How Lucky is the United States?

[American Horse]

As for Chomsky's comment, he's generally way out in space, but he's right on this issue. The setup of our government makes it extremely vulnerable to the type of leader he describes. If you look at other nations which have used our Constitution as a model, they've been plagued with unstable governments for exactly that reason.

Could you name two or three of those, excepting Liberia, so we can examine the aptness of the comparison?

 

[Polk]

As for Chomsky's comment, he's generally way out in space, but he's right on this issue. The setup of our government makes it extremely vulnerable to the type of leader he describes. If you look at other nations which have used our Constitution as a model, they've been plagued with unstable governments for exactly that reason.

Could you name two or three of those, excepting Liberia, so we can examine the aptness of the comparison?

The Philippines. Panama. Venezuela.

To look at it from another perspective, we've spent a fair amount of time helping other nation's draft their constitutions. You'll notice that as time moves along, we're been more and more apt to suggest models different from our own (Germany and Japan after the Second World War leap to mind).

 

[Samson]

Partisan hack is probably the only bit of libel never tossed in Noam's direction. He has a gift for infuriating the liberal intellectuals in this country as well as "conservatives" from Dick Cheney to David Brooks.

Dr King was undeniably charismatic and honest, but he was also overwhelmingly hated by a large majority of conservative white males. It's hard for me to imagine King taking control in this country the way Hitler did in Germany.

JFK had intelligence, charisma, and courage but his honesty seems open to debate. The deceits he helped foster in Vietnam and South America eventually cost the lives of millions of innocent people.

Ghandi's success in India would have been hard to duplicate in Alabama or Germany during his lifetime.

If you're interested in reading more Chomsky, this is one of his recent essays.

I'm not sure why you're qualifying MLK's or Ghandi's ability to take control of Alabama?

Chomsky's opinion is clear: "Every charismatic figure is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself"

He makes no allowances for "being in Alabama."

How likely is it King or Ghandi would have mobilized Alabama the way Hitler swayed Germany?

I don't know.

I DO KNOW it has nothing to do with Chomsky's quote: "Every charismatic figure is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself"

 

[georgephillip]

Social Scientists are constantly trying to boost their thin credability through hyperbolic analogies to Physical Science.

But this recipe is even more ridiculous than average:

1. Take an estimate of the AVERAGE lifespan for ALL species,
2. and apply it to ONE species,
3. THEN One civilization......



For christssakes

Would you agree with Mayer that the history of life on Earth refutes the claim that "it is better to be smart than to be stupid?" Beetles and bacteria, after all, are vastly more successful than humans in terms of survival.

Chomsky believes humans about to get an answer to the question of whether it's better to be smart than stupid.

"The most hopeful prospect is that the question will not be answered: if it receives a definite answer, that answer can only be that humans were a kind of "biological error," using their allotted 100,000 years to destroy themselves and, in the process, much else."

See: Chomsky: Hegemony or Survival pp1-2

My point is that Social Science routinely makes pitiful attempts to compare their silly theories with Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, and other studies based on detailed empirical evidence.

In this case, we're comparing the "success" of bacteria with humans.

Success being defined as species longivity.

Then we note that bacteria are less intelligent than humans

Then we leap to the conclusion that humans will become extinct because they are "smart."

Thus, we can call humans "a kind of biological error."

How Absurd.

Chomsky and his cadre of Social Scientists would do well to focus their attention on writing social science fiction: They'd at least be more entertaining.

Where in the social sciences does evolutionary biology fit?

Chomsky was quoting Ernst Mayer's speculation that "the human form of intellectual organization may not be favored by selection.

So far your attempts at criticism are tipping the evolutionary scale even more toward "stupid"

 

[Polk]

Evolutionary biology isn't a social science. It's a natural science.

 

[georgephillip]

As for Chomsky's comment, he's generally way out in space, but he's right on this issue. The setup of our government makes it extremely vulnerable to the type of leader he describes. If you look at other nations which have used our Constitution as a model, they've been plagued with unstable governments for exactly that reason.

Could you name two or three of those, excepting Liberia, so we can examine the aptness of the comparison?

The Philippines. Panama. Venezuela.

To look at it from another perspective, we've spent a fair amount of time helping other nation's draft their constitutions. You'll notice that as time moves along, we're been more and more apt to suggest models different from our own (Germany and Japan after the Second World War leap to mind).

