UN Chompsky plug

[joft]

Chavez Calls Bush 'Devil,' Assails U.S. Policies (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6111992)

http://www.npr.org/news/images/2006/sep/20/ap/chavez_200.jpg


Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez took the podium at the United Nations, where he launched his latest verbal salvo against President Bush and U.S. world influence. Making the sign of the cross, Chavez described Bush as "the devil" and decried Washington's misuse of its far-reaching power.

Speaking through an interpreter, Chavez called on nations to rise up against what he called America's hegemony. He even had some recommended reading for his colleagues: Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance.

US Ambassador John Bolton said the remarks did not even warrant a reply, but he did give his own recommended reading: The Holy Bible, by God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, edited by the Apostle Paul and published by King James

[joft]

i called my dad and asked him if he saw the thing about chavez on FOX news and he said yes, so i asked him if they said anything about chompsky and he said not really, just that he was a dissident. chompsky is marginalized in the US media- they don't talk about him, or ever invite him to speak or anything like that. i was thinking, if only! if only they let him on, he would say things that nobody would be able to deny, and suddenly the majority of americans would be converted. i of course knew that this wouldn't be true, that it wouldn't result in anything different.

so then i was wondering, when you have someone as intelligent and convincing as chompsky and what he's saying is so obviously right, how can people still just deny it? and i realized, well, it helps if you already have the same worldview and agree with everything he says, duh

in class today we watched this video of a woman with disorganized schizophrenia being interviewed, and she kept talking about Jesus sending her messages, and making shotgun noises to threaten her, and generally playing a large part in her delusions and hallucinations, and i was thinking- i wish i could show this video to my religious parents. the point would be to show the link between religious thinking and insanity, which is obvious and irrefutable of course- plain for all to see, if they only would watch that video. but then just now i realized they would just attribute her behavior to demonic possession and insist that the devil was deceiving her and masquerading as Jesus in her mind

god damnit, you just can't win, can you?

it's interesting how i've concluded these debates on their behalf, without ever bringing it up to them. this is both the curse and blessing of being an introverted perceiving intuitive

[Ymir]

someone as intelligent and convincing as chompsky and what he's saying is so obviously right

=))

[ObtainGnosis]

It's funny all of the hoopla over this. I can't help but find myself amused over a public figure calling Bush Satan, but it's not really news, doesn't really mean anything, and it has no bearing on the world. It's simply another distraction, emphasized by the American media so as to keep us thinking that really thinking about and discussing politics occurs in this sort of diatribe--arbitrary bickering over one political figure's opinion of another--so we never get to the real meat and potatoes, such as things that Chomsky talks about (the stuff we never hear), and that's why he's marginalized, and that's a frequent topic of his writing, lecturing, etc. Basically, I just wanted to say that I love Chomsky. Really though, it's my suspicion that the majority of the American public are unable to follow a train of thought for long enough to actually comprehend some of the things Chomsky discusses. If it takes longer than a minute to explain and therefore contains something besides mundane political platitudes, the great mass has no ear for it and no power of comprehension. Chavez reading Chomsky...that's funny too. Wonder what Noam thinks of all this.

[demagogic_schizoid]

i called my dad and asked him if he saw the thing about chavez on FOX news and he said yes, so i asked him if they said anything about chompsky and he said not really, just that he was a dissident. chompsky is marginalized in the US media- they don't talk about him, or ever invite him to speak or anything like that. i was thinking, if only! if only they let him on, he would say things that nobody would be able to deny,

Are you being funny on purpose?

Chumpsky lies (http://www.jim.com/chomsdis.htm)

This (http://www.paulbogdanor.com/100chomskylies.pdf#search=%22chomsky%20lies%22) is also good, but you have to download it.

[Nemesis]

I particularly liked the comment Hugo made:

"It still smells like sulfur in here."

[MacGuffin]

I particularly liked the comment Hugo made:

"It still smells like sulfur in here."

Farts can really linger.

[Nemesis]

Farts can really linger.
:lol: That too.

[joft]

Are you being funny on purpose?

