Log in

No account? Create an account
The Noam Chomsky Community's Journal [entries|friends|calendar]
The Noam Chomsky Community

[ website | The Official Noam Chomsky Website ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

Maybe it's not relevant, but it's worth a try [06 Dec 2010|01:31pm]

I 'm doing a small research project in chomskian syntax  and for my purposes I came across the following sentence:

'*which dog did Mary wonder if she should buy?'

The alternative with "whether" instead of 'if' is obviously a subjacency violation.  This one is obviously ungrammatical, however I cannot explain why. It seems like Subjacency and ECP are not violated. What else could it be?

If this isn't a proper place to ask this question, perhaps you'll help me with finding the right place :)
post comment

for the record [07 Jun 2009|06:05pm]

[ mood | artistic ]

I had a dream that Chomsky had died, and it was such a realistic dream that I wasn't sure if it was real or not...
I just checked and he is still alive
I was relieved to see this

3 comments|post comment

Discussion Group for Noam Chomsky [14 Sep 2008|10:49am]

Hello I would like to start a discussion group for people who read his works is anyone here interested. I have just started reading some of his essay and am very interested in talking about them with people.

2 comments|post comment

Original baller [02 Jul 2008|04:15am]

[ mood | curious ]

When old man Noam dies who will fill his shoes?

7 comments|post comment

[17 Mar 2007|01:20pm]


"Democracy and freedom are more than values to be treasure, they may will be essential to survival" (Chomsky)
1 comment|post comment

quote [26 Feb 2007|01:08pm]

Personally, I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions of society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism, we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control.
-Noam Chomsky
1 comment|post comment

According to Tom Wolfe, Chomsky didn't know anything about Vietnam. [26 Jan 2007|06:08pm]

From the May/June 2006 issue of Humanities: The Magazine of the National Endowment for the Humanities, page 8.
Wolfe: ...I make a distinction between intellectuals and people of intellectual achievement.
Cole: Who are intellectuals?
Wolfe: An intellectual feeds on indignation and really can't get by without it. The perfect example is Noam Chomsky. When Chomsky was merely the most exciting and most looked-to and, in many ways, the most profound linguist in this country if not the world, he was never spoken of as an American intellectual. Here was a man of intellectual achievement. He was not considered an intellectual until he denounced the war in Vietnam, which he knew nothing about. Then he became one of America's leading intellectuals. He remains one until this day, which finally has led to my definition of an intellectual: An intellectual ia a person who is knowledgeable in one field but speaks out only in others.
This is an inane critique of Chomsky's writings on Vietnam. It is filled with references to sources, including official government documents.
3 comments|post comment

[16 Apr 2006|10:47am]

In 1971 OPEC had a meeting at which they decide that whereever oil is bought or sold, it may only be bought or sold in US dollars. This means that Mexico selling oil to China has to be sold in US dollars, Holland trading with Morrocco has to be done in US dollars, etc etc. What this means is for anyone to trade oil, they have to buy dollars. This is how the US can owe more money than any country in the history of the world, but doesn't have to pay anything back because since 1971, thanks to this OPEC agreement, the US effectively has a magic chequebook.

Imagine you're maxed out past your overdraft limit in every bank in the world, and have been for decades, but it doesn't matter because everyone still accepts your cheques and they never come back to the bank.

So what could possibly happen to the magic chequebook of the US dollar to bring all of that money back to chase Washington on Wall Street? Well, it almost happened.

On 30/10/2000, when a switch was made to a deposit account in the Wall Street branch of a French bank. This was the account handling the 2.3 million barrells of oil sold per day by Iraq under the "oil for food" scheme. The Iraqis said that they wanted to switch the account from being a dollars denominated account to a euro denominated account. The UN couldn't stop them, but it looked like a stupid thing to do at the time because the euro was only worth eighty cents to the dollar. They'd lose money on every barrell they sold. They'd bankrupt their country within a year. The Iraqis didn't care, they hated America so much that they didn't want to trade in their currency.

In 2001, the euro gained 25% against the dollar. The Iranians then decided to switch their central bank's reserve funds from dollars to euros too. This makes them member number two on the axis of evil list, with number one being the Iraqis who started the trend.

7/12/2002, North Korea declares that it's going to do ALL of it's trading in euros. Not just oil, but everything. They're quickly branded "Axis of evil" member number three.

In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, the elected president, gains chainmanship of OPEC. He calls a meeting in Spain, in April of 2003 and on the table is the proposal that every single OPEC member stops trading in dollars and starts trading in euros. If that happened, that would be the federal reserve's worst nightmare because then every single central bank in every single country in the world has to abandon the dollar and start trading in euros. Such is the need for oil. All the dollars in those banks would be flushed out, the market would be awash with dollars and it would become a worthless currency. Worth less than toilet roll. The US would be back in it's 1920s and 1930s depression and this time they wouldn't have the Nazi party to invest in to save themselves.
3 comments|post comment

Noam Chomsky: Venezuela is an Example of True Solidarity [24 Feb 2006|02:21am]

"Venezuela, by sending heating oil free of charge for poor and homeless people and at very low prices for those that can pay, is giving a great example of cooperation and solidarity with the American people; and the whole world is bearing witness to it," said the outstanding scholar, historian and university professor Noam Chomsky during a presentation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The event brought together professors, researchers, politicians, scholars, journalists, and social leaders from that city.

Chomsky, who is also well-known in the field of linguistics, has lashed out the Bush administration foreign policy through his books and speeches in international events.

He explained that the majority of Americans receive little or no information at all about the achievements of the Bolivarian revolution led by President Hugo Chavez, because the mass media only highlight the negative side and remain silent about the positive.

The writer and MIT linguistics and philosophy professor –who dedicates a great part of his activities to giving lectures at universities, trade unions and organizations– announced that he will visit Caracas in late October to participate in conferences and forums on how the Latin American situation is being viewed from the US perspective. He said that in his presentations he will approach the Venezuelan situation from the angle of its achievements, accomplishments, targets and programs.

On this occasion, Chomsky took part in a panel discussion on the origins and consequences of terrorism. Also participating were British priest Geoffrey Bottoms, a defender of humans rights and activist for world peace and justice, as well as journalist and moviemaker Bernie Dwyer, who lives in Havana.

Before the panel opened, there was a screening of the documentary "Mission Against Terror," which denounces the detention of five Cubans in the United States for fighting terrorism. At the same time it investigates the terrorist activities of Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles – the masterminds of the mid-air bombing of a Cubana Airlines DC-8 off the coast of Barbados on October 6, 1973 that killed all of its 73 passengers and crew members.

Throughout the discussion, Chomsky referred to the Venezuelan political process as an example for Latin America and the rest of the world, underscoring the policies that have achieved countless successes, especially in the educational and healthcare fields. These have strengthened the Venezuelan people's dignity, he said.

"Venezuela has successfully challenged the United States, and this country does not accept challenges – much less if they are successful. That's the heart of the matter," said the writer.

On the other hand, he pointed out that according to Bush's foreign policy, the United States believes that it has the privilege of labeling any country or person as terrorist. "And by following that precept we would have to accept that our own air force might bomb Washington, as the US government is harboring Luis Posada Carriles and has turned a deaf ear at Venezuela's request for the extradition of one of the most notorious terrorist in this continent, who is about to be released," said Chomsky.

He went on to say that "Posada Carriles, a former CIA operative, escaped from a Venezuelan prison where he was being held while facing trial for the attack on the Cuban plane and other charges. He was later admitted into the US and sent to El Salvador, where, among other activities, he organized Nicaraguan Contras along with Captain Oliver North."

"Now," said the US scholar, "the Cuban-born terrorist is in a jail in El Paso and the Venezuela´s request for his extradition has not been responded to. Everything seems to be in a limbo; and probably Posada will show up tomorrow in Miami, walking around freely. So there is a remarkable contradiction between what is said and done in this country with regards to terrorism."
1 comment|post comment

[23 Feb 2006|03:33pm]


Chomsky lecture to be simulcast at MU

February 22, 2006

If you weren’t lucky enough to pick up a free ticket to see Noam Chomsky at 7 p.m. Monday at the Missouri Theatre, don’t fret. You still might be able to catch his lecture — just not in person.

The Missouri Theatre and the Missouri Students Association Box Office at Brady Commons gave away tickets for the theater’s 1,177 seats eight days after they went on sale Feb. 8, said event organizer Jonthon Coulson. However, provisions were made for those unable to get their hands on a ticket.

One way is to turn on the radio. The event will be broadcast on KOPN/89.5 FM at 7 p.m.

The event will also be simulcast on the MU campus in the School of Journalism’s Neff Auditorium, in Stotler Lounge at Memorial Union and in Monsanto Auditorium in the Life Sciences Building. Audiences will be seated on a first-come, first-serve basis.

Another opportunity to listen to Chomsky will be at his linguistics lecture at 4 p.m. Monday in MU’s Ellis Auditorium, “Biolingustic Explorations: Design, development, evolution.”

Coulson said that he is not surprised the tickets were given away fast.

“It’s a free event in a college town. We should expect the tickets to go quickly,” he said.

Kerby Miller, an MU history professor, was surprised at the short life of the free tickets.

“Just 24 hours after I got mine, they were all gone,” he said.

Related story
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/story.php?ID=18410 -- Mid-Missouri Peaceworks hopes Noam Chomsky sparks dialogue 2-16-2006
post comment

The US, Israel & Hamas [21 Feb 2006|12:39am]

Z Sustainer question: Do you think the US/Israeli position of refusing aid/relations with the PA under Hamas is likely to have the effect of making Hamas take a more radical uncompromising stance vis-a-vis Fatah and Israel? If so, do you think this is an intended effect of cutting off relations? It seems that refusing to work with Hamas is an effective way of forcing them to rely on more radical elements such as Iran rather than cooperate with Hamas.

Noam Chomsky: Press reports in Israel indicate that, as expected, the government is delighted with the Hamas victory, which enables the government to persist in its "there is no partner" posture, enabling it to carry forward its programs of taking over the valuable parts of the West Bank and ensuring that remaining fragments left to Palestinians will be unviable -- a second prison alongside of Gaza, decisions now explicit with the announcement of the virtual annexation of the Jordan Valley and steps to expel the population gradually. The US position is probably more complex. Washington doubtless welcomes the opportunity to carry forward the Israeli plans for which it has provided decisive support. On the other hand, it is reasonably clear that Washington would have preferred to pursue these policies within the framework of a powerless Palestinian authority, reduced to weak rhetorical gestures and discrediting the cause of securing Palestinian national rights. A genuine commitment to realizing these rights was not one of the options. The non-option is supported by almost the entire world and by a considerable majority of the US population, but that is largely irrelevant, as in many other cases, and will remain so until real progress is made at home in "democracy promotion," to borrow a fashionable phrase.
4 comments|post comment

Good GOD, people can be stupid [17 Feb 2006|03:35am]

5 comments|post comment

Your Belated Weekend Chomsky #38 [29 Dec 2005|08:24pm]

Last month, Noam debated Alan Dershowitz, and a very good post on it (containing a partial transcript and media links) can be found here, on the Palestinian solidarity community. A torrent for it can also be found at:


Definitely worth watching.
3 comments|post comment

Your Belated Weekend Chomsky #37 [17 Dec 2005|09:19pm]

The Speakeasy audio interview on Imperial Ambitions (December 12, 2005). About 30 minutes long. Noam cites a study conducted by the British Ministry of Defense, which this Telegraph article is about.
post comment

Your Weekend Chomsky #36 [05 Dec 2005|12:33am]

Q and A on Iraq (from ZNet; Nov. 2005)
post comment

Your Weekend Chomsky #35 [28 Nov 2005|02:52am]

Damn, even Brian Leiter has something to say about the Guardian fiasco.
post comment

Your Weekend Chomsky #34 [20 Nov 2005|11:10pm]

CKUT: "An Hour with Noam Chomsky"

A pretty recent radio interview. During the hour, Noam discusses the role of media, torture and imprisonment in liberal democracies, free trade agreements, etc.

At a point during the interview, he brings up a report dealing with child imprisonment, crediting Unicef for conducting the study. In reality, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International conducted the study, which I blogged about here. The results are actually much more shocking than Noam lets on.
post comment

Your Weekend Chomsky #33 [13 Nov 2005|05:01pm]

And finally, Noam lays into the Guardian's editors.
1 comment|post comment

Your Weekend Chomsky #32 [06 Nov 2005|09:13pm]

It seems Chomsky and David Edwards have responded to the Guardian's crap:

1 comment|post comment

Your Weekend Chomsky #31 [31 Oct 2005|09:19pm]

LJ user syndicalist seems to have started a pretty good discussion about this "really snotty, pathetic piece" on Noam that the Guardian ran today.
post comment

[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]