anti-Soviet." That's a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture. In contrast, people with even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with ridicule and contempt. Suppose someone in Italy who criticizes Italian state policy were condemned as "anti-Italian." It would be regarded as too ridiculous even to merit laughter. Maybe under Mussolini, but surely not otherwise.
Actually the concept has earlier origins. It was used in the Bible by King Ahab, the epitome of evil, to condemn those who sought justice as "anti-Israel" ("ocher Yisrael," in the original Hebrew, roughly "hater of Israel," or "disturber of Israel"). His specific target was Elijah.
It's interesting to see the tradition in which the people you refer to choose to place themselves. The idea of leaving America because one opposes state policy is another reflection of deep totalitarian commitments. Solzhenitsyn, for example, was forced to leave Russia, against his will, by people with beliefs very much like those you are quoting.
The "side" of the government? In my opinion that statement reveals a flaw in your reasoning.
The government does not have a "side". It is intended to represent the people. It only needs a side if it must actively support its own preservation.
Consider all the stuff recently revealed by Wikileaks about Iraq and Afghanistan, and also consider the stuff released by Snowden ... None of it had to be kept secret to preserve the government as a whole, the state itself was not threatened in the least bit. All that was threatened were specific (narrow)
programs which happen to be things that most Americans would be appalled by if they were known about.
So clearly the "side" these entities of government are on is the "side" of keeping their own actions secret so that the public won't oppose them and shut them down.
That is extremely anti-democratic. Sure we can all empathize with an NSA official who might face prison time if those responsible for the program are brought to justice, but I don't think that kind of empathy ought to prevent us from seeing the programs for what they are.
It's a shame you're being downvoted. Chomsky is clearly an idealist and he's never mananged to convince me he has a clue about how human beings and the real world actually work.
Would I like to live in peace and prosperity in Chomsky's dream anarcho-liberal world? Of course. Do I think humanity can get there in the next hundred years. No way. We are all allowed to dream, but thank goodness some of us are also realistic.
Chomsky is one of the greatest intellectuals of our time. The man has nothing to lose and nothing to gain by voicing his thoughts. Too bad he is getting up there in age but hopefully we will enjoy his presence for many more years.
Irrespective of anything Chomsky says on the whole Snowden affair, Chomsky is bad American/borderline traitor. If there's an anti-American government position to take on an issue, he'll find it and take it.
He dissents, per Chris Hitchens, even when such dissent is "stupid and ignorant." So if Chomsky is too smart to be "stupid and ignorant," he must do so out of his need to be a bad American.
I think you might be trolling so I hesitate to make this comment, but Chomsky is anti-authoritarian in the same way as most US founders were. For some reason in the middle of his career, Hitchens took a very strong toward statism and the associated hypocrisy and authoritarianism.
That doesn't make Hitchens' intellect any less entertaining, but if you look closely at his worldview it's clear that he willfully indulged a big blind spot for the follies of state power and coercive force. Rand would surely agree with my assessment.
Why would you think that criticism of something is the same as being fundamentally against that thing?
I'd say what you're doing here is "emotional thinking". Try being more rational when thinking.
When you love your country, you actually have the duty to point things out that are wrong. That's the only way problems can be corrected. Otherwise it would mean you're ok with your country decaying.
(Just like with your boy/girlfriend or husband - if you love them, you need to openly talk about the problems.)
Objectivism is not anti-government, and indeed, sees government as necessary in order to protect the rights of individuals (all individuals) from those who would otherwise violate them.
Sorry...what does colloidal silver have to do with it?
Did you read the author's bio? He's no slouch - Yale grad, litigator with experience in the Supreme Court, writes for HuffPo...but I guess we should write it off immediately because...colloidal silver? You tell me because I don't know anything about colloidal silver.
I have no opinion on Chomsky as I am not really acquainted with his works. However, I was interested in him and trying to get some sort of minority opinion on Chomsky I decided to investigate your links.
