· Missing from list: young, women, and the French
· Honour leaves linguistics professor underwhelmed
Duncan Campbell
Tuesday October 18, 2005
The Guardian
He is in his 70s and first became known for his theory of transformational grammar - and now he is top of the thinkers' hit parade. Noam Chomsky, the linguistics professor who has become one of the most outspoken critics of US foreign policy, has won a poll that names him as the world's top public intellectual.
Chomsky, who was underwhelmed by the honour, beat off challenges from Umberto Eco, Richard Dawkins, Vaclav Havel and Christopher Hitchens to win the Prospect/Foreign Policy poll.
Article continues
More than 20,000 voters from around the world took part in selecting the winners from a list of 100. The most striking aspect of the list is the shortage of the young, the female and the French. Only two of the top 10, Hitchens and Salman Rushdie, were born after the war, and Naomi Klein is the highest placed woman, at 11. France provides one name in the top 40, fewer than Peru and Iran.
Since the poll was for the world's leading intellectuals, it should come as no surprise that websites manned by supporters of Chomsky, Hitchens and Abdolkarim Soroush were used to draw attention to the poll. Chomsky's supporters are clearly the most energetic: he took 4,800 votes to Eco's 2,500. Voters came mainly from Britain and the US. "I don't pay a lot of attention to them," said Chomsky of the poll last night. "It was probably padded by some friends of mine."
Pondering the absence of younger intellectuals from the list, David Herman asks in the new issue of Prospect: "Who are the younger equivalents to [Jürgen] Habermas, Chomsky and Havel? Great names are formed by great events. But there has been no shortage of terrible events in the last 10 years." Only two of the top 20 have yet to reach the age of 50.
The choice of Chomsky will be welcomed and contested by many of the same names who responded delightedly or furiously to the award of the Nobel prize for literature to Harold Pinter last week.
In recognition of this, Prospect offers alternative perspectives, with Robin Blackburn arguing for Chomsky's right to head the list as both a brilliant expositor of linguistics and a vital critic of the US abroad, while Oliver Kamm dismisses him as a kneejerk anti-American who is cavalier about his sources.
Top five
1 Noam Chomsky linguistics expert and critic of US foreign policy
2 Umberto Eco writer and academic
3 Richard Dawkins Oxford professor of public understanding of science
4 Vaclav Havel playwright and leader of Czech velvet revolution
5 Christopher Hitchens journalist, author, pro-Iraq war polemicist
Is this supposed to persuade me to agree with Chomsky's bullshit? Take a look at a list of Time Magazine's "Men of the Year". It might shock you a bit.
Would you care to elaborate, or is this just flatulence on your part?
I'd elaborate, but it would just evoke some idiot pro-Hezbollah response on your part, something about how white people are evil, how you're cheering for the underdog, etc. etc. Why would I want to open the floodgates, this place has already killed more than a few brain cells.
I'd elaborate, but it would just evoke some idiot pro-Hezbollah response on your part, something about how white people are evil, how you're cheering for the underdog, etc. etc. Why would I want to open the floodgates, this place has already killed more than a few brain cells.
So you believe that anybody who is critical of his government hates his country? Weird! I thought that criticism of ones government and the striving for equality and justice in the world were at the heart of what it means to live in a democracy?
You are of the opinion that someone who attempts to expose the injustices and crime sof his government in order to benefit the citizens of that country must be hateful of that same country?
I find that to be a very confused viewpoint. Maybe you'd be kind enough to elaborate?
I suppose you believe that Henry David Thoreau hated America, and that George Washington was a terrorist?
So you believe that if I say that Chomsky hates the U.S. that it's strictly because he's critical of the current government. I find that to be a leap of logic...
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
On May 8, 2006, MIT Professor Noam Chomsky began an eight-day visit to Lebanon where met with leaders of the terrorist organization Hezbollah .
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAh ! What's sickening here is that every country or organisation that says no to the American foreign policy is called "terrorist" ! Why don't you guys change a little bit ! Use your intelligence and don't get overwhelmed by the media !!!
Do you actually have a question, or did you just need to make let another flatulance comment?
I asked you to elaborate when you commented that his meeting with Hizbollah was 'sickening'. And as for your comment that what Chomsky has to say is 'bullshit', perhaps you'd prefer to believe the article for which this thread was started? An article in which Chomsky is notably absent, and an article which says more about Zachary Hughes and 'Camera' than it does an accurate report of the views and opinions of Chomsky himself.
