Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Noam Chomsky - Elections Run by Same Guys Who Sell Toothpaste
youtube.com — The party managers know where the public stands on a whole list of issues. Their funders just don ’t support them; the interests they represent don’t support them. So they project a different kind of image. If you listen to the presidential debates, you can’t figure out what they’re saying, and that’s on purpose.
notque- 857 diggs
- digg it
- notque, on 11/21/2007, -10/+61Noam Chomsky -
The elections are run by the same guys who sell toothpaste. They show you an image of a sports hero, or a sexy model, or a car going up a sheer cliff or something, which has nothing to do with the commodity, but it’s intended to delude you into picking this one rather than another one. Same when they run elections. But they’re assigned that task in order to marginalize the public, and furthermore, people are pretty well aware of it.
For many years, election campaigns here have been run by the public relations industry and each time it’s with increasing sophistication. Quite naturally, the industry uses the same technique to sell candidates that it uses to sell toothpaste or lifestyle drugs. The point is to undermine markets by projecting imagery to delude and suppressing information—and similarly, to undermine democracy by the same method.
http://www.chomsky.info/talks/2005012502.htm- leunghoi, on 11/22/2007, -1/+8The other day, I saw a CNN coverage on candidates shoes. Just this morning, msnbc interviewer asked Kucinich's wife about her age and her tongue ring... Very relevant topics of discussions.
- greenfirefly11, on 11/21/2007, -8/+19Their fluoride toothpaste will also pacify you so you don't care when elections are openly stolen.
- dillyhoo, on 11/21/2007, -6/+17I think toothpaste ads would be awesome if they had sports endorsements and sexy cars. All the ones I see just have a bunch of assholes brushing their teeth and some CGI animation of crusty yellow stuff breaking up.
- frsrblch, on 11/21/2007, -1/+9Ahh, but their toothbrush even breaks up the CGI plaque that the other toothbrush left behind.
- guioam, on 11/23/2007, -1/+0lol, this is the best post i've ever read.
- gquaglia, on 11/21/2007, -43/+8I don't know what is worse, Noam Chomsky posts or Ron Paul posts. Both are ***** losers, so I guess its a draw.
- niczar, on 11/21/2007, -4/+11I understand, thinking is tiresome; switch your computer off and Faux News on. They do the thinking for you.
- etsa, on 11/21/2007, -2/+12yeah, it is a market branding issue. folks should elect someone many times smarter than themselves rather than the chap to go drinking with. Hahahaha :)
- notque, on 11/21/2007, -2/+13Exactly. They don't focus on the issues, but instead on "likability".
It's just a complete diversion from the issues because if they spoke about the issues honestly, you'd realize the truth is that you don't want anything they want.
You don't want Hillary's policies. That's why they have to avoid them, and discuss things like "leadership", or "experience", or "likability."
Not that her health care plan is just a subsidy for insurance companies that we, the population have to pay for.
- notque, on 11/21/2007, -2/+13Exactly. They don't focus on the issues, but instead on "likability".
- notque, on 11/21/2007, -3/+26To learn more about the Public Relations industry, Check out The Century of Self by Adam Curtis which highlights Edward Bernays
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-263763536 ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Se ...
It's important to understand their methods of deluding us.- russellnation, on 11/22/2007, -1/+6the trap and power of nightmares by adam curtis are also phenomenal (both on google video)
- Metalmoon, on 11/22/2007, -1/+6thanks for the links... interesting videos.
i am a marketing major at a state university, and it's really amazing how the ideas in "The Century of the Self" tie in to my course material. For example, although not specifically mentioned, Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It describes a huge role in meeting and/or influencing peoples needs (or more ominously, wants)- crosswick, on 11/23/2007, -0/+2Actually Maslow is briefly mentioned in the third prat of the series :-)
- smackhero, on 11/22/2007, -0/+5great documentary. another one to check out is Manufacturing Consent, which covers the same topics as the eponymous book by Noam Chomsky. regardless of your political affiliation, the media plays a vital role in any democratic society and everyone ought to understand how it influences or manipulates/undermines our political process.
- brad3378, on 11/22/2007, -1/+3There are 3 more hour long videos in the same video series. Links are provided in the Wikipedia article above.
I highly recommend watching each. They very eye opening. - DerProfi, on 11/23/2007, -1/+1"...which highlights Edward Bernays"
Don't get saucy with me, Bernays!
- sherpa88, on 11/21/2007, -23/+4i like butts
- sherpa88, on 11/21/2007, -9/+2i apologise. What i meant to say was "butt"........ I like butt.
- mrjit, on 11/21/2007, -0/+6I like blocks.
- DerProfi, on 11/23/2007, -1/+1i like douchebag anti-american linguists
- coldkodiak, on 11/21/2007, -30/+10and Noam Chomsky is recommended reading by Hugo Chavev, and Osama Bin Ladin.
who gives a ***** what Noam Chomsky says?- infiniphunk, on 11/21/2007, -8/+14Speaking of which, shouldn't you be off somewhere, playing a banjo??