My conclusion is based on this great quote: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". I have seen zero citations, links or verifiable research on the pages, so for the time being I will use more conventional facts about Chomsky.
I agree with the principle of "extraordinary proof", but in practice, what qualifies as extraordinary is highly subjective. To a Creationist, spontaneous generation of life is extraordinary. To a Truther, the buildings falling due to fire alone is extraordinary, etc.
I prefer the idea that an extraordinary amount of certainty requires extraordinary proof. Skepticism should be the default position.
"Chomsky is one of the greatest intellectuals of our time"
This is undoubtedly true. He is one of the most cited authors of all time.
It is unfortunate that the american media does not give him the attention he deserves. In fact, in Europe Noam Chomsky and his opinions are very highly regarded and his writings are taught in schools. I am Greek (living in the U.S for the last 5 years) and I was first introduced to Noam Chomsky during a writing class in my (public) high school.
I guess the fact that he is an anarchist and very often criticizes the U.S government and foreign policy does not make him popular within the U.S.
Btw, some of us, no matter what country we are from, need to understand that when someone criticizes our country's government and its actions, it does not mean automatically that they are criticizing us. I honestly find it very naive when someone defends their government's policies just because they feel somehow they have to do so.
I started to read up on Chomsky a couple of times but didn't get far.
The first time, I saw his opinions re USA's/NATO's intervention in ex-Yugoslavia. It just seemed like conspiracy theories, especially when I googled and found his apologetics for the Khmer Rouge (before they were found to be massmurding crazies).
The second time, I got a link to a Chomsky interview. I got shocked -- Chomsky claimed that he didn't talk about the Sudan atrocities, because he couldn't influence much. WTF?! If the most famous academic US-critic, beloved by dictators, publicly condemned the Darfur handling etc by Sudan's government as 1000 times worse than what he complained about Israel, it would have an effect...
I wrote Chomsky off as another effect of the US right/left being equally crazy. Here in Europe we mostly get the left crazies, so he is big. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe. It seems to me Chomsky argues by (correctly) noting that governments lie a lot -- then he comes with really weird explanations to what really happens.
You have information bias. US mainstream media reported widely on Chavez praising Chomsky and Chomsky condemning US foreign policy towards Venezuela. But years later, Chomsky denounced the arrest of journalists in Venezuela but this time it wasn't US MSM news worthy.
1. I wrote that I was from Europe, so your conspiracy theories about US mainstream media trying to make him look bad isn't applicable.
2. I discussed an interview with Chomsky, where he himself discussed why he didn't criticize X. I noted his motivation was just not rational/true/etc. So your Venezuelan claims about an example are doubly irrelevant.
Chomsky has always been open about the fact that he believes the moral thing to do is criticize and scrutinize one's own nation and government first, because that is where you have the highest possibility of influence.
Despite being atheist/agnostic, he takes this principle straight from the Bible: "How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Matthew 7:4-5
>> one's own nation and government first, because that is where you have the highest possibility of influence.
(Chomsky is probably bigger outside USA. E.g. the Milosevic regime was a big fan.)
I don't really care why an analysis have very different standards for different countries/companies/etc, that just isn't a quality sign... It doesn't seem more serious if the double standards are motivated by "Hey, I'm a self-hater..."
Criticism is not hate. It is criticism. It can come from friends, enemies, or yourself.
Also, Chomsky has always been severely critical of authoritarian and violent regimes across the world; the reason he has focused disproportionally on American regimes is due to the moral principle I referenced above.
1. I point out that Chomsky's motivation for not engaging in Sudan's problems (no influence) are just not serious; his involvement would have very probably made a big difference and potentially saved many lives.
2. You claim that Chomsky think it is more important to complain about USA. (+)
3. I answer that I don't really care why someone has double standards for different groups/countries/religions/etc.
4. You play linguistic games with half of a term I use ("self-hater").
5. I say bye bye.
(+) Not relevant anyway, except as a form of explanation of why, not an argument Chomsky's position was serious.
Just because you don't think something is plausible doesn't mean you should denigrate it by calling it a conspiracy theory. I don't know exactly what you're talking about so it's hard for me to research it.
For example, the CIA helps traffic opium/heroin across the world. That sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it's true.
I agree that his linguistic and academic contribution is of the highest order, but I'm not so sure about his political analysis.
Here are his comments in 1977 regarding the reported genocide in Cambodia [1]: "We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered. Evidence that focuses on the American role, like the Hildebrand and Porter volume, is ignored, not on the basis of truthfulness or scholarship but because the message is unpalatable."
And on the veracity of reports about horrific slaughter made by Cambodian refugees: "Refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocuters wish to hear. While these reports must be considered seriously, care and caution are necessary. Specifically, refugees questioned by Westerners or Thais have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of Cambodian revolutionaries, an obvious fact that no serious reporter will fail to take into account."
Did Chomsky show poor judgement by discounting such refugee reports? Was the evidence of genocide really so muddy in 1977 that you could not 'know where the truth lies'?
Unsurprisingly, non-Americans take exception to American exceptionalism.
America is literally pulling a, "We're better than you so we can violate any of your laws - including our own - and then murder, torture & kidnap. We are sovereign over the entire world."
Few non-Americans think that's a swell idea, so it will only last as long as American power lasts.
If you agree with Chomsky or not or if you think American power will last or not, you at least have to be able to concede that everybody else in the world has a valid gripe about the benevolent bully who really likes his big stick. Chomsky is just an American who noticed that...
Nationalism is indeed horrible everywhere it is found. Patriotism should be treated just like racism wherever it is encountered. It is a mechanism for one group of people to dehumanize another or at least feel superior to another. But I think the most powerful nations are the most frightening.
Yeah, us New Zealanders have kidnapped lots of US citizens and handed them over for torture in opposition of own laws. We've established an overseas prison explicitly to hold people who would have rights if we imprisoned them locally.
But, you know, it's cool : all states do the same thing.
unquestionably, and to their credit the New Zealand authorities brought an end to the farce in a timely fashion. But, the statistics of small numbers can be deceptive. Certainly, in the US, plenty of farcical prosecutions are halted, but there are also plenty of counterexamples. And the population of the US is nearly 100x the population of new zealand.
American Exceptionalism is the worst kind of circular logic. "We're special because we're a nation built on values and laws. That means only we are allowed to violate those values and laws, because we're special. You're welcome."
That's what I think. Many Americans in my experience believe the "American exceptionalism" described there, in terms of the country being uniquely classless, or free, or whatever.
Every nation is sovereign as to every other nation. The implication of that is that every nation reserves the right to do whatever it wants to other nations. As in the state of nature, the only governing law between nations is power. America is unexceptional in this regard, they just have most of the power. But if you see how other major nations treat countries in their back yard, it becomes clear that power really is the only governing law. America's back yard is just bigger.
As an aside, I've always found Chomsky's continued association with one of the major pillars of the defense industrial complex, MIT, rather hypocritical. Maybe he could move to a university that doesn't take a billion dollars in DOD money every year, if he's so critical of it...
(This has nothing to do with Snowden but Chomsky's main point.)
One thing I found troubling about all this is you can't expect the victims in other countries to decouple the intentions of the American gov't from American citizens.
> you can't expect the victims in other countries to decouple the intentions of the American gov't from American citizens.
And that is why all these drone wars actually keep the "terrorist" recruiting machine running.
A handful of people in the US make huge $$$ on war (the military budgets are surreal, plus, billions are suddenly "lost", etc.).
$$$ are a clear incentive for war. This creates new terrorists. These need to be hunted and killed. That means we need to keep the "defense" budget high. And as a bonus, we get a totally transparent citizen.
