Chomsky Discusses the Election

David Wong said:
He is crazy, but he's right about the health care thing. There's a false idea of only socialists wanting health care reform so they can have a cradle-to-the-grave nanny state. Not so; you've got a lot of businesses who feel like the insurance companies are picking their pocket.
Click to expand...

I don't want to turn this into another healthcare debate, but speaking of false ideas, there's also the false idea that companies "feel like the insurance companies are picking their pocket" -- or at least that that is the major problem with the health care system. Most larger companies have self-funded plans -- e.g. they pay for all of the claims of their employees out of their own pocket. The insurance companies essentially just process the administrative side of things for them.

The economic issue is cost -- for companies who buy whole plans or self-fund. Either way it's expensive. It's expensive if you buy it through an insurance company, and it's expensive if you pay for it yourself.
 
I really think his point about the Haiti and Bolivia elections is being misconstrued. He never suggested these countries are somehow better off than the U.S., on the contrary, the dire economic and political conditions in both countries underscore his point. I think which is, that even though these impoverished countries can do it, complacent Americans can't get off their butts to hold a fair democratic election that represents the will of the majority and welfare of the population. Instead we hold fund-raising contests that ultimately benefit a privileged few. The question is, what is our excuse?

The answer to that, I think, is who gives a crap? McCain, Obama, who cares, just stick a head on that puppet and let me get back to playing Grand Theft Auto and chuffing bong loads.
 
ScottGPDX said:
I really think his point about the Haiti and Bolivia elections is being misconstrued. He never suggested these countries are somehow better off than the U.S., on the contrary, the dire economic and political conditions in both countries underscore his point. I think which is, that even though these impoverished countries can do it, complacent Americans can't get off their butts to hold a fair democratic election that represents the will of the majority and welfare of the population. Instead we hold fund-raising contests that ultimately benefit a privileged few. The question is, what is our excuse?

The answer to that, I think, is who gives a crap? McCain, Obama, who cares, just stick a head on that puppet and let me get back to playing Grand Theft Auto and chuffing bong loads.
Click to expand...

We are impressed by how edgy and daring and radical you are.
 
ScottGPDX said:
I really think his point about the Haiti and Bolivia elections is being misconstrued. He never suggested these countries are somehow better off than the U.S., on the contrary, the dire economic and political conditions in both countries underscore his point. I think which is, that even though these impoverished countries can do it, complacent Americans can't get off their butts to hold a fair democratic election that represents the will of the majority and welfare of the population. Instead we hold fund-raising contests that ultimately benefit a privileged few. The question is, what is our excuse?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Chomsky is misunderstood precisely because he's not just another talking head spouting the same old, tired soundbites. His position, and the background for and explanation of his position, takes a good 10 minutes or more. He's one of those intellectuals you really have to get into before you can understand him.

I think I mostly understand him, but that's because I'm a big lefty to begin with.

The answer to that, I think, is who gives a crap? McCain, Obama, who cares, just stick a head on that puppet and let me get back to playing Grand Theft Auto and chuffing bong loads.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of dissatisfaction right now, mainly with health care and the rising gas prices. But not enough to actually do anything about it.
 
dudalb said:
If you call the usual Marxist crap brilliant.

Chomsky still defends the Pol Pot regime as being "misunderstood". That should rule him persona non grata as far as respecting his opinion goes.
Click to expand...

That's such a caricature of his position on Pol Pot I don't know where to begin. Essentially the disagreements over Pol Pot stem from the odious "body count" method of analysis (similar back and forths occured with the Lancet study - search that here to see people arguing over whether X hundred thousand means the Iraq War was "better or worse" - debates I engaged in against my better judgment). People pegged X million on Pol Pot and Chomsky had the temerity to say that, actually, part of that X million (if I remember correctly 500 000) died under US bombs, bombs that devastated the country so much that Pol Pot could rise to power from the ashes.

Then there was the fact that since Vietnam hated Pol Pot so much, America did little to stop the genocide because he represented a thorn in the side of Vietnam (who eventually launched an incursion into Cambodia after years of attacks on the border).

Saying these things drew heavy criticism from those who liked to downplay western involvement, but in all my reading of Chomsky I never once read a line of his that praised Pol Pot in anyway, and its clear for anyone with any degree of familiarity with his work that he recognizes the regime for the despicable creation it is. If someone said that Chomsky thinks Pol Pot is "misunderstood", Chomsky probably meant misunderstood in such a way that downplays US responsibility for his rise to power and for inaction during his reign. I'd like to see a quote and source for that, from Chomsky's original work AND the author that purported to slant those words to mean that Pol Pot was in any way "less bad".

Excuse the lack of sourcing but Im about to embark on a cleaning whirlwind of my apartment, suffice to say that this is what I've gleaned after reading the back and forth on this issue fairly deeply several years ago.
 
Last edited:
In a Media Matters interview with Chomsky (found here: http://will.illinois.edu/mediamatters/ Sunday, June 8, 2008), he talks at length about the election and both of the main candidates (presidential campaign talk starts at around the 46 minute mark). Some of the comments he makes:

On McCain
1. Chomsky says McCain is being portrayed as a foreign policy expert for having been shot down in Vietnam. He makes a comparison saying that if a Russian soldier was shot down and captured in Afghanistan while he was bombing civilian targets, it'd be a crime but he wouldn't be an expert on national security issues.
2. McCain's former POW status gives him a free ride in the media to "fling around violent, aggressive statements."

