So do most people here think Chomsky is:

[dawgman]

Dead, set, right, on or a little bit off the wall and entirely unreliable as a source of news?

Or are you all somewhere in the middle?

Not trying to start a fight or anything just want to know...

[Cocoa]

1. his analysis is valuable

but it should be part of a balanced diet. :-)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

38. balance Chomsky with Zinn

then you start to understand things :)

[lostnfound]

78. Chomsky is an "eye-opener". Zinn clears smoke; Chomsky shatters illusions

And they are both great Americans.

[La_Serpiente]

2. Funny thing about Chomsky is that

I do not even think he is a liberal at all. I think he is a Libertarian Anarchist.

In his book "MisEducation" , he describes Harvard as being a place where there is not that much room for free thought and expression. That is his opinion and I cannot comment on it since I have not been to Harvard. However, he does mention that MIT is a better place for free though.

Another thing is that Chomsky feels that Israel should not have been created in the first place. He shudders at the thought of a state based on religion.

I do not agree with everything he says, however, I am in agreement with a majority of it.

[David Zephyr]

3. Brilliant.

I'm a big fan of N.C.

[proud patriot]

4. I think he is right on

:thumbsup:

[ShaneGR]

5. Brilliant, but flawed

The whole pro-Castro thing is a bit much.

[Mika]

60. Pro Castro? Bwaahahaha

If you had paid any attention to the recent goings on in Cuba (re: the recent arrests and detention of 75 "dissidents") then you would be aware that Chomsky has lambasted Castro for this.

Chomsky is pro Cuba, not pro Castro. They are not one and the same.

[smallprint]

6. He's Da Man

I like reading transcripts of his talks and interviews-- he's funny as hell when he really gets going.

As for "unreliable as a source of news"... uh, he's not a reporter... so he's not a "source" of news. He's an analyst.

My favorite Chomsky site:
http://monkeyfist.com/ChomskyArchive

[vi5]

7. I like a lot of what he says about language and media....

But when he gets too deep into politics he loses me, not so much due to his beliefs (although I disagree with some) but mostly because I'm not sure what his qualifications are that he should be considered an expert in politics outside of his field of linguistics and the role that plays.

[IrateCitizen]

59. What qualifies anyone as an expert in your mind?

Is it college degrees? What about working "within the system"? Or could dedicating a large portion of your life toward scholarly pursuit in a certain subject area make you an "expert"?

If you agree with the third possibility, then that would be what would qualify Chomsky as an "expert" on US foreign policy.

Noam Chomsky is a brilliant man, the kind of mind that comes along only once or twice per generation. Kind of on the same level as Albert Einstein, in many ways. His linguistic theories were viewed as completely revolutionary when they came out. But, like most people of genius, his attention and insight is not confined to one area of specialty. People often forget that, along with all of Einstein's achievements in the field of physics, he was also viewed in his time as one of the most forward-thinking social critics as well.

The biggest difference between he and Chomsky, IMHO, is that Chomsky has gone the extra step to actually document all of his social theories and criticisms -- which will ensure that they live on past his death when it does come.

[DemoTex]

8. Norm Chomsky is not news. He is opinion.

I happen to agree with him most of the time, but don't mistake op/ed for news. FOX is an op/ed network ... get my drift?

Chomsky's scientific works (linguistics) have made news, but Chomsky's opinions are just like mine and your's ... just opinions (well-informed and genious, sometimes).

[dawgman]

24. you are right, news was not a good choice of words

But I didn't exactly put alot of thought into this post. Sorry for the confusion.

[msmcghee]

9. I notice several folks here admire Mr. Chomsky . . .

. . but I have had a heck of a time reading his stuff.

For some reason he just doesn't connect for me.

Since he is known as a major presence on the left I bought "The Chomsky Reader" a couple of years ago - but I still haven't been able to read much of it.

Maybe someone here could recommend a better first choice for me. I think I would appreciate (at least some of) his ideas - it's just that I have trouble staying focussed on his thesis as I'm reading it. When I'm done I'm not sure what I read.

:dunce:

[Cat Atomic]

11. Understanding Power is good. It's a collection of lectures.

There are plenty of different subjects, so you can just bounce around at will without losing anything.

[smallprint]

13. Yes, Understanding Power is a great book

and the footnotes are online, so when you read something that you don't believe or don't understand, you can look it up on the website and find all the original documentation, plus more interesting analysis. It's like getting two books in one.

Also see my post above for a link to more of his "easy" reading.

[msmcghee]

17. Thanks to both of you.

I'll check the library.

[yowzayowzayowza]

31. His lectures are more accessible:

http://monkeyfist.com/ChomskyArchive/talks

I actually burnt a CD of some of those for vacation a while back....

[RichM]

22. A better first choice: "What Uncle Sam Really Wants"

It's a pamphlet, you can read it in one day. Some of it is online, at http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm -- look under "Books."

[Suspicious]

75. Thanks for this information.

I had not read this. It made me a bit queasy, truth be told. Even for someone like myself, who has read quite a bit of Chomsky's work and considers him one of the ultimate experts on the U.S. and its "foreign policy", it is still difficult, at times, to suppress the instinct to put my fingers in my ears, so to speak, and pretend everything is just fine.

[Room101]

35. Watch this video about chomsky

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/1614027.php

Also check out the Documentry "Manufacturing Consent" to get a very broad tast of him.

[Room101]

37. Chomsky is the man

If you want to see the blue prints of our political system he has them stored in his head.

[Selwynn]

44. I found Roge States to be best next to Understanding Power

But I've read Propaganda and the Public mind, Rogue States, Year 501, Profit Over People, Understanding Power and... I don't remember what else.. :)

[Iverson]

53. hi, msmcghee.

Rich M's recommendation of What Uncle Sam Really Wants is a good one. Another cogent but very readable book is 9/11.

The first thing I read by him was Manufacturing Consent (co-authored with Edward Herman), but you may not want to start there unless you like detailed media and propaganda analysis. The video of Manufacturing Consent is friendlier.

Also, you are not one of these: :dunce:

Some of his writing is a little dense.

:yourock:

[gandalf]

55. Read the "Vietnam" Chapter in "Manufacturing Consent"

or the chapter on Latin America/Unworthy victims, and the Introduction, his Propaganda Model.

[JackRiddler]

56. The best Chomsky political works:

Year 501 (1993).

Manufacturing Consent (book based on Mark Akhbar's documentary).

Or the documentary itself.

[Cat Atomic]

10. I agree with most of his interpretations of news, though I don't

consider him a "source" of news. He has made me aware of alot of stories that I'd previously been oblivious to, but I always try to research them a bit myself as well.

Anyway, I value his perspective.

[frank frankly]

12. very important

reading Chomsky lead me to DU. simple as that.

[DemoTex]

15. Circular, I'm sure.

Reading DU will now lead many to Chomsky! Ain't the net great?

[poskonig]

14. a little off the wall.

My viewpoint, anyway.

[NashVegas]

16. Chomsky Is a Teacher

The best way to use Chomsky is to heed is lessons on linguistics and their usage in propaganda, and apply them to what you read in the newspaper.

You need not agree with his opinions, it's the constructs of how he gets there that are important.

[RichM]

18. His analysis is vastly superior to the mainstream point of view. If you

only know the mainstream POV, you are basically living inside a propaganda cocoon without realizing it. That is what the cocoon is designed to do, after all. Reading Chomsky lets you poke your head outside that cocoon. It's hard to overstate the value of that kind of perspective-broadening.

I think he has tremendous integrity in his marshalling of facts, as well. This doesn't mean I agree with him on everything, or that I think he's always a joy to read. But I certainly hold him in the very highest regard.

[pinballer]

21. I think that Chomsky

is ----challenged only by Gore Vidal--- the most erudite and knowledgable observer of the American political scene today.

His essays are dead-on accurate and the logic of his opinions well thought out and --IMO-- unassailable.

Naturally, since Chomsky --unlike the mindless pap that the Media whores of the Right cram down the throats of the sheep on a daily basis -- speaks the truth about the control of the political process by Corpora-Fascist interests, he is continuously villified and minimized by the Conservative-owned and controlled **mainstream Media**.

A shame. Chomsky and Vidal should be required reading for every person in this country of voting age.

[incapsulated]

19. My take on Chomsky

Occasionally brilliant.
Occasionally dead wrong.
Undeniably influential, controversial (and arrogant), in both polititical analysis and linguistics.

He had a big influence on me years ago. His take on politics, hit and miss, imho. You should read him, if you have not, just to educate yourself:

The Noam Chomsky Archive
http://zmag.org/Chomsky/index.cfm

[FDRrocks]

20. Right on...

[Fenris]

23. Excellent works in the field of linguistics

However, I have met far too many college-age, middle-class white kids who carry his political tracts around like Little Red Books. After reading many of his shorter books, I can say that I don't necessarily like his political writings. To each his own.

Not a reliable source of news, but if you are getting your news from Chomsky, you probably aren't that up to speed with things anyway. He's an analyst, not a reporter.

[absyntheNsugar]

25. "Manufacturing Consent" was really good

And made some great points, but keep in mind he is a Marxist. This is good for discourse, but like many Marxists I find him to be way too dogmatic about his beliefs.

I am not a Marxist btw, just a Safety-Net Capitalist (read Socialist Lite/New Deal Dem.)

[smallprint]

29. He is NOT a Marxist

He has rejected this accusation many, many, many times. He doesn't even LIKE Marxism!!

Google "marxism" and "chomsky" and read some of his own words on the subject.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

39. "Socialist Lite/New Deal Dem"

You mean like 80% of Americans? :evilgrin:

[Selwynn]

43. Actually he and Zinn both profess to be...

social anarchists at heart..

whether or not the truly consider such an ideal viable, I'm not clear on..

[MrPrax]

57. Yer right...

He is asked point blank in the documentary Manufacturing Consent what he is...he hems and haws and finally figures he is an anarchist of the syndicalist variety...
He has been asked for years to endorse this party or that issue...he rarely does...

[gandalf]

54. "keep in mind he is a Marxist"???

I found "Manufacturing Consent" an excellent work. This book can certainly not be seen as a proof that he his a Marxist.

[sendero]

26. I like his ideas..

.... and find most of them to be insightful. But I find his writing style a bit tedious and maybe even boring. So I just read the cliff notes :)

[fabius]

27. Chomsky is right on n/t

[UserJohnny1479]

28. Dead right and America should follow his lead

When we win the WH back in 2004 we should follow his lead. It will be a new dawn in America and we can catch up with the UK and Canada.

[John_H]

30. Great on the media, interesting on linguistics, wobbly on economics, and

wacked on conspiracies.

[RichM]

40. What does "wacked on conspiracies" mean? Does it mean that he

believes in conspiracies you don't believe in, or that he doesn't believe in some you do believe in?

Would you like to share with us some illustrations of his being "wobbly on economics?"

[John_H]

63. Wacked on conspiracies means that

I think most large conspiracies (the "impeachment" conspiracy and campaign funding for example) are done out in the wide open. People just can't keep their mouths shut long enough to keep elaborate plots secret for very long. Take a look at Enron, Iran-Contra, etc. Blown almost immediately.

I'm not going to do the example game w/ you yet again--this time you can do the three minute google to get Chomsky economic policy quotes that a traditional American liberal would find extreme.

[IrateCitizen]

65. That's hardly an argument...

this time you can do the three minute google to get Chomsky economic policy quotes that a traditional American liberal would find extreme.

Since you are the one proposing that his economic policy quotes are "extreme", does it not seem that the burden of definition of "extreme" is on you, not the person you're debating?

[RichM]

77. This does not answer the question. You have said Chomsky is

"Wacked on conspiracies." Please tell us specifically what Chomsky has said about conspiracies that you are calling "wacked." Your above reply doesn't even mention Chomsky; you are merely giving us your own personal "wisdom" about conspiracies generally.

It would be clear, BTW, to anyone reading your above reply, that you simply don't know of any examples of Chomsky's being "wobbly on economics." As a general rule, when you make accusations that you can't back up, it's called "being full of sh*t." When you try to hide this lack of knowledge behind a lot of sass, it's called "being even more full of sh*t."

[robbob]

Chomsky most definitely NOT a conspiracy theorist

He has stated as much himself. He does not believe that secret cabals of powerful men meet in smoky back rooms to decide the fate of the country. Instead, he shows how the system itself is flawed and leads to abuse.

It's not that hard to figure out. Look at the media, for example. Over the years the power to inform the populace has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few mega-corporations. These mega-corporations also have large holdings in other major industries. So naturally, they will not focus on stories which are contrary to their financial interests. GE polluting the Hudson? Workers demanding more rights? Socialized medicare? All stories which run counter to the economic interests of those who are supposed to keep us informed, and so these stories (an countless others like them) do not get the attention they may deserve, or are "spun" in a way that reflects the interests of those doing the reporting.

It's not a conspiracy, it's just the inevitable way the system is skewed.

If you have any examples of Chomsky showing he is "wacked on conspiracies" please detail them before making such an accusation.

[tinnypriv]

32. You should decide what you think about his views on issues, but the guy

Is humble, helpful and accomodating from my experience.
:thumbsup:

[FDRrocks]

45. its amzing...

fir a nab who has spent his whoe life readin to be humblew. Thank earth fort Noam and Zinn

[jenm]

33. He's very accessible

His command of the subject matter and the language are very appealing. He certainly makes a person think, and I usually agree with what he says. I wouldn't consider him a news source in the conventional sense. I'd like to see him taught in colleges too, I think his views are more valuable than ever simply under the scarcity principle.

[0rganism]

34. Not a source of "breaking" news, more like "retroactive" news

Chomsky uses an amazing warehouse of facts and common sense to deconstruct the "mainstream" ideology. He's hard to grok sometimes, but his methodology is pretty simple: critique Americans and the USA the same way he would critique any other country. You'd be surprised how many people are shocked by that very rudimentary fairness.

[Pobeka]

36. Rudimentary fairness

I'm reading "Power and Terror, Post-9/11 Talks and Interviews" right now, and that's what strikes me about Chomsky, is his willingness to be completely objective about the policies of the USA, as well as any government.

He seems also to have a ton of historical research behind his writing.

[spindoctor]

41. He never was a source of news. He is an analyst/historian.

And an amateur at that. His trade is linguistics like somebody already mentioned.

His speeches and lectures are torture to me. There is something about his voice that has a Tylenol PM effect on me.
His writings are always interesting and worth reading.

Both in linguistics and in his political/historical analyses, the man has done groundbreaking work.

I personally do not believe we have heard the last of him. I certainly hope not.

[dawgman]

46. I've already let it be known that that was an ufortunate turn of phrase

the post wasn't all that well thought out....just really wanted to know how the average DU'er thought about him and his credibility.

[Selwynn]

42. No one is dead set right, however...

Chomsky is an extremely valuable source that no one should ignore.

The biggest problem with Chomsky is not lies or inaccuracies. His evidence is usually incredibly well documented and pretty intellectually honest. No, his problem on some key issues is bias. On certain subjects this leads to selectivity in information presented. On a personal level his style is somewhat abrasive, because he can come off as ruthlessly intolerant of other opinions or even of questions.

However, I ignore that personality flaw because he is so frequently dead on, and I try to keep a keep open eye towards his areas of bias. For example, while he has some interesting and accurate insights into the israeli/palestinian situation, I think its safe to say his work on the subject is extremely biased in many ways.

On the other hand, its conceptual analysis of power relationships, and the controlling forces in Western society is stunningly accurate and insightful. His book, a collection of many different lectures and talks, called Understanding Power is really the one Chomsky book I think everyone should own.

In short, Chomksy is not a god - he is a brilliant man with some pretty amazing insights into international relations and politics, but he is not without weaknesses just like all of us and everyone else. So by all means read Chomsky and discover the majority of his insights to be dead on, yet keep a keen and skeptical eye open for the minority of things where you may rightfully feel he didn't quite get it right. :)

[Newcastle]

48. Is anyone

who has an opinion on the Israeli/Palestinian question unbiased?

[Selwynn]

49. What's your point?

It would be pretty hard to misconstrue my post as saying I don't think Chomsky is a valuable resource. I strongly agree with Chomsky on a great many things.

But no one is perfect, and so it is important to look at every source with open eyes and try to understand biases when you see them. It's never appropriate to "worship" anybody as though they are infallible or super human. Chomsky is a man - an extremely gifted man with a critically important voice to our world, in my opinion. I deeply value his writings. But he's still a man, and I can talk honestly about the point where I disagree or detect bias without rejecting the overall quality of content.

[Newcastle]

50. It would be pretty hard

to misconstrue my post as worshiping anyone or saying you have no right to disagree. I'm merely pointing out that there is no such thing as someone taking a position on the Palestinian/Israeli question without bias.

[Selwynn]

69. I'm not disagreeing!

I think that would be the point I am trying to convey.

[Newcastle]

47. If Chomsky is "unreliable"

so is the Wall Street Journal, which is his major source of news. Chomsky isn't a source of news. He has an amazing capacity to retain information in his mind and bring it up when needed.

Now, if you're asking if I agree with Chomsky's positions on the news, I'd have to say yes. I haven't disagreed with him so far.

A lot of people misinterpret Chomsky (even some here; I noticed that he's referred to as a Marxist, which is patently false). Mostly he just asks us to think and be observant, active citizens. How can that be off the wall?

[Selwynn]

51. The best thing about Chomsky are his footnotes....

In the book Understanding Power, you are pointed to the website where you can dowload a pdf of footnotes. The book Understanding power is 490+ pages long, and the supplemental footnotes are longer than the book. (Five hundred and some pages) Chomsky cites nearly ever claim he makes - I love that.