Frankly, excepting a few circles (like, Hackers) most US citizens I've met support US government positions, even the most stupid ones, maybe out of ignorance... But they do.
I remember even once, I was eating in a restaurant in front of my home (literally, it was across the street), and 3 US citizens were talking in english in a nearby table... Their conversation was one of the most horrible things I heard in a while, they were advocating get rid of immigrants, because all immigrants were filthy evil people and deserve to die, and that brazillians were scum, and whatnot (and they were saying that in Brazil).
I almost hit one of them in the head, but then I realized they were 3, and I was one, so I decided to just finish my food and leave as quickly as possible.
Other encounters with typical US citizens were not much better, reading comments on mainstream newspaper do not make me believe better either.
And I cannot count how much times I got into arguments about our US supported dictatorship during the cold war, with US people that believe that I should have thanked the US government for "saving" us.
And then, saving from what? And the reply is whatever fake threat of the time (communists, terrorists, muslims, whatever). This get me so much on my nerves that I even started to join random communication channels with US people (like, game chats, site chats, social networks) and provoke them into political arguments, just to check, and yes, many DO believe the US came here to "save" us, it is like if US citizens have some sorta of weird hero complex where they believe that the foreign policy of the US is save everyone. This is something that I never understood properly, how the hell a population can believe such bullshit.
Beside other bizarre views (for example frequently I see comments defending that US should just turn North Korea and Iran into glass... Usually when reading reuters.com)
I don't think the college-educated middle class voting right-wing fascists into government is anything exclusive to the US. Seems pretty universal to me.
I like the attention Chomsky brings to the NSA surveillance problem, but I think he does Snowden a disservice by using him in any kind of comparison to the true terrorists he lists. In attempting to point out the unevenness of America's extradition requests, he inadvertently puts him in the same "moral high ground" as the terrorists, which doesn't help.
He laid out the classes of formal grammars clear back in 1956. Every time you use a regular expression, compile code or run a script, you're applying concepts that he helped pioneer. I almost couldn't believe it.
I have a new appreciation for his work, and a better understanding of why his logical approach to ethics/civics/philosophy always resonated with me.
A good 2500 years prior. Chomsky was in the right place, at the right time, to carry that work forward into computer science. Not to detract, but the point is key: Sanskrt was formally specified 2500 years ago in a way that is recognizably a CFG.
Stop posting Chomsky stuff to HN. He is not an intellectual. He either cannot, or refuses to see both sides of the coin--either in his political writings or academic writings (e.g. there profound and valid empirical cracks in his universal grammar model that he's failed to acknowledge).
Down with Chomsky. Down vote me, I don't really care. I'd surely trade all my HN Karma for a reduction in Chomsky related posts to HN. It will make HN a better community.
What's with the "nothing to hide" meme? Has there been any research on it? Is it a product of meritrocratic naïveté, Facebook signalling, consumerism, media or another combination? It seems like a great way to have a compliant, feeble populace dependent on others for protection.
97 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 179 ms ] threadEDIT: I suppose he phrased it this way so that we listen more closely (or listen at all).
But also, it is American elected officials who deployed the program on American taxpayers money. Therefore, American citizens, unknowing to themselves, have become a major investor into the greatest surveillance network in history, which spies back on them and the rest of the world.
So Chomsky's quote hit it right home.
Please do familiarize yourself with his views on other issues.
Clearly, this is it.
Worth noting, Paul Bogdanor contributed to The Anti-Chomsky Reader : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anti-Chomsky_Reader
While I'm educating myself, I really should tune to Rush Limbaugh to learn about contraception, feminism and LGBT rights.
G-d forbid you read something critical that changes your mind. Much better to hide behind 'criticism is written by people who dislike him, so not worth reading' defense. Perhaps you should consider that they dislike him for a reason.
What I can tell you is that the man is vile - read up on his excuses for Pol Pot, Stalin and the like.
