Chomsky: Nuclear Exchange Inevitable

[Boss Hog]

amen!

 

[Ditto Much]

Your retort has no substance. My remark about this thread is motivated by the observation that most superficial criticisms of Chomsky are an attempt at discrediting his character, his writing style, his academic background, but never the content of his writing. atbell's remark on "providing solutions" is an unfounded statement that can, in fact, be easily refuted.

thats because in the article quoted he doesn't say a blessed thing. thus the only thing I can pick on is "Nuclear Exchange Inevitable" which I don't even see a quote for.

thus in this regard all I can say is the mans writing style doesn't do it for me. I made fun the fact that the man isn't 'concise' but thats making fun of the author of the article and not Chumpsky himself.

Again not to piss on your lord or anything. Please bow down and say three Hail Chumpsky's.

 

[~atp~]

thats because in the article quoted he doesn't say a blessed thing. thus the only thing I can pick on is "Nuclear Exchange Inevitable" which I don't even see a quote for.

thus in this regard all I can say is the mans writing style doesn't do it for me. I made fun the fact that the man isn't 'concise' but thats making fun of the author of the article and not Chumpsky himself.

Great, so why are you criticizing Chomsky's character? If you have a problem with the article (1 of, say, 1000 written in the last year?), then by all means, be critical! The article isn't extremely interesting to me, other than as a launching point for further, more serious discussion.

 

[Ditto Much]

Great, so why are you criticizing Chomsky's character? If you have a problem with the article (1 of, say, 1000 written in the last year?), then by all means, be critical! The article isn't extremely interesting to me, other than as a launching point for further, more serious discussion.

I didn't attack his character, I said he was wordy and that what he writes feels like it was paid by the word. The only point of humour in the article was the term 'concise' something that I found somewhat funny.

 

[atbell]

Your argument is weak. You are trying to say that because he is a linguist, it his way with words that is charming people into listening to him, more than the content that he talks about. Are you serious? If Chomsky wanted to display his ease of language, he could have spent his whole life writing epic novels. You are dismissing him being an intellectual because he happened to study linguistics? Uhh because he can talk and write well it must mean he is trying to persuade people? That is ridiculus.

I think "dismissing him being intellectual" might be a bit strong, and that would be my fault for poorly wording my criticism. I feel that his ability as a linguist (writer and speaker) out weights his intellectual value. I would suggest that study of his methods might be as worthy a pursuit as the study of his message. There are times I feel like the man has discovered some form of written hypnosis. I don't think I said that because he can talk and write he must be trying to persuade people. I think I just said he does try to persuade people and his ability with language makes him good at it.

I also have to be clear (restate maybe) I do think that he is extremely good at leading discussion. His choice of topics is usually well chosen.

Uhh I think its the other way around, when most intellectuals write for the tiny academic base who can understand the language they use are the ones who come off as being arrogant, or elitist. Again, weak argument.

On this point I have to agree with you. I have complained bitterly in past about academics being 70% vocabulary and I should have tempered my post with this though but it wasn't near the surface at the time of posting. You're completely right that many academics come off as being arrogant and elitist by simply hiding behind terminology. It's also a good way to keep your critics to a minimum

But the worst one of all is when people say that he does not provide any solutions! I dont understand why people think that there needs to be a step-by-step plan written out in order for people to think there is a plan. The solution that he keeps on saying is that people need to become more politically aware, more active, and exercise their right in democracy. The next article mentioned in this thread about latin america displays the solutions he is talking about, popular movements, less apathy. I guess that isnt your cup of tea for a solution so you continue to think there isnt any.

"The solution that he keeps on saying is that people need to become more politically aware, more active, and exercise their right in democracy"

Again - the Simpson's quotes are infinately applicable, "Can't someone else do it."

The lack of apathy in Latin America is a strength in the character there. Unfortunately the way that they appear to be uniting against America is a clear act of scapegoating. That's not a good thing. Many leaders use this method of identifying an evil to unite against to gain power and it rarely leads to a good. I will hazard that so far the Latin American unity has been quite positive though.

But the Latin American example draws out something deeper. You point to this example as one in support of Chomsky's solutions when it is clearly not. You have fallen in to his writing. He did NOTHING in Columbia, NOTHING in Venezuela, NOTHING in Bolivia, NOTHING in Brazil. And yet you trumpet the progress of the continent as his. Chavez, Lula da Silva, and the rest of the leadership in South America are the ones who have proposed and implemented solutions to their problems, not Chomsky.

