Noam Chomsky blasts Obama: He has no moral center

[babsbunny]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/13/noam-chomsky-blasts-obama-he-has-no-moral-center/

By Eric W. Dolan
Sunday, January 13, 2013 12:33 EST

In a video published by Al Jazeera English on Saturday, MIT professor and activist Noam Chomsky slammed President Barack Obama for using aerial drones to kill suspected terrorists.

Chomsky said that a black activist had recounted a story in which a group of African American women visited the President following his inauguration in 2009. After the meeting, the disappointed women told the black activist, “this man has no moral center.”

[Comrade_McKenzie]

1. Just lost all respect for Chomsky. nt

[dorkulon]

10. I'm sure he'll be crushed.

[man4allcats]

27. Ha ha ha! Good one!

ROFLMAO!

+ 100

[BlueCaliDem]

85. No more or less than President Obama would be.

[kelliekat44]

141. Just like Sy Hearsh was about Viet Nam.

People just don't want to hear the truth about their leaders, or themselves for that matter.

[rhett o rick]

93. Did he try to burst your comfortable denial bubble. Shame on him. nm

[Fearless]

111. +1

[coalition_unwilling]

107. Did you ever have any respect for Chomsky to begin with? - n/t

[Bake]

135. Because he dared criticize President Obama???

Oh, the humanity!!

Bake

[buddybrown]

153. Hang on, I must be missing something here, this is the guy us and Chomski were waiting for

[leftynyc]

154. Is that English? (n/t)

[CJCRANE]

159. You are the person

you were waiting for!

Change begins with you!

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

184. LOL! you've never heard of him!!

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. Chomsky said the same of Jimmy Carter

At least he's consistent.

[banned from Kos]

18. True, Carter "terrorized" the Indonesian people

according to Norm (sic).

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. Don't forget Carter's "devil's bargain" with Pol Pot

Chomsky is equal opportunity on this stuff.

[geek tragedy]

58. Considering that Chomsky's Pol Pot apologism, that's rich. nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

32. And he was correct then as well. Right and wrong are real measures and one's capacity

to rationalize doing wrong is not.

[Itchinjim]

3. "a black activist had recounted a story "

Let me guess: Cornel West?

[limpyhobbler]

13. I was guessing Alice Walker.

[virgogal]

4. He's basing this opinion on a second hand story? Wow !

[ZombieHorde]

127. No, that is not what he is doing. nt

[JoePhilly]

5. Plus, I heard Obama's just like Hiter.

[JoePhilly]

40. Do you have a graphic, or are you wasting the few posts you will get here on DU?

[Bonobo]

38. Is that Strawman #1 in this thread or #2? nt

[JoePhilly]

41. #2, just behind ... "Obama has no moral center".

[Bonobo]

44. Errr, ummm, Joe... that is NOT a strawman.

You should, ummm, just stop now before everyone else realizes you don't know what a strawman is.

[JoePhilly]

45. Correct ... it was actually a lie ... and not a strawman.

Or maybe not a exactly a lie ... perhaps slander is more accurate.

No ... no ... Wait ... I got it ... it was a hyperbolic caricature used to generate eyeballs.

That's probably the best description.

That evil Obama.

[Bonobo]

46. It is called an "opinion" and I agree with it.

Appointing a torturer to be head of the CIA seems to support my opinion as do a number of other actions too many to go into in a short time.

[JoePhilly]

50. The funny thing about opinions ...

every one HAS one.

But very few get elected President.

And so ... clearly, from what I gather from you ... Obama is an evil guy (your opinion) ... but still, he will be President for the next 4 years.

Perhaps you should get busy on the 2016 Candidate who will fix all that Obama has broken.

Noam, who I actually like, should also engage that effort.

Or, in about 2 years ... you and Noam will be upset with the next Dem Candidate.

[Bonobo]

51. Your point is muddled.

What is funny about everyone having opinions?

And what does that have to do with very few people becoming president?

Forget it, Joe, I don't think your next response is likely to become clearer so I give up.

[patrice]

94. I accept you point as true on its own terms. I'm not here to argue against it. I just really

do need to understand how it works relative to certain probabilities and the office of the presidency.

Probabilities such as:
Even if we didn't do one more bad thing in the world for the rest of our time as a nation on Earth, there are various possibilities for successful and significant violence against us, are there not? Neither you nor I and hardly anyone else has enough of the right information to calculate those probabilities, but just for the sake of this hypothetical, let's say that they are 50 : 50. The chances of successful significant violence against this land/people are as likely as they are un-likely.

So, let's say something significant happens, many innocent people are harmed and killed, and you, as president could have done x, y, and z to reduce the probability of, or even prevent, that successful strike, but didn't because you "have a moral center". If such harms were to happen, what are the consequences to a person with "a moral center" who could have prevented them?

Regarding what is called "rationalization" and please note the root word there, rational: If the principle is that you must not DO things that hurt innocent people, given some likelihood (either more or less probable) of harms that one can DO things to reduce or prevent those harms, why aren't the rights of those victims of harm as equal in value as the rights of a person or persons reasonably suspected of connection to the probabilities of those harms? Especially if you can DO something about those probabilities?

This is an honest question. Not a trap. I just don't understand how a "moral center" works unless it works this way. You DO what you rationally can, in terms of the situation at hand, to sustain the principle. NONE of that means that you give wholesale approval to torture or coercion, only approval limited in specific ways by the terms of specific situations. One doesn't say, TTE, "Cutting people is evil" and then refuse to do surgery, in specific ways, when it will help or save someone's life.