So you believe that if I say that Chomsky hates the U.S. that it's strictly because he's critical of the current government. I find that to be a leap of logic...
O.k. So what do you mean when you say that Chomsky 'hates his country'? Can you provide an example of this hatred?
I'd elaborate, but it would just evoke some idiot pro-Hezbollah response on your part, something about how white people are evil, how you're cheering for the underdog, etc. etc. Why would I want to open the floodgates, this place has already killed more than a few brain cells.
By the way, please provide an example of when I have claimed that white people, including myself, are evil? I'm intrigued.
I asked you to elaborate when you commented that his meeting with Hizbollah was 'sickening'. And as for your comment that what Chomsky has to say is 'bullshit', perhaps you'd prefer to believe the article for which this thread was started? An article in which Chomsky is notably absent, and an article which says more about Zachary Hughes and 'Camera' than giving an accurate report of the views and opinions of Chomsky himself.
First off, I agree that this article is clearly written from a pretty biased standpoint, and I think the language was more than a little over the top. However, I do think that visiting Hezbollah leaders is disgusting behavior. Over and over again, I am given my opinion on this group, I don't think they are legitimate "freedom fighters" in 2006, I think they are bloodthirsty murderers who are propelled by a hate-filled ideology. What does Chomsky hope to accomplish by consorting with such people? That is my opinion, take it or leave it.
I do think that visiting Hezbollah leaders is disgusting behavior. Over and over again, I am given my opinion on this group, I don't think they are legitimate "freedom fighters" in 2006, I think they are bloodthirsty murderers who are propelled by a hate-filled ideology. What does Chomsky hope to accomplish by consorting with such people? That is my opinion, take it or leave it.
From Wikipedia: "Hezbollah[1] (Arabic: حزب الله, meaning Party of God) is a Lebanese Islamist and nationalist political party and military resistance movement, with a military arm and a civilian arm, founded in 1982 to fight the Israeli Occupation Forces who occupied southern Lebanon until the year 2000. Hezbollah is presently lead by Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah...
Hezbollah says Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon proves that the Jewish state only understands the language of resistance. They defend their right to keep their weapons as a deterrent against Israeli attack, to liberate the disputed Shebaa Farms border area, which is occupied by Israel...
Hezbollah abducted three Israel Defense Forces soldiers during an October 2000 attack in Shebaa Farms, and sought to obtain the release of 14 Lebanese prisoners, some of whom had been held since 1978. On January 25, 2004, Hezbollah successfully negotiated an exchange of prisoners Israel, through German mediators. The prisoner swap was carried out on January 29: 30 Lebanese and Arab prisoners, the remains of 60 Lebanese militants and civilians, 420 Palestinian prisoners, and maps showing Israeli mines in South Lebanon were exchanged for an Israeli businessman and army reserve colonel Elchanan Tenenbaum kidnapped in 2001 and the remains of the three Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers mentioned above, who were killed either during the Hezbollah operation, or in its immediate aftermath..."
They appear to have fairly a legitimate reason for existing if you ask me. No more so than any other army, or resistance movement. I just can't equate your opinion that they are '..bloodthirsty murderers who are propelled by a hate-filled ideology' with the facts. Maybe I'm missing something?
O.k. So what do you mean when you say that Chomsky 'hates his country'? Can you provide an example of this hatred?
It's my opinion. I didn't base it upon him being critical of the government solely. I based it on other things such as his revisionist history books, his love for Hezbolla, etc.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
From Wikipedia:
"Hezbollah[1] (Arabic: ??? ?????, meaning Party of God) is a Lebanese Islamist and nationalist political party and military resistance movement, with a military arm and a civilian arm, founded in 1982 to fight the Israeli Occupation Forces who occupied southern Lebanon until the year 2000. Hezbollah is presently lead by Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah...
Hezbollah says Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon proves that the Jewish state only understands the language of resistance. They defend their right to keep their weapons as a deterrent against Israeli attack, to liberate the disputed Shebaa Farms border area, which is occupied by Israel...