- masterm1nd, on 11/21/2007, -2/+5I thought you guys were suppose to be against stereotypes and what not? No?
- huaone, on 11/21/2007, -6/+12taking a stance without understanding the other side of the argument is utterly idiotic. what a fool.
- masterm1nd, on 11/21/2007, -9/+4Telling a stranger what they understand and don't understand is also utterly idiotic. What a tool.
- huaone, on 11/23/2007, -2/+1no, it's just rude, which has more to do with one's social inclinations than one's intelligence or reasoning capabilities. and "tool" doesn't make sense in this case. at least you can rhyme... hey, that makes you a rapper.
- masterm1nd, on 11/21/2007, -9/+4Telling a stranger what they understand and don't understand is also utterly idiotic. What a tool.
- masterm1nd, on 11/21/2007, -6/+5Haters and brainwashers.
- darri, on 11/21/2007, -3/+2In a healthy society this kind of talk would justify a letter from the Brainwashed Anonymous Program.
- coldkodiak, on 11/21/2007, -6/+5Digg is eating my replys, so here they are:
inifipunk>yeah, playing the Banjo in So.Cal. I voted dem in 2004 and 2006. Try wrapping your little head around that improbability.
huaone> Ignoring what someone says because of personal dislike is foolish. Not caring what Noam Chomsky says because he's a radical ideologue is perfectly fine by my standards. And before you spout of some reply about listening to everyone: do you care wtf Sean Hannity has to say about anything?
mastermind> describes Chomsky perfectly.- huaone, on 11/23/2007, -1/+1first of all, i'm not a chomsky supporter; i don't know what he stands for. secondly, understanding and liking are two different things. by knowing what chomsky said, at least you can refute his points through reason. whereas the case of shunning his ideas by association, you're just assuming you'd disagree with him. kind of like someone who mistakenly ASSUMED you didn't vote dem in 2004 and 2006.
- infiniphunk, on 11/21/2007, -8/+14Speaking of which, shouldn't you be off somewhere, playing a banjo??
- daxsymbiont, on 11/21/2007, -2/+7damn right.
- coffee200am, on 11/21/2007, -23/+6Who's Noname Chumpsky? Did he invent something that made peoples lives better?
- benbos, on 11/21/2007, -2/+6Generative Grammar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_grammar)
- stephant, on 11/21/2007, -19/+6Boy I wish this was a Republican (or Bush supporter) so you could all ask, "Where does he gets those stats? Where is his proof for anything he said?" But it's another Bush critic so you'll all just accept what he says as the truth. You Bush hating diggers aren't nearly as free thinking and intelligent as you seem to think you are.
Oh, and I get it that he says it's some Gallup poll in the article linked in the first comment and then he later refers to "the most recent polls" but no citation is given. Then he makes conclusions based on these polls or some information that he doesn't tell us about so I guess we'll just believe it's true. Yes. That's what I'll do.- notque, on 11/21/2007, -4/+10I'll grab you some random ones.
CBS NEWS/NEW YORK TIMES POLL. Jan. 20-25, 2006.
"Which of the following three statements comes closest to expressing your overall view of the health care system in the United States? (1) On the whole, the health care system works pretty well and only minor changes are necessary to make it work better. OR, (2) There are some good things in our health care system, but fundamental changes are needed. OR, (3) Our health care system has so much wrong with it that we need to completely rebuild it."
8% Minor Changes - 56% Fundamental Changes - 34% Completely Rebuild - 2% Unsure
"Do you think the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans, or isn't this the responsibility of the federal government?"
62% Should Guarantee - 31% Not Their Responsibility - 7% Unsure
"How concerned are you about the health care costs you are facing now or will face in the future: a lot, some, not much, or not at all?"
61% A Lot - 26% Some - 8% Not Much - 5% Not At All
----------------------
http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/do ...
http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=1093
There are so many polls on this with the same basic results, I might as well stop. You can look them up yourself, and check these quite easily.
Here's a 2007 one for you before I stop
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/ ...- stealthc, on 11/21/2007, -3/+5And this is why Democracy might kill us all. Are you even vaguely aware of the barbaric means some Brits have to resort to because the government control of orthodontics has caused such shortages in dentists? Democracy is the process of the 51% voting themselves generous gifts from the 49%. There is such a thing as right and wrong, and stealing is wrong, even when done with fancy titles, paperwork and badges. Just because 61% of Americans want nationalized health care does not mean there is any Constitutional authority to do so, and it definitely does not mean it is the right thing to do.
No percentage, no matter how high, will make argumentum ad populum anything more than fallacious thinking. - polyGone, on 11/21/2007, -3/+6I admire your persistence in battling the trolls. You're like a digital Arch Mage. :)
- stephant, on 11/22/2007, -6/+1CBS News Poll. Sept. 14-16, 2007. N=706 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4 (for all adults).
