>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

@enoch,
When Chomsky said, "the stupid masses", he was characterizing an elite point of view. (I looked it up) He wouldn't be the Noam Chomsky we know and love if he had that much contempt for his species. If you agree with that sentiment, then you identify with the elites Chomsky was criticizing. Chomsky may be cynical, but he is no nihilist. He is a humanist. (and so are you!)
If the human race is truly stupid, then there is no point in seeking positive change, and we are all doomed to suffer whatever cruel horrors fate has in store for us.
Underinformed? Sure, that is fixable.
Stupid? Fuck that kind of collective self loathing.
We are all we have. Everything that happens to us -short of an apocalyptic act of nature- , good or bad, will be a result of human action. If we think ourselves stupid, then stupid we shall be. If we loathe ourselves, it only makes it that much easier for the rich and powerful to dominate us. If we think ourselves elite in a world of fools, it just makes it that much easier for the real elites to divide and conquer (yes, I'm looking at you, rightwing libertarians.)
We need to start a humanist revival. White tents. Gospel music. The whole nine. And we are going to need some rebel preachers. Are you in?
disclaimer: dft has a strong pro-human bias and should probably not be trusted.


totally agree my man.
guess i should have paid more attention to how my comment may have been misconstrued in regards to chomsky's quote.
"manufacturing consent" is the book that started it all for me and the more time that passes ...the more it seems chomsky had it right from the get-go.
the man is brilliant and i have the utmost respect for him and his work.

and if you took the metaphysical aspect out of my worldview,what you would have left is a secular humanist.
i feel very strongly that my fellow humans have been utterly and thoroughly duped into believing that their happiness is tied to what they do or what they own and that somehow their success/failure resides solely in their ability to "pick themselves up from their own boots-straps".

this paradigm is utter bullshit of course.
it was a creation.
specifically designed to create good consumers.
the carrot on the stick.
you are not smart enough...
you are not pretty enough...
your skin is too light...
too dark...
nose is too big..
too small..
everything you wanted or desired is just inches out of reach.you are so close you can almost taste it.....
buuuuuuut..
if you purchase this skin cream,or that pair of sneakers..
this make/model car..or home...
YOU can achieve happiness and everyone will love you and you will be so popular and content.
so buy NOW!operators are standing by!

the irony is that the very companies selling you this happiness are the very people who created your own discomfort in your own skin.
its the great flim-flam and it has worked brilliantly.

wait..
what were we talking about again?
sighs...*derailed

@enoch,

When Chomsky said, "the stupid masses", he was characterizing an elite point of view. (I looked it up) He wouldn't be the Noam Chomsky we know and love if he had that much contempt for his species. If you agree with that sentiment, then you identify with the elites Chomsky was criticizing. Chomsky may be cynical, but he is no nihilist. He is a humanist. (and so are you!)

If the human race is truly stupid, then there is no point in seeking positive change, and we are all doomed to suffer whatever cruel horrors fate has in store for us.

Underinformed? Sure, that is fixable.
Stupid? Fuck that kind of collective self loathing.

We are all we have. Everything that happens to us -short of an apocalyptic act of nature- , good or bad, will be a result of human action. If we think ourselves stupid, then stupid we shall be. If we loathe ourselves, it only makes it that much easier for the rich and powerful to dominate us. If we think ourselves elite in a world of fools, it just makes it that much easier for the real elites to divide and conquer (yes, I'm looking at you, rightwing libertarians.)

We need to start a humanist revival. White tents. Gospel music. The whole nine. And we are going to need some rebel preachers. Are you in?

disclaimer: dft has a strong pro-human bias and should probably not be trusted.

Don't mind me since I have been drinking but most of this seems like personal conjecture.

Obama did not Veto NDAA when he said he would.

People where killed overseas without Due process.

I personal don't give two shits over mittens and Kock brothers.

Jackson didn't produce depth it just made it seem cool, but it is more like the anti drug commercial this is your brain on drugs commercials. Shock value.

Obama has promised many things and delivered on little.

I like Noam Chomsky and he has been highly critical of the administration.

He hasn't closed Gitmo and has given no timetable.

Fuck John McCain and his sanctimonious POW bullshit.

I know that it was a rider and his administration fights to keep that one part alive.

Obama is not going to save this country. That believing he will help the country is only prolonging its death. I don't vote for the lesser evil.

This is all good fodder for discussion, but it is clear from the dishonest way in which this video was put together that the Kochs are more interested in creating a political hit piece than fostering any kind of discussion.

