vote in the US one party system!

[planetx]

just a reminder, and so eloquently explained by noam chomsky (http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20081010.htm) that the US is really only a one party system, the business party…

both candidates have in the past made it clear that nothing drastic is going to change but for a little push here or a little push there in return for votes.

[peter_puck]

just a reminder, and so eloquently explained by noam chomsky (http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20081010.htm) that the US is really only a one party system, the business party…

Nobody is preventing Noam Chomsky from running for office.

[August1991]

just a reminder, and so eloquently explained by noam chomsky (http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20081010.htm) that the US is really only a one party system, the business party…

both candidates have in the past made it clear that nothing drastic is going to change but for a little push here or a little push there in return for votes.

Noam Chomsky simply doesn't get the whole idea of choice.

Even if the Republicans and the Democrats were identical (which, it seems obvious to me, they are not), they're mere existence would guarantee a semblance of democracy. It is choice that matters because it creates some incentives to keep the bastards honest. There is an alternative gang.

Chomsky is one of those fools who, observing that Colgate is identical to Crest, believes society can gain through economies of scale if we just have one brand of toothpaste. "What's the point in having two if they're identical?" Or just as foolishly argues that we have no choice because they are identical.

How can otherwise intelligent people be so blind about such fundamental points?

Edited November 4, 2008 by August1991

[Hcheh]

Noam has a point though. This reminds me of Tommy Douglas' favourite "mouse-land" story:

There were two cats running for office to govern the mice, one cat was black and one cat was white. Finally, they realized that the cats were no good for them, so the mice decided to run for themselves.

The argument of the dilemma illusion is quite plausible.

Mind you, this may not be my opinion, just providing support for Noam's argument.

[bush_cheney2004]

Gee..I don't know...vote in the n+1 party Canadian system and nothing changed at all. Hell...the outcome was known beforehand and people complained about wasting the money on another election.

[August1991]

Noam has a point though. This reminds me of Tommy Douglas' favourite "mouse-land" story:

There were two cats running for office to govern the mice, one cat was black and one cat was white. Finally, they realized that the cats were no good for them, so the mice decided to run for themselves.

The argument of the dilemma illusion is quite plausible.

Mind you, this may not be my opinion, just providing support for Noam's argument.

IMHO, Tommy Douglas didn't get the point either although I think the main point of his Mouseland story may have been a little more partisan. Douglas wanted to say that neither the Liberals nor Conservatives represented the interests of ordinary people. (Apparently, ordinary people feel their interests are better represented by the Liberals and Conservatives rather than the NDP because the NDP have largely been unsuccessful outside of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.)

Nevertheless, I object to this black cat/white cat idea. It may make no difference to a mouse whether it is chased by a white cat or a black cat but it makes a tremendous difference to the mouse if the two cats know that the mouse gets to choose which cat does the chasing - as along as the two cats don't "reach across the aisle" or work in a "non-partisan atmosphere".

This is what people like Chomsky and Douglas (have) never quite understood. I don't think they quite understand the role of incentives.

We the people keep these white/black/green cats in line because we choose which cat can chase us - and the cats know this.

Gee..I don't know...vote in the n+1 party Canadian system and nothing changed at all. Hell...the outcome was known beforehand and people complained about wasting the money on another election.

Good point. I have heard the same comments about "costly" elections in Russia but I've rarely read such comments in America.

Unlike Canadians or Russians, Americans seem to assume willingly the cost of democracy. IME, Americans understand that if they don't do it, no one else will. If there is a single credit to the writers of the US Constitution, it is that they managed to make this idea manifest to millions of people, centuries later.

Edited November 4, 2008 by August1991

[Hcheh]

IMHO, Tommy Douglas didn't get the point either although I think the main point of his Mouseland story may have been a little more partisan. Douglas wanted to say that neither the Liberals nor Conservatives represented the interests of ordinary people. (Apparently, ordinary people feel their interests are better represented by the Liberals and Conservatives rather than the NDP because the NDP have largely been unsuccessful outside of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.)

Nevertheless, I object to this black cat/white cat idea. It may make no difference to a mouse whether it is chased by a white cat or a black cat but it makes a tremendous difference to the mouse if the two cats know that the mouse gets to choose which cat does the chasing - as along as the two cats don't "reach across the aisle" or work in a "non-partisan atmosphere".