"Which do you think would be better for the country: having one health insurance program covering all Americans that would be administered by the government and paid for by taxpayers, or keeping the current system where many people get their insurance from private employers and some have no insurance?"
One Program for All: 47%
Current System: 38%
Combination: 4%
Neither: 2%
Unsure: 9%
----------------------------------------------------------------
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Jan. 17-20, 2007. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.
"Within the past year, the governors of Massachusetts and California have put forward plans to require all residents in their states to have health insurance coverage. For example, the plan in Massachusetts would require residents with higher incomes to pay for coverage and state funding that would be used to help cover residents with lower incomes. Do you think it is a good idea or bad idea to do this for the entire country?"
Good Idea: 48
Bad Idea: 42
Unsure: 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 8-12, 2006. N=1,405 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
"As I read from a list, tell me whether or not the item I read is a major problem for you and your family. [See below.] Is this a major problem for you or not a major problem?"
"Paying for the cost of routine medical care"
3/8-12/06
Major Problem: 38
Not Major: 61
Unsure: 1
"Paying for the cost of a major illness"
3/8-12/06
Major Problem: 54
Not Major: 44
Unsure: 2
"The availability of medical care in your community"
3/8-12/06
Major Problem: 25
Not Major 74
Unsure: 1
"The quality of hospital care in your community"
3/8-12/06
Major Problem: 26
Not Major 71
Unsure: 3
"Paying for the costs of prescription drugs"
3/8-12/06
Major Problem: 44
Not Major: 55
Unsure: 1
------------------------------------------------------------
So I win right? You're wrong? The point is that you can't just pick out polls that tend to agree with you and say that it absolutely proves anything. The bottom line is that you agree with Chomsky so you look for evidence to support your views (and his). That doesn't make you enlightened no matter how much you believe it does. Besides, you're probably just one of those idiots Chomsky tells us about that doesn't understand the issues or where the candidates stand on them. Seriously, how can you people like this guy so much?
- stealthc, on 11/21/2007, -3/+5And this is why Democracy might kill us all. Are you even vaguely aware of the barbaric means some Brits have to resort to because the government control of orthodontics has caused such shortages in dentists? Democracy is the process of the 51% voting themselves generous gifts from the 49%. There is such a thing as right and wrong, and stealing is wrong, even when done with fancy titles, paperwork and badges. Just because 61% of Americans want nationalized health care does not mean there is any Constitutional authority to do so, and it definitely does not mean it is the right thing to do.
- infiniphunk, on 11/21/2007, -4/+3tell me, what did the blue pill taste like?
- cecinestpasvrai, on 11/21/2007, -5/+9Spephant- Sorry dude, but anyone who's read into Chomsky's behavior knows he's a stickler for facts and figures. He literally has rooms attached to his office which exist simply to house file cabinets of citations and important documents. Watch the documentary "Manufacturing Consent" for a look. He's a Professor Emeritus at MIT, and has 40 years of political writing behind him. What I'm trying to say it the guy knows *****, and knows ***** to back up that ***** he knows. I promise.
- andrew1193, on 11/22/2007, -4/+2"Sorry dude, but anyone who's read into Chomsky's behavior knows he's a stickler for facts and figures."
Facts and figures that he usually lies about:
http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm- cecinestpasvrai, on 11/22/2007, -2/+3First off "Usually?", there's like 30 text clippings on that site, and Chomsky's contributed to over hundreds of books. Second off, "Jim.com", are you kidding? Find me an academic disputing major claims of Chomsky's rather than petty critiques of writing styles.
- andrew1193, on 11/22/2007, -3/+2"Find me an academic disputing major claims of Chomsky's rather than petty critiques of writing styles."
If you bothered to read the page, you would find far more than mere critiques of Chomsky's (deceptive) writing style.
But if you insist on something authored by an academic...
http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~sophal/canon.pdf - cecinestpasvrai, on 11/22/2007, -2/+2Haha, you posted an undergraduate thesis. Aw. I guess you thought I meant like anyone involved in Academia. Usually though, when people call for an academic they mean like, a professor of something, (maybe a professor Emeritus like Chomsky) not just someone enrolled in college. Good try though.
- andrew1193, on 11/22/2007, -2/+2"Haha, you posted an undergraduate thesis. Aw. I guess you thought I meant like anyone involved in Academia. Usually though, when people call for an academic they mean like, a professor of something, (maybe a professor Emeritus like Chomsky) not just someone enrolled in college. Good try though."
Sophal Ear has a PhD in Political Science, and is an Assistant Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. - cecinestpasvrai, on 11/22/2007, -2/+2From the first page, In fact, the first line, of the PDF: "Undergraduate Political Science Honors Thesis".
- andrew1193, on 11/22/2007, -3/+2"Find me an academic disputing major claims of Chomsky's rather than petty critiques of writing styles."
- ragingradish, on 11/22/2007, -2/+3Who the ***** is Jim?