Hezbollah abducted three Israel Defense Forces soldiers during an October 2000 attack in Shebaa Farms, and sought to obtain the release of 14 Lebanese prisoners, some of whom had been held since 1978. On January 25, 2004, Hezbollah successfully negotiated an exchange of prisoners Israel, through German mediators. The prisoner swap was carried out on January 29: 30 Lebanese and Arab prisoners, the remains of 60 Lebanese militants and civilians, 420 Palestinian prisoners, and maps showing Israeli mines in South Lebanon were exchanged for an Israeli businessman and army reserve colonel Elchanan Tenenbaum kidnapped in 2001 and the remains of the three Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers mentioned above, who were killed either during the Hezbollah operation, or in its immediate aftermath..."
They appear to have fairly a legitimate reason for existing if you ask me. No more so than any other army, or resistance movement. I just can't equate your opinion that they are '..bloodthirsty murderers who are propelled by a hate-filled ideology'. Maybe I'm missing something?
You're missing a lot of things, probably deliberately. I guess my views on Hezbollah boil down to the terrorist tactics they use, and the fact that they did not disband after Israel left Lebanon. A resistence movement is needed after Israel leaves the country? If anything, Hezbollah invited them back into Lebanon by kidnapping those soldiers. That's "resistence"? Looks more like picking a fight to me.
It's my opinion. I didn't base it upon him being critical of the government solely. I based it on other things such as his revisionist history books, his love for Hezbolla, etc.
"..his revisionist history books, his love for Hezbolla.." you say. I would love to hear what you mean when you say that he has written revisionist history books. If you have in fact deconstructed any of his revisionist history books and would care to share your findings with me, i'd be grateful.
I personally can't see how somebody who has done more for exposing the lies of his government, and who has been tireless in the quest to - in his words - 'present the truth to power', can be considered to 'hate his country'. I would have thought that he in fact represents the opposite of someone who hates his country. It is not just poor, foriegn, brown people who are suffering at the corruption of the Bush administration. There are plenty of Americans being fleeced by these crooks also. Isn't therefore the role of intellectuals in the West to reveal the truth behind the media facade which we are presented with everyday? Isn't someone who challenges the injustices of those in power in his own country someone who loves all that is good and just in his country?
"..his revisionist history books, his love for Hezbolla.." you say. I would love to hear what you mean when you say that he has written revisionist history books. If you have in fact deconstructed any of his revisionist history books and would care to share your findings with me, i'd be grateful.
I personally can't see how somebody who has done more for exposing the lies of his government, and who has been tireless in the quest to - in his words - 'present the truth to power', can be considered to 'hate his country'. I would have thought that he in fact represents the opposite of someone who hates his country. It is not just poor, foriegn, brown people who are suffering at the corruption of the Bush administration. There are plenty of Americans being fleeced by these crooks also. Isn't therefore the role of intellectuals in the West to reveal the truth behind the media facade which we are presented with everyday? Isn't someone who challenges the injustices of those in power in his own country someone who loves all that is good and just in his country?
Nope.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
You're missing a lot of things, probably deliberately. I guess my views on Hezbollah boil down to the terrorist tactics they use, and the fact that they did not disband after Israel left Lebanon. A resistence movement is needed after Israel leaves the country? If anything, Hezbollah invited them back into Lebanon by kidnapping those soldiers. That's "resistence"? Looks more like picking a fight to me.
but yet you don't believe that building walls and occupying lands and having to go thru military checkpoints with a rifle in your face is terrorism?? ... why do you justify one's arms action but vilify organizations that do the same?
Binauralsounds, Chomsky fans don't want to be bothered by annoying little things such as facts. Distortions which confirm their preconceived biases are far more useful.
But for those who actually do care about facts and history ... and won't just give their kneejerk biases and cite charlatans like Chomsky for support, check this out. It will be of interest to those with any historical integrity.
but yet you don't believe that building walls and occupying lands and having to go thru military checkpoints with a rifle in your face is terrorism?? ... why do you justify one's arms action but vilify organizations that do the same?
Polaris, where is your concern about so many other walls in the world, particularly the one the Egyptians have on the other side of Gaza?
And whose lands are "occupied" and how?
It seems that any "occupied" lands Israel vacates simply become rocket launching sites. Did it concern you that Hezbollah has been launching rockets into northern Israel ever since the Israelis withdrew, and that the same has happened from Gaza. Do you think this summer was the first rocket launch??
Polaris, where is your concern about so many other walls in the world, particularly the one the Egyptians have on the other side of Gaza?
And whose lands are "occupied" and how?