Yes, more specifically, the mouse land story was probably aimed with a more partisan motive. However, the concept is still relevant.

Anyhow, yes, we get to choose which cat gets to chase us.. That is the point that Tommy and Noam has made; we are going to get chased either way.

The mouse ultimately does not want to be chased by a cat. To some mice, the white cat may be more appealing, and to others, the black cat is more appealing. However, in the end, it doesn't matter which cat you pick because in the end, you will ultimately be chased by a cat.

That is the argument of the dilemma illusion.

[August1991]

Yes, more specifically, the mouse land story was probably aimed with a more partisan motive. However, the concept is still relevant.

Anyhow, yes, we get to choose which cat gets to chase us.. That is the point that Tommy and Noam has made; we are going to get chased either way.

The mouse ultimately does not want to be chased by a cat. To some mice, the white cat may be more appealing, and to others, the black cat is more appealing. However, in the end, it doesn't matter which cat you pick because in the end, you will ultimately be chased by a cat.

That is the argument of the dilemma illusion.

Hceh, you don't get it either. Sad.

If you have choice, you are rich. The poor of this world have no choice.

If the mouse can choose the cat, then that puts the mouse in the driver's seat. The cats will respond to incentives - as long as they don't collaborate or form a cartel. ("Work together for the broader public interest", to choose a phrase that a black cat and white cat might use.)

The mouse ultimately does not want to be chased by a cat. To some mice, the white cat may be more appealing, and to others, the black cat is more appealing. However, in the end, it doesn't matter which cat you pick because in the end, you will ultimately be chased by a cat.

Government bureaucrats are going to chase you to pay your taxes and they are going to dispute your medical/pension/unemployment claim. The nature of government is to make people do what they don't want to do individually even if they know that it is good for the collective.

We all want a street lamp but we quibble over how to pay for it. We need a top cat to herd us all but we want to keep the cat in line. (What a metaphor... )

----

I can find several ways to criticize our so-called democratic electoral system but at least it offers choice. Douglas and Chomsky are wrong in their criticsm. They don't get it.

Edited November 4, 2008 by August1991

[Hcheh]

Hceh, you don't get it either. Sad.

If you have choice, you are rich. The poor of this world have no choice.

If the mouse can choose the cat, then that puts the mouse in the driver's seat. The cats will respond to incentives - as long as they don't collaborate or form a cartel. ("Work together for the broader public interest", to choose a phrase that a black cat and white cat might use.)

----

I can find several ways to criticize our so-called democratic electoral system but at least it offers choice. Douglas and Chomsky are wrong in their criticsm. They don't get it.

As I said, this is not necessarily my view. I am just sympathizing with the thought.

Sure, we are in the "driver's seat" (a conspiracy theorist would say otherwise ). The cats will respond to incentives of course, because they want to become the next president.

So you have two cats who both want to be the president... and we are in the driver's seat because we get to choose who does become the president.

So yes, technically, there is a choice. We get to choose who becomes the next president. However, what does it matter if we cannot change the actually result and outcome of our country? Sure we can choose whoever we want, but if they if they are really offering the same thing (that is another debate) then there is no real choice concerning the outcome of the country.

We can choose who becomes president, but that is about it...

[Shady]

Noam Chomsky's an idiot. Of course there are differences.

[Mr.Canada]

The USA is a wondrous democracy and is the home of the brave. Anyone may run for president and win. The two most popular parties happen to be the GOP and the Democrats, that's all. Democracy in action.

[Kitch]

Noam Chomsky's an idiot. Of course there are differences.

Good point. I can't believe that the logic you've introduced had eluded me.

Noam Chomsky is far from an idiot. That's why so many people line up to hear him speak and not some clown on a web forum.

[M.Dancer]

Noam Chomsky is far from an idiot.

In would say he's within 2 miles.

[Hcheh]

You know, Chomsky has made a career by being an intellectual for a reason.. I'm sure that reason was not because he is an idiot

[M.Dancer]

You know, Chomsky has made a career by being an intellectual for a reason.. I'm sure that reason was not because he is an idiot

He's made a career being a tin foil hat salesman.

[Mr.Canada]

He's made a career being a tin foil hat salesman.

M.Dancer is always correct and his one liners are legandary. He is never wrong and never makes mistakes. We should all strive to become lie him.

[Hcheh]

M.Dancer is always correct and his one liners are legandary. He is never wrong and never makes mistakes. We should all strive to become lie him.