On Obama
1. When it comes to Israel and Palestine, he is an ultra right wing nationalist.
2. Obama's opinions on the Middle East are "way to the right of what the vast majority of Americans want."
3. Chomsky says he doesn't think Obama is as dangerous as McCain, but he doesn't see any justification for all the talk of hope and change that has been associated with him.

He says neither candidate represents mainstream America and that the US essentially has only one party, a business party, that has two different factions, Democrats and Republicans. Chomsky talks further about the business interests of the universal healthcare proposals at around minute 52.

Chomsky says he thinks McCain will win in November.
 
Last edited:
Sefarst said:
Yes, it's usually where I go to get a non-Western perspective on the news.
Click to expand...


*Ding!* That's a word that doesn't exist in Candian-French context. At least not for Pardalis, unforunately/"unsketicalunately". :p
 
ScottGPDX said:
I think which is, that even though these impoverished countries can do it, complacent Americans can't get off their butts to hold a fair democratic election that represents the will of the majority and welfare of the population.
Click to expand...
Except all evidence shows we are getting the "will of the majority". Do you have evidence the elections are rigged?

Instead we hold fund-raising contests that ultimately benefit a privileged few. The question is, what is our excuse?
Click to expand...
Short of repealing the 1st Amendment free speech guarantees, what's your solution? Anyone can complain on an internet forum, but what's your solution?

The answer to that, I think, is who gives a crap? McCain, Obama, who cares, just stick a head on that puppet and let me get back to playing Grand Theft Auto and chuffing bong loads.
Click to expand...
So if you don't give a crap go back to your video games and let the rest of us participate in our democracy.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Exactly. Chomsky is misunderstood precisely because he's not just another talking head spouting the same old, tired soundbites. His position, and the background for and explanation of his position, takes a good 10 minutes or more. He's one of those intellectuals you really have to get into before you can understand him.
Click to expand...
You've got to be kidding! It's the same old regurgitated leftist nonsense that's been floating around since the Bolshevik revolution. Knee-jerk reactionary nonsense, about as deep as a kiddie pool.
 
WildCat said:
You've got to be kidding! It's the same old regurgitated leftist nonsense that's been floating around since the Bolshevik revolution. Knee-jerk reactionary nonsense, about as deep as a kiddie pool.
Click to expand...

That's just ridiculous.
You can disagree with the man, but I don't see how you can call him derivative.
I don't hear anybody in the mainstream, or even alternative, media saying the things that Chomsky does.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
That's just ridiculous.
You can disagree with the man, but I don't see how you can call him derivative.
I don't hear anybody in the mainstream, or even alternative, media saying the things that Chomsky does.
Click to expand...

Which is a good thing. I'd weep for this nation if there were more idiots, no MONSTROUS IDIOTS, like Chomsky around. God I hate that man.
 
Travis said:
Which is a good thing. I'd weep for this nation if there were more idiots, no MONSTROUS IDIOTS, like Chomsky around. God I hate that man.
Click to expand...

Really. Okay.
According to this article from MIT:
Recent research on citations in three different citation indices show that Professor Chomsky is one of the most cited individuals in works published in the past 20 years.

In fact, his 3,874 citations in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index between 1980 and 1992 make him the most cited living person in that period and the eighth most cited source overrall--just behind famed psychiatrist Sigmund Freud and just ahead of philosopher Georg Hegel.

Indeed, Professor Chomsky is in illustrious company. The top ten cited sources during the period were: Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato, Freud, Chomsky, Hegel and Cicero.
Click to expand...

Yep, sounds like a total moron.
 
I agree that Chomsky often tends to overstate his case or offer criticisms without offering solutions, but he is far from an idiot. As someone who leans conservative, I still find myself agreeing with him as often as I disagree with him. IMO, Chomsky is somewhat like the Left's version of Ron Paul. He offers valid criticisms sometimes, but tends to go so far in the extreme as to become a caricature of himself.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
That's just ridiculous.
You can disagree with the man, but I don't see how you can call him derivative.
I don't hear anybody in the mainstream, or even alternative, media saying the things that Chomsky does.
Click to expand...
Oh please. What has Chomsky done that isn't derivative? He's a linguist who suddenly decided he's a foreign policy expert.
 
WildCat said:
Oh please. What has Chomsky done that isn't derivative? He's a linguist who suddenly decided he's a foreign policy expert.
Click to expand...

I like your habit of advertising how little you know. First of all, Chomsky normally disclaims appeals to authority -- so-called experts. In the domain of foreign policy I do not think he would make any claim for originality, but I do not think I've ever heard him boast about anything. He's a sharp, informed critic who identifies U.S. hypocrisy, a topic some people cannot fathom, let alone handle. I'd bet he has read more on foreign policy than all of the staff writers at your favorite conservative magazine combined.

Give me three examples of "deep" foreign policy insights. What, the greater stability of a bipolar world than a multi-polar one? Bonus points if you know one from Henry Kissinger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom