+Craig Dugan Lol anyone who thinks Hillary is a pacifist is disillusioning themselves. 'Don't take my word look at her voting record shes 10X more hawkish than Trump who at the debates said we shouldn't be the policemen of the world.
I have to say, I wish journalists and interviewers would stop trying to make the news, stop trying to interject themselves into stories, sway comments, lead interviewees.
+the81kid There is absolutely nothing wrong with an interviewer who is as knowledgeable and well-steeped in the target topics as Hassan being forthright and provocative in his questioning. The interview with Dawkins is a case in point; he genuinely made the scientist stop and think, and pulled him out of his comfort zone for odd moments. Good work.
+RullyisJRM Chomsky wrote over 100 books and did thousands of interviews, he can handle it just fine. He is extraordinarily intelligent, and the area of science he revolutionized is linguistics.
+Robert Stephens Rational objections to Islam...yeah fine. It wont change a damn thing thou. No western internet warrior will ever reform islam. What we can do is Clean up our own back yard first. Thats what americans most definetly should do instead of going on a rampage against islam.
+daveruda Umm... Is it mutually exclusive? Can one oppose the War in Iraq and oppose Taliban in Afghanistan? Don't Carpet bomb Syria and don't throw acid in the faces of unveiled women, maybe?
Chomsky takes the threat is Islamic extremism seriously enough to want to deal with it properly. This approach of hitting everything with a sledgehammer is making the problem worse, and increasing the threat of terror.
+TheGalmo Charlie Hebdo did not happen 20 years ago. Islam was around 20 years ago as well. What chanced since then? Thats how you beginn to understand what is going on.
+Raul Simeon) That statement is incredibly stupid. The only way you can win a war is to fight as though there is no tomorrow. When we have people in this country who think it was a horrible thing the way the prisoners we had over there were humiliated and the people who did it should be punished. I say as long as our enemy has no problem with cutting off the heads of our men or setting them on fire while they are still alive we should have no shame attached to what we do. The people who have never been in a war do not have the slightest idea how it feels. there is no such thing as a limited war. You should do it and do it as quickly as possible. When Hillary is worried about the Muslim she says are not all bad, that shows she is ignorant. The people of the united states should know by now that we just cannot afford to reelect any politician with experience.
because sam harris constantly destroys him...no person that can make a rational decision takes chomsky seriouse.....im not that brite but i could destroy this fake intilectual in a debate ...it would not matter because you are all kool aid drinkers
Noam Chomsky has this way of absolutely crushing people's dreams without ever changing his demeanour. He gives the shill Sam Harris the attention he deserves.
+Godless Libertarian I think Chomsky is looking at it from the perspective that being we can't have any accurate indication of what the intent was we only have the body count to go by. Its also to my understanding that Harris has defended a form of consequentialism in "The Moral Landscape" and if that's the case then I don't see how intentions can be incorporated into his account of morality and his system maintain its coherence. Also the fact that incidents such as those discussed by Harris and Chomsky(something about a bombing of some African compound, can't exactly remember but you get my point) occur fairly regularly indicate that the US doesn't really put too much thought nor looses too much sleep over the killing of innocent civilians. if they did I would imagine they would be a little more precise and a little more careful about where they put their bombs.
+dsettleascii The bombing you are referring to was Clinton's bombing of Sudan, or to be more precise a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan that was supposed to be creating chemical weapons. You might not like Christopher Hitchens, or you might -- I dont know, but if you thought that Chomsky and Harris had was interesting then you might be interested in the back-and-forth between Chomsky and Hitchens following 9/11. Its an interesting read, but I have come to really dislike Chomsky because of the way he has spoken about this exchange, such as calling Hitchens a "brazen liar" for saying that he (Chomsky) said the Sudanese attack was worse than 9/11. Which he obviously did in the first two sentences of his article he wrote the day after. [humanities.psydeshow.org/political/chomsky-1.htm] the link to "Hitchens' Reply" is on the bottom.
I wish Hitchens was still around; he'd be destroying both Christian and Islamic nonsense, as well as Hillary Clinton's bullshit arguments against Sanders.
+dKim unfortunatly Hitchens was a warhawk, probably a result of his never back down policy about pretty much everything... great man but very wrong on that issue.. would probably have backed clinton for that reason..
+Mehdi Maqboub Hitchens hated Hillary almost as much as the Republicans. He had also identified as a socialist earlier in his life, so he would have likely been with Sanders on everything other than foreign policy.
+Arca Jeth He was a smart man. While he may have been more hawkish than Bernie, he couldn't reconcile Republican anti-science BS and reality. He'd support Bernie, maybe only to be a vote against Clinton or a Republican.
+Lance Covington Probably because you word your comments lazily. It's very easy to see why Haydar might have thought you were implying that he could not understand what Chomsky says, which would be interpreted as a random vicious insult (which is why he responded in an negative way). In fact, I'd be willing to bet that your use of "you" was intended to refer to a general audience rather than Haydar in particular (e.g. "the way he talks calms people down; if people can understand what he is saying"). You can't assume everyone will understand the real intentions of your comments unless you phrase them more carefully.
+Ravi Culleton or EVEN then! .... oh wait! wait!... I mean... THEN, even...! yeah... that's the ticket! ... if yuze know what eye mean... hey? what? did you just call me mean? that's IT... I am so outta here! and the whoarses ya'll rhoades in amongst t2o! . . . . What I mean to say, is yes... words (especially on the internet) are easily miss-taken. IF ONLY Sam and Noam had used more smiley emoti-comes in their devolving email exchange (, ... what? eh? say no more, ...how's the wife? know what I mean? ) ... either that OR had John Cleese interpreting/reading the emails for each of them.... because the way he talks calms ewe down (eh?)
Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky don't understand each other. The fact Noam says "I don't think it's true of Dawkins" is interesting, because Dawkins doesn't think it's true of Harris. Noam just isn't willing to have to discussion, which is too bad because at this point Harris's readership may exceed Chomskys, and more people need to hear what Noam has to say about things.
+bmxxxxxxxx Noam Chomsky is probably the most famous public intellectual in the world (except in the US of course), Sam Harris is known amongst the internet atheist crowd, one needs to be incredibly delusional to think Sam Harris' readership exceeds Chomsky's. There is no 'debate' to be had: the private exchange Harris published is one of the most embarrassing things I have ever read, I'm still shocked Harris would publish that and not understand how
+TheSpiritOfTheTimes I agree with you. I am also confused and don't understand how people can compare them. Chomsky is a true intellectual in every sense of the word. Harris is 48 and hasn't made any significant contributions to any field, like Dawkins, let alone Chomsky, who revolutionized linguistics in his 20s. .
+Julian Angel I don't even think it's about Chomsky's scientific work, it doesnt' really matter in the sense that he's a public intellectual who opines on state affairs and is probably as close to a dissident as you can get in the US, hence why anyone would even think someone like Harris, who is a mere pundit with often very vile opinions which wouldn't be out of place in late 19th century imperial Europe, would have a 'wider readership'.
Julian Angel You're moving the goal post. It's irrelevant whether Sam Harris's PHD means anything. Chomsky's credentials, although impressive, are an appeal to authority. Christopher Hitchens was 62 and also never made any significant contributions to any field. So, what? They're influential. Their arguments matter. Harris needs to move on, however. Chomsky clearly has no interest in discussing anything with him, which I see as a missed opportunity to calm down Sam's rhetoric, and/or his fans'. To this day they haven't discussed anything, yet people are declaring winners and losers, on both sides, when nothing substantial has been explored. I sincerely believe neither one understands the other, having read a bit from both. I'm curious why it is then, that Dawkins supports/agrees with Sam's view, despite Harris's lack of contributions? Noam says Dawkins isn't an Islamophobe, yet he agrees with Sam's point of view, generally.
+Gabrihel LOL, Sam Harris has contributed ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the field of religion. LOL, he's a political pundit, like Bill O'Reilly or Rachel Maddow and similar people.
I've read a lot of Chomsky and Harris. I am sorry, but there's no comparison among them. There's a reason Chomsky is one of the most influential intellectuals in history, and Harris is not and never will be. Very obvious, not sure why people keep arguing about this.
+Julian Angel people like Harris because hes harsh and esposues an enlightened rationality while making personal attacks. a lot of people think this way.
+Julian Angel One started their career decades ago and has been in the spotlight for the duration of that time. Sam Harris is a New Atheist. That's like saying Chevrolet is the better car than Tesla because Chevy has been around longer. It's a pointless argument.
"Sam Harris specializes in hysterical slanderous charges against people he doesn't like, that's it." There are things to disagree with Harris on, but that description of his career couldn't be more inaccurate... dare I say hysterical and slanderous.
+MarkoftheAustinStone Even in context (which this did not at all capture) I disagree with the Ben Carson quote. His take on profiling is unhelpful. I'm not quite convinced on his Free Will argument, AGI, interventionism. He addresses tons of topics and arguments; I've heard him waste plenty of time defending and clarifying his views, but I've never heard him waste time on hysterical slander. To say so is either absurd, or an admission of having no interest in Harris' views. Chomsky seems to have paradoxically embraced both of those philosophies.
+Dpendent Films his take on Carson is that he appreciates that Carson takes the threat of Islam more seriously than Chomsky How could you possibly disagree with that? How can you say his opinion on profiling is unhelpful, when it would in fact help loads of poor, innocent people who get stopped and searched despite obviously not being isis?
+Dpendent Films I didn't hear "that's it". Besides his many lousy arguments, he has made various charges without content or convincing evidence, calling people liars and assholes.
+Dpendent Films Actually, that anyone who reads Harris would dispute this is quite shocking. This is simply a descriptive fact anyone who does read Harris can't deny.
+BaileysBeads With a reason.. Harris is a pathetic human being. Because of guys like that and the elite they represent (imperialistic core of the west) we in the rest of the World despise US. I am an Atheist, I can recognize blind faith.. and he is a believer, believer in utopian US that can not do wrong.. evidence be damn.
+Đole You believe he singles out particular groups because you aren't familiar with his previous work where he rips up the American religiosity. That, and religious groups are incredibly good at playing the victim game and making it seem like they're the only ones ever receiving criticism.
BaileysBeads No.. he is using notion of victim game to do a victim blaming. Just ignore religion and take a look that US is doing. Invading other countries, toppling government, supporting fascist regimes, torture, indiscriminate killings with drones.. (I can go on but you got the point) Mainstream media is keeping him on so he dehumanize "the enemy" before invasion.
+Đole If you only cherry-pick certain points of criticism from an author that basically criticises everything then it isn't hard to make that person look hypocritical.
Thank you l Al Jazeera, BUT if you are going to tap a GIANT INTELLECT like Chomsky, get an interviewer with cooler jets. Chomsky is a world treasure, he should be treated as such.
the problem is that Mehdi is a debater , and a debater clearly can't run an interview because they are usually used to replying back at everything said ... but despite of that noam was chill about it and kept the interview going
+Hope Sherman Yes, and he uses democratic socialism in the mode of countries like Sweden and such. And the new deal is very similar to democratic socialism
+Dave Hobbs I'm aware of what Bernie's policy involves. I'm aware of his stance on the Winner-Take-All political system. Are you confused about Bernie's policy or do you not know the difference between different socialist theories? the democratic socialist and a social democrat and a socialist are not remotely close to a Marxist group.
Hope Sherman I'm quite aware of the different socialist theories. I don't know where you got that from. I never said it was close to a marxist group. very confused.
+Fightneit 90 how is Bernie sanders a new dealer ? What is it in our system that undermines him ? Is he getting funded by lobbyist ? Not explained Maulana Chomsky on Sam Harris. Again specifics ? Now what exactly did Sam Harris say that was distortion of somebody's views. How is Dawkins position different to Harris ? How is Harris islamophobe when he is writing a book with Majid Nawaz on reformation of Islam. Something Maulana Chomsky will never mention. On Ben Carson's comment of Harris, the interviewer, a smart apologist himself skips the context. The context was immigration. Even a Ben Harris would err on the side of the defensive and refuse all immigrant while an intellectual like Chomsky weighed by his liberal guilt invite all elements in the country, including the destructive ones. For the record I like Chomsky. Just wish he had agreed to debate Harris
ravishingravi 1) he advocates new deal policies like glass steagle, healthcare guarantees, and social spending generally on things like education and retirement, as well as government created jobs when the private sector fails to provide them. that's classic new deal, Keynesian philosophy. 2) go read the email exchange between chomsky and harris. it will illuminate everything you need to know about sam harris. 3) blocking all immigration is a reactionary policy, and you know it. it isnt liberal guilt, it's rationality. we've helped destroy an entire region, and now you want us to abandon the people we've dis-effected? as for why chomsky wont debate harris, it's because harris' philosophy ignores the last 100 years of meta ethics, is universally laughed at by almost the entire academic community in the world, and is so irrelevant and amateur, it isnt even worth talking about. his entire thesis hinges on "intentions matter". But you cant judge intentions in any way. every group of madmen justify their actions by "good intentions". the nazis were trying to liberate legitimate governments of europe. the communists in russia were trying to free the working class from oppression. do you believe them? how can you empirically judge which group has good intentions and which do not, and then weigh these in a significant way to reach a conclusion. you cant. a child understands this, and harris doesnt. hence he's not worth debating any more than a child would be.
This could have been a good interview, but Mr. Hasan just seemed to want soundbytes. Don't waste Noam's time if you don't want nuanced opinions you can't roll up into a soundbyte.
Love this man, a true realist who doesn't try to uphold some kind of idealistic view of what the world could be, but rather what we need to do right now in order to not make it worse.
Im in ohio, and i can tell you this. Clinton has no chance of taking ohio. I will not vote her, and neither will anyone else of my age group. If we want to vote republican, we will vote republican, not republican in a blue costume.
"Look, you have two choices. You can say, I'm a pessimist, nothing's gonna work, I'm giving up, I'll help ensure that the worst will happen. Or you can grasp onto the opportunities that do exist, the rays of hope that exist, and say well, maybe we can make it a better world. It's not much of a choice."
Amazing! The way he rejects trash talking about Sam Harris and redirects the question about a person to the subject of interest is amazing. It shows he isn't just intelligent, but that he is a man who respects humans and life in general.. even if he doesn't agree with them. Wonderful person
What I've learned from respectable youtube commenters is that Sam Harris quotes are by definition out of context. At least when they are viewed critically.
In a world where heroes are either dead or false, this fragile old man is my hero. Noam, I wish, you live for another century as men like you are rare.
lemmysfibroma Chomsky is atheist no doubt. Because he blames US for every ill in the world, and Islam can do no wrong. Chomsky will watch by while Jihad grows. Kuffar tax is a tax imposed by Islam to non Muslims.
+valgehiir Chomsky doesn't talk a lot about religious views, but, being an an atheist, he probably considers Islam to be just as silly as Christianity. However, he talks about politics and that America's so called "war on terror" is the main reason for the current fundamentalism in Islam.
I was shocked by the interviewer's opening statement which included the throwaway mention of 'the rise of Islamophobia'. There is no such rise. What there is is a growing fear of Muslims, but this may have something to do with atrocities committed almost every day by Muslims. Phobia is irrational. Fear of Islam is rational, based on what people see, which is Muslim atrocities.