[Capt_Nemo]

52. As a "source of news" he is one of the best

He is brilliant at describing the whole structure of the US establishment
and pointing out the role the media plays in it.

But he is a poor analyst on military maters and that hurts his
geopolitical analysis. He consistently overestimates by a long shot
what US military power can do. That leads him to overestimate
US influence over the other powers.

[IrateCitizen]

58. He presents invaluable analyses of relationships of power

While I don't necessarily agree with all of his conclusions specifically, I find the general thrust of most of his work to be right-on. I would break that thrust down into the following points:

1. Power can never be trusted.

2. Human beings will do vile things to accumulate and amass power.

3. The rulers of all nation-states, whether those states are dictatorships or democracies, will invariably be the kind of people most attracted to power -- and therefore, most often, the least morally equipped to wield it.

4. Based on #3, it only follows that the nation-state itself is an inherently immoral entity.

5. The only way to keep power in check is to constantly expose, question and challenge it. When people acquiesce to power, any checks that they can place on it to maintain democratic process and a just society are instantly removed (as has happened here in the US in the post-9/11 era).

6. He is critical of US policy simply because the US is the most powerful country in the world (and therefore, the one that can impose its inherently selfish and immoral policies on others). If France or Britain or Germany or India were the most powerful country in the world, it would be them committing the same kinds of abuses.

The problem with his analysis, no matter how correct it may be, is that it challenges the very heart of reality that we have all been conditioned from an early age to believe as the truth. When confronted with such a challenge, the reaction from most people is to cast it away forcefully. If you begin to realize his analysis as representing a more valid reality of the world, you have passed a point from which you can never return to your previous outlook and its blissful ignorance.

[bobbieinok]

61. Chomsky

I first heard of him as a linguist.

You all do realize, don't you, that most of the 50s and later work done in linguistics at MIT (and probably other univs) was funded by the Dept of Defense.

About 15 years ago I attended a talk he gave at IA State...awesome.

[LiberalTradition]

62. For me his extreme bias ruins his message.

I find it infuriating. It is nauseating when he harps on about principle and integrity. Since when it comes to these issues he is really just the mirror image of those he is criticizing.

However if you can get past all of that he has a very powerful message that should no be ignored. I don't agree with all of it. But it is a very powerful message regarding violence and international relations.

My advice, consider that message, but ignore Chomsky.

[rman]

64. how does Chomsky lack principle and integrity? got examples?

or are we supposed to just take your word for it?

[LiberalTradition]

74. Ok.

Don't have enough time to do the work myself. so here is a link,
http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/chomsky.html#3.5.

Read the misrepresentation section.

Maybe Chomsky is so sure he is right that his actions are not conscious. So maybe in that way he is not violating any of his principles. Would that be worse or better?

[Selwynn]

80. Do you know anything about this source?

Just curious.

EDIT - nah, forget it. You know I hate this argument anyway no matter who it is applied to. The bottom lie is a lie told be an angel is still a lie and a truth told by a devil is still the truth. Whether Chomsky is hypocritical in his own life or not is utterly and completely irrelevant to the truth of his analysis and observation. It's either right or its not.

People shouldn't punch nice sweet old ladies in the face - if I say that and then go punch an old lady in the face, it does not change the fact that my orginal statement was true.

I'm interested in evaluation facts not the man. More often than not his facts are in good order, and his analysis is dead on. Sometimes he reflects some bias, so as with every single person in the world, we should read with a critical eye, but he is defeinately a source that needs to be read.

End of the story for me.

[LiberalTradition]

85. I am totally uninterested in his personal hypocrisy.

It is his intellectual hypocrisy that bothers me. And only because, as I demonstrated, he sets himself up as a moral authority. He bases his arguments on this moral authority. Thus when he violates those principles he weakens his arguments.

It could be that an analysis as extremely biased as Chomskys is still correct. Bias does not mean wrong. I find his analysis biased and mostly wrong.

But he does make some good points and I totally agree that he is definitely a source that needs to be read.

[Cat Atomic]

66. I've never heard the guy 'harp on about principle and integrity'.

That's the sort of shit you find in a Sean Hannity book. I've never seen anything but frank analysis of actual US policy from Chomsky.

I'd like to see an example of this 'harping' if you've got one.

[Selwynn]

70. Exactly.

Chomsky isn't about social commentary - he is about analysis. I'd like to see some concrete examples that indicate otherwise.

