But I still have hope and I am sure soup10 unlike Chomsky of course has a long list of documented bullet points that explain government's side.
Finally, while Chomsky is obviously a genius well beyond the trite use of that word; he undoubted can be described as both self righteous and egotistical regardless of their justification.
Honestly, Soup10's only real mistake was in suggested that Chomsky's ideas should not be taken seriously. Even if one doesn't agree with him, many will based solely on the position he holds in the pantheon of liberal intelligentsia. Meaning that his words are likely to effect the debase of this issue going forward and should not, therefore, be lightly cast aside.
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20021209.htm
The concept "anti-American" is an interesting one. The counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or military dictatorships, something I wrote about many years ago (see my book Letters from Lexington). Thus, in the old Soviet Union, dissidents were condemned as "anti-Soviet." That's a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture. In contrast, people with even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with ridicule and contempt. Suppose someone in Italy who criticizes Italian state policy were condemned as "anti-Italian." It would be regarded as too ridiculous even to merit laughter. Maybe under Mussolini, but surely not otherwise.
Actually the concept has earlier origins. It was used in the Bible by King Ahab, the epitome of evil, to condemn those who sought justice as "anti-Israel" ("ocher Yisrael," in the original Hebrew, roughly "hater of Israel," or "disturber of Israel"). His specific target was Elijah.
It's interesting to see the tradition in which the people you refer to choose to place themselves. The idea of leaving America because one opposes state policy is another reflection of deep totalitarian commitments. Solzhenitsyn, for example, was forced to leave Russia, against his will, by people with beliefs very much like those you are quoting.
I've heard Chomsky speak about his feelings toward the U.S. a couple times in interviews and it was quite clear that he's devoted to it. (IIRC he even described it as "the greatest country in the world", or agreed with a questioner who so described it. I remember being surprised that he didn't demur at that.) He talked about how he feels much more comfortable with American values than anywhere else he's traveled. But he clearly doesn't like to talk about himself, let alone proclaim national sentiments, so there aren't many instances of this.
The government does not have a "side". It is intended to represent the people. It only needs a side if it must actively support its own preservation.
Consider all the stuff recently revealed by Wikileaks about Iraq and Afghanistan, and also consider the stuff released by Snowden ... None of it had to be kept secret to preserve the government as a whole, the state itself was not threatened in the least bit. All that was threatened were specific (narrow) programs which happen to be things that most Americans would be appalled by if they were known about.
So clearly the "side" these entities of government are on is the "side" of keeping their own actions secret so that the public won't oppose them and shut them down.
That is extremely anti-democratic. Sure we can all empathize with an NSA official who might face prison time if those responsible for the program are brought to justice, but I don't think that kind of empathy ought to prevent us from seeing the programs for what they are.
Please do familiarize yourself with his views on other issues.
Clearly, this is it.
Worth noting, Paul Bogdanor contributed to The Anti-Chomsky Reader : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anti-Chomsky_Reader
While I'm educating myself, I really should tune to Rush Limbaugh to learn about contraception, feminism and LGBT rights.
G-d forbid you read something critical that changes your mind. Much better to hide behind 'criticism is written by people who dislike him, so not worth reading' defense. Perhaps you should consider that they dislike him for a reason.
What I can tell you is that the man is vile - read up on his excuses for Pol Pot, Stalin and the like.
His further assertion that Noam Chomsky attributed the deaths of the Pol Pot era to ''nothing but'' a war-induced famine is an outright lie. Mr. Chomsky (and the present writer, who was co-author with Mr. Chomsky of his published works on Cambodia) went to great pains to stress that there was no doubt that the Khmer Rouge was committing serious crimes, although we took no position on their scale (which was very uncertain at the time).
Also http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2779086.html
This looks interesting, but I've no clue as to the reputation or connections of the source: http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm
The point is rather is not that he is pro ONE particular horrible regime. Rather that he is quick to support ANY (or most) regimes that are anti-american, regardless of what it's actually like - such as Mao's China (in the middle of madness of Cultural Revolution), USSR, etc. The last article you quoted says exactly that - he is quick to support any 'underdog', regardless of if they are good or bad guys.