My line of reasoning is not as corrupt as it is often portrayed. It is the essence of what eventually became Zen Buddhism, as it is found in its cultural roots in the Bhagavad Gita. Krishna does not provide Arjuna with a handy-dandy get-out-of-jail-free card. He doesn't even tell the great warrior what to do to fight the imminent evil. Krishna just simply reminds Arjuna that his life brought him to the present moment; all that had happened and Arjuna's part in it, was what made the situation what it was and NOT some other, different, less challenging situation. It's as though Krishna is telling Arjuna that he and the imminent events are the SAME thing. He doesn't absolve him, nor does he castigate him for the coming fratricide. Krishna says, in effect, "Own it," so we might conclude that whatever Arjuna does, whether he goes into the war and kills thousands, or whether he does not do battle and thousands are killed because of that, Arjuna should identify with either of his "choices", because the reality and he are not dichotomous. What is happening is who he is, however it turns out, so whatever he decides his course should be, he should DO his best to do that thing.

I'm honestly not trying to convince you of anything here. I'm just trying to explain how something works. That's how I understand it from my own life. The Bhagavad Gita gave voice to that understanding and Buddhism sustains something very similar in the value that it places on "non-attachment". I don't understand a perspective that claims another person has "no moral center" (not relative to most people that is); I don't see how that's anyone's to claim but one's own.

I respect you Bonobo, so I am asking you if you can explain what you mean to me, so I can understand better and agree to whatever extent possible.

Thanks for reading this.

p

[Bonobo]

97. Thank you, Patrice.

You ask such difficult questions that, of course, I couldn't begin to answer them, but I will be happy to share my way of thinking with you.

I DO ask myself the question that you raise here; namely that if I were President of the US, would I be able to maintain this same concept of moral purity that I push here. It is a fair question and it is a hard question and maybe it is a question that I cannot fully answer -but I like to believe that I would still maintain my positions but it is probably more honest to say that I would not put myself in a position where I had to sacrifice my values.

As to the question of saving lives by pre-emptive action against "threats"... and would the POTUS by morally responsible if something bad happened to the people of the US through his/her failure to preempt a possible future action... I have to say that I see it this way: Since neither I nor the POTUS could look into a crystal ball to determine future events, it is impossible for either of us to be sure that the actions (such as drone strikes that kill innocents) are necessary or a reasonable tradeoff. Yes, I know that Obama has more intelligence and so it could be said that he is in a better position to make those judgment calls, but I cannot accept it. It cannot be said who he is killing or what the ultimate results of his actions are. Did a drone strike kill a person that was going to kill US citizens or did it kill an innocent child that was going to grow up and invent a cure for malaria?

It is interesting the way you bring up the Bhagavad Gita and Zen Buddhism in the way you do. Yes, it is true that the conditions that Arjuna finds himself in are the current circumstances, but to "own up" to me means that you accept that you are creating the future conditions of the world. These conditions make the possibilities for events to happen (arise) and we are repsonsible not for what arises, but at least for creating the potential conditions. THAT is karma and I do believe in it. Karma means actions

The question than becomes what results from OUR actions (Obama's actions). Are we creating conditions for good or evil? For love or hate?

[patrice]

99. Thanks very much for your thoughtful reply. I can see that, like me, you don't think any of this is

"just simply" anything.

My position is not easy; neither is yours.

So I will re-read your reply tomorrow, when my thinking is fresh again.

Thanks again!

Later.

[coalition_unwilling]

110. Your logic is easily refuted by simply reversing its terms. Consider the following:

suppose Saddam Hussein discerned that Bush and Cheney were devising a genocidal campaign against the people of Iraq and the Middle East, a campaign based entirely upon easily-debunked lies. Suppose further that Hussein possessed the capability to deploy pilot-less drones against the Bush Junta with an eye to stopping genocide. Would you not find Saddam Hussein's use of said drones to evidence his "lack of a moral center" and thereby to be morally objectionable?

Hence, applying Kant's notion of 'universality of morality' to your proposition, if an action is wrong when one of our adversaries commits it, it must also be wrong when we ourselves undertake it. (My apologies to Kantians on this board if I have mis-stated or bastardized unduly Kant's position).

Or, as a T-shirt I saw displayed by a vendor on the Venice Beach boardwalk so aptly put it, four native Americans hold rifles under the caption "Fighting Terrorism since 1492".

[siligut]

123. You communicated this beautifully

Often this is something only experience can teach.

[DevonRex]

130. Beautifully stated.

This is how I view it but I could not have said it so well.

[freshwest]

48. Well, hell, that settles it. Let's all regroup at InfoWars now...

I'm only presenting this for discussion for people to make up their minds about where Chomsky is coming from. I don't agree with the OP. I'd chanced upon the fact that Chomsky was interviewed Jones doing another search. I found two videos:

New World Order Debate - Noam Chomsky and W. Scott Thompson 1991

Alex Jones Interviews Noam Chomsky (Part 1) (for Part 2, go to youtube)

I'm not even going to watch this, but those who believe Obama is part of an international, multi-generational plot will probably find some validation here. If anyone thinks this should not be here, let me know and I'll delete it.

[limpyhobbler]

6. Thank goodness for people like Noam Chomsky who aren't afraid to state the obvious.

Oh hai, the emperor has no clothes.

BTW, Nice way to take a long, intelligent interview, pick out one inflammatory quote and turn it into a headline.

[Arctic Dave]

8. Hey Commander Buzzkill, we are trying to have a flamefest here!

Some people's children.

