The great Noam Chomsky

[pappajacks 0]

Noam Chomsky says human survival is at stake

 

The world faces a stark choice between u.S. hegemony and human extinction, chomsky argues. He exposes gaps between U.S. rhetoric and behaviour, but his version of reality has its own flaws

 

AVERY PLAW

Freelance

 

Saturday, December 20, 2003

 

In his latest book, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance, Noam Chomsky argues that the world today faces a stark and fateful choice. It must choose between "full spectrum American dominance" (which, he says, carries a significant likelihood of human extinction) and human survival (which entails stopping what he characterizes as the U.S. quest for global dominance).

 

Posed this way, the choice is a no-brainer. Nonetheless, Chomsky argues, U.S. policy makers and many citizens have been indoctrinated into a "lunatic doctrinal framework" wherein "hegemony, with its short term benefits to elite interests, is ranked above survival on the scale of operative values." The United States therefore conquers, murders, terrorizes and, ultimately, endangers human survival, all to protect the immediate interests of its corporate and political elites, he says.

 

Still, Chomsky argues, "it would be a great error to conclude that the prospects are uniformly bleak." There is, he says, a second superpower - namely, "world public opinion" - that offers hope. The public may, after all, prefer freedom and survival to U.S. dominion and extinction. It could then present an obstacle to U.S. ambitions.

 

The U.S. state therefore, in Chomsky's view, subverts and controls world (and especially domestic) public opinion: It "engineers consent" through what was "frankly called propaganda before the word became unfashionable because of totalitarian associations." U.S. propaganda disseminates misinformation, constricts public discourse, suppresses protest and dissent, and reduces the public to " 'spectators,' not 'participants,' " in politics.

 

Chomsky's book challenges this "propaganda" by elaborating a counter-narrative that exposes the persistent gap between U.S. rhetoric and action.

 

Despite Washington's declared "War on Terror," for example, he argues that the "U.S. is a leading terrorist state" that organizes and finances brutal state terrorism throughout Latin America, the Middle East and southeast Asia, and that persistently flouts international law and institutions in its direct aggressions against countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama and Nicaragua.

 

Indeed, U.S. President George W. Bush's new doctrine of "preventive war" "effectively grants Washington the right of arbitrary aggression." Such aggression, Chomsky contends, "falls within the category of war crimes."

 

Through his counter-narrative, Chomsky seeks to tear away Washington's "cloak of moralistic righteousness" and expose naked elite interests that drive U.S. policy. He seeks to open up the boundaries of political debate at home and abroad and, ultimately, to mobilize the vast power of world public opinion against the U.S. quest for global dominance.

 

There is much in Chomsky's book that is both persuasive and timely.

 

But there is a danger inherent in seeking to turn even a propagandist political narrative on its head: one often ends up with an equally selective political narrative slanted in the other direction. There is evidence that Chomsky falls into this trap.

 

Reading Chomsky's history of the Cold War, for example, one gets the impression that every conflict, from the Cuban Missile Crisis to Afghanistan, was precipitated by U.S. imperial ambition rather than, at least at times, Soviet aggression. In his chapter on the Middle East conflict, one is inundated with references to aggression by Israel ("an appendage of U.S. power"), but there is no mention of Arab aggression against Israel. Sharon is an "Archterrorist," driven by "machismo and ferocious jingoism," while Arafat is not referred to as a terrorist at all, but presented as a misunderstood peacemaker. These inversions of the U.S. narrative seem no more plausible.

 

Serious problems also arise with the stark choice of "hegemony or survival," around which Chomsky organizes his book.

 

To begin with, he never makes it entirely clear why U.S. hegemony threatens human survival. It is widely believed among those who study international politics that hegemony is conductive to peace, as in the pax Romana, pax Britannica or, today, pax Americana. Chomsky simply ignores this widespread belief. Ultimately, his fear seems to emanate more from U.S. malevolence than from hegemony. Yet, it hardly seems clear that the Americans are morally worse than the Imperial Romans or British or, even if they were, why this depravity threatens human survival.