[LiberalTradition]

72. See my reply in post 71. If that doesn't convince, I don't know what will.

NT.

[LiberalTradition]

71. Really? Chomsky constantly points out that the US government

selectively and self servingly applies the notions of principle and international law.

This is a running theme of Chomsky.

This link http://www.zmag.org/crisescurevts/current_bombings.htm
from Znet, which has a great Chomsky archive, might not be the best example, but I hope it will at least make you pause as you make the claim I've never heard the guy 'harp on about principle and integrity'.

Ah wait. One second more of searching and I have a GREAT example of what I am talking about -

'ES: You suggested after September 11th, that we ought to look in the mirror, we being America or the West. We ought to look in the mirror at ourselves. Was that a way of saying -- "Look, people like Bin Laden are angry at us for good reason?"

Chomsky: That's not what I was saying. The statement of mine that you just quoted is a very conservative statement, in fact it was articulated by George Bush's favorite philosopher, Jesus Christ, who famously defined the notion of a hypocrite. A hypocrite is a person who focuses on the other fellow's crimes and refuses to look at his own. That's the definition of hypocrite by George Bush's favorite philosopher. When I repeat that I'm not taking a radical position. I'm taking a position that is just elementary morality.

ES: But even if he is a hypocrite…

Chomsky: Not he, everybody. Let me ask you another question. Here's an experiment. Try to find a phrase in the massive commentary on September 11th, that is not hypocritical in the sense of George Bush's favorite philosopher. Find one phrase. I don't think you can do it.

ES: OK but before, I don't want to get gnostic here and religious…

Chomsky: This is not religion, this is elementary morality. If people cannot rise to the level of applying to ourselves the same standards we apply to others we have no right to talk about right and wrong or good and evil.'

Here is the link -

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Chomsky_DV-HotType.htm

I hope this convinces you. {I cannot see how it wouldn't)

And again while I don't toatlly agree with Chomsky's point, I do think it is a very powerful point. What disappoints me and detracts from his message is that Chomsky does not apply these principles to himself and other socialists.

I think that is a shame. His message would be much more powerful if he did.

[Selwynn]

81. How does he not apply it?

[LiberalTradition]

87. If I cannot get you to acknowledge the obvious, that

principles are a theme of Chomskys I don't think I have much hope of convincing you that he violates those principles.

Enjoy your day.

[thebigidea]

67. mmm hmmm

"Since when it comes to these issues he is really just the mirror image of those he is criticizing."

yeah, he always interferes with SA countries and topples governments. Damn that Chomsky!

[IrateCitizen]

68. Chomsky would be more effective if he were more like Alan Colmes

:evilgrin:

Sorry, couldn't resist!

[David Zephyr]

82. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

:hi:

[LiberalTradition]

73. I think you are missing my point. Chomsky correctly points out

that we should not selectively apply our principles.

I was not claiming Chomsky is a mirror image of those he criticizes because like them he has the resources of a superpower at his command and he has used those resources to topple governments.

I was pointing out that like those who topple governments Chomsky selectively applies his notion of principle.

[Selwynn]

79. Again - care to give any examples, or define "notion of principle?"

Seeing as how I reject your notion that Chomsky says much about "principle" at all seeing as how it is primiary an analyst.

[LiberalTradition]

83. I use Websters. You tell me what you use.

Websters definition of principle

1 a : a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption b (1) : a rule or code of conduct (2)

Again, here is Chomsky's statement
(See post 71 for more context)

'Chomsky: This is not religion, this is elementary morality. If people cannot rise to the level of applying to ourselves the same standards we apply to others we have no right to talk about right and wrong or good and evil.'

What exactly are you claiming? That Chomsky's statement is NOT outlining a rule or code of conduct?

Very clearly Chomsky is laying out a principle. Whatever. I am not going to get into silly territory. At least others on this thread have acknowledged the obvious, that principles are a theme of Chomsky. I will limit myself to defending my more problematic assertion that he violates those principles. I have already done a fairly good job of doing just that. But I am short on time and I admit I haven't made an overwhelming case for that part of my assertion. (Only for this part!)

[thebigidea]

84. Oh yes, he could use a lot more moral clarity

if only he were as gifted as, say - that nice Joe Lieberman.

[info being]

76. He's absolutely right, but its just one worldview

He paints a coherent picture, but it doesn't encapsulate all of art:)

[DrFunkenstein]

86. He Examines Effects, Not Motives

It's a useful way of looking at things, but insufficient and lends itself too easily to conspiracy theories.