His further assertion that Noam Chomsky attributed the deaths of the Pol Pot era to ''nothing but'' a war-induced famine is an outright lie. Mr. Chomsky (and the present writer, who was co-author with Mr. Chomsky of his published works on Cambodia) went to great pains to stress that there was no doubt that the Khmer Rouge was committing serious crimes, although we took no position on their scale (which was very uncertain at the time).
Also http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2779086.html
This looks interesting, but I've no clue as to the reputation or connections of the source: http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm
The point is rather is not that he is pro ONE particular horrible regime. Rather that he is quick to support ANY (or most) regimes that are anti-american, regardless of what it's actually like - such as Mao's China (in the middle of madness of Cultural Revolution), USSR, etc. The last article you quoted says exactly that - he is quick to support any 'underdog', regardless of if they are good or bad guys.
Bear in mind, though, that "having made statements that, in some way, support X" and "being predominately in favor of X" are two radically different things, if you're trying to get at truth and not just score political points. I am not in favor of dictatorship just because I observe that Stalin correctly believed that 2+2=4. I have not seen anything that leads me to believe that Chomsky is wrong substantially more frequently, or in substantially worse ways, than others who pontificate on the global situation, so I try to challenge his arguments where I disagree with them and don't brush off the person - he is clearly an intelligent man.
Related: http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_...
Well, clearly you will also want to read the criticisms leveled against the hokey "logic" and arguments employed by Bogdanor himself. It is difficult to take Bogdanor seriously as a contribution to the body of knowledge on the topics covered by Chomsky over decades and decades of in-depth study when Bogdanor argues from an unabashedly pro-Israeli nationalist point of view. Views often basted with copious amounts of neo-con jingoism.
Unbiased? Hardly.
I would expect Chomsky supporters with an iota of critical thinking to be able to read them and see for themselves how reliable they are (and not just jump to wikipedia to check who assembled them).
http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2011/06/response-to-paul-bo...
Bogdanor is simply not convincing as a unbiased critique of Chomsky's works. It's tantamount to comparing apples with ... the ebola virus.
The more time passes from each issue, the more clear it becomes - which is why he's not taken seriously anymore. His excuses for tyrannical regimes just because they were anti-American are blatant.
We should all be thankful that we don't live in a world he wishes were true - that was already done on massive scale in Russia and millions have suffered as a result.
But I still have hope and I am sure soup10 unlike Chomsky of course has a long list of documented bullet points that explain government's side.
Finally, while Chomsky is obviously a genius well beyond the trite use of that word; he undoubted can be described as both self righteous and egotistical regardless of their justification.
Honestly, Soup10's only real mistake was in suggested that Chomsky's ideas should not be taken seriously. Even if one doesn't agree with him, many will based solely on the position he holds in the pantheon of liberal intelligentsia. Meaning that his words are likely to effect the debase of this issue going forward and should not, therefore, be lightly cast aside.
I've heard Chomsky speak about his feelings toward the U.S. a couple times in interviews and it was quite clear that he's devoted to it. (IIRC he even described it as "the greatest country in the world", or agreed with a questioner who so described it. I remember being surprised that he didn't demur at that.) He talked about how he feels much more comfortable with American values than anywhere else he's traveled. But he clearly doesn't like to talk about himself, let alone proclaim national sentiments, so there aren't many instances of this.
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20021209.htm
The concept "anti-American" is an interesting one. The counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or military dictatorships, something I wrote about many years ago (see my book Letters from Lexington). Thus, in the old Soviet Union, dissidents were condemned as "anti-Soviet." That's a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture. In contrast, people with even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with ridicule and contempt. Suppose someone in Italy who criticizes Italian state policy were condemned as "anti-Italian." It would be regarded as too ridiculous even to merit laughter. Maybe under Mussolini, but surely not otherwise.