 

Finally, while Chomsky despises U.S. military interventions like the recent one into Iraq even more than he deplores the preceding regime of economic sanctions, he is never clear about what he proposes as an alternative means of dealing with brutal dictators like Saddam Hussein. Indeed, he often sounds like he believes that all problems would sort themselves out if the Americans would just stop interfering. This assumption may appeal to those who share his anarcho-syndicalist political convictions, but it is unlikely to convince many others.

 

While Chomsky's book offers a potent remedy to self-righteous U.S. hypocrisy in international politics, it should emphatically not be taken as it sometimes presents itself: the final word. Its value lies in the debates that it opens, not those it closes.

[Guest MikeSC]

I have a hard time calling Chomsky "great". He's just one of the litany of "Blame America First" guys. He's a walking cliche. He's up there with Edward Said in my "Screw You" list.

-=Mike

...Yes, I know Said is dead. No, I don't care.

[Vyce 0]

What a fucking wackjob Chomsky is.

 

It kind of depresses me that I know people who admire him.

[Guest Cerebus]

A guy who says "Everything is propoganda, and if you pay 19.99 now, you can learn all about it!"

 

Please.

 

I have never read his foreign policy (why the fuck would I listen to a LINGUIST about foreign policy?) but his propaganda stuff is even worse especially when you figure out instead of helping the reader understand what propaganda TRULY is, he just goes on ramblings about how everything in America (except for the "independent" media, which is almost always to the left) is propaganda. You ask me Orwell was better than him in more than 50 years ago and if you don't believe me, and if you don't believe me read for yourself.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

For some revealing information on Noam Chomsky (who my colleague Chris Phillips says "there are only two things you can know about him for sure: he hates democracy, and he hates Jews"), go to this website:

 

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~ncp/index.html

 

and scroll down to the middle of the page, and check out the links "Partners in Hate: Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers" and "Chomsky lies".

[LaParkaMarka 0]

Trash him for his political views if you want. I disagree with a lot of what he says re: the politics. But you can easily call him great for his contributions to linguistics alone, as well as to other fields. And I can admire the guy for what he's done in linguistics. Maybe not admire him as a politician, or even as a person. But admire him as a linguist? Definately.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Than he should stick with linguistics.

[Guest MikeSC]

Trash him for his political views if you want. I disagree with a lot of what he says re: the politics. But you can easily call him great for his contributions to linguistics alone, as well as to other fields. And I can admire the guy for what he's done in linguistics. Maybe not admire him as a politician, or even as a person. But admire him as a linguist? Definately.

Not quite. It is nigh impossible to compartmentalize.

 

Klaus Fuchs did a lot of good for the Manhattan Project. It is TRUMPED, though, by the fact that he spied for the Soviets and basically gave them the bomb.

 

Bad will usually outweigh good --- and Chomsky is not a good guy.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

I know zero about linguistics so I can't say anything one way or the other...La Parka what (if anything) do you do in linguistics (not being hostile...actually curious)

[Guest MikeSC]

I know zero about linguistics so I can't say anything one way or the other...La Parka what (if anything) do you do in linguistics (not being hostile...actually curious)

I don't know much about linguists, but I do know that Noam was a cunning one.

-=Mike

...Like that joke wasn't going to get made at some point

[cbacon 0]

It's easy to dismiss Chomsky as one of those "blame America first" types. He's not saying what the general consensus wants hear. But when it comes down to the issues that he brings up , especially in this book, most seem to dismiss his arguments since he's a 'soft lunatic'.

 

Obviously the information will be relevant to his opinion, but American hegemonic tendencies in a broader sense is mostly definetly a large empedemic that needs to be addressed, which is why it is important for activists such as Chomsky to take such stands.

[Styles 0]

Was this bump really neccesarry?