[limpyhobbler]

15. LOL my bad, please proceed

[salinen]

23. Oh

you guys.

[peacebird]

9. + 1

[cheapdate]

36. "Nice way to take a long, intelligent interview,...

...pick out one inflammatory quote and turn it into a headline."

Thank you.

[Bonobo]

39. Yes, it is called "fucked up, manipulative cherry picking" where I come from. nt

[Arctic Dave]

7. YES!!!

This going to be fun!!!!

BY the way, I'm on NC's side.

Now...GO!

[TheKentuckian]

11. I bet he does, Noam. I'm just vexed by where it lies.

[truebluegreen]

21. +100 nt

[G_j]

68. It may be selective

as far as can tell, or maybe mutable.

[graywarrior]

12. I saw Chomsky speak at my college last year

He's brilliant, laid back and interesting. He also knows how to stir things up.

[arthritisR_US]

25. The only way to get a president to change

something is to apply pressure, I say heap it on.

[Major Nikon]

66. I like to re-watch his debate with Buckley from time to time

[graywarrior]

67. I should do that!

[spanone]

14. 'a group of african american women were disappointed' says it all for me

[Hekate]

19. I'd like to know who they were...

Just curious. In the interests of fuller information and considering the source and all that.

[geek tragedy]

122. The old white guy trick of blackwashing--cherry-picking or inventing

the sentiments of some random black people (bonus points for women in this case) who just happen to share his personal contempt for the President.

"See, black women hate Obama too. He must be evil."

Sure, just like the Log Cabin Republicans represent the sentimentes of GLBT Americans.

[jberryhill]

16. He's a President, not a Priest

[Hekate]

20. And that's the truth. And frankly, if he was a priest, DUers would melt down...

... regarding the separation of church and state and a bunch of other stuff.

Just sayin'.

[Enrique]

24. the first he mentions morality in the interview

it is about his own moral obligation. the second mention, it is about our moral obligation as citizens. then, in an answer to a question about Obama's moral compass, he gives the answer in the headline.

Clearly, "morality" has nothing to do with being a priest.

[Egalitarian Thug]

33. Being a sociopath is pretty much a requirement to want to be the President.

Sane people don't want to be in the position of dealing with the things a President has to deal with.

I generally judge how good or bad the man was by how much he ages in his term.

[Bonobo]

42. I would like to see you repeat that the next time...

there is a weather disaster and people here go all googly-eyed when he hugs someone.

[jberryhill]

47. That's a matter of being human

[Bonobo]

49. On his part, yes.

But for onlookers speaking in the hushed tones of awe usually reserved for holy men, it is something different.

[DevonRex]

133. What a nasty thing to say about your fellow DUers. You just don't respect us at all, do you?

You think we're idiots or something. How nice of you. Why don't you take a minute and think about how what you said reflects on you as a member here? If you don't like us or respect us then...

[leftynyc]

156. More tedium

from a poster who just cannot help patting himself on the back day in and day out over his imaginary superiority. Yawn.

[DevonRex]

162. Right?

The level of condescension from that on just knows no bounds.

[leftynyc]

164. Do you think he/she

realizes how pedantic they always sound? Amusing for the most part.

[DevonRex]

166. I don't know.

I tried to start some dialogue above, but got no reply. Hopefully it made him/her at least consider how some of the comments sound to the rest of us mere mortals. .

[Bonobo]

175. Pedantic? I'll take that any day over the trash talk, curse-filled bitterness you spill.

Check out your posts. They are as nasty as flies on shit.

[leftynyc]

176. Yawn

Don't go breaking that arm patting yourself on the back now. Bitterness? Over you? That's pretty funny.

[Enrique]

17. 12:30 to 18:00 in the video

5 1/2 minutes about Obama, mostly about his Middle East policy, all of it thoughtful and measured. In addition, he clearly means every word, every word is consistent with what he has said about U.S. policy in the past.

[one_voice]

22. Well I'll be up all night..

fretting over this. A second hand story based on what ONE group of women thought, I don't know if I will recover.

[Demo_Chris]

28. Anyone, ANYONE, who criticizes our leader is a fool

Chomsky simply does not understand hyper-dimentional chess played on the astral plane of fractal trans-reality.

[ProSense]

30. Oooh,

"Chomsky simply does not understand hyper-dimentional chess played on the astral plane of fractal trans-reality. "

...deep?

Much better than picking ones nose.

[Buzz Clik]

54. Oh, SNAP!!!!

I'll confess to slowly getting used to the knuckledragger-styled insults to Obama at DU, but the admins are protecting them.

[geek tragedy]

56. No, he's just another fraudster who says stuff to get himself attention rather

than limiting himself to what he knows to be true.

This is the same guy who put Osama bin Laden in the same category as Robert Kennedy Jr and Leo Ryan.

[bama_blue_dot]

65. I have been wondering why this

person is still here..

[geek tragedy]

73. Nice post count. Been here under a different handle before?

Or do you feel qualified to expel longstanding members from a place you just joined?

[bama_blue_dot]

84. I was agreeing with your statement about the poster above.

I don't know why you are insulting me..

[geek tragedy]

87. Sorry, thought comment was directed at me. Sorry for being an ass. Nt

[bama_blue_dot]

89. No problem..

I was happy to see someone else actually say something about it.. I had wanted to, but you know my "post count" stops me from that..