Sure. Both M.Dancer and Noam Chomsky are both human beings and yet, while we cannot expect the same from Chomsky, we can always rely on M.Dancer to be perfect and always correct.

[White Doors]

Good point. I can't believe that the logic you've introduced had eluded me.

Noam Chomsky is far from an idiot. That's why so many people line up to hear him speak and not some clown on a web forum.

I disagree, Noam Chomsky is an idiot to the nth percentile.

[Kitch]

In would say he's within 2 miles.

Disagreeing with him doesn't make him an idiot. I'd LOVE to see somebody actually disagree with some point he's made and back it up with some magical citation though... the man reads EVERYTHING. Read one of his books. They're about 400 pages with 150 pages of references! Many people attack the man, but won't touch his ideas.

[Kitch]

I disagree, Noam Chomsky is an idiot to the nth percentile.

If you don't devine 'n' then you leave your variable open to be anything!

Besides, simply repeating yourself doesn't make your words any more true. It makes you a psychopath for repeating failed attempts though... if you can really call those attempts.

[White Doors]

Anyone who asks institues of higher learning to 'divest themselves' of academics from Israel is an idiot.

Now, did you know he was behind this move?

Did you?

Maybe you need to put the kool-aid down and do some reading. Chomsky has been raked over the coals by many, many people not least of which is Alan Dershowitz. I have read his books and Chomsky puts facts in his books, but draws wild ideological and illogical conclusions from them. That's called SPIN and that's what his books are all about. His references are often nothing to do with what he is talking about at all or in other cases he selects a narrow band of 'facts' and disregards all else that are counter to his agenda. He doesn't write books so much as he writes propoganda pieces. Goebbels would have been proud.

And I am the psychopath because I have read up on it and am aware of it and you think Chomsky is great?

you want a shovel or an excavator?

Here is some reading for you to do:

http://tech.mit.edu/V122/N25/col25dersh.25c.html

http://www.freeman.org/m_online/sep03/shapiro.htm

Maybe you should get the book in the second link, read it then come back here and tell us again that Chomsky is so great.

I don't think you will if you are a fair minded person

[Kitch]

Anyone who asks institues of higher learning to 'divest themselves' of academics from Israel is an idiot.

Now, did you know he was behind this move?

Did you?

Maybe you need to put the kool-aid down and do some reading. Chomsky has been raked over the coals by many, many people not least of which is Alan Dershowitz. I have read his books and Chomsky puts facts in his books, but draws wild ideological and illogical conclusions from them. That's called SPIN and that's what his books are all about. His references are often nothing to do with what he is talking about at all or in other cases he selects a narrow band of 'facts' and disregards all else that are counter to his agenda. He doesn't write books so much as he writes propoganda pieces. Goebbels would have been proud.

And I am the psychopath because I have read up on it and am aware of it and you think Chomsky is great?

you want a shovel or an excavator?

Here is some reading for you to do:

http://tech.mit.edu/V122/N25/col25dersh.25c.html

http://www.freeman.org/m_online/sep03/shapiro.htm

Maybe you should get the book in the second link, read it then come back here and tell us again that Chomsky is so great.

I don't think you will if you are a fair minded person

That's more like it! The psychopath comment was a joke... it may have sounded more aggressive than intended, but, whatever's clever.

I like to think that I'm a fair minded individual. I don't see how petitioning to eliminate Israeli influence/support makes somebody an idiot. Maybe angry, spiteful... but not an idiot.

I didn't bother looking at the second link (although maybe I will pick up the book), but I read the first one and WOW. This muse of yours is guilty of all the same things of which you accuse Chomsky. I've heard Chomsky speak about Israel... he is not a neo-nazi or a holocaust denier.

He is, however, a strong advocate for freedom of expression, which is why he had no problem writing a forward for a holocaust denier's book. He is indeed anti-zionist, though. Is there something you see wrong with this? Because that might be THE reason why Chomsky is so criticized in some circles. But a lot of what I've read from these people, similar to this Dershowitz, is propaganda in it's own right. There are certain truths that these people treat as self evident (no reference intended). For example, the notion that Israel is occupying Palestinian regions for protection. I don't think that this is true, but that's another discussion.