[therealworldschampion 0]

He's up there with Edward Said in my "Screw You" list

 

I had to read Orientalism last semester, most brutal book ever. I fucking hate Edward Said.

 

When people are ripping you in your friggin obituary, you know you're an asshole.

[Justice 0]

It's easy to dismiss Chomsky as one of those "blame America first" types. He's not saying what the general consensus wants hear. But when it comes down to the issues that he brings up , especially in this book,  most seem to dismiss his arguments since he's a 'soft lunatic'.

 

Obviously the information will be relevant to his opinion, but American hegemonic tendencies in a broader sense is mostly definetly a large empedemic that needs to be addressed, which is why it is important for activists such as Chomsky to take such stands.

Okay, here goes, I'm thinking critically about what you posted:

 

You're an idiot.

 

BLUH FLUH CORPORATIONS ARE EVIL DURR FLURR RACIST IMPERIALIST HEGEMONY AND OTHER SOCIALIST CATCHPHRASES.  IN RELATED NEWS: DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM AND SALTY HOT HORSE COCKS.

 

I find this second quote profoundly relevant to the situation at hand.

[Guest MikeSC]

It's easy to dismiss Chomsky as one of those "blame America first" types. He's not saying what the general consensus wants hear. But when it comes down to the issues that he brings up , especially in this book, most seem to dismiss his arguments since he's a 'soft lunatic'.

 

Obviously the information will be relevant to his opinion, but American hegemonic tendencies in a broader sense is mostly definetly a large empedemic that needs to be addressed, which is why it is important for activists such as Chomsky to take such stands.

The same Chomsky who thought the Khmer Rouge weren't that bad? The guy who tried to show that there were a lot of positive accomplishments for the Khmer Rouge (though he listed none) that make the, you know, rampant and wholesale slaughter of Cambodians not so bad? Chomsky bent over backwards to try and discredit ALL negative reports of the happenings in Cambodia.

 

The same Chomsky who felt that N. Vietnam's treatment of S. Vietnamese wasn't that bad? The same Chomsky who actually felt the N. Vietnamese were honorable peasants who simply sought to remove the West and not, you know, conquer all of Vietnam?

 

The same Chomsky who called Washington the "torture and murder capital of the world" following Stalin's death? The same Chomsky who had no problem with Soviet domination of E. Europe? The Cold War was America's fault Chomsky? The same Chomsky who castigated Carter for a human rights campaign against the USSR? The same Chomsky who felt we "exploited" the Iranian hostage crisis?

 

The same Chomsky who blamed all of Cuba's problems --- on the US?

 

Noam Chomsky is a SHIT scholar (try digging through his footnotes). He quotes articles that quote HIM regularly. He uses footnotes not to permit others to do the same research he did, but to simply make checking on him laborious and difficult.

 

He had the audacity to bash Vaclev Havel for giving a speech that praised the US in its support of anti-Communism.

 

He misquotes Israelis to portray THEM as the evil and violent ones in that shithole of a region.

 

The moment he dies, the world will become a better place.

 

Fuck Noam Chomsky.

-=Mike

[Guest GreatOne]

Was this bump really neccesarry?

Yeah I know what the hell? My first thought (without looking at the post date) was 'why are we talking about a nine-month old review?'. Then I noticed and said 'huh?'

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Since this got bumped for whatever reason, I must again point out one of my favorite links on Chomsky.

 

See Noam Chomsky's anti-semetic politics exposed by UBC professor Werner Cohn:

 

Partners in Hate: Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Chomsky is also a terrible speaker. I can't listen to him. He gives me a headache with that voice.

[cbacon 0]

The same Chomsky who thought the Khmer Rouge weren't that bad? The guy who tried to show that there were a lot of positive accomplishments for the Khmer Rouge (though he listed none) that make the, you know, rampant and wholesale slaughter of Cambodians not so bad? Chomsky bent over backwards to try and discredit ALL negative reports of the happenings in Cambodia.