Actually the concept has earlier origins. It was used in the Bible by King Ahab, the epitome of evil, to condemn those who sought justice as "anti-Israel" ("ocher Yisrael," in the original Hebrew, roughly "hater of Israel," or "disturber of Israel"). His specific target was Elijah.
It's interesting to see the tradition in which the people you refer to choose to place themselves. The idea of leaving America because one opposes state policy is another reflection of deep totalitarian commitments. Solzhenitsyn, for example, was forced to leave Russia, against his will, by people with beliefs very much like those you are quoting.
The fourth Amendment to the Constitution is: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
When I was young, there was a president named Richard Nixon. It's probable he sent a bunch of burglars to the Democratic National Committee campaign headquarters at the Watergate hotel to do some espionage to try to fix the election his way. It's known he tried to illegally cover up this break-in - there's an audio tape of him doing this. He also was involved in a more extensive and illegal effort to fix the election and eavesdrop and conduct espionage on his political opponents. Later revelations showed the FBI was going beyond its mandate as well, sometimes to the ignorance of the Congress (such as an FBI-run political campaign against Martin Luther King Jr.) This happened in my lifetime, so fears of such things are not out of place. The tyrannical English king acted the same way in the 18th century, it's probably why fresh in the founding fathers midns they put such things in the Constitution.
Chomsky praises Snowden, and opposes bureaucratic attacks on the fourth amendment consitutional rights of Americans. For this you call him "un-American". Supporting the fourth amendment constitutional rights of innocent Americans to not have their fourth amendment rights violated is anti-American?
Here is what Chomsky says about the charge of "anti-American":
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20021209.htm
Chomsky: The concept "anti-American" is an interesting one. The counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or military dictatorships, something I wrote about many years ago (see my book Letters from Lexington). Thus, in the old Soviet Union, dissidents were condemned as "anti-Soviet." That's a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture. In contrast, people with even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with ridicule and contempt. Suppose someone in Italy who criticizes Italian state policy were condemned as "anti-Italian." It would be regarded as too ridiculous even to merit laughter. Maybe under Mussolini, but surely not otherwise.
Actually the concept has earlier origins. It was used in the Bible by King Ahab, the epitome of evil, to condemn those who sought justice as "anti-Israel" ("ocher Yisrael," in the original Hebrew, roughly "hater of Israel," or "disturber of Israel"). His specific target was Elijah.
It's interesting to see the tradition in which the people you refer to choose to place themselves. The idea of leaving America because one opposes state policy is another reflection of deep totalitarian commitments. Solzhenitsyn, for example, was forced to leave Russia, against his will, by people with beliefs very much like those you are quoting.
(Don't hide behind a throwaway... peasant)
The government does not have a "side". It is intended to represent the people. It only needs a side if it must actively support its own preservation.
Consider all the stuff recently revealed by Wikileaks about Iraq and Afghanistan, and also consider the stuff released by Snowden ... None of it had to be kept secret to preserve the government as a whole, the state itself was not threatened in the least bit. All that was threatened were specific (narrow) programs which happen to be things that most Americans would be appalled by if they were known about.
So clearly the "side" these entities of government are on is the "side" of keeping their own actions secret so that the public won't oppose them and shut them down.
That is extremely anti-democratic. Sure we can all empathize with an NSA official who might face prison time if those responsible for the program are brought to justice, but I don't think that kind of empathy ought to prevent us from seeing the programs for what they are.
Would I like to live in peace and prosperity in Chomsky's dream anarcho-liberal world? Of course. Do I think humanity can get there in the next hundred years. No way. We are all allowed to dream, but thank goodness some of us are also realistic.
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/chomsky-says-snowden-should-be...
The quoted segment starts at 1:21:25
No government is to be trusted not to manipulate the population through fear. That should be taught in grade school.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_wor...
That doesn't make Hitchens' intellect any less entertaining, but if you look closely at his worldview it's clear that he willfully indulged a big blind spot for the follies of state power and coercive force. Rand would surely agree with my assessment.
I'd say what you're doing here is "emotional thinking". Try being more rational when thinking.
When you love your country, you actually have the duty to point things out that are wrong. That's the only way problems can be corrected. Otherwise it would mean you're ok with your country decaying.
(Just like with your boy/girlfriend or husband - if you love them, you need to openly talk about the problems.)
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskygatekepper26sep05....
https://startpage.com/do/search?query=chomsky+gatekeeper
Bio of the author of the first article - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-abrahamson
(Has the mention of this simple possibility offended you? If you think it's impossible, tell me why.)
Did you read the author's bio? He's no slouch - Yale grad, litigator with experience in the Supreme Court, writes for HuffPo...but I guess we should write it off immediately because...colloidal silver? You tell me because I don't know anything about colloidal silver.
I prefer the idea that an extraordinary amount of certainty requires extraordinary proof. Skepticism should be the default position.
This is undoubtedly true. He is one of the most cited authors of all time.
It is unfortunate that the american media does not give him the attention he deserves. In fact, in Europe Noam Chomsky and his opinions are very highly regarded and his writings are taught in schools. I am Greek (living in the U.S for the last 5 years) and I was first introduced to Noam Chomsky during a writing class in my (public) high school.
I guess the fact that he is an anarchist and very often criticizes the U.S government and foreign policy does not make him popular within the U.S.
Btw, some of us, no matter what country we are from, need to understand that when someone criticizes our country's government and its actions, it does not mean automatically that they are criticizing us. I honestly find it very naive when someone defends their government's policies just because they feel somehow they have to do so.
The first time, I saw his opinions re USA's/NATO's intervention in ex-Yugoslavia. It just seemed like conspiracy theories, especially when I googled and found his apologetics for the Khmer Rouge (before they were found to be massmurding crazies).
The second time, I got a link to a Chomsky interview. I got shocked -- Chomsky claimed that he didn't talk about the Sudan atrocities, because he couldn't influence much. WTF?! If the most famous academic US-critic, beloved by dictators, publicly condemned the Darfur handling etc by Sudan's government as 1000 times worse than what he complained about Israel, it would have an effect...
I wrote Chomsky off as another effect of the US right/left being equally crazy. Here in Europe we mostly get the left crazies, so he is big. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe. It seems to me Chomsky argues by (correctly) noting that governments lie a lot -- then he comes with really weird explanations to what really happens.
2. I discussed an interview with Chomsky, where he himself discussed why he didn't criticize X. I noted his motivation was just not rational/true/etc. So your Venezuelan claims about an example are doubly irrelevant.
Despite being atheist/agnostic, he takes this principle straight from the Bible: "How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Matthew 7:4-5
(Chomsky is probably bigger outside USA. E.g. the Milosevic regime was a big fan.)
I don't really care why an analysis have very different standards for different countries/companies/etc, that just isn't a quality sign... It doesn't seem more serious if the double standards are motivated by "Hey, I'm a self-hater..."
Also, Chomsky has always been severely critical of authoritarian and violent regimes across the world; the reason he has focused disproportionally on American regimes is due to the moral principle I referenced above.
1. I point out that Chomsky's motivation for not engaging in Sudan's problems (no influence) are just not serious; his involvement would have very probably made a big difference and potentially saved many lives.
2. You claim that Chomsky think it is more important to complain about USA. (+)
3. I answer that I don't really care why someone has double standards for different groups/countries/religions/etc.
4. You play linguistic games with half of a term I use ("self-hater").
5. I say bye bye.
(+) Not relevant anyway, except as a form of explanation of why, not an argument Chomsky's position was serious.
For example, the CIA helps traffic opium/heroin across the world. That sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it's true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Politics_of_Heroin_in_South...