Chumpsky lies (http://www.jim.com/chomsdis.htm)

This (http://www.paulbogdanor.com/100chomskylies.pdf#search=%22chomsky%20lies%22) is also good, but you have to download it.
those guys have a lot of time on their hands. i read a bunch of it however, and a lot of it seemed like nitpicking, and some of it seemed downright questionable (like citing a 2002 UK Times article as proof that the US and Britain supplied only like 1% of Saddam's weapons while other countries supplied the rest

but thanks for the link, i especially like criticism of people/ideas that i usually agree with and have a hard time finding fault in (that doesn't bear well with my P)

[omnirook]

Are you being funny on purpose?

Chumpsky lies (http://www.jim.com/chomsdis.htm)

This (http://www.paulbogdanor.com/100chomskylies.pdf#search=%22chomsky%20lies%22) is also good, but you have to download it.

Oooo, we agree about something! Chomsky is an over-rated, overpaid imbecile who's learned the carny trick of using big words, hoping that the rubes won't bother to look up anything. I've never cared for Chomsky, but even right-wingers swear that he's a genius. I think he's a dunce who's taking up a seat at MIT and wasting a lot of time, ink, and paper ... Oh, just so you don't get the wrong idea - there are plenty on the right wing who are just as stupid/clever and who know how to make a fat living selling overblown verbiage to a poorly educated and easily impressed public.

[MasterMerk]

Chomsky can be black and white in his evaluations. Most, if not all of the underlying points he makes about world power structures are essentially true, but it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. He also always seems to defend the underdog, cushioning their own faults. As for his moral principles, mine are similar and thus I cannot fault him for them, heh.

[Madrigal]

Oooo, we agree about something! Chomsky is an over-rated, overpaid imbecile who's learned the carny trick of using big words,

I'm seriously wondering if you've read Chomsky. He may be a linguist - if that's what gives you the impression he might use "big words" - but the guy writes in a very simple and concise way.

What I like best about this Chavez episode is all the liberals wrinkling their nose at him in disdain and thinking, "I wonder what Chomsky will say", then Chomsky comes right out and agrees, "duh, the US is the biggest threat to world peace, far above Iran." Heh. I love it.

That and the sulphur comment. Great television.

[Heleuiski]

I'm seriously wondering if you've read Chomsky. He may be a linguist - if that's what gives you the impression he might use "big words" - but the guy writes in a very simple and concise way.

What I like best about this Chavez episode is all the liberals wrinkling their nose at him in disdain and thinking, "I wonder what Chomsky will say", then Chomsky comes right out and agrees, "duh, the US is the biggest threat to world peace, far above Iran." Heh. I love it.

That and the sulphur comment. Great television.

It was great TV. Someone freely taking the michael out of Bush, classic.

Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it.
Noam Chomsky

[Nemesis]

What I like best about this Chavez episode is all the liberals wrinkling their nose at him in disdain and thinking
Actually, democrats all over the United States were discreetly high-fiving when he said it :)

[sbw]

it's interesting how i've concluded these debates on their behalf, without ever bringing it up to them.

:lol:

welcome back, :joft:.

Scott

[Dr. Haight]

(Sorry, but the 'p' that was added to Chomsky was driving me crazy - umm, more crazy.)

[Heleuiski]

Has Bush come back with a response yet?

[sbw]

Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it.
Noam Chomsky

legalizing heroin would be an even better idea.

Scott

[Heleuiski]

legalizing heroin would be an even better idea.

Scott

Er no.

[sbw]

Er no.

do you disagree that it would reduce the amount of money currently flowing to Actual Terrorists?

Scott

[sbw]

(Sorry, but the 'p' that was added to Chomsky was driving me crazy - umm, more crazy.)

:lol:

Scott

[Madrigal]

do you disagree that it would reduce the amount of money currently flowing to Actual Terrorists?

Scott

That's a bit naive. What about the money flowing from drugs to US Terrorism?


The truth is that since the invasion of Afghanistan's the opium production has skyrocketed. Although the Taliban had virtually stamped out poppy production, the country now accounts for two-third of the world's heroin.

A report in US Portland Independent Media sheds light on the situation:

"Before 1980, Afghanistan produced 0% of the world's opium. But then the CIA moved in, and by 1986 they were producing 40% of the world's heroin supply. By 1999, they were churning out 3,200 TONS of heroin a year * nearly 80% of the total market supply. But then something unexpected happened. The Taliban rose to power, and by 2000 they had destroyed nearly all of the opium fields. Production dropped from 3,000+ tons to only 185 tons, a 94% reduction!"