- cecinestpasvrai, on 11/22/2007, -2/+3First off "Usually?", there's like 30 text clippings on that site, and Chomsky's contributed to over hundreds of books. Second off, "Jim.com", are you kidding? Find me an academic disputing major claims of Chomsky's rather than petty critiques of writing styles.
- andrew1193, on 11/22/2007, -4/+2"Sorry dude, but anyone who's read into Chomsky's behavior knows he's a stickler for facts and figures."
- notque, on 11/21/2007, -4/+10I'll grab you some random ones.
- infiniphunk, on 11/21/2007, -9/+23Anyone here ever seen the movie 'Idiocracy'? You diggers knocking Noam Chomsky are like the fools in that movie; but hey, if it has electrolytes...
- masterm1nd, on 11/21/2007, -8/+8Yeah, because everyone who disagrees with your semantic god is a fool/idiot.
- widman, on 11/24/2007, -0/+2Your point to masterm1nd is valid, but there isn't a single counter-argument to Chomsky on this page that doesn't involve some kind of fallacy. I dare you find ONE (posted before this time.)
- masterm1nd, on 11/21/2007, -8/+8Yeah, because everyone who disagrees with your semantic god is a fool/idiot.
- technoredneck, on 11/21/2007, -1/+9All of the people on toothpaste commercials with perfect, unnaturally white teeth have veneers or crowns on their teeth. It boggles my mind how many people don't realize that. Likewise, all of the politicans on TV with spotless records have 'veeners' covering their corruption, i.e. Big Media and corporate interests. And it boggles my mind how many people don't realize /that/. It's the same thing: lying by covering up the truth. MSM politicans are just as rotten as Miss Toothpaste Model's capped teeth.
- coffee200am, on 11/21/2007, -14/+3All of the people on toothpaste commercials are actors and made a buck doing the commercial. What kind of commercial does Chumpsky make?
- cecinestpasvrai, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2Aw, you can't even make a logical point. Good Try!
- eviscero, on 11/21/2007, -14/+4Thread buried for sucking so bad.
- MrESaulved, on 11/21/2007, -1/+6Stop believing people who lie to you, for any reason, it's that simple. It's also your money and your country, don't you want to keep it?
- notque, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3Take something simple like Planted questions. If someone, any candidate were willing to do that, why would you ever vote for them?
Even once, it's an automatic disqualification. Period. End of Story. I don't care who it is. There is no justification for that ever. - Revovisionary, on 11/23/2007, -0/+3There is two problems here... First off you have to know someone is lieing to know when to not believe. Second is that everyone lies from time to time so you have to stay skeptical of everyone.... EVERYONE.
- notque, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3Take something simple like Planted questions. If someone, any candidate were willing to do that, why would you ever vote for them?
- bennyxbo, on 11/21/2007, -12/+2Noam Chomsky on 9/11 " who cares " .. He's an old twink of the old mainline press.
- cecinestpasvrai, on 11/21/2007, -0/+5Are you ***** kidding? Step outside your 9/11 "truther" construction of the world and realize that Chomsky is the most prominent media critics of the past 30 years. When "manufacturing consent" was written he was written off as a crackpot. How many appearances do you think Chomsky makes in the mainstream press? Answer: barely ever! Just because the guy is convinced removing existing political power structures is a larger issue that a conspiracy behind 9/11 in no way connects him with mainstream media. And if you knew anything at all about the man or his history you'd know he's a larger figure in an ideology you seem to identify with than how you've belittled him. It's nice an all to have you on our side, but read up some.
- art42, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1"...old twink..."
Twinks are NOT old: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twink_(gay_slang) ;P
- phnx0221, on 11/21/2007, -4/+10From the chomsky info talks link..."The New York Times commented that Kerry didn’t make any hint about possible government involvement in health care programs because that position has, in their words, “no political support.” Well, according to the most recent polls, 80% of the population thinks that the government ought to guarantee health care for everyone, and furthermore regard it as a moral obligation. That tells you something about people’s values. But there’s “no political support.”
I remember this. I remember being outraged by the fact that even though I, and virtually everyone I talked to (including some staunch republicans) were for ensuring health care of some degree for everyone. Yet it wasn't discussed because Kerry said it was "politically impossible". It's a terribly sad state of affairs when major candidates can't even bring up (nor do they want to, as they are working for those very same people, or corporations, that make it politically impossible) issues that are of a major importance to a mass majority of the population, because it is not politically feasible.
I didn't buy that answer and nor should anyone else. If it is not politically possible, then we need to look at why it is not politically possible. We need to look at why these issues that are so important to us are not even being brought up in debates. These people are running for an office that is representative of the American people. It's time we put someone in office who is ACTUALLY GOING TO REPRESENT US, instead of the businesses that don't even consider the population as being among their interests.- Waterrat, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3 Yes,it is time we did that,however saying that and doing that are two different things.