And that is the most retarded thing to say that 'at least the bush administration is doing something' YES it is because they are in POWER. They have the ABILITY to impose their will becuase they are in the position to. Chomsky would never be elected to a position of power like that, because his ideology goes against all those who currently hold power, (ie CEO and corporate interests) so of course it would never happen. He is in a limited position to do anything you retards expect to do, because he cant, and there is vested interest by others so that he cant.

I agree that it is a retarded statement. I disagree that I said it. It is something I have heard as a common complaint from acquaintances of mine on the right. But it still has some sway. Sure Bush is in a position to do a lot but as an opposition the Democrats seem to be quick to criticize and slow to offer new solutions. If the left adapted less of a critical line of opposition and instead began offering well thought out plans it would be a huge tactical step forward. The important thing is to shift the argument from "here is why the right wing plan is wrong." to "Tell us again why you think our plan won't work."

Think of this tactic as the difference between charging up an enemies hill and creating a hill to sit on while the enemy has to climb up to you. Picking where your battles take place is a HUGE advantage.

As for why the C man wouldn't get elected I think you are way off. Dude, he wouldn't get elected because he lacks popular appeal not because he is counter current or threatening CEO's. If he ran for office his difficulty would be explaining to the garbagemen, plubers, carpenters, farmers, illiterates and degenerates why they should vote for him because I am willing to bet that no more then 10% of the voters in any ridding he would venture in to would be CEO's.

As for his being in a limited position to do anything ... I find that way out of line. If he is one of the "worlds leading intellectuals" then he clearly has the wits to sit down for two months to write up some detailed tactics and courses of action to defuse the problems he highlights. This strengths my argument that he is more of a linguist, a mouth piece even, then an intelectual (note the wording "more of" does not negate the intelectual part of that sentance).

So cut the man some slack, and stop nit-picking about how he delivers the message, and actually discuss the issues he is talking about.

Ok, so now I have forgotten what I was even defending so I will take your last line to heart.

If nuclear war is "inevitable" then, as a linguist should know, there is nothing we can do about it, so I have wasted way to much time writing when I could have been working to ensure I don't have a sober moment until our inevitable collapse into post-apocalyptic chaos.

See you in the piles of rubble, I'll be the one reeking of scotch.

 

[Genesius]

See you in the piles of rubble, I'll be the one reeking of scotch.

you and chomsky.

 

[~atp~]

atbell, there are a lot of things that I strongly disagree with in your post, and that I believe to be severely misguided, for various reasons. I'll address those more concretely when I have time.

I feel that his ability as a linguist (writer and speaker) out weights his intellectual value.

I think you need to be extremely specific about what you are criticizing here. Outweighing his "ability as a linguist" in what sense? Do you know what his "ability as a linguist" suggests? I'm pretty familiar with his work, given (a) a personal interest and (b) my mathematics and computer science background.

I would suggest that study of his methods might be as worthy a pursuit as the study of his message. There are times I feel like the man has discovered some form of written hypnosis.

How convenient, though completely unfounded. It is easy to pigeonhole him this way, as the implication of having "linguistic abilities" are that it permits him to more effectively fool the public. I would actually suggest that you review the history of his academic pursuits and his motives for becoming involved in politics. There are a number of references that I'm sure I could provide if asked (though I am short of time and patience for this). You may want to consider the possibility that his study of language puts him in a uniquely sensitive position with respect to the media and his understanding and awareness of the mechanisms for translating information (ie. propaganda) coming from his government (ostensibly the most prolific information distribution engine known to humankind) and how that bears on our own thought processes. He is actually not a great speaker, and his writing style is hated only because it is dry and direct, not "wordy" as Ditto Much puts it (though I don't pretend to know what precisely is meant by the adjective "wordy"); read some Bertrand Russell and tell me that he is also unnecessarily "wordy" or somehow employing tools of "hypnosis" to fool the public, as opposed to acting according to motives explicitly stated by him in all his works.

The implied subterfuge is on equal footing to Alex Jones' conspiratorial arguments. Most of this discussion is (typically) vapid, lacking in concrete examples, and if I had more time, I'd love to go through some typical examples of Chomsky's text that not only elucidate his arguments, but contextualize his motives. In my experience, most strong and negative reactions result from his highly polar criticism, which is taken as hostility for anyone who is "friendly" with the target of said criticism. If you listen carefully to his reasons for presenting material as he does, it makes perfect sense, contrary to the irrational and extremely suspect conspiracy of "hypnosis".

I don't think I said that because he can talk and write he must be trying to persuade people. I think I just said he does try to persuade people and his ability with language makes him good at it.

This is obviously true. There is no doubt in my mind that he is using tools (as any good writer/academic would) to convey a clear and concise message. Chomsky is uniquely rabid with his attacks, in that they are extremely succinct with no hesitation for condemning the Administration on terms that are as unequivocal as those the Administration uses against its targets.

 

[praktik]

my two cents: The one criticism of Chomsky I tend to agree with isnt related to the 'technical' aspects of his writing: his arguments, his methods, his conclusions. I think most investigations will reveal that his writing stands up to scrutiny on that level. What some people have said though, is that Chomsky is a bit "strident", a bit emotional at times... Given his subject matter, East Timor, El Salvador, Vietnam etc, its understandable that one would become angry, poring over government documents that give the lie to the official story, at seeing the bald-faced lies over stuff like the Gulf of Tonkin incident persist to this day... Thats all understandable, but when Chomsky says things like:

"The famed “entrepreneurial initiative” and “free trade” are about as realistic as informed consumer choice. The last thing those who dominate the society want is the fanciful market of doctrine and economic theory. All of this should be too familiar to merit much discussion."

taken from here

So in that above quote, I agree with what he's saying. He leads up to that point with good backing evidence, but that last sentence is what turns some people off. And he's right, given the evidence staring us all in the face it should be "too familiar to merit much discussion". But at the same time, that style of writing can come off as arrogance. A lot of his articles are riddled with little one liners like that. And they serve a purpose, kind of saying "see how ridiculous this is? People should be able to see straight through that bullshit given how obvious some of these deceptions are...", while they do that - at the same time - they turn other people off...

I'm sympathetic to Chomsy and his work, and I think he's helped a lot of people see things in a new light (myself included). He's human after all, I just wonder if he was able to reign in those one-liners a bit though, if maybe his message would have an easier time of reaching more people...

 

[DaPhatConductor]

i just wish he would address issues like the NWO and 9/11 prior knowledge.

as revolutionary as he is, he still goes with the official story on a lot of things.

 

[pseudonoise]

The opinions expressed in this forum stink almost as bad as one of the Phat C's sets.

 

[Colm]

It's good to see Chomsky's cult of personality alive and kicking. Too bad he's 77 though, I guess death even comes to academic celebrities.

 

[praktik]

The opinions expressed in this forum stink almost as bad as one of the Phat C's sets.

Really? You're the one that just shat on everyone here...

 

[OTIS]

i just wish he would address issues like the NWO and 9/11 prior knowledge.

as revolutionary as he is, he still goes with the official story on a lot of things.

He has addressed the controvercy surrounding 9/11. If I remember correctly he commented that he's come across little compelling evidence to support any claim of 9/11 pre-knowledge. He basically dismisses it. And as far as the ‘New World Order’ goes, at least in the context you consider it, I think you’re more likely to get a comment out of him about New Order.

 

[DaPhatConductor]

i bet he was down in the eighties... he probably did the robot. maybe that's why he's so stiff now?

 

[kyfe]

I don't understand how someone is so easily convinced that governments won't use nukes. People will do to great lengths for their beliefs and right now there is a huge gap between the west's and the middle easts belief structure.

Govenments have already tested nukes around the world and some still do today most notibly France, the US has dropped bombs on other countries and that's how WW2 ended. The technology in the nukes today is has much greater firepower than those we have seen in the past.

If someone is willing to blow themselves up in the name of god, allah or whoever what's to stop a society that lags behind in technology, education etc to not use a nuke on another part of the world with the assumption that it will have no direct impact on it's people.

Chomsky aside, some of you have pretty rose coloured glasses.

 

[Ditto Much]

Chomsky aside, some of you have pretty rose coloured glasses.

Nope but I believe in Nash equilibrium. At the end of the day the first one who detonates will be assur3ed of there complete and total demise. It will be a cultural suicide and likely will only cause minor (sub 1 million person) casualties.

I'm not sayng its impossible, but I believe its highly doubtful. India China and Pakistan are all locked in place unable to really do anything with there bombs without openning the door to the other 2 in a mexican stand off. Europe, Russia and North America are basically in the exact same mess. The only country that could potentially use the bomb would be Israel. But I don't believe that they could without recieving the wrath of everyone else.

 

[JEMZ]

Asked whether he had anticipated the number of people, the building's operations director, Darryl Wood, responded, "Not this many, no."

This was by far the best part of the article

 

[atbell]

I think you need to be extremely specific about what you are criticizing here. Outweighing his "ability as a linguist" in what sense? Do you know what his "ability as a linguist" suggests? I'm pretty familiar with his work, given (a) a personal interest and (b) my mathematics and computer science background.

I see your degrees in math and comp sci and raise you one in engineering and one in economics.

I will be more specific, I am not criticizing Chompsky for being a linguist, I am just commenting on a personal observation. Being a better linguist then an intellectual might even be considered a compliment by some.

How convenient, though completely unfounded. It is easy to pigeonhole him this way, as the implication of having "linguistic abilities" are that it permits him to more effectively fool the public.

Common mistake. Because "persuasion" has a negative connotation you have switch words on me. Persuasion, as a linguist might know, is not fooling. True persuasion is open and honest, it is an art of convincing others of something. The problem is that so many people are loath to be persuaded for a variety of reasons, including the perception that it has something to do with getting hornswaggled.

He is actually not a great speaker, and his writing style is hated only because it is dry and direct, not "wordy" as Ditto Much puts it (though I don't pretend to know what precisely is meant by the adjective "wordy"); read some Bertrand Russell and tell me that he is also unnecessarily "wordy" or somehow employing tools of "hypnosis" to fool the public, as opposed to acting according to motives explicitly stated by him in all his works.

You used fooled again. As for tools of hypnosis, well that was mere speculation on my part. Trance like states similar to what a hypnotist is able to incite in people are poorly understood at best, to extend that to writing would be an even further extension. I do know that hypnosis only works on those who are willing to be hypnotized.

I'd love to go through some typical examples of Chomsky's text that not only elucidate his arguments, but contextualize his motives.

This would be interesting. I would like to see what you know about his motives. On this topic I am blissfully ignorant.

In my experience, most strong and negative reactions result from his highly polar criticism, which is taken as hostility for anyone who is "friendly" with the target of said criticism. If you listen carefully to his reasons for presenting material as he does, it makes perfect sense, contrary to the irrational and extremely suspect conspiracy of "hypnosis".

what? Now I have fallen to the rank of conspiracy! Dude, you really don't like hypnosis do you? I must have really put a burr under your saddle with that casual line. It really wasn't a key element of my observations.

This is obviously true. There is no doubt in my mind that he is using tools (as any good writer/academic would) to convey a clear and concise message. Chomsky is uniquely rabid with his attacks, in that they are extremely succinct with no hesitation for condemning the Administration on terms that are as unequivocal as those the Administration uses against its targets.

This brings up an interesting point. It may have even been part of my initial complaint had I put words to it as well as you did. "uniquely rabid with his attacks" to much aggression is a huge draw back. Passion good - zeal bad, Chompsky seems to fall between the two.

As for having no hesitation for condemning the Administration, I applaud him whole heartedly on that, it is one of his best qualities (right next to his skill as a linguist ).

 

[deafplayer]

Having spent a year in a linguistics program at university, the idea that his expertise in the scientific field of linguistics he’s involved in contributes anything to powers of persuasion over people seems vacuous.. or specious, I suppose
Its kind of like saying the occupation of a theoretical physicist brings special abilities as a cook, or anthropology special political or economic keys to success
Then again, Ive never heard anyone actually pursue the idea any farther than: 'He studies language, so… *gasp*-of course!' - either in terms of what exactly in 'linguistics' might be relevant, or identifying anything particularly special or unusual about his use of language that might suggest a connection either
No offence....I've just heard lots of hollow charges, and never any explanation.. which Id be interested to hear, if it exists

Common mistake. Because "persuasion" has a negative connotation you have switch words on me. Persuasion, as a linguist might know, is not fooling. True persuasion is open and honest, it is an art of convincing others of something.

A linguist would know that what you say here, for example, has nothing to do with linguistics and is even incompatible with the way it approaches language

btw atbell are you familiar with the basic anarchist principles Chomsky espouses? They make much of your criticism, for example of him "doing NOTHING" re: S. America, nonsensical


Anyway back to language... fans sometimes praise his use of special linguistics expertise to 'dissect language' or ‘reveal linguistic tricks’... which he does no more than Orwell and countless others have... that kind of analysis is completely different than linguistics, political not technical, and basically common knowledge/understanding (just from normal social experiences of conflict and deception)

Edward S. Herman (co-author of Manufacturing Consent and main designer of its Propaganda Model) actually focuses far more heavily on 'language' (in the sense people are so eager to believe Chomsky does) than does Chomsky, and clearly without any relation to linguistics
eg. From Ingsoc And Newspeak To Amcap, Amerigood, And Marketspeak - by Edward Herman


Okay... there are other fields of linguistics, certain segments that would probably fall under 'sociolinguistics' (most of which is apolitical as 'people in Luisianna talk different than people in Montana' or 'working class Montreal compared to semi-suburban Torontonian dialect') that resembles political language analysis.... but even that doesn't really have the use many people assume, as far as I understand, and I've taken a "linguistics" course (mis?)titled Language: Power and Persuasion... at the outset, they reassured us that we needed to know nothing about linguistics for the course. It was basically political language analysis (as in, the common ability described above) mixed with just a hint of sociolinguistics...
That kind of specialized political language analysis is based on Critical Discourse Analysis, which is sort of a philisophical tool (affiliated with Michel Foucault) that has nothing to do with the linguistics Chomsky works in, or "language" as he studies it
The course basically applied CDA to feminist perspectives (eg how are women portrayed on TV, or what do ppl say that perpetuates mysogeny) or to illustrate the institutional roles assumed by doctors and patients in a hospital, for example

Anyway, he seems pretty 'plainspoken' to me... IMO it seems his unusual 'impactfulness' comes from simply applying the rigor of scientific thought to politics, which, I agree with him, turns out to be rare among intellectuals... and, I agree with him that the natural sciences are the place you learn critical and rational inquiry skills...
From this point of view, 'Political Science' and 'Social Science' are gross misnomers for the vast majority of what is classified under those terms

...... its just that, combined with strong anarchist-like principles that produces the apparent severity of his work, imo
Like someone mentioned in tihs thread (I think), most of his positions are shared by the majority of the population..... and imo he tends toward quite conservative and simple reasoning in his political work, which only seems INSANE or treachorously manipulative if you reject his premises (eg anarchist moral principles)

Bertrand Russell for example, major philisophy and mathematics figure who also talked about political topics, if you check out his writing it might put Chomsky's apparently strange 'powers' into perspective as not so anomolous (and certainly plainspoken compared to Russell, imo, or most other esteemed intellectuals for that matter)... same maybe with Petr Kropotkin, the Russian prince/natural scientist/anarchist (who is also pretty straightforward in his language)

 

[man_slut]

btw atbell are you familiar with the basic anarchist principles Chomsky espouses?

Libertarian Socialist!

So I've been told...

 

[judge wopner]

i find chomsky to be a bit difficult to follow,
but no less than a betrand russell,

its a pretty lousy way of attacking his reasoning.

i agree with some of his points and not with others, though he is so well informed im extra careful when he brings up somethign i disagree with and go about reading more into the topic.

at the end of the day when chomsky refer's to say a massacre in east timor, the way he says it is very much secondary to the facts themselves and the logic of his conclusions.

again, you may disagree as i have with some conclusions but attacking him for his words from a structural standpoint seems needlessly pedantic, its akin to quesitoning your doctors diet advice because he is overweight.

 

[~atp~]

I see your degrees in math and comp sci and raise you one in engineering and one in economics.

That wasn't my point, but okay.

I will be more specific, I am not criticizing Chompsky for being a linguist, I am just commenting on a personal observation. Being a better linguist then an intellectual might even be considered a compliment by some.

I'm not sure I understand that. You originally stated:

I feel that his ability as a linguist (writer and speaker) out weights his intellectual value.

This appears to be a clear attempt at minimizing (or trivializing) the worth of the substance of Chomsky's arguments, particularly when you consider the context in which you made that statement. I can see how you might be appraising his ability to perform, but the effect is to shift discussion away from the content of his arguments, thus trivializing their importance.

