marijuana | Healthcare | Gun Control | Foreign Policy | Muslim World | Terrorism | Capitol Hill | Social Issues

Noam Chomsky: Philosophies of Language & Politics

More from this series:

Commonwealth Club of California

More videos from this partner:


  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
There are 37 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
Lamont Cranston Avatar
Lamont Cranston
Posted: 10.11.09, 08:19 AM
SNS, Schlessinger is just mad Chomsky doesn't faun over the Camelot myth. burke, watch it again. The "indignation" (what?) was that they had been abandoned by 'the left' - no one had gone and engaged them despite pretty common ground, leaving them ripe pickings for demagogues and corporate PR. Their political activism, such as it is, is to unwittingly protect the very same institutions that are responsible for their terrible situation. So your argument is a little hollow.
burke Avatar
Posted: 10.10.09, 05:48 PM
Disregard everything I've just said. It was Nixon, Nixon did it. It's why we can't have nice things anymore.
burke Avatar
Posted: 10.10.09, 05:46 PM
So let me get this straight, Chomsky is indignated not that the public and audience are under the influence of an entity which according to him fuels their anger and gives them reasons for political activism, instigates them and they act like sheep (the Limbaugh & Savage segment); no he is indignated that these people are not representing the left and their activism which he confuses with ideology is not on his side. I have seen many of his talks and have read his essays but I see something troubling here, judging from D. Rushkoff's recent blunders, and other confusions; that media theorists just cant keep up with the current progress in information. Chomsky is from a generation when things were more black and white, he should re-think everything. He sounds too much like a bizarro Limbaugh: the right-wingers, Reagan did it , Reagan did it. It's 2009 ffs.
SNS Avatar
SNS + Staff
Posted: 10.10.09, 02:50 PM
I think that Kennedy's historian and friend Arthur Schlessinger summed it up in saying of Chomsky that "it has long been impossible to take anything he says seriously" and adding "One can only conclude that Chomsky's idea of the responsibility of an intellectual is to forswear reasoned analysis, indulge in moralistic declamation, fabricate evidence when necessary and shout, always at the top of one's voice." That pretty much nails it.
earthborg Avatar
Posted: 10.10.09, 02:13 PM
In Tyler Durden we trust.
Lamont Cranston Avatar
Lamont Cranston
Posted: 10.10.09, 05:26 AM
Thats an interesting take on some vague ideas about Universal Healthcare or some nebulous suggestions of progressive taxation turbobrain, some questions: Where were these angry people during Dubyas taxcuts for the rich, PATRIOT ACT, the invasion & occupation of Afganistan and Iraq for just four examples? If its nothing to do with any rightwing agenda, then why are the groups organising this funded by and the people organising and speaking in the media from the same rightwing think tanks/policy groups paid for by the healthcrare industry or rich folk who think they dont have to pay taxes? Its hard to not see a connection.
turbobrain Avatar
Posted: 10.10.09, 03:54 AM
I think the idea that people are responding to extreme right wing media is off the mark. People are angry because the government is running right over them with no consideration for ethics or the constitution. People should not tolerate this and should fight back, this is what we are seeing. It is not organized by the right wing media. It is called the liberty movement! And it is all over the country.

Advertisement ticker