[patrice]

90. Yeah, and here I thought your manners were improving . . .

[Number23]

102. "put Osama bin Laden in the same category as Robert Kennedy Jr" Why in God's green

earth would anyone do something that stupid and reprehensible? Sounds like he is lacking common sense, some basic perspective and dareIsayit, a bit of a "moral center."

[datasuspect]

116. That's "Dear Leader"

[L0oniX]

137. They are not of the body...

[ProSense]

29. Wait,

Chomsky said that a black activist had recounted a story in which a group of African American women visited the President following his inauguration in 2009. After the meeting, the disappointed women told the black activist, “this man has no moral center.”

...you've got to be kidding me. I mean, WTF?

I guess more people need to hear this message: Obama won!

PSA: Hating Obama isn't going to make the country or the world a better place.

[Egalitarian Thug]

34. And equating observation and criticism to hating is? n/t

[freshwest]

80. And character assassination is not critical analysis.

Chomsky is a libertarian socialist without a place he respects enough to call his home. American libertarian is funded by the Koch brothers so he'll get no satisfaction here. And he has no solutions being put into place on this continent, sad to say.

[pnwmom]

35. Another bit of hyperbole from Chomsky. Anything for attention. nt

[Bonobo]

43. The old "He just wants attention" thing...

Heard it with Kucinich, heard it with Chomsky, heard it with Nader, heard it with Cornel West.

It is par for the course with anyone that dares to speak from a true Left perspective.

[geek tragedy]

57. "Obama has no moral center" is not a progressive belief.

It's not even a political belief or ideology.

It's an expression of personal animosity/hatred/contempt towards a human being the idiot who says it has never met and ergo cannot possibly be qualified to assess.

It's the position of purist losers who fancy themselves the Morality Police.

[Bonobo]

62. No, that is just an opinion.

It is also a small cherry picked quote from a longer, thoughtful interview that does come from a progressive position.

On the other hand, your contention that is represents hatred of a human being is a ridiculous and indefensible position.

And of course he can assess the president's moral compass based on his actions. What else would someone base such an opinion on other than a person's actions? Do you honestly believe that sharing a few dinners or drinks with Obama would make such an assessment more accurate? Now THAT is silly.

[geek tragedy]

74. "I disagree with his policies" = "he has no morals" is a mindset

usually identified with the Christian Taliban in this country.

But, rigid doctrinaire ideologues of all stripes apparently wallow in it.

[Bonobo]

77. Nice try.

But no, anyone is free to question the morals of a person who participates in warfare, unfair incarceration, favoring the rich and other such activities. It has nothing to do with the Christian Taliban.

[geek tragedy]

81. Sure, just like Rush Limbaugh is allowed to question the morals

of women who use contraception.

Of course, there's a long list of people whose life has been made better by Chomsky's efforts. Children fed, medical care provided, jobs created, etc.

P.S. which 2 of these three are multimillionaires who use tax shelters to dodge paying personal income tax? Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Noam Chomsky?

[Tarheel_Dem]

101. "Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Noam Chomsky?"

Ooh, Ooh, can I take a stab at it?

[pnwmom]

69. It's certainly true with Nader. n/t

[freshwest]

88. What's up with this? That's not analysis, it's more like rumor without foundation. Disappointed.

[pnwmom]

104. Chomsky gets more media attention by making hyperbolic statements than

he would if he made more measured -- and accurate -- statements.

[freshwest]

105. I have listened to him for years. Maybe he's slowing down. Or maybe I didn't notice this.

Of course he's no Howard Zinn. That is one man I will miss - among others.

[Buzz Clik]

52. Chomsky keeps his record perfect: he does not like any US presidents.

His complaints are legit (though quite harsh), but he never cuts anybody any slack.

[KittyWampus]

60. The word that comes to mind is ideologue.

[Buzz Clik]

63. It's easy to take on that role when you provide philosophical guidance ....

... but do not have the mantle of leadership.

[NYC Liberal]

53. I'd say he has an excellent "moral center"

And this story is from someone who heard it from someone who heard it from another person? Really?

[geek tragedy]

55. Amazing how many fraudsters like Chomsky pretend to know the inner psyche

of someone they've never met.

He as as much credibility on Obama's 'moral center' as UsWeekly readers have on Justin Bieber's relationship with Selena Gomez.

[fascisthunter]

61. "fraudsters"?

are you 12?

[geek tragedy]

82. Anti capitalists who use Romney-style tricks to dodge taxes

are fraudsters, yes.

[fascisthunter]

189. yes, you are 12

ok then... tighten up that belt.

[Bonobo]

64. Yes, judging a person based on their actions is absolutely INSANE! nt

[geek tragedy]

71. "He has no moral center" is a statement of personal hatred not a policy

analysis.

Those who use and agree with such rhetoric reveal only their own pathologies, not anything meaningful from a policy perspective.

[Bonobo]

75. No it isn't. It is an opinion about the man's ethics and morality. nt

[geek tragedy]

76. Sure, just like the prognostications of UsWeekly readers on the

Bieber-Gomez relationship.

Neither is based on any kind of analysis or is entitled to any respect.

[Bonobo]

78. Pffft. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

83. + 1 eom

[dgauss]

70. Your post certainly does raise questions of credibility.

[geek tragedy]

72. Eh, what Chomsky's fanboys and fangirls think of his

critics is as predictable as it is meaningless.

[coalition_unwilling]

112. "Fraudsters like Chomsky" - I'm surprised I had not yet put you on Ignore. But there's

always a first time for everything.

Hope you have a nice life or whatever.

[samsingh]

59. does he have other suggestions?