This would be interesting. I would like to see what you know about his motives. On this topic I am blissfully ignorant.

http://www.chomsky.info/books/reader01.htm
http://adamjones.freeservers.com/chomsky.htm

[SIZE=-1] [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]...the writing I do is kind of a mixture of straight scholarship and pamphleteering. I don't separate the two very much. That's partly on purpose: I think they go together rather well. What I'm trying to do is approach people who are interested in trying to correct for the distorted ways the world is presented to them, and to work out their own ideas on understanding how the world really is. I'm presenting them with another point of view. I try to give as much information as I can, to list the references I can think of, provide elaborate footnotes, and so on. If the use of irony and bitter criticism is appropriate, I don't refrain from it. Actually, I don't think this approach has the quality of avoiding the grey areas that you mention any more than academic scholarship does. It's just more open about it.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]But you're often accused of being too black-and-white in your analysis, of dividing the world into evil élites and subjugated or mystified masses. Does your approach ever get in the way of basic accuracy? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]I do approach these questions a bit differently than historical scholarship generally does. But that's because humanistic scholarship tends to be irrational. I approach these questions pretty much as I would approach my scientific work. In that work - in any kind of rational inquiry - what you try to do is identify major factors, understand them, and see what you can explain in terms of them. Then you always find a periphery of unexplained phenomena, and you introduce minor factors and try to account for those phenomena. What you're always searching for is the guiding principles: the major effects, the dominant structures. In order to do that, you set aside a lot of tenth-order effects. Now, that's not the method of humanistic scholarship, which tends in a different direction. Humanistic scholarship - I'm caricaturing a bit for simplicity - says every fact is precious; you put it alongside every other fact. That's a sure way to guarantee you'll never understand anything. If you tried to do that in the sciences, you wouldn't even reach the level of Babylonian astronomy.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]src
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
I would suggest reading the entire interview from the above source. As well, it might be interesting to learn more about about how Chomsky's philosophical inclinations relate to some of his work in the political sphere. The essay/interview I've read on this particular subject is: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1991----.htm. I won't cut and paste all of the relevant discussion into this reply, however here is one of the relevant questions posed by the interviewer:

Q. As someone who is profoundly interested in the structure of language as well as the use and abuse of rhetoric in political contexts, you must have some thoughts about the nature of rhetoric. For you, what are the most important elements of rhetoric?

Chomsky makes a number of very interesting and personal observations in that interview, including the one that starts as " ...There’s something to that, but let me tell you what my own choices and priorities are...". Take a look.

what? Now I have fallen to the rank of conspiracy! Dude, you really don't like hypnosis do you? I must have really put a burr under your saddle with that casual line. It really wasn't a key element of my observations.

Actually, I think it is. Recall your initial remark:

Chomsky is (if I remember correctly) a linguist by training, is it any wonder that a linguist is able to rally legions of fans behind him through speeches and writing? That doesn't make him the "world's greatest intellectual", it doesn't even make him an intellectual, it makes him persuasive.

Your next response appeared to summarize this sentiment quite succinctly with the convenient term "hypnosis". An "observation" generally requires something that is...observable (!!) for us to study. If Chomsky is indeed merely "persuasive" and generally lacks any worthwhile "substance" (which is the implication), then at least substantiate that claim.

The rest of your criticisms appear to be captured from the last paragraph of your first post:

His methods of communication alienate most of the population as he writes to much for the "average" person to read and he comes across as arrogant. The worst part is, as Colm points out, he offers few solutions ever.

Which I think has been largely addressed. If the "worst part" of a critique is the inability (or the appearance of an inability) to come up with solutions, I think you had better review what specific problems he is really addressing and what it means to be critical in the first place.

Inherently, criticism is a powerful tool.

 

[El-jay]

likely will only cause minor (sub 1 million person) casualties.

that would likely not be the case unless it was detonated somewhere with a population density less than canada (which is unlikely).

 

[atbell]

Chompsky

Ok, that's a bunch to take in all at once.

I am going to have to get back to you after reading some of your links about Chompskys motives.

Thanks for putting them up. I think they will be good reads.

 

[freshest1]

I'm amazed at how cliche this entire thread really is. .

I was thinking the same. All of these "arguments" follow chomsky around but really none hold water.

I'd criticize Chomsky for stating the blatantly obvious, and as usual, not offering any tangible solutions.

Since when does any academic offer tangible solutions? Chomsky is simply pointing out what has happened and what the implications could be. I believe that the reason Chomsky is so well regarded is because of his extensive knowledge of modern/ current history.

Nicely put. Chomsky is (if I remember correctly) a linguist by training, is it any wonder that a linguist is able to rally legions of fans behind him through speeches and writing? That doesn't make him the "world's greatest intellectual", it doesn't even make him an intellectual, it makes him persuasive. If he were more of an intellectual he might offer some tangible solutions.

La de fucking da, so the guy did a doctorate in linguistics. His influence transcends what discipline he wrote his dissertation in. The guy is the most cited author living today and his work has influenced various fields such as, computer science, mathematics, political studies, sociology, and medicine, just to name a few.