 

This is a well documented mis-understanding of one of Chomsky's books, one that which places his thoughts out of context. In the 80's Steven Lukes accused Chomsky of trying to down play Pol Pot's regieme in Cambodia and endorsing the Khmer Rouge as a whole. However the actual subject of Chomsky's book had to deal with how Cambodia was garnering more media attention than that of East Timor which had far greater human rights consequences and atrocities. The whole "Chomsky supports the Khmer Rogue" stems from a bad case of selective reading and mis-interpretation.

 

Of course the Khmer Rouge would not have come to such power had it not been for the 4 year bombing raids, by you guessed it, the US. Which seemingly destroyed the country. A good article on the situation is presented here

 

The same Chomsky who felt that N. Vietnam's treatment of S. Vietnamese wasn't that bad? The same Chomsky who actually felt the N. Vietnamese were honorable peasants who simply sought to remove the West and not, you know, conquer all of Vietnam?

 

Anyone who opposed the war were deemed apologists for North Vietnam. This is no different. I'm interested in hearing where Chomsky describing the Vietnamese as 'honorable peasants' however.

 

The rest of your points i can't vouch for, I suspect the rest of his book will touch upon many of those subjects though. I'll take your word on those claims however, but it also should be noted that Chomsky's writings are of his own opinion and will obviously not coincide with the beliefs of everyone.

 

Like all authors on such subjects, it's important to aborb everything subjectively. Taking someone's opinion as factual truth is dangerous. However, it's not like Chomsky is making things up here, he's presents factual events and conveying his own opinion on the matter. I'm not saying everyone should agree with everything that he says, but to flat out deny many of the atrocities committed by the United States would be absurd, no matter what Chomsky says about them. Otherwise you get a country unknowingly supporting leaders that commit such crimes or they're aware and blindly grasping for irrational justification. That, or they're flat out in denial. Either way, Chomsky helps to bring such matters that wouldn't normally make the evening news, into perspective.

 

It's interesting that you have such distain for Chomsky while having such a positive opinion on Ann Coulter of all people.

 

QUOTE (fk_teale @ March 10 2002, 10:32 AM)

Okay, here goes, I'm thinking critically about what you posted:

 

You're an idiot.

 

BLUH FLUH CORPORATIONS ARE EVIL DURR FLURR RACIST IMPERIALIST HEGEMONY AND OTHER SOCIALIST CATCHPHRASES.  IN RELATED NEWS: DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM AND SALTY HOT HORSE COCKS.

 

 

I find this second quote profoundly relevant to the situation at hand.

.

 

Intersting, i find it profoundly obvious that this is the best you can come up with , without you know, not really saying anything or disputing anything at all. Kudos.

 

Was this bump really neccesarry?

 

Very. By that token, is replying to any thread neccessary? What difference does it make if it's 9 months old? If your implying that it's no longer relevant due to it's age your sadly mistake, given the current geo-political climate.

 

Yeah I know what the hell? My first thought (without looking at the post date) was 'why are we talking about a nine-month old review?'. Then I noticed and said 'huh?

 

Of course you did. It didn't contain any pictures of Sylvain Greneir burning the American flag so i can see why you might be confused. I'll try harder next time.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

True fact: at first, I thought his name was Norm Chomsky

[Guest MikeSC]

The same Chomsky who thought the Khmer Rouge weren't that bad? The guy who tried to show that there were a lot of positive accomplishments for the Khmer Rouge (though he listed none) that make the, you know, rampant and wholesale slaughter of Cambodians not so bad? Chomsky bent over backwards to try and discredit ALL negative reports of the happenings in Cambodia.

 

This is a well documented mis-understanding of one of Chomsky's books, one that which places his thoughts out of context. In the 80's Steven Lukes accused Chomsky of trying to down play Pol Pot's regieme in Cambodia and endorsing the Khmer Rouge as a whole. However the actual subject of Chomsky's book had to deal with how Cambodia was garnering more media attention than that of East Timor which had far greater human rights consequences and atrocities. The whole "Chomsky supports the Khmer Rogue" stems from a bad case of selective reading and mis-interpretation.