[treestar]

79. That's ridiculous

It's not so easy; Mr. Chomsky should try a position of responsibility in any job or any leadership position and he'll find his "moral center" a lot harder to center.

[BlueCaliDem]

86. + 1.

It's so easy for people to be critical of someone when they don't have the responsibilities and have to put in the hard work.

It's like a guy wailing that a woman should keep the baby of her rapist, not understanding how difficult that can be mentally as well as physically because they'll never have to be in that position to have to make that choice.

Chomsky has ever right to criticize the president, of course, but people should have the intelligence to remember the above when listening to him, and to keep things in perspective.

[One of the 99]

91. He's sounding more and more like a right winger.

That's their game spouting out about who has morals or who is patriotic. Chomsky should stick to issues and not delve into the politics of personal destruction. He damages his own credibility by doing so.

[patrice]

96. Funny thing about that. If you listen to the video Freshwest posted above, you realize the 800 pound

gorilla in this room is the United Nations, so overlap between Chomsky who is authentically Left + what calls itself "the Left" these days and may or may not actually BE the Left + those right wingers you refer to - ALL - of that mitigates AGAINST development of the United Nations into what it needs to be, a more just force for good in the world, and thus relieve the USA of its not so well sustained burden of being "policeman to the world" (which Chomsky describes in that video above).

As much as I agree with some of this stuff coming from "the Left" in principle, I cannot let myself off on this point: the overlap that you refer to with right wingers WORKS AGAINST "the Left's" priorities for economic/social justice and peace. No matter how fine their principles are, they have their pragmatics, the tactical stuff, ALL wrong.

[DevonRex]

92. The President Of The United States revealed his lack of moral center to

a group of activists, a group of supporters even, just after his inauguration. President Barack Obama revealed that about himself. Uh huh. Right.

Just supposing it were true, and knowing how intelligent this man is, do you, do any of you, really believe that he would show that lack of moral center to a group of activists? To a group whom he welcomed gladly? To then go out to the public and spread their impressions?

Or is it more likely that there were perhaps some unrealistic expectations held by a member of that group and that disappointment led to imprudent comments afterwards? Or is it even more likely that this is nothing more than rumor, made up out of whole cloth? For what we have here is an unsourced anecdote, nothing more.

I would have expected better of people here, really. To be completely honest, it is kind of sick to see this taken as Truth. I won't even comment on the rejoicing.

[patrice]

95. Agree. Please see my post #94.

[Zoeisright]

98. That's fucking disgusting.

I do respect Chomsky, but I think less of him now.

[Number23]

100. lol

Not just a group of women. A group of "African American women." I guess that gives the story more weight. More oomph.

[msanthrope]

125. Indeed. Apparently, the most salient point about these women is that they are "African American."

Commenting about an "African American" President. I guess it makes him sound more authoritative, if he quotes "African American" critics of the President? Nest, he'll tell us he's friends with Cornel West....

[Tarheel_Dem]

103. Is the statement supposed to be more powerful coming from "disappointed black....

women"? Not sure why he chose to relate such a tale. I'd much rather hear this from the "disappointed black women" in question, that is if they exist.

Noam Chomsky + Al Jazeera =

[Lydia Leftcoast]

106. Oh come off it!

If it were BUSH ordering drone attacks, you'd all be moaning about how terrible it was and wishing we had a Democrat in the White House.

If an act is immoral, it's immoral, no matter who does it. It's not a matter of personalities.

You can prefer one president to another without automatically liking everything he does, and if you can't criticize Obama when he deserves it, then you're basing your morality on personalities instead of principles.

[Bonobo]

108. It's sad that that needs to even be said. nt

[Kingwithnothrone]

109. Thank you

Wanted to post what you did, but couldn't quite come up with the words to use in a civil manner.It is amazing to see the righteous indignation in this thread with nary a single comment from the righteous defenders of the President,about the moral implications of drone strikes that kill civilians.Characterizing drone strikes that kill civilians as an impossibly complex issue is bullshit.It is inhumane and wrong.It is just that simple.

[coalition_unwilling]

114. Ah, but you see, to Obama's defenders, the dead and wounded aren't 'civilians' but rather

'terrorists disguised as children' (or 'women' or 'elderly').

(in case it's needed)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

119. Some of the defenders act like children

Who have heard someone criticize one of their parents. "Don't you say bad things about my daddy!"

They want to believe that their choice for president is perfect and that whatever he does is automatically right.

Republicans did for with Bush, and it's disturbing to see some Democrats doing for Obama.

[leftynyc]

158. Are you talking about

how some here are defending Chomsky (who frankly I always thought was a bit of an asshole - there's my opinion)? This is the Democratic Underground. We elect Democrats and work within the system we have - that's what adults do. We know perfection doesn't exist.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

172. And some of us know that perfection doesn't exist but expect a little more

than abject surrender to the war hawks and the financial pirates.

[leftynyc]

174. Ah - sorry I missed the memo

where hyperbolic bullshit was a substitution for reason. Carry on.

[Bonobo]

177. You're muttering angrily while hunched over a can of reheated Campbell's soup, aren't you? nt

[leftynyc]

178. Nope-taking a break

from my full time job. And I make my own soup and try not to eat anything out of cans because of the sodium. Thanks for your interest.

[Number23]

188. HA!! + a million. It must be bad when something this popcorn-drenched gets a whopping 18 recs

But the spittle flung over the thread by the "YOU GUYS ARE ALL WORSHIPPERS and OnLY I KNOw the TROOF" crowd is certainly... damp.