They claim Obama signed an executive order to kill American citizens, but they provide no context and erroneously use the plural (citizens) when in actuality it's just one guy. I'm not sure if it could have been avoided. I'm not sure how many lives it saved, if any. I'm not sure if it was a good thing or a bad thing. In context, it exists in a very debatable grey area. But we see no attempt to understand any of this in this sanctimonious sermon.

As far as NDAA, it was not a bill designed to indefinitely detain prisoners, it was, (is) an annual military budget bill. John McCain attached a rider to the 2012 NDAA that allows for indefinite detention, for reasons I don't understand, because indefinite detention was already permissible under other existing clauses. Obama asked for it to be removed, but no action was taken, and it was voted in with a veto proof majority.

As to why the court case was appealed, I don't know. It might have something to do with Obama's executive order to shut down Guantanemo and provide trials for the prisoners. Congress vetoed the order by prohibiting funds to try the prisoners, leaving them in a kind of limbo. Does this clause give him more time to shut down Gitmo and give trials to the prisoners under a new and improved congress? I don't know. The point is that while it might be fun for the Koch's to drop some provocative soundbites, they do it in a superficial way that does little to further the conversation. If you want depth, read Chris Hedges, who has written some great stuff on the subject.

You could say that Reason is being superficial on purpose to mirror the Jackson video, but none of the videos they produce ever approach any level of depth.

Beyond all that, right wing libertarianism is not a viable alternative to a consensus guy like Obama or even a complete disaster like Romney. They are at the bottom of the barrel as far as our choices go. Their backwards and luddite view of economics disqualifies them from serious consideration from anyone with even a cursory understanding of economics.

Obama has kept his promises of ending combat in Iraq, getting us a healthcare system and signing an executive order to shut down gitmo (even if congress stopped him from doing it). I'd love to elect Noam Chomsky as President, but that's not going to happen, and he probably wouldn't get much done if somehow he were miraculously elected. There are many factions in this country pushing and pulling, and frankly, I can't remember a time when regular citizens had more pull. Change is slow in a democracy.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'noam chomsky, sports' to 'noam chomsky, sports, manufacturing consent' - edited by dystopianfuturetoday

Good stuff. It's from the documentary, Manufacturing Consent: http://videosift.com/video/Manufacturing-Consent-Noam-Chomsky-and-the-Media

>> ^Kofi:

What choice did liberals have, really? Obama or ......


...actual organization. It really is pathetic with all the disillusionment and the privileges we have in this country that we can't organize better than Columbian peasant farmers. As much as I don't like the Right in this country and the Rich, I fucking hate the Left, bunch of Yuppie hipster pussies that whine and complain but don't do shit. Occupy is the future, they need more support and direction. Step up or shut up Lefties.

Has he lost his fucking mind?

He has disapproved of America's wars in Korea (1950–1953), Vietnam (1964–1973), Afghanistan (2001–present), and Iraq (2003–2011), believing that the United States should not be overly militaristic or play the role of global policeman.[250][251] He considers himself "too individualistic to be either right-wing or left-wing",[252] describing himself in 1974 as "a political nothing" and "a moderate"[248] and in 1997 as a "libertarian".


He has endorsed same-sex marriage[254][257] and contributed to groups supporting the Equal Rights Amendment for women, which failed to receive ratification in 1982.[258] In 1992, Eastwood acknowledged to writer David Breskin that his political views represented a fusion of Milton Friedman and Noam Chomsky.[259]

MITT FUCKING ROMNEY????????????????????????????????????????????

Edit: I think he's genuinely going senile.

@rbar sorry I didn't see your last post. I think this UDHR is pretty noble but unknowingly evil, because it states that people have all sorts of rights, but what happens to the costs and demands those rights impose? To enforce them would imply a huge amount of force that would deny people of even more basic rights the declaration supposedly claims to protect. Take for example, "Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work". Does that mean the price of labor should be controlled?? By whom? To see that policy enforced, would be an egregious assault on economic freedom.

My ideal is a society where most if not all of these problems that socialists and liberals are also concerned about, like people's material needs being met, living happy productive lives, etc. are handled in an environment where the right incentives and freedoms allows creative solutions and resources to be best allocated voluntarily, rather than by mandates that are noble and well intended, and seem to handle the problem in the short run, but cause a lot more trouble than they are worth because they destroy this very environment in which society thrives.

Your video of Noam Chomsky commenting on Ron Paul's answer in a republican debate, "what if some guy is on a coma and he's going to die" to which he supposedly replied, "it's a tribute to our liberty", is a gross misrepresentation, that was never the answer Ron Paul gave. I'll bet Noam Chomsky wouldn't like to be paraphrased into saying the opposite of what he meant, he just understood what he wanted based on his own preconceptions.

Watch the actual footage here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMHY21VA8WE
(And please don't confuse a few members of the audience yelling "Yes!" with the position of the Tea Party (not that I care what they think) or Ron Paul's)

Before you talk about capitalism and democracy balancing each other out, you must first question what really happens when people are given economic freedom. A contrived scenario is playing out in your mind.

It's like if someone told you that if people had freedom of expression, people would just start spewing lies on top of lies and society would bury every shred of truth and dignity until it became unrecognizable. All I'm saying is that freedom of expression is beautiful, it's far from perfect, a lot of people will say terrible things, but it's a much better environment than censorship, and that it's not naive to expect freedom of expression to improve society with time, making truth more and more available and affordable to everyone, not only making our society more civilized but effectively raising our standards of living.

Only I'm not arguing about freedom of expression, but economic freedom.

@renatojj

Whether or not everyone is entitled to a job or money is a question I never thought about. The universal declaration for human rights (UDHR) states it as follows:
"The UDHR included both economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights because it was based on the principle that the different rights could only successfully exist in combination" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights (parts classification and indivisibility)

Its really interesting to read the declarations 22 to 28 of the UDHR. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Article_22)

For instance:
Article 23
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

I havent thought this through, but all of the above seem to me to not be inline with free market policies as free market policies dictate against the above rules favoring the natural motion of the market to guide the market along. Natural motion meaning that if there are moments of superfluous workers (large unemployment like today), they dont have a job and dont get paid, which forces them to either start working for themselves or die out which in both cases balance the market again.

A question inline with this: I just dont understand what your ideal is. Is there some country that comes close to your ideal or can you describe what you want to achieve?

Just having less government IMHO isnt a goal, its a means. Is your goal to maximize individual freedom (Ayn Rand style)? Though she has some ideas I fully agree to (rationalism as the only mean to knowledge vs faith for instance) her objectivism has never had much success with academia and for good reason.

Someone much more eloquent then me explained it this way (though he was talking about libertarian-ism, a close relative):
http://videosift.com/video/Noam-Chomsky-on-Ron-Paul-Hes-a-nice-guy-but

One reason democracy and capitalism have done so well for so long is because they keep each other in balance. Democracy is the rights of the majority over the minority. Capitalism (of which free market policy is a part) is the right of the individual, ie the minority over the majority. Both in and off themselves are disastrous. The balance is just where its at. Free market policies push in the direction of capitalism and away from balance. IMHO not what we want.

heh..

No comment.

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^Trancecoach:
um, someone pays prostitutes.. they're the ones getting paid... >> ^A10anis:
My late mother used to say; "We are all prostitutes. Whether it be for money, power, sex, whatever, we all pay someone, in some way, for the life we want."


Once again, simple things need explaining to simple people, who read what they see, but cannot see what they read (it's seriously tedious). We ALL pay someone, therefore, we are ALL getting paid, therefore, we are ALL prostitutes. Do you understand now?? Jeez, it's people like you who can read a fortune cookie and give it 45 different interpretations..

>> ^Trancecoach:

um, someone pays prostitutes.. they're the ones getting paid... >> ^A10anis:
My late mother used to say; "We are all prostitutes. Whether it be for money, power, sex, whatever, we all pay someone, in some way, for the life we want."



Once again, simple things need explaining to simple people, who read what they see, but cannot see what they read (it's seriously tedious). We ALL pay someone, therefore, we are ALL getting paid, therefore, we are ALL prostitutes. Do you understand now?? Jeez, it's people like you who can read a fortune cookie and give it 45 different interpretations..

um, someone pays prostitutes.. they're the ones getting paid... >> ^A10anis:

My late mother used to say; "We are all prostitutes. Whether it be for money, power, sex, whatever, we all pay someone, in some way, for the life we want."

>> ^A10anis:

My late mother used to say; "We are all prostitutes. Whether it be for money, power, sex, whatever, we all pay someone, in some way, for the life we want."


Was that during bedtime stories? :'(

>> ^Buck:

hey Yogi, Harvard study good enough for ya?
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMaus
eronline.pdf
The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.


Oh really...The Law School of Harvard doesn't want to ban guns how surprising. It's because they produce Lawyers, and they produce Liars. Harvard is the place to go if you don't want to learn anything except how to be a fucking Twat. Thank you Noam Chomsky.