Chomsky on Globalization...

Hasn't John Perkin's credibility been questioned? He has been put into the "conspriacy theorist" category by some.

 

oops ie; gmos

 

maybe who and what do you belive? do you dout that what he says happens?

 

Hey man, thanks a lot for tellling me about this. I've read the book and it was wonderful but I had no idea that he was on DemocracyNow! That's awesome. I'll have to find that interview.
If anyone wants to download DemocracyNow! shows go to http://www.onebigtorrent.org/ They frequently post new ones; I watch as many as I can download.

 

You can expect some blowback from writing a book like that. You do make some powerful enemies.
Perkin's response to the State Dept. accusations of conspiracy:
"Although unconscious, deceived, and - in many cases - self-deluded, these players were not members of any clandestine conspiracy; rather, they were the product of a system that promotes the most subtle and effective form of imperialism the world has ever witnessed."

Although, I did find his lack of references at certain points in the book disappointing myself.

 

What some see as conspiracy theorists, may in the future turn out to be the real truth tellers. I listen to all points of view and weigh them against my own experience. I think that's all any of us can do.

 

Chomsky rules this is an incredible thread with all these links, thanks Motion

Power to the people

 

i lost all respect/trust in chomsky when i found out he's against the 1st amendment.

 

[font=&quot]I call BS. Citation please.

He's certainly not against free speech:
“Chomsky has stated that he believes the United States remains the ‘greatest country in the world,’[/font][font=&quot][34][/font][font=&quot] a comment that he later clarified by saying, ‘Evaluating countries is senseless and I would never put things in those terms, but that some of America's advances, particularly in the area of free speech, that have been achieved by centuries of popular struggle, are to be admired.’"[/font][font=&quot][35][/font][font=&quot]
[/font][font=&quot]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky#Political_views[/font][font=&quot]
“Chomsky is often sharply critical of other governments who suppress [/font][font=&quot]free speech[/font][font=&quot], most controversially in the [/font][font=&quot]Faurisson affair[/font][font=&quot] but also of the suppression of [/font][font=&quot]free speech[/font][font=&quot] in [/font][font=&quot]Turkey[/font][font=&quot].”
[/font][font=&quot]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Noam_Chomsky#Criticism_of_United_States_government[/font][font=&quot]

If you've read his (arguably most important) book [/font][font=&quot]Manucaturing Consent[/font][font=&quot] then you would know that he's not against freedom of the press, quite the opposite in fact.

Considering the fact that he's been to countless demonstrations I wouldn't say that he's against freedom of assembly:


I've seen his name on several petitions, usually published on/in Zmag. He can’t be against those then. I’d go as far to say that his entire life of political activism has been a verbal “petition [to] the Government for a redress of grievances.”

[/font]That leaves freedom of religion. I don’t know his views on religion because he seems to keep his politics and his beliefs on religious issues sharply separate. But there are plenty of scattered passages in his books where he admires and defends peace activists of all religious colors. Plus, he was brought up in a devout Jewish household. I seriously doubt that he’s against freedom of religion.

I'm not saying Chomsky's a saint, but I see no evidence whatsoever to support a claim that he's against the 1st Amendment.

 

two words; speech codes. he admitted to supporting them on penn & teller's bullshit

P.S i dont want to derail this thread so if it goes to a speech code debate we can have it in another thread, maybe in the politics or protest forum : D

 

Well, as the original thread author I endorse extending the thread to cover some of Chomsky's other views as the original discussion has tapered off momentarily.
I haven't seen the episode you referenced here but I’d be very interested in reading the transcript if you can find one.


After watching a few episodes of Bullshit! I concluded that the title of the show was an apt description of any viewpoint “gained” by watching it. It’s doesn’t even attempt any form of integrity concerning the development of meaningful political thought, and only serves as a megaphone for Penn & Tellers’ personal viewpoints &, surprise!, entertainment. These so called “libertarians” (I view myself as a type of libertarian, but certainly don’t agree with much of the crap they spew) use their editing advantage of the show to slice people’s arguments into unintelligible rants, overly reduce people to concision, consult only their preferred “experts”, and to top it all off they hardly ever challenge people to their face. Most of the time (out of the episodes I’ve seen) they unabashedly and cowardly voice over their arguments after the interview has taken place, therefore eliminating the chance at the interviewee’s rebuttal! For a couple who supposedly hold so much respect for freedom of speech they sure do seem to take extreme steps on their show to gain more unchecked say, make their opinions seem loftier, & get the last word all the while avoiding providing their opponents with a fair playing field. All that said, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if any of this occurred in the Chomsky “interview” with P&T. Nor would I be surprised if his words were taken out of context, cowardly dub rebuttaled, and/or mutilated for the sake of entertainment, or for P&T to score points without inciting a true debate with the philosopher.


Anyway, the 1st amendment is about much more than just freedom of speech, and I still think anyone would be hard pressed to prove that Chomsky is against either considering his overwhelming work in defending both.
Again, I haven’t seen the episode in question but I can cite at least one example of Chomsky opposing speech codes (albeit not in the US): The Faurisson Affair.


Given that the episode's content does endorse what you’ve claimed, don’t you think that claiming to have “lost all respect/trust” for someone just because of their view on a single menial issue like speech codes, especially when Chomsky has voiced strong opinions on issues that actually impact the lives of infinitely larger numbers of people, is a bit harsh? To me this attitude sounds more like the product of Bullshit! propaganda than meaningful political thought.


Again, I don’t think Chomsky is a perfect saint, nor do I think any human being is, and I personally take issue with several of his viewpoints/actions and also think that his ideas/actions should be looked at critically, as with anyone in a position such as his. But the criticisms being raised here just hardly warrant discussion. Real threats to peoples’ freedom abound.