My take on Chomsky
Posted: 14 October 2010 07:13 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  2
Joined  2010-10-14

My take on Chomsky is that he fancies himself as some kind intellectual superhero, champion of the oppressed. All superheros need their villains. He has to polarize every conflict or problem as the 100% good guys vs. the 100% bad guys. Instead of looking at problems as a complex problem of competing human interests on a planet with limited resources.

He claims to be anti-authoritarian. But then he supports socialized medicine where the authorities tell people you can only have one type of health care and force you to pay for it like it or not. Talk about a fraud.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2010 04:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  15
Joined  2010-10-30

Why do all superheroes need their villains? Can’t they defeat all their villains and then not have any? Are they not heroes anymore after they ‘won’? Can’t a superhero defend against natural harms that aren’t villains/‘bad people’?

My point is that you saying ‘all superheroes need their villains’ is as black and white as you then claim Chompsky to be.

You damn him for not seeing the complexities of issues and then you call ‘socialized medicine’ only ‘one type of health care’ and ‘you’re forced to pay for it if you like it or not’.

Aren’t you doing exactly what you damn him for in alternating sentences?? It looks to me like you are.

Can’t Socialized Health Care be a government program where it provides a basic, rational, limited range of medical coverage that all humans NEED? Yes, it can be.

If that health care is not good enough for you, there can easily STILL BE insurance companies to sell you additional coverage. That would be your choice to decide if the Government was not covering you enough.

It just not a rational ‘choice’ to ‘choose’ to not be covered at all. And it’s not moral or economically sound to let a block of our people go uncovered. They still get treatment you know. But you probably hate that because those poor people are stealing from you. Meanwhile the ultra wealthy insurance companies are TOTALLY stealing from you and you fight to keep it that way!?

The authoritarian element is really the fact that we can’t vote against getting sick or aging. If there was a god, you’d have to call them a Dictator for that reason (and others).

There are many forms that Socialized H. Care can take. I don’t know if Chompsky has as specific political version or detailed plan, but you don’t mention ANY details of his you reject.
If his version of health care came about, it would be under his form of Government. Do you really think he promotes a Dictatorship?

I say we all need at least basic health care. It’s part of civilization and the modern understanding of our own biology. Some way or another we all basically end up needing and getting it, yet no one ‘dictated’ that to us. It’s also a way to fit with the rest of the modern world that does it in some form or another at lesser cost than we already spend not to cover everyone here.

If preventative care were Government sponsored we should all get healthier and the costs should go down for everyone. It’s a more efficient, cost effective system in its many different forms compared to how we do it now.
We’d have a design to profit from improving health, rather than from some mega-corp profiting from denying as much care as they can get away with.

They are the dictators. We all just get our choice of which of the few dictators we want in charge of our health. But don’t fool yourself. You’re not really in charge now. Your evil insurance company will tell you how it is and you’ll eat it. Or you can try to sue ‘em and either go broke or die first.

I can’t understand how people HATE the Government cutting the huge waste in insurance costs we pay now and giving us elected officials to vote in/out to have some say rather than the no say at all we have now? It’s NOT a rejection of Freedom.

They think the Government will heartlessly decide if you deserve a pill you need, or if you can have the operation you need to live. That’s what we have now, and for how little I trust Government… I trust it more than a mega-corp Insurance Company.
It should be you and doctors deciding your health needs. Insurance to get that would just be better as a National plan rather than how it is now.

If the Government could stand up to Insurance companies so they don’t jack up rates WAY beyond the inflation rate and stop them from dropping people when they acutally get really sick and need the insurance… we’d be FAR better off than we are now.

Recent Health Care Reform did some of that. I wish it would have had a single payer option. That would have given us all FOR A FACT…MORE choice than we have now. Yet conservatives of all stripes fought it to the death!?

Are you maybe someone who thinks a program for helping families plan for end of life issues is an ‘Obama Death Panel’?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 May 2011 10:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2011-04-21
TheEndofCrazy - 14 October 2010 11:13 AM

He has to polarize every conflict or problem as the 100% good guys vs. the 100% bad guys.

I’m not a big Chomsky fan because I always feel like I’m being bamboozled when he speaks, but this assertion is patently false. Chomsky claims to be pointing out hypocrisy.