+Robert Brynin I see. So by your logic the Nazis were also right to hate Jews seeing as Jews featured prominently in the Bolshevic revolution (which resulted in the deaths of millions of Russian Christians). Additionally, Germans, the time, also fell into terrible financial turmoil brought about by the recklessness of the financial institutions of the time which were also disproportionately Jewish.
+Zaid Said Actually no. Your argument is at the very ROOT of the problem we have in this discussion. Instead of focusing on the actual problem, you instead try to deflect the problem with red herring fallacies, pretending as if we can't walk and chew bubble gum. To answer your question, NO, "baby phobia" and "driving phobia" are not rational. HOWEVER, concern for child safety and access to deadly weapons IS rational. Concern for road conditions and people's overall ability to drive IS rational. As such, having concern for ANY religious doctrine/practices, let alone the religion of islam specifically, is logical as well. That doesn't mean we express hate towards theists of any particular religion or impose discriminatory laws against said theists, but we do wish to dispel this mass psychosis that people have with believing things that are simply non-demonstrable, inconsistent, and immoral in many cases, which could influence their desire of extremists to commit such evil acts. We'd also love to improve the socioeconomic conditions of everyone, which could aid in them realizing how ridiculous religions are through proper education, access to employment, and safer neighborhoods, and we should also treat whatever mental disabilities could be affecting them and their religiosity. Why is this so difficult for people like you to understand?
Zaid Said No that's not irrational. Just because something has a low chance of occurring TO ME PERSONALLY doesn't mean it's illogical to be afraid of such thing. There's a difference between general fear and obsessive fear. I was on a plane a few months ago heading to New Mexico. Toward the end of the flight before landing, we entered a storm cloud and experienced INSANE amounts of turbulence. Even though I KNOW that the chances of the plane crashing was super low, I was *SCARED AF* because I know that it's POSSIBLE. With that said, you don't have to obsess over a specific problem like islamic terrorism, but that DOESN'T then mean that you should completely IGNORE it and pretend as if it doesn't exist AT ALL! Our persistent involvement with the middle east and its violence is what helps breed potential terrorists, and the more it persists, the higher the chances become of another terrorist attack happening on our territory. Since 9/11, we experienced the Boston Bombing, Ft. Hood Shooting 1 & 2, the Benghazi attack and the San Bernardino shootings amongst others. While this isn't our biggest problem in comparison to various issues like our corrupted government, choosing to ignore islamic fundamentalism is a gross negligence that could literally blow up in our face.
Zaid Said FORGET about statistics or "trends" or whatever. You're committing a ridiculous red herring and strawman fallacy. We are not saying "EVERYONE PANIC BECAUSE ISIS IS COMING *SOON!!!!*". However, that _doesn't_ mean we should just ignore isis because the chances of being attacked by them is low, because that chance can grow. Your chances of catching the Zika virus might be low, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything about it or tell people that they'll be just fine because their chances of catching it is low. Your chances of getting murdered in America is low, so does that mean we should NEVER do anything to prevent/solve murders and reduce the murder rate? Does that mean we should be totally apathetic about a particular issue? You're committing an argument from extremes fallacy. You're acting as if we're feeling sheer panic about an issue that has an extremely low chance of happening, acting as if we're overreacting. However, you refuse to acknowledge the facts that, for one, ALL religions are unjustifiable, for two, our foreign policy is DIRECTLY responsible for the destabilization in the middle east that breeds the type of terrorists that attacked us on 9/11, and for three, there is nuance to this discussion that people like you refuse to acknowledge. None of us are saying that we should "be afraid of all muslims" or all theists. We all know that there is a difference between moderate theists, extreme theists, and all-out terrorists. However, the religions themselves are all baseless, self-contradictory nonsense that influence the decisions of people, for better or for worse. We don't have to discriminate against all muslims or prejudge muslims, but that doesn't mean we should pretend that religion hasn't had a negative effect on society/public policy. And that does NOT mean we have some kind of "phobia" about it.
Rock Golem I agree with your first claim, but I don't agree with your second claim. That thing they need to hold their attention is EDUCATION, not religious indoctrination
+zombiesingularity No use of the words "Petrodollar" or "Neocon" or BRICS, over-emphasis on the left-right paradigm. I still respect the guy and listen to whatever he says.
One of the most disappointing things I've ever read was the email correspondence between Chomsky and Harris. Chomsky repeatedly refused to engage what he was saying, derailed the conversation, and became openly hostile and unwilling to communicate. Now, he won't even address what he says. That is still way classier than trying to mischaracterize it, but I find his unwillingness to engage in dialogue really weird.
+gbiota1 Engaging in a dialogue was a waste of time. Harris claimed that Chomsky but forth a moral equivalence between 9/11 and the bombing of al-Shifa. When Chomsky pointed out repeatedly that he did not, Sam Harris continued to claim repeatedly that he did. He still does to this day, although in the exchange he actually admits to not understanding Chomsky, which is strange when we take into account the fact that he continues to level charges at him. It's only possible to have a meaningful dialogue with someone on your own positions with someone who understands said position.
I'm sorry this was long, I didn't know any other way to do it. In the dialogue between the two Harris says: "On the topic of there being a “moral equivalence” between al-Shifa and 9/11, I’m afraid that what you have written is hard to understand. Despite your insistence that you drew no moral equivalence whatsoever between the two cases, you call Clinton’s actions an “atrocity” the consequences of which were “vastly more severe” than if the same had been done to the U.S., and you say that any comparison with the consequences of 9/11 is, if anything, “an understatement.” You then appear to be upbraiding me for not immediately detecting an important difference between a “horrendous crime” and an “atrocity.” Is there one? You are, of course, the famous linguist, but I believe that the editors of the OED will be nonplussed by this discovery. Perhaps you can just state it plainly: What is the moral difference between al-Shifa and 9/11?" Harris had already asked several times for a clarification, which Chomsky only claims he has already made, though never explicitly in correspondence. Chomsky had at this point already admonished Harris for misrepresenting his views, and "refusing" to correct it, but doesn't offer any way for him to do so when he won't explain himself explicitly. Later, Harris says: "Well, let’s chalk some of this up to the well-understood problem of email. I doubt that we would have achieved this level of cantankerousness in a face-to-face exchange. To the point about my refusing to “reciprocate” by referring to places where you have written about me or my work: I’m unaware of your having done so. I have seen a video or two in which, when asked to comment about my views, or about the “new atheism” generally, you have said something disparaging. As I mention in my initial email, you have, on at least one occasion, referred to me as a “religious fanatic” who “worships the religion of the state.” You may have been talking about both Christopher Hitchens and me, given the way the question was posed. The history is unimportant. It makes much more sense to deal with what we each say in this exchange." One of many statements he made with the apparent motive of finding common ground, and to have the most productive and civil discussion possible. Chomsky seems only capable of meeting this with dismissive hostility. Harris says: "Here is my assumption about the al-Shifa case. I assume that Clinton believed that it was, in fact, a chemical weapons factory-because I see no rational reason for him to have intentionally destroyed a pharmaceutical plant in retaliation for the embassy bombings. I take it that you consider this assumption terribly naive. Why so?" In a trial, the motive has to make sense. Someone destroys a US embassy and the response is to blow up a tylenol factory in the middle of the night, knowing it had no relation to those responsible? This is our "most likely" explanation of behavior? I mean, maybe if Clinton went around smearing feces on the wall and claiming to be Elvis this would seem more reasonable. As it happens, he doesn't seem crazy in the way that prevents him from being able to dress himself. Chomsky responded: "Easy to know why you’re unaware of my having written about your work. I haven’t done so. In contrast, you’ve written about my work, with crucial false accusations that you evidently have no interest in correcting." Again, he seems to have no sympathy for the fact that for Harris to do the correcting he so repeatedly demands, he first needs clarification. It goes on and on like this. I'm curious to see your thoughts on why I came away from the exchange differently from you. Harris seemed to really be trying to figure out what the important differences were to Chomsky. I mean, whats the difference to you, when perhaps Chomsky is best known for his repeated referrals to the US as "the greatest terrorist state in the world"? How is doing that 10000 times any different in principle than equating US actions to 9/11?