Do you believe Honduras fits into the first or second constitutional models?

 

[Samson]

Evolutionary biology isn't a social science. It's a natural science.

My point.

Some haven't evolved to be smart enough to get it.

I blame Darwin.

 

[Polk]

Evolutionary biology isn't a social science. It's a natural science.

My point.

Some haven't evolved to be smart enough to get it.

I blame Darwin.

I was pointing that out to the guy who was responding to you.

That being said, I disagree with your criticism of the social sciences. A field of research being further advanced doesn't make it better than others.

 

[Samson]

Evolutionary biology isn't a social science. It's a natural science.

My point.

Some haven't evolved to be smart enough to get it.

I blame Darwin.

I was pointing that out to the guy who was responding to you.

That being said, I disagree with your criticism of the social sciences. A field of research being further advanced doesn't make it better than others.

Yes, I know who you were addressing.

I've never said one field was "better" than others: I just find the social science's constant patronage of of physical and biological science to be sloppy.

If they have some sociological basis for a theory, then great, but don't try to justify some hair-brained theory on analogy with other science's empirical studies.

 

[AquaAthena]

Avram Noam Chomsky born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,[2][3] cognitive scientist, and political activist. He is an Institute Professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[4] Chomsky is well known in the academic and scientific community as one of the fathers of modern linguistics.[5][6][7] Since the 1960s, he has become known more widely as a political dissident and an anarchist.[8]

"I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to exist, then it would choose the American system." -Noam Chomsky

I suppose we now know how much MIT cares about the credentials of anyone who is an "American Liguist."

WTF is an "American Linguist?" Some aging '60 freak that needs a cushy job at a Lib State University?

Aren't most all of the intellectuals of the 60's? They are still just trying to be "different." Make a difference, so they can justify their existence.

 

[Samson]

Aren't most all of the intellectuals of the 60's? They are still just trying to be "different." Make a difference, so they can justify their existence.

"Intellectuals of the '60's."

Either we're talking about "American Linguists" or........

The average WASP Teenager.

 

[georgephillip]

I'm not sure why you're qualifying MLK's or Ghandi's ability to take control of Alabama?

Chomsky's opinion is clear: "Every charismatic figure is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself"

He makes no allowances for "being in Alabama."

How likely is it King or Ghandi would have mobilized Alabama the way Hitler swayed Germany?

I don't know.

I DO KNOW it has nothing to do with Chomsky's quote: "Every charismatic figure is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself"

I didn't frame my thesis as well as I should have.

Chomsky's quote: "The United States is extremely lucky no honest charismatic figure has arisen..." was the first sentence in Chris Hedges's third paragraph.

The second paragraph dealt with how Hitler's charisma filled the vacuum of Weimar Germany.

When Chomsky went on to say "Every charismatic figure is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself, like McCarthy or Nixon or the evangelist preachers"--I should have made clear the connection to the Nazis.

Apparently I'm the one tipping Ernst Mayr's evolutionary scale toward "stupid."

 

[georgephillip]

"There (Hitler's Germany) it was the Jews. Here it will be illegal immigrants and the blacks. We will be told white males are a persecuted minority. We will be told we have to defend ourselves and the honor of the nation.

"Military force will be exalted. People will be beaten up. This could become an overwhelming force. And if it happens it will be more dangerous than Germany.

No matter how high on the pedestal you put him or the eloquence of this writer he still sounds like a typical racist democrat playing the race card. This scenario he describes has already been so played-out.

Are you sure the center will hold in this country?

While I'm not denying that many Democrats and Republicans play the race card whenever it works to their political advantage, I also believe the motive for both corporate parties to exploit racism is economic.

In particular, the deindustrialization of our manufacturing sector has worked far better for Wall Street than for the millions of Joe Stacks in America.

Joe crashed his light plane into an office building in Austin Texas about two months ago, hitting back at the IRS but losing his life in the exchange.

The manifesto Joe left behind ends with a comparison between "free markets" and "centrally planned" economies.

"The Communist Creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

"The Capitalist Creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed."

Over the last thirty years the capitalists' greed has hollowed out the American center to the point it will not hold anymore than the center of Germany's Weimar Republic held against Hitler.