Chomsky doesn't put wild "spins" on information that he sites! Perhaps these "spins" are based on information that is of the same flavour that zionists spew. Propaganda goes both ways. Chomsky, from what I've read, does indeed try to explain the other side of the story... or rather, motivations of people that he's criticizing. But I didn't see a hint of that in Dershowitz' little piece you posted.

Have a read of this:

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/3251

[Kitch]

That's more like it! The psychopath comment was a joke... it may have sounded more aggressive than intended, but, whatever's clever.

I like to think that I'm a fair minded individual. I don't see how petitioning to eliminate Israeli influence/support makes somebody an idiot. Maybe angry, spiteful... but not an idiot.

I didn't bother looking at the second link (although maybe I will pick up the book), but I read the first one and WOW. This muse of yours is guilty of all the same things of which you accuse Chomsky. I've heard Chomsky speak about Israel... he is not a neo-nazi or a holocaust denier.

He is, however, a strong advocate for freedom of expression, which is why he had no problem writing a forward for a holocaust denier's book. He is indeed anti-zionist, though. Is there something you see wrong with this? Because that might be THE reason why Chomsky is so criticized in some circles. But a lot of what I've read from these people, similar to this Dershowitz, is propaganda in it's own right. There are certain truths that these people treat as self evident (no reference intended). For example, the notion that Israel is occupying Palestinian regions for protection. I don't think that this is true, but that's another discussion.

Chomsky doesn't put wild "spins" on information that he sites! Perhaps these "spins" are based on information that is of the same flavour that zionists spew. Propaganda goes both ways. Chomsky, from what I've read, does indeed try to explain the other side of the story... or rather, motivations of people that he's criticizing. But I didn't see a hint of that in Dershowitz' little piece you posted.

Have a read of this:

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/3251

Nothing?

[Kitchener]

Anyone who asks institues of higher learning to 'divest themselves' of academics from Israel is an idiot.

Plausibly, anyone who said that would be wrong. Being wrong does not imply being an idiot.

Now, did you know he was behind this move?

No, I did not. Could you please cite the work in which Chomsky argues that institutes of higher learning should "divest themselves" of academics from Israel? Thanks.

I know that Chomsky once signed a petition, one tangential point of which was to recommend that universities (and others) should divest themselves of financial/corporate investments in Israel. In fact it was by his efforts that this petition made almost no mention of this strategy, since he has publicly, volubly, repeatedly rejected it. For example, in a Washington Post call-in discussion:

Alexandria, Va.: Why did you sign an MIT petition calling for MIT to boycott Israeli investments, and then give an interview in which you state that you opposed such investment boycotts? What was or is your position on the proposal by some MIT faculty that MIT should boycott Israeli investments?

Noam Chomsky: As is well known in Cambridge, of anyone involved, I was the most outspoken opponent of the petition calling for divestment, and in fact refused to sign until it was substantially changed, along lines that you can read if you are interested. The "divestment" part was reduced to three entirely meaningless words, which had nothing to do with the main thrust of the petition. I thought that the three meaningless words should also be deleted, but as everyone concerned with human rights knows, one constantly signs petitions without agreeing with every single word, just the main thrust, as I do in this cae. I don't know what interview you are referring to, but there are many -- before and after -- in which I've explained my opinion about all of this, and it is well known among those who are concerned with these matters, and has been for years. On your last question, as noted, I was and remain strongly opposed, without exception -- at least if I undertand what the question means. How does one "boycott Israeli investments"?

]

So not only is Chomsky not in favour of divesting from financial/corporate involvement in Israel -- even that claim is a radically different position from the allegation that he says that institutes of higher learning should "divest themselves" of academics from Israel. Surely you could not have confused the two.

If this is an example of how carefully you've followed Chomsky's views and how drawn conclusions from the data, I think you need to rethink it. All of it.

Chomsky has been raked over the coals by many, many people not least of which is Alan Dershowitz.

Chomsky humiliated Dershowitz in their exchange over Dr Israel Shahak [pdf] in the early 1970s, exposing AD's dishonesty, shoddy argument, and disposition to trample facts with vitriol. Dershowitz has never forgiven him, and seems to miss no opportunity to attempt a smear. I have yet to see an attack that held water when examined for factual accuracy and valid reasoning.

[kakowi]

I lived in a one party state that had been so for close to 5 decades.

My opinion is that the US system is a good one, one which allows for much greater transparency and at the same time allows for a much greater freedom to speak without reading your lines through and through for the past 10 minutes before clicking the REPLY button.