+epiphany55 I agree. The whole Harris/Chomsky feud is really unfortunate. I bet if they sat down and talked for a few hours they'd end up agreeing on most points.
+Nicholas Woods actually Harris started it. In End of Faith I think. He talks about how he thinks "Liberals have followed Noam Chomsky off of a cliff". Chomsky didn't respond for a while. It was a provocative attack by Harris.
+Shoaib Naqvi That wasn't in the end of faith, he said that a few months ago somewhat inspired by their email exchange I'm sure. It's provocative, but it also doesn't really matter whether it's provocative or who started it, what matters is who is right. And while I tend to side more with Chomsky, I'm not sure how to refute what Sam says about Islam being a factor rather than foreign policy being the only factor partially because Noam won't respond to Sam and partially because he seems to be right about that.
NGE Fan it was far before his e-mail exchange. But you could be right. This from the wiki of End Of Faith. Since it's a wiki you might be right. Basically the Wiki states he goes after Chomsky at one part in the book when talking about Islam From the wiki: "In an attack on what he terms "leftist unreason," Harris criticises Noam Chomsky among others for, in his view, displaying an illogical willingness to lay the entire blame for such attitudes upon U.S. foreign policy."
Chomsky is Both a great scientist and a very wise man:linguistics won't be the same without him,as regards politics things are différent and if I dare say so more difficult. But his view is precious. So let's listen to him again and again. Many many thanks,Noam.
Thank you for sharing. Noam Chomsky is IMHO the Soundest Mind on the planet. I have been recommending him to American Politicians. It took Al Jazeera to get him into the conversation. Bless you Al Jazeera.
Noam is my go-to source. Bernie sincerely has the courage to actually change things. It's how he's wired. I agree with every molecule of Noam. Bernie is similarly rational and reasonable. Sadly, America reminds me increasingly of the film, "Idiocracy".
Wow. SO proud of Noam for being just so wise and intelligent enough to not be lead into the questions and tailor his responses to fit what the heart of the issues really are. This interviewer tried so many frustrating tactics to get this brilliant man to say what his media outlet wanted to hear.
What Noam says here is important. He'll vote for a Rodham over a Trump rather than stay home. A GOP candidate will probably do much more damage if some of the past few (Dubya, Reagan, Nixon) are any indication. This is unlike the Libertarian stance of simply not voting if a Libertarian is not available.
Mr. Chomsky, I experienced your interview as illuminating. I have always admired you but found your writing difficult. I shall now try harder. I am 68. One of my few friends (a few jewels is better than a lot of whatever) is 101 and in am in awe as she can amaze my mind. Please stay with us for a long time to come as I am just 'getting there'!
Pro tip for the interviewer: do not interrupt the guy you are interviewing, talk slower, take your time. If that means you need to cut some questions then so be it.
This is a fine interview. It is supposed to be a conversation, not a monologue. What a sharp mind at 87. And always so succinct. This is a rational world view as opposed to the selfish, ignorant and purely interest based politics we see so often. Do we need the philosopher king?
"Look, you have two choices. You can say "i'm a pessimist. Nothing's going to work, i'm giving up. I'll help ensure that the worst will happen." Or you can grasp onto thee opportunities that do exist, the rays of hope that exist and say "Well maybe we can make it a better world." It's not much of a choice." -- Noam Chomsky That's why i'm voting for Bernie Sanders despite the pessimism. I hope you'll join me.