Only belatedly did major news outlets like the Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press and the Washington Post begin to acknowledge, in stories placed well back in the paper, and with much less emphasis, that the Northern Alliance ? their allies against the Taliban ? were in real control of the heroin trade. Smuggling routes have shifted from south through Pakistan northward through Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan.

Indeed there is compelling evidence that the US and the western capitalist establishments (via the CIA) are directly involved in narco-trafficing. Investigative journalist Mike Ruppert commented:

"Until February, Afghanistan had been the world's largest producer of opium/heroin, claiming close to 70% of the world's total production. That opium, consumed largely in Western Europe and smuggled through the Balkans, was a direct source of cash deposits in Western financial institutions and markets.

... Prior to the WTC attacks, credible sources, including the U.S. government, the IMF, Le Monde and the U.S. Senate placed the amount of drug cash flowing into Wall Street and U.S. banks at around $250-$300 billion a year.?

This US involvement in narco-trafficking suggests a compelling interest on the part of the capitalist establishment (including Big Energy, Banks, Wall Street and arms dealers) to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. With the giants of industry on board, its no surprise they whipped up pre-war hysteria on front pages and TVs across the western world. Virtually, every major institution in American life (including the Congress) is committed to this new crusade.

[demagogic_schizoid]

What is the source of that article?

[Rhu]

He may be a linguist - if that's what gives you the impression he might use "big words" - but the guy writes in a very simple and concise way.

Indeed, much of Chomsky's most famous work in linguistics has been in the field of defining and classifying the differences between regular and natural languages. His work is therefore unsurprisingly cited in texts in mathematical linguistic theory and computational linguistics.





:nerd:

[wildcat]

Chavez Calls Bush 'Devil,' Assails U.S. Policies (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6111992)

http://www.npr.org/news/images/2006/sep/20/ap/chavez_200.jpg



US Ambassador John Bolton said the remarks did not even warrant a reply, but he did give his own recommended reading: The Holy Bible, by God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, edited by the Apostle Paul and published by King James
I had never much for Chomsky. The great genius evaded me.
Noam is a way too much an EJ.
He does not get the picture. Not in linguistics.
Less in world politics.

He is a simpleton.

[omnirook]

I'm seriously wondering if you've read Chomsky. He may be a linguist - if that's what gives you the impression he might use "big words" - but the guy writes in a very simple and concise way.

What I like best about this Chavez episode is all the liberals wrinkling their nose at him in disdain and thinking, "I wonder what Chomsky will say", then Chomsky comes right out and agrees, "duh, the US is the biggest threat to world peace, far above Iran." Heh. I love it.

That and the sulphur comment. Great television.

I have read him. Needless to say, I did not care for his work. I don't care if he and I are often politically close - that does not make him intelligent or a good writer - or a true scholar ... It's not so much the size of his words, no; it's his tendency to write in a scholarly fashion while leaving himself open to being torn apart by the handful of people in the world who are not too lazy to look up his footnotes. Charges against the level of his scholarship are not new - the source linked by demagogic_schizoid was hardly the first such that I have seen. Chomsky has also been widely criticized for blatant hypocrisy: he lives in a waterfront mansion, in an all-white, terribly exclusive area and, in his personal life, shows none of the "wisdom" that he preaches - he's got as many lawyers, accountants, and estate planners as any multimillion-dollar media darling who rakes in huge piles as a result of the "guru" status that he has built up over 3 decades of very careful self-promtion. Why does he have an agent? Why does he have a pr consultant? Why does he ride about in a gas-guzzler, if you want to say that he needs those other things? He's full of shit. Like any Hollywood celebrity whose heart bleeds as long as the cameras are rolling ... His justification when asked, "Why should I deprive myself?"

[ptGatsby]

He's full of shit.


I think he's realistic. I may not have a high opinion of everything he says, but he defends - and is one of the sole strong defenders - some of the basic rights that are (not so slowly) being stripped away.

He doesn't have to be a perfect, ideal or nice person to be correct. He's not stupid... he fights to win. Its nice to be an idealist in a harsh world... to maryr oneself... but he's taken a voice against those that would strip away certain rights. At least it is a voice.

[Claverhouse]

(Sorry, but the 'p' that was added to Chomsky was driving me crazy - umm, more crazy.)