Bear in mind, though, that "having made statements that, in some way, support X" and "being predominately in favor of X" are two radically different things, if you're trying to get at truth and not just score political points. I am not in favor of dictatorship just because I observe that Stalin correctly believed that 2+2=4. I have not seen anything that leads me to believe that Chomsky is wrong substantially more frequently, or in substantially worse ways, than others who pontificate on the global situation, so I try to challenge his arguments where I disagree with them and don't brush off the person - he is clearly an intelligent man.
Related: http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_...
Well, clearly you will also want to read the criticisms leveled against the hokey "logic" and arguments employed by Bogdanor himself. It is difficult to take Bogdanor seriously as a contribution to the body of knowledge on the topics covered by Chomsky over decades and decades of in-depth study when Bogdanor argues from an unabashedly pro-Israeli nationalist point of view. Views often basted with copious amounts of neo-con jingoism.
Unbiased? Hardly.
I would expect Chomsky supporters with an iota of critical thinking to be able to read them and see for themselves how reliable they are (and not just jump to wikipedia to check who assembled them).
http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2011/06/response-to-paul-bo...
Bogdanor is simply not convincing as a unbiased critique of Chomsky's works. It's tantamount to comparing apples with ... the ebola virus.
The more time passes from each issue, the more clear it becomes - which is why he's not taken seriously anymore. His excuses for tyrannical regimes just because they were anti-American are blatant.
We should all be thankful that we don't live in a world he wishes were true - that was already done on massive scale in Russia and millions have suffered as a result.
Would I like to live in peace and prosperity in Chomsky's dream anarcho-liberal world? Of course. Do I think humanity can get there in the next hundred years. No way. We are all allowed to dream, but thank goodness some of us are also realistic.
(Don't hide behind a throwaway... peasant)
The fourth Amendment to the Constitution is: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
When I was young, there was a president named Richard Nixon. It's probable he sent a bunch of burglars to the Democratic National Committee campaign headquarters at the Watergate hotel to do some espionage to try to fix the election his way. It's known he tried to illegally cover up this break-in - there's an audio tape of him doing this. He also was involved in a more extensive and illegal effort to fix the election and eavesdrop and conduct espionage on his political opponents. Later revelations showed the FBI was going beyond its mandate as well, sometimes to the ignorance of the Congress (such as an FBI-run political campaign against Martin Luther King Jr.) This happened in my lifetime, so fears of such things are not out of place. The tyrannical English king acted the same way in the 18th century, it's probably why fresh in the founding fathers midns they put such things in the Constitution.
Chomsky praises Snowden, and opposes bureaucratic attacks on the fourth amendment consitutional rights of Americans. For this you call him "un-American". Supporting the fourth amendment constitutional rights of innocent Americans to not have their fourth amendment rights violated is anti-American?
Here is what Chomsky says about the charge of "anti-American":
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20021209.htm
Chomsky: The concept "anti-American" is an interesting one. The counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or military dictatorships, something I wrote about many years ago (see my book Letters from Lexington). Thus, in the old Soviet Union, dissidents were condemned as "anti-Soviet." That's a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture. In contrast, people with even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with ridicule and contempt. Suppose someone in Italy who criticizes Italian state policy were condemned as "anti-Italian." It would be regarded as too ridiculous even to merit laughter. Maybe under Mussolini, but surely not otherwise.
Actually the concept has earlier origins. It was used in the Bible by King Ahab, the epitome of evil, to condemn those who sought justice as "anti-Israel" ("ocher Yisrael," in the original Hebrew, roughly "hater of Israel," or "disturber of Israel"). His specific target was Elijah.
It's interesting to see the tradition in which the people you refer to choose to place themselves. The idea of leaving America because one opposes state policy is another reflection of deep totalitarian commitments. Solzhenitsyn, for example, was forced to leave Russia, against his will, by people with beliefs very much like those you are quoting.