[coalition_unwilling]

113. +1,000,000,000 x 1,000,000,000 - Well put and definitely

needed saying.

[geek tragedy]

115. No, you come off your moral high horse and stop condemning everyone

who does anything you disapprove of as being a complete failure as a human being.

You can take the amount of people helped by Obama's policies and they out number by a factor of 10,000 those helped by Chomsky and all of his fanpeople here combined.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

117. Only one relevant question here

Would you approve of drone strikes if they were a Bush policy and only a Bush policy?

If not, then you're basing your morality on personalities.

How would you like it if the FBI bombed your neighborhood to kill a suspected Mafia don and when you complained that members of your family had been killed, the FBi and its apologists said that it was your own fault for "sheltering" a Mafia don? That's what the US government is doing to Pakistani civilians, and if large numbers of Americans think that's OK, it's further evidence that the US has gone over to the dark side in foreign policy.

[geek tragedy]

121. There is such a thing as distinguishing between policy-based critique and

engaging in attacks against a person's merit as a human being.

Chomsky is doing the latter here.

And hiding behind the skirts of "concerned African American women" to blackwash his sentiment.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

126. Sorry, but I do have to wonder about someone who thinks that keeping the Afghan war going

is a good idea and that it needs to be escalated.

Or who thinks that hiring banksters and CIA torturers for his Cabinet in order to please the Republicans is a good idea.

[geek tragedy]

143. Um, Obama is planning to end our presence in Afghanistan.

Also, good luck trying to regulate the banking industry without hiring people who know how it operates from the inside. Or finding CIA administrators with good human rights records.

But, if your point is that those who disagree with you are evil human beings, well that's just not terribly different than Brian Fischer et al.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

148. But he widened it--added more troops--before he "planned to end it"

And for the Treasury Secretary--you mean that nobody knows how to go after crooks but another crook? There are no honest people with a knowledge of how the financial system works?

And maybe, just maybe, the CIA needs a director who will clean house.

And maybe, just maybe, we need to tell the deficit hawks to shut up and help fix our jobs and infrastructure problem.

I don't even know who Brian Fischer is, but killing people in a war with a constantly shifting purpose and torturing them for any reason and profiteering off other people's financial troubles, as the banksters have done--these are evil acts. And enabling these actions is morally dubious.

[geek tragedy]

165. Yeah yeah, voting for Obama was a sin. Got it.

Heard that exact line from the rightwing Catholic reactionaries who are equally convinced they have a monopoly on issues of morality and wisdom in public policy.

Of course, in the real world there are consequences for ending a military presence just as there are consequences for continuing it.

And, of course, in your view anyone who worked inside the financial system is per se evil, so yes in your worldview it is impossble to find honest people who understand how the private financial institutions work.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

182. You are getting desperate enough to argue like a right-winger

i.e. arguing against things I never said.

'Bye.

[leftynyc]

167. You seem to be in quite the rush

to leave the Afghan women in the grips of the taliban. And you want me to believe you're a liberal? Because you like Chomsky?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

171. Oh that old canard

Feminists were warning about the Taliban in the 1990s, but the CIA actually supported them at the time because they were the best organized of the factions fighting for control after the Soviet withdrawal.

An even better time to worry about the women of Afghanistan would have been 1979. The CIA started egging on the most regressive elements of society against the new Marxist government months BEFORE the Soviets were called in. (The American people were lied to and told that the Soviets sent troops in just because they were nasty Soviets who like to send troops into other countries and were using Afghanistan as a stepping stone to conquering Pakistan and gaining a warm-water port, but in fact, they were invited in to suppress the rebels, whose main beef was that the Marxist government wanted to impose women's rights on them.)

So beginning in the Carter administration and throughout the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations, the U.S. actively supported the most regressive elements in Afghanistan just because they were against the Soviets.

"But," you say, "what if Afghanistan had fallen under Soviet domination!"

Yeah, what if? For all their faults, Communist governments have proven to be good at two things: universal secular education and introducing women's rights to male supremacist areas like Central Asia and China.

So spare me your tears for the women of Afghanistan. They wouldn't be in danger if the U.S. hadn't played its Cold War games in their country.

No, leftnyc, I'm a REAL leftist. I'm not held back by MSM mythology and a lack of historical perspective or dazzled by personalities.

[leftynyc]

173. What an infantile argument

And seeing as how I've been a feminist since long before 1979, I'm well aware we were the only ones screaming about the taliban so your self righteous bullshit means nothing to me. So because our government fucked up 3 decades ago, by all means we should just hand over the women (again) to those who will make virtual slaves out of them. And you feel self righteous about your position and think communism is the answer? What a fucking joke.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

180. Your reply is incoherent

I never said Communism was the answer, but it would have been better than the Taliban for the women of Afghanistan, with the added bonus that the country wouldn't be in ruins.

The U.S. can't "fix" Afghanistan, and has been remarkably ineffective in protecting the rights of Afghan women. The Taliban essentially control the countryside anyway.

I suggest reading the article in the current issue of Harper's about Afghanistan.

[leftynyc]

186. An economic model

would have done nothing for the women in Afghanistan. At least we're trying. There are valid arguments to get out of there (our women and men dying, we're broke, it's an empire killer) but the cavalier way so many here are ready to leave the women and the girls who are having acid thrown in their faces for daring to want an education makes me very, very angry. As does comparing this President with our prior one. I'll never let the perfect be the enemy of the good and that's what I see on this board....every single day.

I will take your suggestion on reading that article although I suspect it'll just depress me. That'll never make me think Chomsky is anything more than a self important attention whore...a brilliant attention whore but brilliance is really nothing to admire, Antonin Scalia is a brilliant man - I still think he's an asshole.

[Marrah_G]

118. Bingo

Many have lost their own moral center and are unable to criticism actions by a democratic president that they would have condemned if done by a republican.

[DevonRex]

131. This little anecdote reeks of bullshit. He had to mention their race to give it credibility?

Just fucking LOL and barf. What a long way down he has fallen in my eyes. And this supposedly happened right after his inauguration? Really fucking LOL. The black women I know would have been there either in their best business suits with their quiet dignity on display or in their Sunday-go-to-meeting hats and the biggest smiles on their faces, and either way they were proud and HAPPY. Yes, happy. Pleased because at last, at last a huge barrier had been lifted. And even if they might not agree with everything, they weren't gonna walk out of any meeting with the first black President and say anything like that to fucking Chomsky. Not only no but hell no.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

134. He's only saying what many of us have suspected

Back during the Clinton administration, one of my friends explained Bill Clinton's tendency to cave in for the Republicans (which he did quite a lot in his first term) by the fact that Clinton grew up as an outsider and desperately wanted to be an insider. He therefore tried to please the "big boys" in hopes of becoming one of them. Unfortunately, as many of us learned in high school, 1) the insiders are usually a bunch of brainless moral midgets, and 2) once they have pegged you as an outsider, they will respect you less and less the more you try to get them to like you.

I see Obama as having some of the same problem. He runs as a Democrat, does a reasonably good (although not perfect) imitation of a center-left liberal while campaigning, but once he's in office, he expands the Afghan War, browbeats the Progressive Caucus into accepting a Heritage Foundation insurance plan (instead of browbeating the much smaller number of Blue Dogs into accepting a public option), widens the Afghan War (with its constantly moving goalposts and inhumane drone policy), appoints a torture-advocate as director of the CIA and two banksters (one in each term) as Secretary of the Treasury. He buys into the notion that the deficit is America's biggest problem, sufficiently so to raise the notion of cutting future Social Security benefits,when the real threats are actually long-term unemployment, lack of job opportunities for youth, global climate change, and deteriorating infrastructure.

I'm coming to the conclusion that it's all theater. We get a "choice" between someone who would be considered conservative in any other Western country and someone who would be off the right end of the charts in any other Western country. Either way, the Establishment wins, quickly or slowly, and the people lose.

[DevonRex]

138. He lied in saying it. He used fictitious "African American activists" to smear Obama

I don't give a rat's ass what Chomsky has to say after that. It's a racist thing he did. He did it on purpose to give his puny ass a little credibility and made himself look like the fool he is. Somebody up thread even used this racist bullshit to make their case about why President Obama is a sociopath. It was hidden.

There is no source. No confirmation. No date. No nothing. Just bullshit. Yet here you all are, merrily dancing to the tune, yay!!! Black ladies hate Obama!!! Say he's immoral!! Yippee and whee!!! What a fucking joke.

Make your cases without using the black ladies why doncha? I guess Chomsky couldn't do it but you should. And before you say you're not doing that, just think: without the supposed quote about the lack of moral center, where would this conversation be? Nowhere. Nowhere at all. IT IS THE UNSOURCED QUOTE FROM THE FEMALE AFRICAN AMERICAN ACTIVISTS that got the brouhaha started. Without that story, we wouldn't be talking.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

149. And do you have proof that it's not true

The story is irrelevant, since I doubt that you were ever a Chomsky fan in the first place.

I never mentioned any "black ladies." I'm using my own observations.

[DevonRex]

161. ...

Like I said, we wouldn't even be here but for Chomsky deciding to throw in the "African American women activists" saying that about Obama and IMO it's racist to use that to bolster his bullshit. So you can't wash your hands of it entirely. You ran with the lack of moral center argument as if up it were manna from heaven. As for the story, nobody can disprove what he himself didn't source. Therefore, it's bullshit on its face. Nothing but a lowdown, dirty, rotten thing for him to have done all around and to have used race in it, on top of what amounts to rumor mongering, is nothing more than despicable.

[YoungDemCA]

139. + a million

Thank you.

[msanthrope]

142. I would have been just fine with a drone strike to Tora Bora and number of other targets after 9/11.

In fact, if Mr. Bush had struck Tora Bora and Taliban allies with drone strikes in 2001, there might have been no Iraq war.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

150. Bush wanted an Iraq War so badly he could taste it

Remember that after 9/11 he asked if there was some way that Saddam Hussein could be blamed. It was always about the oil. Remember that the first thing the U.S. troops did was secure the Oil Ministry while allowing people to loot the Baghdad Museum.

[leftstreet]

146. +1

[patrice]

157. Principles can be ANYTHING, e.g. End Times, so some people base their "morality" on the facts

in analyses of each specific situation.

Situational ethics is not the corruption some people claim it is. It is a humanistic and more rationally responsible position that can be seen as a response to conventional, in-authentic, acquisition of "principle" from established authority/power.

[Puzzledtraveller]

120. NO!, Obama has no cream filling?

[NCTraveler]

124. If Chomsky wanted to get that "quote" out there...

"Chomsky said that a black activist had recounted a story in which a group of African American women visited the President following his inauguration in 2009. After the meeting, the disappointed women told the black activist, “this man has no moral center.”"

he should have stood on his own intelligence and made the statement his own. He offers no proof of whom these "African American women" are. Sounds kind of fishy. After a "visit", they pulled a Frist, and declared Obama had no "moral center".

[Rex]

128. Ya just read he thinks Obama is worser than Bush.

Fuck Noam Chomsky.

[whatchamacallit]

129. My new definition of insanity -

*Expecting politicians to be morally courageous people*

[tama]

170. Like that guy in Uruguay? nt

[zellie]

132. He's a self-important asshole.

I hate that dickface.

[YoungDemCA]

145. Way to refute his points...

Ad hominem much?

[leftynyc]

168. What points?

He mentions "African American women" but there are no names, dates. Maybe you believe everything that comes out of his mouth but some of us think he's a self important, hyperbolic asshole. Do you really believe that the President has no moral center? Because that's norm's position.

[Marr]

187. What points? It's a fairly long interview-- he made more than a few.

In direct reference to the point you're fixated on, he cited drone assassinations.

You obviously didn't read or watch the interview you're denouncing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

136. The morality of politicians is always questionable. Centrist politicians even more so.

[L0oniX]

140. How dare he criticize our president? ...and

how dare those disappointed women tell the black activist, “this man has no moral center.” Now let's all say that Noam Chomsky said that.

[YoungDemCA]

144. Chomsky did not say that "Obama has no moral center"

Even though he did strongly criticize Obama on this issue.

Anyway....I honestly do not get "progressives" whose loyalty to one man is so intense that they just reflexively support and defend whatever he does.

[ann---]

152. I'm with you

The U.S. is still killing innocents along with those pesky alleged "terrorists" and is not something for Dems to be proud of.

[Marrah_G]

163. Replace politics with sports and there is not much difference

To some people, politics is a game

[Douglas Carpenter]

147. well,obviously that is true. But if he did, he would never have been elected President of the United

Last edited Mon Jan 14, 2013, 04:24 PM - Edit history (1)

States. The will to power does not attract people with solid moral centers. In today's America a person with a strong moral center would have trouble being elected dog catcher in Berkley. Politics as it is now requires officials especially someone as senior as President of the United States to make profoundly immoral decisions and to say things no moral and rational person could possibly believe. That still does not change the reality that we are forced to choose between electing which faction of moral monsters will govern society. Do we elect the ones less likely to commit even greater atrocities? Or do we elect the ones more likely to commit even greater atrocities? Do we elect the ones who will at least sustain most of the current programs that benefit most of America's least fortunate citizens that at least keeps the majority of them fed, medically cared for and in school and warm in the winter? Or do we elect the ones who would make their painful lives even more miserable, eliminate most of what little is currently available to make their wretched lives at least a little less wretched and preach an ideology that relishes bashing the least fortunate and sinisterly gloats in their misforune? WE do have a choice. Which will it be?

Unfortunately though, have no choice between angels and devils.

[tama]

169. Do we really need even lesser evil?

What do we need? E.g. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is rough basic guideline. And no power hierarchies and lesser evils are included there.

[Douglas Carpenter]

183. but we don't live in a world without power hierarchies and we do not know if such a world is possible

But we do know that not only the human condition but the entire biosphere is a place where the strong dominate the weak. And authority - even the most enlightened authority - is ultimately rooted in the ability to inflict or at least credibly threaten violence. Or as the great Russian Anarchist Peter Kropotkin put it, "wherever there is authority there is no freedom." Professor Chomsky embraces the anarchist philosophy which declares that authority and its power hierarchies can be eliminated. He points to certain examples most notably the Spanish Social Revolution of 1936. While others of the left claim that experiment in anarchy failed miserably Chomsky claims and puts forward a strong case that it worked quite will. But whatever is true - it like every single other attempt at building an authority-less society collapsed relatively quickly and is no longer around. Is it possible that such an order might work in the future? Anything is possible. But it sure the hell is not the alternative we are facing in the United States of America in of 2013 where right-wing economic and foreign policy ideology now dominate both parties - but one party to the levels of the crackpot extremism and the other to a level at least a little bit living in the world of reality. We simply do not have a choice between a cooperative commonwealth and capitalist exploitation. We have ONLY a choice between two reactionary perspectives - but one significantly less dangerous than the other. Those are the only choices that are on current offer at this time.

[tama]

185. Choises are scale dependent

Also in US there is choice of living relatively self-sufficiently in e.g. some sort of anarchic community - and many other choices. On national level as you say, what prevails is variety of illusion of control and "choice" limited by bi- (or multipartisan) representative system. On global scale of biosphere, there is no control, even banks are not in control... and as far as we know, the choice is to adapt or win a Darwin Award. And power hierarchies are Pyramid frauds aka Ponzi schemes are not adaptive especially when they destroy the carrying capacity or their ecosystem and behave like cancer.

I agree with Chomsky on voting and usually vote, giving the issue the five minutes it deserves but without becoming emotionally attached to any level of evil. And rest for all the other levels of local and global.

[ann---]

151. He's a corporatist

and has to keep the military weapon providers happy making those expensive drones for the US miltiary. If one has a moral center - one doesn't do that.

[BigDemVoter]

155. Brilliant man

May not agree with him all the time. . .

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

160. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Yavin4]

179. Name One President That Had A Moral Center

Even everyone's beloved FDR did some really, awful rotten things.

[hopemountain]

181. if chomsky really "thinks" this of President Barack Hussein Obama -

then why does he feel the need to quote an activist who is quoting hearsay from a group of african - american women to validate his thinking? sounds kinda weak for noam chomsky.

[woo me with science]

190. When our guy does it, it's fine!

That hypocrisy thing is hard.