I thought it too funny to correct.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[demagogic_schizoid]

Claverhouse is right. Also, calling him chompsky was kind of appropriate. It makes him sound suitably comical. Plus it's the sort of parody you might do of a post by someone who likes Chomsky, but it was real!

[omnirook]

I think he's realistic. I may not have a high opinion of everything he says, but he defends - and is one of the sole strong defenders - some of the basic rights that are (not so slowly) being stripped away.

He doesn't have to be a perfect, ideal or nice person to be correct. He's not stupid... he fights to win. Its nice to be an idealist in a harsh world... to maryr oneself... but he's taken a voice against those that would strip away certain rights. At least it is a voice.

I'll give him that. Yes. And I agree w/many of his assertions - but - if he weren't full of shit, he'd not live the life of a grandee while pleading his case. It looks bad - it makes it seem (even if it isn't so) that he's found a good mount to carry him to the place where all the people he's criticizing can be found ... St Francis was also correct - and he would have died for being correct, if the plague had not gotten to him first - but at least he did not rail against the power-brokers and the money interests while living in a palace w/a team of monk-scribes to keep his books in order ... No, no one is perfect, but at least Caesar understood reality - you can't complain about the system if you're blatantly benefitting from it, even luxuriating in it. Though a blue-blooded patrician on both sides of his family, when Caesar aligned himself w/the common people, he undertook to forget snobbery. If Chomsky wishes to criticize the ruling elite, he cannot live among them, live as they do, and still remain credible. It just isn't done. And if he weren't a greedy, self-promoting bag of hot air, he'd know that.

[wildcat]

I do not say Chomsky is a charlatan. He honestly
believes in the nonsense.

The cowards tend to have a faith in their doctrine.

[Rhu]

I'll give him that. Yes. And I agree w/many of his assertions - but - if he weren't full of shit, he'd not live the life of a grandee while pleading his case. It looks bad - it makes it seem (even if it isn't so) that he's found a good mount to carry him to the place where all the people he's criticizing can be found ... St Francis was also correct - and he would have died for being correct, if the plague had not gotten to him first - but at least he did not rail against the power-brokers and the money interests while living in a palace w/a team of monk-scribes to keep his books in order ... No, no one is perfect, but at least Caesar understood reality - you can't complain about the system if you're blatantly benefitting from it, even luxuriating in it. Though a blue-blooded patrician on both sides of his family, when Caesar aligned himself w/the common people, he undertook to forget snobbery. If Chomsky wishes to criticize the ruling elite, he cannot live among them, live as they do, and still remain credible. It just isn't done. And if he weren't a greedy, self-promoting bag of hot air, he'd know that.

So all self-critique is hypocritical and invalid?

[omnirook]

So all self-critique is hypocritical and invalid?

What self-critique? When he appears in public, though a multi-millionaire, he dresses like a 1/2-starved Fine Arts professor who has to work part-time at 7/11 to make the rent. Then he acts the befuddled bookworm who's surprised to find himself in the harsh glare of the spotlights - even though he pocketed the fat check for making his appearance before strolling nonchalantly into the room. He doesn't criticize himself - he criticizes the greed of Corporate America. OK - Corporate America is obscenely greedy and does deserve criticism - but what's the old saying about glass houses and throwing stones?

By the by - Michael Moore is even worse. His private life makes Chomsky's look spartan.

[Rhu]

What self-critique? When he appears in public, though a multi-millionaire, he dresses like a 1/2-starved Fine Arts professor who has to work part-time at 7/11 to make the rent. Then he acts the befuddled bookworm who's surprised to find himself in the harsh glare of the spotlights - even though he pocketed the fat check for making his appearance before strolling nonchalantly into the room. He doesn't criticize himself - he criticizes the greed of Corporate America. OK - Corporate America is obscenely greedy and does deserve criticism - but what's the old saying about glass houses and throwing stones?

Okay. So the rich can't make fun of the rich unless they are sharply dressed, lest that invalidate their arguments?

[omnirook]

Okay. So the rich can't make fun of the rich unless they are sharply dressed, lest that invalidate their arguments?

A button-pusher, a pusher of buttons ... :nono:

[ptGatsby]

A button-pusher, a pusher of buttons ...


But he has a point. Which do you prefer? The guy who speaks for certain freedoms you agree with, but is not what you expect him to be (inconsistent, etc)... or the guy who takes the freedoms away from you, but is what you expect him to be?

[sbw]

maybe nobody would listen to chomsky if he wasn't rich. nobody listens to me.

thus, the importance of the message would justify the wealth as a means of access to the forum in which the message is to be heard. or something.

Scott

[omnirook]

But he has a point. Which do you prefer? The guy who speaks for certain freedoms you agree with, but is not what you expect him to be (inconsistent, etc)... or the guy who takes the freedoms away from you, but is what you expect him to be?

It's not about dealing w/lil' ole pragmatic me - it's about being credible. Don't you get it? If Chomsky were more than an indulged-by-the-ruling-elites bag of fart, if he were a real threat, believe me, he'd be cut up into mulch w/little effort - his whole fucking sideshow would fold as soon the media began to harp on his wealth and luxurious life-style: he's so easy to discredit that it's a wonder he leaves his house! ... I'm no one to talk. I've got a nice pile of money and a very nice home and I even wear tailor-made suits - and I'm left-wing - BUT - I'm nobody's voice, I'm not one of the few left-wing media darlings, and I'm not expecting anyone to take me seriously in any way - just look at my avatar! ... I may have intellectual pretensions, but I hardly consider myself a scholar ...

[omnirook]

maybe nobody would listen to chomsky if he wasn't rich. nobody listens to me.

thus, the importance of the message would justify the wealth as a means of access to the forum in which the message is to be heard. or something.

Scott

Possibly. But his forum was academia - a world where the poor can still play if they are brilliant enough. And academics are very influential, don't kid yourself.

[Stoic]

Oooo, we agree about something! Chomsky is an over-rated, overpaid imbecile who's learned the carny trick of using big words, hoping that the rubes won't bother to look up anything. I've never cared for Chomsky, but even right-wingers swear that he's a genius. I think he's a dunce who's taking up a seat at MIT and wasting a lot of time, ink, and paper ... Oh, just so you don't get the wrong idea - there are plenty on the right wing who are just as stupid/clever and who know how to make a fat living selling overblown verbiage to a poorly educated and easily impressed public.

Imbeciles don't usually accomplish the following:

According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992 Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar, and the eighth most cited source overall.

Let me guess, you're not a leftist.

[ptGatsby]

And academics are very influential, don't kid yourself.


On the part about credibility... its not lack of credibility that hurts 'the cause', its the lack of exposure.

Can you name another academic that has said similar things to him... and if so, how many do you think know the name?

If he lives well doing that, the more power to him.

[omnirook]

Imbeciles don't usually accomplish the following:

According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992 Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar, and the eighth most cited source overall.

Let me guess, you're not a leftist.

Your guess is wrong - I am rather left-leaning.

Where does the Bible come on your list of cited sources? People quote that pile of ink-stained wastepaper all the time, expecting it to prove this, that, and the other - don't care. I read Chomsky for myself - there's some good stuff, here and there, sprinkled about like shaved truffle on a mountain of dog shit. What can I say? He doesn't impress me. If you like him, fine.

[joft]

change my goddamn title back, god damnit

[Dr. Haight]

Whatever.

[MasterMerk]

I have read him. Needless to say, I did not care for his work. I don't care if he and I are often politically close - that does not make him intelligent or a good writer - or a true scholar ... It's not so much the size of his words, no; it's his tendency to write in a scholarly fashion while leaving himself open to being torn apart by the handful of people in the world who are not too lazy to look up his footnotes. Charges against the level of his scholarship are not new - the source linked by demagogic_schizoid was hardly the first such that I have seen. Chomsky has also been widely criticized for blatant hypocrisy: he lives in a waterfront mansion, in an all-white, terribly exclusive area and, in his personal life, shows none of the "wisdom" that he preaches - he's got as many lawyers, accountants, and estate planners as any multimillion-dollar media darling who rakes in huge piles as a result of the "guru" status that he has built up over 3 decades of very careful self-promtion. Why does he have an agent? Why does he have a pr consultant? Why does he ride about in a gas-guzzler, if you want to say that he needs those other things? He's full of shit. Like any Hollywood celebrity whose heart bleeds as long as the cameras are rolling ... His justification when asked, "Why should I deprive myself?"

This is just ad hominem nit-picking. Considering his high profile, I'm not too surprised.

