Noam Chomsky

[Jay]

Re: RE: Noam Chomsky

i LOVE chomsky though mostly because he makes his fellow right wingers- those to HIS right that is absolutely SQUIRM

Ummm, I think he makes them roll their eyes, not squirm.


Chomsky would be happier living in France...he should go their and they would love him.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Noam Chomsky

Chomsky himself is no better than Ann Coulter
as entertainers, except Ann's legs, oh bejeeeezus,
oh woe begone.

Thats the last straw Jimmoyer.... I'm not going to let you get away with this one!

Chomsky has great legs and you know it!

 

[I think not]

Chomsky has dozens of books in print,

But he should somehow be destitute like Mother Teresa. How much money does Rumsfeldt have? How about Cheney? how about Bush? Ten to one each of these Bushites have a hundred times two million dollars>

There’s a famous definition in the Gospels of the hypocrite, and the hypocrite is the person who refuses to apply to himself the standards he applies to others. By that standard, the entire commentary and discussion of the so-called War on Terror is pure hypocrisy, virtually without exception. Can anybody understand that? No, they can’t understand it.
—Noam Chomsky, Power and Terror, 2003

 

[#juan]

Chomsky is a tenured MIT professor who has found a very good way to supplement his income. But he is dated and no longer really relevant.

He must be relevant. The American right are still shooting at him. Chomsky has at least three current bestsellers on the bookstore shelves right now.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Noam Chomsky

The thought is this:

None of us, no matter what race, no matter what color,
no matter what gender, no matter what level of wealth,
no matter what creed, no matter what backround, no
matter who we are, NONE OF US ARE ENTITLED TO
ANYTHING.

NONE OF US DESERVE IT.

If we were to affirm this idea that none of us deserve
anything, it would strenghten our ego, our humility,
our self value.

Think about it.

Isn't this an underlining principal in Christianity?

 

[I think not]

I'm a reader of Chomsky and I enjoy his work. He was one of the living leading socialists who wrote about how bad the soviet system is and he is a realistic socialist thinker.

However he was a staunch supporter of Mao and his "Cultural Revolution". At the 1967 New York forum he acknowledged both “the mass slaughter of landlords in China” and “the slaughter of landlords in North Vietnam” that had taken place once the communists came to power. His main objective, however, was to provide a rationalization for this violence.

I don’t accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this—and I think we should—we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified.

Yeah I read Chomsky also, or at least I did, until I discovered his duplicitous nature.