All we're lacking is a demagogue combining charisma and "honesty."

 

[Samson]

I didn't frame my thesis as well as I should have.

Chomsky's quote: "The United States is extremely lucky no honest charismatic figure has arisen..." was the first sentence in Chris Hedges's third paragraph.

The second paragraph dealt with how Hitler's charisma filled the vacuum of Weimar Germany.

When Chomsky went on to say "Every charismatic figure is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself, like McCarthy or Nixon or the evangelist preachers"--I should have made clear the connection to the Nazis.

Apparently I'm the one tipping Ernst Mayr's evolutionary scale toward "stupid."

I still enjoy the conversation:

FDR filled the vacuum of Depression Era America + WWII, for an unprecedented 16 years. Now, of course, there is a 2 Term limit to prevent exactly what Chomsky predicted. Oddly, this was well BEFORE Nixon was elected, who Chomsky uses as an example of Charismatic Crook. My guess is he was pandering to the Anti-Nixon popular opinion at the time.

Anyway, Let's address your question:

How likely is it King or Ghandi would have mobilized Alabama the way Hitler swayed Germany?

Very unlikely.

Of course, if you had asked me in 1900 if I thought a Black Charismatic Preacher would be mobilizing the USA against racial prejudice in 1960, then I'd probably considered it preposterous.

Chomsky's remarks sound as if they are frozen in 1960's, and are chosen to explain the social turbulance of the times. I can forgive him for being out of context TODAY, but he was out of context in the 60's! MLK was a charasmatic leader who was NOT A CROOK; A Two Term Limit prevented Nixon (A "CROOK") from maintaining office more than 8 years.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

"There (Hitler's Germany) it was the Jews. Here it will be illegal immigrants and the blacks. We will be told white males are a persecuted minority. We will be told we have to defend ourselves and the honor of the nation."

So according to Choms ,Hitler was honest and white males are a persecuted minority.

 

[editec]

Noam Chomsky may be the smartest person I ever met.

I spend about three hours in a living room of a browstone on the campus of Northeastern in 1976.

He was holding a seminar on the Mid East issue. There might have been twenty people in the room.

That being said, I still don't think he's presidental material.

But were I POTUS he'd be on my coucil of advisors in foreign affairs, that's for damned sure.

His capacity to absorb information and analyze data off the cuff might have been the most amazing thing I ever saw any social scientist do .

And let's remember that social science is merely a hobby of his. He's a inguist by profession...THE linguist of our age according to many, too.

Everything he said, every fact he offered, he backed up by telling us the publication, page and DATE that it was published.

I never saw anyone with both the capacity to recall, and the ability to put it all together into a cohernet narrative that Chomsky had.

And do bear in mind that I took classes with Howard Zinn and Joe Levine at BU, too. It wasn't like he was the only truly world class smart guy I ever met.

Chomsky made those guys look like undergrads.

So all the above article does is reinforce my own concerns about where this nation is heading.

The fact that Chomsky sees the same kind of threats I do, is very disheartening.

I'd hoped that I was being pessimistic.

 

[Samson]

Noam Chomsky may be the smartest person I ever met.

He's a inguist by profession...THE linguist of our age according to many, too.

So, what exactly is an American Linguist....I could find the definition, but couldn't understand it in my language.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

media (along with academe) are willing tools and propaganda arm of corporatists to control us with their propaganda , blah, blah, blah.

The media IS a willing tool for corporations. Have you seen a commercial lately? Chomsky is completely right (as usual).

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Linguistics is the scientific study of language, so a linguist studies the origins and evolution of human languages.

LSA: Welcome

 

[Samson]

Linguistics is the scientific study of language, so a linguist studies the origins and evolution of human languages.

LSA: Welcome

Thanks for the linky. From it I linked to FAQ: Why Major in Linguistics? and found the following:

Linguists investigate how linguistic knowledge is acquired, how it interacts with other mental processes, how it varies from person to person and region to region (even within one language), and how computer programs can model this knowledge. They study how the structure of language (such as sounds or phrases) can be represented, and how different components of language interact with each other (such as intonation and meaning). Linguists work with consultants who speak different languages, search corpora, and run carefully designed experiments to answer these questions about language. (Yes, linguistics is a science!)

Fascinating!