 

Of course the Khmer Rouge would not have come to such power had it not been for the 4 year bombing raids, by you guessed it, the US. Which seemingly destroyed the country. A good article on the situation is presented here

No, it comes from reading his reviews of three books on the Khmer Rouge from 1977 from The Nation. And, no, East Timor (one of his more inane obsessions) did not APPROACH the genocide in Cambodia.

 

And I love that the killing fields are the fault of the US. I suppose blaming Pol Pot would be out of line.

 

And, seriously, referencing a co-writer with Chomsky, Ed Herman?

The same Chomsky who felt that N. Vietnam's treatment of S. Vietnamese wasn't that bad? The same Chomsky who actually felt the N. Vietnamese were honorable peasants who simply sought to remove the West and not, you know, conquer all of Vietnam?

 

Anyone who opposed the war were deemed apologists for North Vietnam. This is no different. I'm interested in hearing where Chomsky describing the Vietnamese as 'honorable peasants' however.

 

The rest of your points i can't vouch for, I suspect the rest of his book will touch upon many of those subjects though. I'll take your word on those claims however, but it also should be noted that Chomsky's writings are of his own opinion and will obviously not coincide with the beliefs of everyone.

 

Like all authors on such subjects, it's important to aborb everything subjectively. Taking someone's opinion as factual truth is dangerous. However, it's not like Chomsky is making things up here, he's presents factual events and conveying his own opinion on the matter. I'm not saying everyone should agree with everything that he says, but to flat out deny many of the atrocities committed by the United States would be absurd, no matter what Chomsky says about them. Otherwise you get a country unknowingly supporting leaders that commit such crimes or they're aware and blindly grasping for irrational justification. That, or they're flat out in denial. Either way, Chomsky helps to bring such matters that wouldn't normally make the evening news, into perspective.

 

It's interesting that you have such distain for Chomsky while having such a positive opinion on Ann Coulter of all people.

Ann Coulter doesn't pretend to be a scholar, nor does she use such basic things as footnotes to make double checking her research virtually impossible. And, for what it's worth, Coulter is far less anti-Semitic.

 

He refused to recognize what the N. Vietnamese were. Anybody who spoke out against them was immediately discredited by that genetic mistake. He had NEVER uttered a negative word about a single third-world shitbox dictator --- as long as they were Communists.

 

He claimed that the "excesses" of the USSR bastardized socialism and Communism --- ignoring that the "Excesses" had a nasty habit of occurring in every damned country that became Communist.

 

And anybody who dares to claim that we were a bigger threat to the world than the USSR is a laughable joke. Why anybody takes his political views seriously is absurd.

 

Chomsky's views are a joke and cannot be taken seriously.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

Okay, here goes, I'm thinking critically about what you posted:

 

You're an idiot.

 

BLUH FLUH CORPORATIONS ARE EVIL DURR FLURR RACIST IMPERIALIST HEGEMONY AND OTHER SOCIALIST CATCHPHRASES.  IN RELATED NEWS: DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM AND SALTY HOT HORSE COCKS.

 

 

I find this second quote profoundly relevant to the situation at hand.

.

 

Intersting, i find it profoundly obvious that this is the best you can come up with , without you know, not really saying anything or disputing anything at all. Kudos.

What is there to dispute? The argument was basically settled months ago. The quote is about someone bringing shitty and unoriginal debate back up doesn't count towards anything like discussion. Besides, HMW basically shows what Noam truly is.

 

And coupling this last part with your last thread, I'm fairly sure you are an idiot, and I'm sure many people will agree with me.

[cbacon 0]

Okay, here goes, I'm thinking critically about what you posted:

 

You're an idiot.

 

BLUH FLUH CORPORATIONS ARE EVIL DURR FLURR RACIST IMPERIALIST HEGEMONY AND OTHER SOCIALIST CATCHPHRASES.  IN RELATED NEWS: DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM AND SALTY HOT HORSE COCKS.

 

 

I find this second quote profoundly relevant to the situation at hand.

.

 

Intersting, i find it profoundly obvious that this is the best you can come up with , without you know, not really saying anything or disputing anything at all. Kudos.

What is there to dispute? The argument was basically settled months ago. The quote is about someone bringing shitty and unoriginal debate back up doesn't count towards anything like discussion. Besides, HMW basically shows what Noam truly is.

 

And coupling this last part with your last thread, I'm fairly sure you are an idiot, and I'm sure many people will agree with me.

Oh dear. Because you know, my previous thread was to be taken 100% literal in the sense that I fullly endorsed the idea, rather than merely acknowledging the principle behind it. Oh how distortions and manipulations run so freely in this folder.

[Justice 0]

Okay, here goes, I'm thinking critically about what you posted:

 

You're an idiot.

 

BLUH FLUH CORPORATIONS ARE EVIL DURR FLURR RACIST IMPERIALIST HEGEMONY AND OTHER SOCIALIST CATCHPHRASES.  IN RELATED NEWS: DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM AND SALTY HOT HORSE COCKS.

 

 

I find this second quote profoundly relevant to the situation at hand.

.

 

Intersting, i find it profoundly obvious that this is the best you can come up with , without you know, not really saying anything or disputing anything at all. Kudos.

What is there to dispute? The argument was basically settled months ago. The quote is about someone bringing shitty and unoriginal debate back up doesn't count towards anything like discussion. Besides, HMW basically shows what Noam truly is.

 

And coupling this last part with your last thread, I'm fairly sure you are an idiot, and I'm sure many people will agree with me.

Oh dear. Because you know, my previous thread was to be taken 100% literal in the sense that I fullly endorsed the idea, rather than merely acknowledging the principle behind it. Oh how distortions and manipulations run so freely in this folder.

No, you only tried to chastise someone who spoke out against it for being to ethnocentric.

 

You're trying to use the Michael Moore defense: "I didn't actually say it or support it, I simply presented it", ignoring how you presented it. It's fairly obvious that from the way you posted it and your brief defenses of it, you supported the idea as well.

 

But if we wanted to be legal about it, I still thinking believing in the principle of allowing other countries to choose each others leaders is moronic. Our foreign policy will always effect other countries, no matter how big or small; if we sign a treaty or don't sign a treaty with a country, should we let other countries vote on our President because invariably it'll affect them in the end?The whole concept of it is just idiotic because everyone would be voting for everyone's leaders. We'd never be able to have an effective domestic policy because everyone who was deciding the Presidency would be living outside of the country.

 

Oh, and I think raising a topic that's been dead for 9 or so months can qualify for stupidity in certain cases.

[cbacon 0]

No, you only tried to chastise someone who spoke out against it for being to ethnocentric.

 

You're trying to use the Michael Moore defense: "I didn't actually say it or support it, I simply presented it", ignoring how you presented it. It's fairly obvious that from the way you posted it and your brief defenses of it, you supported the idea as well.

 

A statement like "who cares what the world thinks" is highly enthnocentric and ignorant.

 

If you can grasp the simplest concept of reading comprension, I explain in my first post:

 

"Of course to the average American this notion would seem asinine, but the principle behind I believe is just."

 

If I said something along the lines of "It's in an justice that everyone on Earth doesn't have a right to vote in the presidential election" or I mentioned specifics in the article that implied this, then maybe you'd have an argument.

 

But if we wanted to be legal about it, I still thinking believing in the principle of allowing other countries to choose each others leaders is moronic. Our foreign policy will always effect other countries, no matter how big or small; if we sign a treaty or don't sign a treaty with a country, should we let other countries vote on our President because invariably it'll affect them in the end?The whole concept of it is just idiotic because everyone would be voting for everyone's leaders. We'd never be able to have an effective domestic policy because everyone who was deciding the Presidency would be living outside of the country.