It seems that any "occupied" lands Israel vacates simply become rocket launching sites. Did it concern you that Hezbollah has been launching rockets into northern Israel ever since the Israelis withdrew, and that the same has happened from Gaza. Do you think this summer was the first rocket launch??
Binauralsounds, Chomsky fans don't want to be bothered by annoying little things such as facts. Distortions which confirm their preconceived biases are far more useful.
But for those who actually do care about facts and history ... and won't just give their kneejerk biases and cite charlatans like Chomsky for support, check this out. It will be of interest to those with any historical integrity.
That web page is a fucking joke. Everything quoted is taken out of context and distorted.
Just one example:
The Lie: "it seems fair to describe the reponsibility of the United States and Pol Pot for the atrocities during 'the decade of the genocide' as being roughly in the same range"
The truth: They were not remotely in the same range American forces caused approximately 40,000 Khmer Rouge and civilian casualties in Cambodia during 1970-5. The Khmer Rouge killed more than 1.8 million civilians during 1975-9"
Chomsky was here actually comparing the genocide in Cambodia with the U.S sponsored genocide in East Timor during tha same period. But then reading these two quotations out of context you would never know that.
It's also interesting to note where this guy gets most of his sources: for instance, the 'Anti-Chomsky reader' is one. The Washington post and the New York Times also appear frequently as sources.
Quite frankly, if this tedious hodge podge of quotations is the best that people desperate to criticise Chomsky - rather than confront him with a degree of honesty - can come up with, then he's pretty safe for the time being.
It would be far more revealing for this Paul Bogdanor, whoever he is, to actually confront Chomsky and engage in a reasoned debate with him. But then I suppose it's a lot easier to pick holes from a distance. It just makes you wonder why this person would go to such lengths, rather than simply arrange an interview with his subject.
So you believe that if I say that Chomsky hates the U.S. that it's strictly because he's critical of the current government. I find that to be a leap of logic...
Chomsky is a patriot. He loves his country and the human race. Activism is patriotic. Peace is patriotic. Flying a goddamn flag while we're terrorizing other nations is not. People who don't think dissent is necessary especially when we're at war are not.
Comments
Is this supposed to persuade me to agree with Chomsky's bullshit? Take a look at a list of Time Magazine's "Men of the Year". It might shock you a bit.
I'd elaborate, but it would just evoke some idiot pro-Hezbollah response on your part, something about how white people are evil, how you're cheering for the underdog, etc. etc. Why would I want to open the floodgates, this place has already killed more than a few brain cells.
Nice way of evading the question.
Do you actually have a question, or did you just need to make let another flatulance comment?
So you believe that if I say that Chomsky hates the U.S. that it's strictly because he's critical of the current government. I find that to be a leap of logic...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAh ! What's sickening here is that every country or organisation that says no to the American foreign policy is called "terrorist" ! Why don't you guys change a little bit ! Use your intelligence and don't get overwhelmed by the media !!!
I asked you to elaborate when you commented that his meeting with Hizbollah was 'sickening'. And as for your comment that what Chomsky has to say is 'bullshit', perhaps you'd prefer to believe the article for which this thread was started? An article in which Chomsky is notably absent, and an article which says more about Zachary Hughes and 'Camera' than it does an accurate report of the views and opinions of Chomsky himself.
O.k. So what do you mean when you say that Chomsky 'hates his country'? Can you provide an example of this hatred?
By the way, please provide an example of when I have claimed that white people, including myself, are evil? I'm intrigued.
First off, I agree that this article is clearly written from a pretty biased standpoint, and I think the language was more than a little over the top. However, I do think that visiting Hezbollah leaders is disgusting behavior. Over and over again, I am given my opinion on this group, I don't think they are legitimate "freedom fighters" in 2006, I think they are bloodthirsty murderers who are propelled by a hate-filled ideology. What does Chomsky hope to accomplish by consorting with such people? That is my opinion, take it or leave it.
From Wikipedia:
"Hezbollah[1] (Arabic: حزب الله, meaning Party of God) is a Lebanese Islamist and nationalist political party and military resistance movement, with a military arm and a civilian arm, founded in 1982 to fight the Israeli Occupation Forces who occupied southern Lebanon until the year 2000. Hezbollah is presently lead by Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah...
Hezbollah says Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon proves that the Jewish state only understands the language of resistance. They defend their right to keep their weapons as a deterrent against Israeli attack, to liberate the disputed Shebaa Farms border area, which is occupied by Israel...
Hezbollah abducted three Israel Defense Forces soldiers during an October 2000 attack in Shebaa Farms, and sought to obtain the release of 14 Lebanese prisoners, some of whom had been held since 1978. On January 25, 2004, Hezbollah successfully negotiated an exchange of prisoners Israel, through German mediators. The prisoner swap was carried out on January 29: 30 Lebanese and Arab prisoners, the remains of 60 Lebanese militants and civilians, 420 Palestinian prisoners, and maps showing Israeli mines in South Lebanon were exchanged for an Israeli businessman and army reserve colonel Elchanan Tenenbaum kidnapped in 2001 and the remains of the three Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers mentioned above, who were killed either during the Hezbollah operation, or in its immediate aftermath..."
They appear to have fairly a legitimate reason for existing if you ask me. No more so than any other army, or resistance movement. I just can't equate your opinion that they are '..bloodthirsty murderers who are propelled by a hate-filled ideology' with the facts. Maybe I'm missing something?
It's my opinion. I didn't base it upon him being critical of the government solely. I based it on other things such as his revisionist history books, his love for Hezbolla, etc.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
You're missing a lot of things, probably deliberately. I guess my views on Hezbollah boil down to the terrorist tactics they use, and the fact that they did not disband after Israel left Lebanon. A resistence movement is needed after Israel leaves the country? If anything, Hezbollah invited them back into Lebanon by kidnapping those soldiers. That's "resistence"? Looks more like picking a fight to me.
"..his revisionist history books, his love for Hezbolla.." you say. I would love to hear what you mean when you say that he has written revisionist history books. If you have in fact deconstructed any of his revisionist history books and would care to share your findings with me, i'd be grateful.
I personally can't see how somebody who has done more for exposing the lies of his government, and who has been tireless in the quest to - in his words - 'present the truth to power', can be considered to 'hate his country'. I would have thought that he in fact represents the opposite of someone who hates his country. It is not just poor, foriegn, brown people who are suffering at the corruption of the Bush administration. There are plenty of Americans being fleeced by these crooks also. Isn't therefore the role of intellectuals in the West to reveal the truth behind the media facade which we are presented with everyday? Isn't someone who challenges the injustices of those in power in his own country someone who loves all that is good and just in his country?
Nope.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
but yet you don't believe that building walls and occupying lands and having to go thru military checkpoints with a rifle in your face is terrorism?? ... why do you justify one's arms action but vilify organizations that do the same?
Thankyou for your considered, reasoned response.
But for those who actually do care about facts and history ... and won't just give their kneejerk biases and cite charlatans like Chomsky for support, check this out. It will be of interest to those with any historical integrity.
The Top 100 Chomsky Lies - http://www.paulbogdanor.com/100chomskylies.pdf
Polaris, where is your concern about so many other walls in the world, particularly the one the Egyptians have on the other side of Gaza?
And whose lands are "occupied" and how?
It seems that any "occupied" lands Israel vacates simply become rocket launching sites. Did it concern you that Hezbollah has been launching rockets into northern Israel ever since the Israelis withdrew, and that the same has happened from Gaza. Do you think this summer was the first rocket launch??
How dare you confront him with facts...
That web page is a fucking joke. Everything quoted is taken out of context and distorted.
Just one example:
The Lie: "it seems fair to describe the reponsibility of the United States and Pol Pot for the atrocities during 'the decade of the genocide' as being roughly in the same range"
The truth: They were not remotely in the same range American forces caused approximately 40,000 Khmer Rouge and civilian casualties in Cambodia during 1970-5. The Khmer Rouge killed more than 1.8 million civilians during 1975-9"
Chomsky was here actually comparing the genocide in Cambodia with the U.S sponsored genocide in East Timor during tha same period. But then reading these two quotations out of context you would never know that.
It's also interesting to note where this guy gets most of his sources: for instance, the 'Anti-Chomsky reader' is one. The Washington post and the New York Times also appear frequently as sources.
Quite frankly, if this tedious hodge podge of quotations is the best that people desperate to criticise Chomsky - rather than confront him with a degree of honesty - can come up with, then he's pretty safe for the time being.
It would be far more revealing for this Paul Bogdanor, whoever he is, to actually confront Chomsky and engage in a reasoned debate with him. But then I suppose it's a lot easier to pick holes from a distance. It just makes you wonder why this person would go to such lengths, rather than simply arrange an interview with his subject.