As for Chavez, he ain't nearly as bad as the propoganda machine seems to make him out to be. To see people call him - a (more than once) democratically elected, extremely popular "threat to democracy" makes me cringe. At least he's done some good things for his people, and strengthened inter-Latin American ties.

[RottenApple]

I'm rather left wing but I'm not a big fan of Chomsky.

I agree with Wildcat's EJ analogy. He has no problem collecting all the facts but fails to understsnd how it comes together. I have a problem with anyone that paints such a black and white picture. As MaterMerk pointed out, He also always seems to defend the underdog, cushioning their own faults

I also get the feeling that the Novelty of Chomsky is what makes him so popular in the US. Left wing-anti-west sentiment is old hat in my country to the point that it's starting to become somewhat banal. Americans gain moral upper-ground by quoting Chomsky....over here it's a quick way to brand yourself as a wannabe.

[omnirook]

On the part about credibility... its not lack of credibility that hurts 'the cause', its the lack of exposure.

Can you name another academic that has said similar things to him... and if so, how many do you think know the name?

If he lives well doing that, the more power to him.

Wittgenstein. Also a linguist. Also left-wing. Also famous beyond the academic world.

[dubbeltop]

I wonder what would happen to Chavez if his country(Venezuela) ran out off oil.

Mr. Chavez is just another maverick general who thinks the world needs his opinion so bad but he forgets that he doesn't live in America or any other rich industrialised country.

I hope that he starts reading some more entertaining lecture because the economy is the least of his worries. Maybe he should travel to Dubai and learn first hand what to do with his petro dollars.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela will hold presidential elections on 3 December 2006. A president will be elected for a six-year term, to begin on 10 January 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_presidential_election%2C_2006

[ptGatsby]

Wittgenstein. Also a linguist. Also left-wing. Also famous beyond the academic world.


Ermm... you are talking about Ludwig Wittgenstein? Do we have one that hasn't been dead for 50+ years?

And if I'm not mistaken, he wasn't that politically active, nor did he publish much at all... though most of his work was saved and spread.

But I'll agree that he was far superior to Noam in every way. That's the problem, outside of those who have taken philosophy or associated works... no one will really know who he is. And certainly not for his view on politics, or application of this ethical theories.

[PenguinHunter]

Ermm... you are talking about Ludwig Wittgenstein? Do we have one that hasn't been dead for 50+ years?

And if I'm not mistaken, he wasn't that politically active, nor did he publish much at all... though most of his work was saved and spread.

But I'll agree that he was far superior to Noam in every way. That's the problem, outside of those who have taken philosophy or associated works... no one will really know who he is. And certainly not for his view on politics, or application of this ethical theories.

Ward Chruchill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill) kind of fits the description. He's more well known these days because of some media controversy over his recent works.

There has also been some investigation into plagarism but a final decision hasn't been reached. I haven't been following it much so I don't have any views on his guilt or innocence. He has definitely rubbed a lot of people the wrong way so my gut reaction is to be quite skeptical about the charges until I read a report of the investigation myself - especially with a charge like "disrespectful of Indian oral traditions."

[ptGatsby]

Ward Chruchill kind of fits the description. He's more well known these days because of some media controversy over his recent works.


I must admit, that name didn't ring a bell, until I started reading. Then I remembered some details. He's mostly known for his comparrison to Nazis, I think. Least, that's what rung the bell in my head.

Heh, which is kind of ironic, considering how credible people see him as now :) (not that I believe anything in particular... just a reference to the problem with Noam not being credible because of his lifestyle)

I guess my point is that while I don't like Noam, I can't hold his lifestyle against him. No one else has managed to become a vocal force to offset the 'right'... Well, Moore comes to mind... but if I'm going to dislike someone, its going to me Moore.

[omnirook]

Ermm... you are talking about Ludwig Wittgenstein? Do we have one that hasn't been dead for 50+ years?

And if I'm not mistaken, he wasn't that politically active, nor did he publish much at all... though most of his work was saved and spread.

But I'll agree that he was far superior to Noam in every way. That's the problem, outside of those who have taken philosophy or associated works... no one will really know who he is. And certainly not for his view on politics, or application of this ethical theories.

How about for 30 + years? =)) Lord Bertrand Russell - now he was left wing and very politically active, though he was not a linguist; he was a mathematician/logician and historian of philosophy - and Wittgentstein's mentor!