We are up against the elite,who control the media and have their own agenda...If they don't want something to happen,that it won't be politically possible...If they want something to happen,than it happens. What WE the public want does not matter to the elite and this is something Chomosky brings home time and again in his books.
We only matter to them in as much as we buy their products and pay taxes,which subsidizes the rich.
- Waterrat, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3 Yes,it is time we did that,however saying that and doing that are two different things.
- implementor, on 11/21/2007, -10/+12Noam Chomsky - the guy who tried to paint Pol Pot as a "peaceful agrarian reformer".
- notque, on 11/21/2007, -6/+16"I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury and so on and so forth." -- Noam Chomsky, in the documentary "Manufacturing Consent," 1993.
Noah's email: "Does the Professor harbour any feelings of guilt for acting as an apologist for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge during the period of the genocide in Cambodia. Or is mass murder by leftwing extremists still acceptable?"
Noam Chomsky: I would ask the listener whether he harbours any guilt for having supported Hitler and the Holocaust and insisting the Jews be sent to extermination camps. It has the same answer. Since it never happened, I obviously can't have any guilt for it. He's just repeating propaganda he heard. If you ask him, you'll discover that he never read one word I wrote. Try it. What I wrote was, and I don't have any apologies for it because it was accurate, I took the position that Pol Pot was a brutal monster, from the beginning was carrying out hideous atrocities, but the West, for propaganda purposes, was creating and inventing immense fabrications for its own political goals and not out of interest for the people of Cambodia. And my colleague and I with whom I wrote all this stuff simply ran through the list of fanatic lies that were being told and we took the most credible sources, which happened to be US intelligence, who knew more than anyone else. And we said US intelligence is probably accurate. In retrospect, that turns out to be correct, US intelligence was probably accurate. I think we were the only ones who quoted it. The fabrications were fabrications and should be eliminated. In fact, we also discussed, and I noticed nobody ever talks about this, we discussed fabrications against the US. For example a standard claim in the major works was that the US bombings had killed 600,000 people in 1973. We looked at the data and decided it was probably 200,000. So we said let's tell the truth about it. It's a crime, but it's not like anything you said. It's interesting that nobody ever objects to that. When we criticize fabrications about US crimes, that's fine, when we criticize and in fact expose much worse fabrications about some official enemy, that's horrible, it becomes apologetics. We should learn something about ourselves. If you're interested in the truth, which you ought to be, tell the truth about yourself and tell the truth about others. These fabrications had an obvious political purpose. Incidentally, we continually criticize the Khmer Rouge after the Vietnamese invasion. After the Vietnamese invasion, which finally threw them out thankfully, the US and Britain immediately turned to support Pol Pot. Well, we criticized that, too, we said, no, you shouldn't be supporting this monster. So yes, our position was consistent throughout. There's been a huge literature trying to show that there was something wrong in what we said. To my knowledge, nobody's even found a comma that's misplaced. And therefore what you have is immense gossip. My guess is that the person who just wrote this in has never seen anything we wrote, but has heard a lot of gossip about it.- andrew1193, on 11/22/2007, -6/+4"Noam Chomsky: I would ask the listener whether he harbours any guilt for having supported Hitler and the Holocaust and insisting the Jews be sent to extermination camps. It has the same answer. Since it never happened, I obviously can't have any guilt for it."
Except that it did happen:
http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/wma-chomsky.html
- andrew1193, on 11/22/2007, -6/+4"Noam Chomsky: I would ask the listener whether he harbours any guilt for having supported Hitler and the Holocaust and insisting the Jews be sent to extermination camps. It has the same answer. Since it never happened, I obviously can't have any guilt for it."
- notque, on 11/21/2007, -6/+16"I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury and so on and so forth." -- Noam Chomsky, in the documentary "Manufacturing Consent," 1993.
- Hostile17, on 11/21/2007, -3/+10It's the manufacture of consent, and it's killing us.
- notque, on 11/21/2007, -5/+8http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-563188239 ...
An excellent movie which focus on the Manufacturing of Consent. Very watchable even if you don't usually enjoy documentaries.
- notque, on 11/21/2007, -5/+8http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-563188239 ...
- tarzan99, on 11/21/2007, -3/+2He didn't say toothpaste once
- stealthc, on 11/21/2007, -7/+8Chomsky is extraordinarily intelligent when it comes to matters of language and manipulation. When he comments on how you are being manipulated by the PTB, listen. Where you should stop, though, is at his ideas about how to organize a government or economy. He knows language, not politics, and certainly not economics.
- masterm1nd, on 11/21/2007, -10/+4Semantic trickery. There is a reason he doesn't say anything in a straight forward manner. There is a reason he talks like a book from the 16'th century.
- OneAndOnlySnob, on 11/22/2007, -3/+3Dude, there's no apostrophe in "16th century", and Chomsky's not hard to understand. Maybe your language skills just suck.
- masterm1nd, on 11/23/2007, -3/+3Did I say he was hard to understand? Reread what I said.
- masterm1nd, on 11/23/2007, -3/+1The irony of your last sentence... Laughing out loud.
- OneAndOnlySnob, on 11/22/2007, -3/+3Dude, there's no apostrophe in "16th century", and Chomsky's not hard to understand. Maybe your language skills just suck.
- phnx0221, on 11/21/2007, -5/+13I wonder if you would be so quick to judge if you realized that he has literally spent his entire life to politics, as well as with linguistics. He wrote an article on the Spanish Revolution, which was pretty well regarded, and when asked in an interview, how he came to such knowledge that few people know about, he responded with,
'I wrote that when I was twelve".- masterm1nd, on 11/22/2007, -7/+3So, he writes about his imagination and the people who highly regard him are retarded?
- leunghoi, on 11/22/2007, -2/+3Language is the most dangerous weapon in politics. If you disagree with something in the Patriot Act, does that make you a traitor? If you are "Pro Choice", does that mean you are a killer because you are not "Pro Life"? By using the right words, politicians can lead you to believe they support your position without locking themselves into fix positions.
- masterm1nd, on 11/21/2007, -10/+4Semantic trickery. There is a reason he doesn't say anything in a straight forward manner. There is a reason he talks like a book from the 16'th century.
- mrogi, on 11/21/2007, -12/+3Noam Chomsky fails to understand that 99% of Americans dont give a ***** about politics. We dont care if Chomsky tells us the truth about our government and their activities in the Middle East. 99% of us have no clue how to find Baghdad on a map. We just wanna drink beer, watch the football and American Idol.
- phnx0221, on 11/21/2007, -2/+7I think that's beginning to change. It certainly has for me, as well as for my family and friends, some of which really resented it when politics were brought up, even in passing.
I certainly hope that has changed for you too. The more that people become aware of this mess that we're in, the more can be done to change it. - masterm1nd, on 11/21/2007, -5/+5It sounds like you care, I know I care. The problem with Chomsky telling us the truth, is that he is not an all knowing being. You may think he is, but I think he uses linguistics to be less than honest.
- damage78, on 11/22/2007, -2/+4what does he have to gain from being "less than honest"?
- masterm1nd, on 11/22/2007, -3/+2Probably the same things every other political figure has to gain from being less than honest. I don't even know he is a liar per say, but I do know not everything he says is the truth. If anyone is always consistently either pro American or anti American, I'd say they probably don't always speak the truth.
- art42, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1"If anyone is always consistently either pro American or anti American, I'd say they probably don't always speak the truth."
- masterm1nd, on 11/22/2007, -4/+2Nevermind, he's a liar. http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm .
- phnx0221, on 11/21/2007, -2/+7I think that's beginning to change. It certainly has for me, as well as for my family and friends, some of which really resented it when politics were brought up, even in passing.
- bradbelan, on 11/21/2007, -4/+6thank goodness we live in a country where its safe for people like Noam to tell the truth (the good, the bad and the ugly) in an open forum...
- masterm1nd, on 11/22/2007, -4/+3I'm pretty sure Chomsky himself would disagree with you about it being safe to to tell the truth in this country. That goes against almost everything the guys ever said.
- phnx0221, on 11/22/2007, -3/+6And actually, that's not true. He has said many times that the reason he writes and speaks so much about the atrocities the US has committed, is because 1) They are the world's biggest superpower, and as a citizen of such a power, it is our responsibility to question the motives and actions of our governments, and 2) because he lives in a country in which the right to free speech is protected within our constitution.
Chomsky has no illusions about whether or not he or anyone else is free to research, digest, conclude, and speak out. - masterm1nd, on 11/22/2007, -2/+3I agree with most of that, but does Chomsky believe we abide by our constitution? No, hence my post.
- phnx0221, on 11/22/2007, -3/+6And actually, that's not true. He has said many times that the reason he writes and speaks so much about the atrocities the US has committed, is because 1) They are the world's biggest superpower, and as a citizen of such a power, it is our responsibility to question the motives and actions of our governments, and 2) because he lives in a country in which the right to free speech is protected within our constitution.
- masterm1nd, on 11/22/2007, -4/+3I'm pretty sure Chomsky himself would disagree with you about it being safe to to tell the truth in this country. That goes against almost everything the guys ever said.
- gquaglia, on 11/22/2007, -8/+3Here is an example of the typical Noam Chomsky fan.
http://www.majormediabypass.com/
It speaks for itself.- masterm1nd, on 11/22/2007, -4/+4Tip: All the UFO stuffs on the bottom of the site
- gquaglia, on 11/22/2007, -3/+2Did you see the part about the government secretly spraying the populous? This guy used to live in my town and is a 100% wack job. His hero is Chomsky, he even met him, and that along is reason to disregard anything Chomsky says.
- art42, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1The "UFO stuffs [sic]" consists of a single video... Consider changing your handle to Ad Hominem...
- masterm1nd, on 11/22/2007, -4/+4Tip: All the UFO stuffs on the bottom of the site
- charlie55, on 11/22/2007, -8/+5when chomsky points out the obvious, it isnt any less obvious than it was before. it is not extra interesting just because a communist is saying it.
- notque, on 11/22/2007, -5/+5He's not a communist, he's a Libertarian Socialist.
- charlie55, on 11/22/2007, -3/+61st rule of american communist: do not admit to being a communist.
- notque, on 11/22/2007, -3/+2That is absolutely useless logic. That doesn't even begin to reach a threshold as laughable.
Yes. If you don't want to be known as something, then you may not admit to it, but how is that a judgment on if it's true, or what it is, and further if it's desirable.
You ignore 3 crucial questions to understanding something. That is just ignorance.- charlie55, on 11/22/2007, -4/+4you apparently have never read chomsky. he is communist.
- notque, on 11/22/2007, -3/+4No he's not, he is/was against communism. He's a Libertarian Socialist as I've said previously. You obviously don't know what those words mean.
- art42, on 11/24/2007, -0/+11st rule of american conservatism: call those you disagree with a communist.
- notque, on 11/22/2007, -3/+2That is absolutely useless logic. That doesn't even begin to reach a threshold as laughable.
- charlie55, on 11/22/2007, -3/+61st rule of american communist: do not admit to being a communist.
- notque, on 11/22/2007, -5/+5He's not a communist, he's a Libertarian Socialist.
- mrogi, on 11/22/2007, -6/+0"Chomsky is an imbecile.Only fools and idiots still believe in political parties and ideology. It is the international system of currency which determines the vitality of life on this planet. THAT is the natural order of things today. THAT is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today. There is no America; there is no democracy. There is only, IBM, ITT, and AT&T, Haliburton, DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. There are no Chinese, Russians or Japs. There are no Arabs. There is no East nor Middle East. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems; one vast, interwoven, interacting, multi varied, multinational dominion of dollars.”
-Arthur Jensen’s monetary cosmology - TsuruchiBrian, on 11/22/2007, -4/+4I like Chomsky because even though he makes all kinds of apologies for it, he believes like I do that something like 95% of the population is completely stupid and willing to let others exploit them.
I suppose I am get exploited nearly as much as everyone else. The only difference is that I really care, and I TRY to stop them at the ballot box. I have voted in every single election since I turned 18 and I have yet to vote for someone that actually won. I have never voted for a Republican or a Democrat. This year I plan on voting for a Republican for the first time (Try to guess which).- notque, on 11/22/2007, -0/+6I don't know why you think he believes the population is stupid. It's just not true.
He's seen in the progress in human beings over centuries, and we've been doing a significantly better job.
We have made significant progress, and civilizations on this earth have been moving towards a better society.
We have a lot of challenges ahead, but stupid we are not. We are amazingly complex and intelligent creatures who happen to have a survival trait of agreeing with the majority. If they are fed lies about what that majority believes, they will listen to it if they are distracted and isolated.
You need to get off your high horse and start helping the situation.- TsuruchiBrian, on 11/22/2007, -2/+2I think he thinks people are stupid when he says stuff like "only 10% of the people that voted knew the positions of the candidates", how he thinks that people are just complacent about their politicians not representing them. Despite the fact that people have the power to vote for whoever they want, they are more or less coerced into voting for the same corrupt people over and over again. To me that means he, like I, think people on the whole are pretty stupid.
I don't know why you think the credit for advances towards a better society belong to stupid people. Furthermore, what advances in society are you even talking about? Democracy? Technology? How many people in this country can even do math? How many people could name a single foreign countries leader?
"We are amazingly complex and intelligent creatures who happen to have a survival trait of agreeing with the majority. If they are fed lies about what that majority believes, they will listen to it if they are distracted and isolated." That is a really nice way of describing an form of stupidity called gullibility.
I don't know why you think I am just sitting on my "high horse" not helping. I spend my time keeping current with local and world events. I am desperately trying to wake people up with my time and hard earned money. Even though I think people are stupid, I want stupid people to triumph over the evil people that seem to always gain the upper hand.- notque, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3He doesn't think people are stupid. He's said so many times.
I happen to agree.
- notque, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3He doesn't think people are stupid. He's said so many times.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 11/22/2007, -2/+2I think he thinks people are stupid when he says stuff like "only 10% of the people that voted knew the positions of the candidates", how he thinks that people are just complacent about their politicians not representing them. Despite the fact that people have the power to vote for whoever they want, they are more or less coerced into voting for the same corrupt people over and over again. To me that means he, like I, think people on the whole are pretty stupid.
- GueOvez, on 11/27/2007, -0/+0Is it Ron Paul?
No, don't get fooled by all the hype!
No universal health care.
Xenophobe and seriously thinks terrorists are imminent threats - because of this will pass laws that will take away more rights.
Didn't vote fore HR1955 or FISA Revision Bill.
Pro-life.
He is against separating church and state.
He's against same sex marriage.
Birthright Citizenship Amendment.
Vote for Mike Gravel!!!
- notque, on 11/22/2007, -0/+6I don't know why you think he believes the population is stupid. It's just not true.
- mattewood, on 11/22/2007, -2/+10Cool interview.. Chomsky kicks ass!
- Waterrat, on 11/22/2007, -1/+3 He does indeed.
- DerProfi, on 11/23/2007, -4/+2"Chomsky kicks ass!"
DEFINITELY! If by "kicks" you mean "blows" and "ass" you mean "goats"....
- OneAndOnlySnob, on 11/22/2007, -3/+11Man. When I was younger, I used to think Noam Chomsky was smart, but wrong. As I get older and wiser, I can't believe how right he really is pretty much all the time. Stupid younger self...
- smackhero, on 11/22/2007, -1/+8yea, i used to be pretty conservative (though i never really labeled myself as such) politically. i read Atlas Shrugged in 9th or 10th grade and thought Ayn Rand was brilliant and simply believed that the poor were all lazy and incompetent, while picturing myself as the oppressed industrialist in the fantasy world Rand had created. however, I discovered the progressive movement and truly began taking an interest in politics and social issues my junior year of high school. the start of all this was really when I first began reading Chomsky's writing, which challenged me to truly think critically about government and social issues for the first time in my life and radically changed my world view.
the thing i like about Chomsky is, while he is assuredly a socialist, he mostly focuses on tangible issues like media influence and the effects of U.S. foreign policy during historic events. it paints a very vivid picture of the way our world works and explains a lot of the problems plaguing society. and while no one is beyond media influence and cultural hegemony, once you realize that you are being manipulated and identify the source of the manipulation, you can take it into consideration and begin to filter it out or counteract it. and becomes of Chomsky i now think more critically and am more skeptical about what i read and hear, and try to get my information from a wide range of independent news sources rather than relying solely on the consolidated corporate media.
the older i get, and the more i experience and learn of the world, the more cynical i become, but i still wouldn't trade living without blinders on for the blissful ignorance that i once lived in.- Waterrat, on 11/22/2007, -1/+4 Knowing what's really going on is disturbing indeed,but I'd rather know than not know...He has really helped me see the fat,rich man behind the curtain and how he and his ilk maintain the status quo so everything is in their favor and never in ours.
- Waterrat, on 11/22/2007, -1/+4 Knowing what's really going on is disturbing indeed,but I'd rather know than not know...He has really helped me see the fat,rich man behind the curtain and how he and his ilk maintain the status quo so everything is in their favor and never in ours.
- smackhero, on 11/22/2007, -1/+8yea, i used to be pretty conservative (though i never really labeled myself as such) politically. i read Atlas Shrugged in 9th or 10th grade and thought Ayn Rand was brilliant and simply believed that the poor were all lazy and incompetent, while picturing myself as the oppressed industrialist in the fantasy world Rand had created. however, I discovered the progressive movement and truly began taking an interest in politics and social issues my junior year of high school. the start of all this was really when I first began reading Chomsky's writing, which challenged me to truly think critically about government and social issues for the first time in my life and radically changed my world view.
- bratpack8, on 11/22/2007, -7/+2Noam, against the war, which is good, but he's an idiot believing that wars are caused by capitalism. Noam is one of the biggest socialists in the world, despite that horrid experiment that just doesn't seem to work anywhere it's tried. Bottom line, he's a moron.
- widman, on 11/24/2007, -0/+2Try searching for countries with high Human Development Index, and other indexes like the Happy Index (stupid name but it comes from serious economists.)
- widman, on 11/24/2007, -0/+2Try searching for countries with high Human Development Index, and other indexes like the Happy Index (stupid name but it comes from serious economists.)
- odigity, on 11/22/2007, -4/+1I disagree with Chomsky on politics (I'm a Ron Paul Republican), but if the topic is media or language, he's always dead on correct.
- razorsharpwit, on 11/23/2007, -5/+1just because chomsky knows about linguistics doesn't mean he knows much about anything else, like say economics or society- He's a pseudo-intellectual socialist. he's part of the problem.
- widman, on 11/24/2007, -0/+2He defined himself very clearly as Anarcho-syndicalist (or Libertarian-syndicalist) If you can't be bothered to read him, he has some very clear interviews on youtube explaining his position and why he favours it.
- Valmorgan, on 11/23/2007, -6/+1Only in America does the opinion of someone who advocates eradication of private property matter. Noam is a socialist mouthpiece of the New World Order, and a complete and utter idiot to boot.
- mrogi, on 11/23/2007, -0/+5Chomsy does not believe the public is ignorant or apathetic. Chomsky believes the public just dont know & just dont care.
- HugoEckener, on 11/24/2007, -3/+0You sure it's not run by overachieving white guys sitting in college faculty offices chumpsky?
- Tangeuray, on 12/01/2007, -0/+0As long as the let us borrow 4 billion a day......
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by