 

There's really no way in refuting, taking into account a board made up of mostly right-wing Americans. Not that i'm condeming the fact, but anything that remotely criticizes US policy or right-wing policy will immediately fall upon deaf ears. That said, the response to the article was predictable and in hindsight was probably not suitable for this forum at least. At the risk of not countering your argument, i'll just say that i won't go as far as saying all people of all nations should have a vote in the presidential electior. However, i believe there should be a semblance of influence or say from outside the US on a regieme that may ultimately effect counrties and the very lives of millions of citizens. And i'll just leave it at that since it's off topic.

 

Oh, and I think raising a topic that's been dead for 9 or so months can qualify for stupidity in certain cases.

 

The content of the book in question does infact have relevence today, thus i fail to see how discussing it 9 months later, or even years later (because i doubt we'll be seeing a change in foreign policy in our lifetime) is stupid. Scroll up and skim through the first post to see why.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Your like INXS and Unger without the nutty charm.

[LaParkaMarka 0]

I know zero about linguistics so I can't say anything one way or the other...La Parka what (if anything) do you do in linguistics (not being hostile...actually curious)

Didn't see this post 9 months ago. Anyways, I'm in my fourth year of a double major in linguistics and computing science. Chomsky was important in that he came up with something called Transformational (or Generative) Grammar; he said that there was an underlying form to sentences, as well as a surface form, and that some kind of transformation happened between the underlying and surface forms. TG was/is the basis for almost all research in fields like syntax, first language aquisition, etc. There are alternative theories though, some of which are really attractive. Really, in 5 or 10 years a lot of Chomsky's stuff could be realized as complete garbage. But, right now, he's still considered one of the brightest minds in Linguistics.

[Guest GreatOne]

A statement like "who cares what the world thinks" is highly enthnocentric and ignorant.

Yeah because Canada and Mexico should get as much of a say as the US in, you know, the US election............................

 

Of course you calling someone else's view ignorant is equivalent to the hilarity of the Shatner quote in my sig.

[Guest MikeSC]

A statement like "who cares what the world thinks" is highly enthnocentric and ignorant.

About American politics, it's the case. Do Brits spend a great deal of time worrying what the world thinks about their choice for PM?

If you can grasp the simplest concept of reading comprension, I explain in my first post:

 

"Of course to the average American this notion would seem asinine, but the principle behind I believe is just."

And the counter-argument is that it is fucking idiotic.

But if we wanted to be legal about it, I still thinking believing in the principle of allowing other countries to choose each others leaders is moronic. Our foreign policy will always effect other countries, no matter how big or small; if we sign a treaty or don't sign a treaty with a country, should we let other countries vote on our President because invariably it'll affect them in the end?The whole concept of it is just idiotic because everyone would be voting for everyone's leaders. We'd never be able to have an effective domestic policy because everyone who was deciding the Presidency would be living outside of the country.

 

There's really no way in refuting, taking into account a board made up of mostly right-wing Americans. Not that i'm condeming the fact, but anything that remotely criticizes US policy or right-wing policy will immediately fall upon deaf ears.

Nah. Patently idiotic things will be, though.

That said, the response to the article was predictable and in hindsight was probably not suitable for this forum at least. At the risk of not countering your argument, i'll just say that i won't go as far as saying all people of all nations should have a vote in the presidential electior. However,  i believe there should be a semblance of influence or say from outside the US on a regieme that may ultimately effect counrties and the very lives of millions of citizens. And i'll just leave it at that since it's off topic.

And that's idiotic, considering that we had to have a REVOLUTION to get a voice in the gov't that dominated the world at that point. Did anybody expect the USSR to give E. Europe a voice in things?

 

You expect the US to do things no country has EVER been expected to do. And that is idiotic.

-=Mike