Chomsky is one of the greatest intellectuals of our time. The man has nothing to lose and nothing to gain by voicing his thoughts. Too bad he is getting up there in age but hopefully we will enjoy his presence for many more years.
This is undoubtedly true. He is one of the most cited authors of all time.
It is unfortunate that the american media does not give him the attention he deserves. In fact, in Europe Noam Chomsky and his opinions are very highly regarded and his writings are taught in schools. I am Greek (living in the U.S for the last 5 years) and I was first introduced to Noam Chomsky during a writing class in my (public) high school.
I guess the fact that he is an anarchist and very often criticizes the U.S government and foreign policy does not make him popular within the U.S.
Btw, some of us, no matter what country we are from, need to understand that when someone criticizes our country's government and its actions, it does not mean automatically that they are criticizing us. I honestly find it very naive when someone defends their government's policies just because they feel somehow they have to do so.
The first time, I saw his opinions re USA's/NATO's intervention in ex-Yugoslavia. It just seemed like conspiracy theories, especially when I googled and found his apologetics for the Khmer Rouge (before they were found to be massmurding crazies).
The second time, I got a link to a Chomsky interview. I got shocked -- Chomsky claimed that he didn't talk about the Sudan atrocities, because he couldn't influence much. WTF?! If the most famous academic US-critic, beloved by dictators, publicly condemned the Darfur handling etc by Sudan's government as 1000 times worse than what he complained about Israel, it would have an effect...
I wrote Chomsky off as another effect of the US right/left being equally crazy. Here in Europe we mostly get the left crazies, so he is big. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe. It seems to me Chomsky argues by (correctly) noting that governments lie a lot -- then he comes with really weird explanations to what really happens.
2. I discussed an interview with Chomsky, where he himself discussed why he didn't criticize X. I noted his motivation was just not rational/true/etc. So your Venezuelan claims about an example are doubly irrelevant.
Despite being atheist/agnostic, he takes this principle straight from the Bible: "How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Matthew 7:4-5
(Chomsky is probably bigger outside USA. E.g. the Milosevic regime was a big fan.)
I don't really care why an analysis have very different standards for different countries/companies/etc, that just isn't a quality sign... It doesn't seem more serious if the double standards are motivated by "Hey, I'm a self-hater..."
Also, Chomsky has always been severely critical of authoritarian and violent regimes across the world; the reason he has focused disproportionally on American regimes is due to the moral principle I referenced above.
1. I point out that Chomsky's motivation for not engaging in Sudan's problems (no influence) are just not serious; his involvement would have very probably made a big difference and potentially saved many lives.
2. You claim that Chomsky think it is more important to complain about USA. (+)
3. I answer that I don't really care why someone has double standards for different groups/countries/religions/etc.
4. You play linguistic games with half of a term I use ("self-hater").
5. I say bye bye.
(+) Not relevant anyway, except as a form of explanation of why, not an argument Chomsky's position was serious.
For example, the CIA helps traffic opium/heroin across the world. That sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it's true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Politics_of_Heroin_in_South...
No government is to be trusted not to manipulate the population through fear. That should be taught in grade school.
Here are his comments in 1977 regarding the reported genocide in Cambodia [1]: "We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered. Evidence that focuses on the American role, like the Hildebrand and Porter volume, is ignored, not on the basis of truthfulness or scholarship but because the message is unpalatable."
And on the veracity of reports about horrific slaughter made by Cambodian refugees: "Refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocuters wish to hear. While these reports must be considered seriously, care and caution are necessary. Specifically, refugees questioned by Westerners or Thais have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of Cambodian revolutionaries, an obvious fact that no serious reporter will fail to take into account."
Did Chomsky show poor judgement by discounting such refugee reports? Was the evidence of genocide really so muddy in 1977 that you could not 'know where the truth lies'?
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskygatekepper26sep05....
https://startpage.com/do/search?query=chomsky+gatekeeper
Bio of the author of the first article - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-abrahamson
(Has the mention of this simple possibility offended you? If you think it's impossible, tell me why.)
I prefer the idea that an extraordinary amount of certainty requires extraordinary proof. Skepticism should be the default position.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_wor...
That doesn't make Hitchens' intellect any less entertaining, but if you look closely at his worldview it's clear that he willfully indulged a big blind spot for the follies of state power and coercive force. Rand would surely agree with my assessment.
I'd say what you're doing here is "emotional thinking". Try being more rational when thinking.
When you love your country, you actually have the duty to point things out that are wrong. That's the only way problems can be corrected. Otherwise it would mean you're ok with your country decaying.
(Just like with your boy/girlfriend or husband - if you love them, you need to openly talk about the problems.)