Here are his comments in 1977 regarding the reported genocide in Cambodia [1]: "We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered. Evidence that focuses on the American role, like the Hildebrand and Porter volume, is ignored, not on the basis of truthfulness or scholarship but because the message is unpalatable."
And on the veracity of reports about horrific slaughter made by Cambodian refugees: "Refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocuters wish to hear. While these reports must be considered seriously, care and caution are necessary. Specifically, refugees questioned by Westerners or Thais have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of Cambodian revolutionaries, an obvious fact that no serious reporter will fail to take into account."
Did Chomsky show poor judgement by discounting such refugee reports? Was the evidence of genocide really so muddy in 1977 that you could not 'know where the truth lies'?
[1] http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2779086.html
America is literally pulling a, "We're better than you so we can violate any of your laws - including our own - and then murder, torture & kidnap. We are sovereign over the entire world."
Few non-Americans think that's a swell idea, so it will only last as long as American power lasts.
If you agree with Chomsky or not or if you think American power will last or not, you at least have to be able to concede that everybody else in the world has a valid gripe about the benevolent bully who really likes his big stick. Chomsky is just an American who noticed that...
But, you know, it's cool : all states do the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
As an aside, I've always found Chomsky's continued association with one of the major pillars of the defense industrial complex, MIT, rather hypocritical. Maybe he could move to a university that doesn't take a billion dollars in DOD money every year, if he's so critical of it...
One thing I found troubling about all this is you can't expect the victims in other countries to decouple the intentions of the American gov't from American citizens.
Except (even more troubling) is that citizens seem to support drone warfare (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/10/m...).
And that is why all these drone wars actually keep the "terrorist" recruiting machine running.
A handful of people in the US make huge $$$ on war (the military budgets are surreal, plus, billions are suddenly "lost", etc.).
$$$ are a clear incentive for war. This creates new terrorists. These need to be hunted and killed. That means we need to keep the "defense" budget high. And as a bonus, we get a totally transparent citizen.
I remember even once, I was eating in a restaurant in front of my home (literally, it was across the street), and 3 US citizens were talking in english in a nearby table... Their conversation was one of the most horrible things I heard in a while, they were advocating get rid of immigrants, because all immigrants were filthy evil people and deserve to die, and that brazillians were scum, and whatnot (and they were saying that in Brazil).
I almost hit one of them in the head, but then I realized they were 3, and I was one, so I decided to just finish my food and leave as quickly as possible.
Other encounters with typical US citizens were not much better, reading comments on mainstream newspaper do not make me believe better either.
And I cannot count how much times I got into arguments about our US supported dictatorship during the cold war, with US people that believe that I should have thanked the US government for "saving" us.
And then, saving from what? And the reply is whatever fake threat of the time (communists, terrorists, muslims, whatever). This get me so much on my nerves that I even started to join random communication channels with US people (like, game chats, site chats, social networks) and provoke them into political arguments, just to check, and yes, many DO believe the US came here to "save" us, it is like if US citizens have some sorta of weird hero complex where they believe that the foreign policy of the US is save everyone. This is something that I never understood properly, how the hell a population can believe such bullshit.
Beside other bizarre views (for example frequently I see comments defending that US should just turn North Korea and Iran into glass... Usually when reading reuters.com)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
Brainwashing by controlling the media & lack of education, I'd say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy
He laid out the classes of formal grammars clear back in 1956. Every time you use a regular expression, compile code or run a script, you're applying concepts that he helped pioneer. I almost couldn't believe it.
I have a new appreciation for his work, and a better understanding of why his logical approach to ethics/civics/philosophy always resonated with me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_grammar
A good 2500 years prior. Chomsky was in the right place, at the right time, to carry that work forward into computer science. Not to detract, but the point is key: Sanskrt was formally specified 2500 years ago in a way that is recognizably a CFG.
Down with Chomsky. Down vote me, I don't really care. I'd surely trade all my HN Karma for a reduction in Chomsky related posts to HN. It will make HN a better community.