If anyone knows of a really cogent, rational, skeptical response to Chomsky, preferably one that comes in easily digestible You-Tubey portions, I’d love to check it out.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 May 2011 05:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  13
Joined  2011-05-14

You really need to study Chomsky a lot more before you decide to speak out against him. Although Harris talks about Chomsky in his book he clearly has the utmost respect for him. I suggest you really read Chomsky’s work and then decide to talk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 June 2011 07:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2010-03-10

fe, fi, fo, fum, do I smell a bit of Rand here? Chomsky is, and has long been, anti-authoritarian, as in anti unelected, unaccountable, unresponsive, inegalitarian, and unjust systems of rule, division of wealth, and delivery of public services. Have you forsaken all hope for effective representative democracy in this country?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 August 2011 05:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  122
Joined  2011-05-10
Scruffy - 12 May 2011 02:16 PM
TheEndofCrazy - 14 October 2010 11:13 AM

He has to polarize every conflict or problem as the 100% good guys vs. the 100% bad guys.

I’m not a big Chomsky fan because I always feel like I’m being bamboozled when he speaks, but this assertion is patently false. Chomsky claims to be pointing out hypocrisy.

If anyone knows of a really cogent, rational, skeptical response to Chomsky, preferably one that comes in easily digestible You-Tubey portions, I’d love to check it out.

I don’t like Chomsky as a political author. His theories about linguistics are interesting and noteworthy. But, his publication about American policy are extremely slanted. I don’t like his antiamericanism and antiwesternism.

His “hypocrisy argument” is actually always the same. You want to talk about - say - the taliban. Their political motives, their goals and the means they use to achieve these goals, in particular terror. You can’t talk with Chomsky about the Taliban without talking about hiroshima, Nagasaki, the bombing of Dresden, the Iran-Contra affair,... All of this is justified by his anti-hypocrasy rethoric. But, basically, he just off-topic. None of this has anything to do with the taliban. That is his usual mode of conversation and I don’t like it.

Please notice, if you talk about failures of American policy, he never uses his anti-hypocrisy argument in order to divert the conversation to Sudanese, Somalian, Iraqi, ... atrocities. Never, never ever!? He is motivated by a very deep hatred for America, the very country that protects and nourishes him. I find this behaviour morally reprehensible.

Oh, and I am not American, I am German. So don’t think of me as some kind of right wing American patriot. I am not.

Here’s just one example, war in Afghanistan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbwRvzXULtg

Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Cuba, Turkey, Japan, Germany, France, 2. WW,... everything is just lumped together… Crazy!

Oh, and I didn’t support the war in Iraq and find the war in Afghanistan stupid. We should pull out because we are supporting an Islamist sharia government of Afghanistan that has more in common with the Taliban than with human rights and democracy.

 Signature 

Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2011 04:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  38
Joined  2011-08-28
Scruffy - 12 May 2011 02:16 PM

Chomsky claims to be pointing out hypocrisy.

Which is ironic considering he supported Pol Pot.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 August 2012 06:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2012-08-15
Brian Macker - 05 September 2011 04:37 PM
Scruffy - 12 May 2011 02:16 PM

Chomsky claims to be pointing out hypocrisy.

Which is ironic considering he supported Pol Pot.

lol this is so dumb its hardly worth commenting on but i will anyway.  there was no such support for pol pot, chomsky identifies the pol pot regime as an atrocity.  he mentions pol pot to compare the media’s treatment of his atrocities to another by general suharto in east timor. 


this statement is just laughable, anyone who has read chomsky can see you know absolutely nothing about what he says in interviews or what he has in print.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 April 2013 04:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2013-04-19

World-renowned political dissident, linguist, author and MIT professor Noam Chomsky joins us to discuss his recent trip to the Gaza Strip, where he publicly called on Israel to put an end to the blockade on the Hamas-ruled coastal enclave. “[Gaza] is a lesson for people from the West,” Chomsky says. “If they can struggle on under really harsh and brutal conditions, it tells us we ought to be doing a lot more.” Chomsky also comments on President Obama’s re-election, saying: “There are two good things: one, the worst did not happen, and it might have. The second is, it is over. We can put it behind us and get back to work.”

Self Publishing Tips
Self Book Publishing

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed