
Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life - k1m
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/epiphany
======
chernevik
"Reading the book, I felt as if my mind was rocked by explosions."

If you've only had this experience from _one_ book, you aren't reading enough.

"Questions that had puzzled me for years suddenly began making sense in this
new world."

If, on reading a book, you don't know of at least one other set of alternative
answers, you aren't reading enough.

No doubt Chomsky is a powerful and persuasive writer. But there are many
thought-systems of similar extraordinary explanatory power. At some point you
have to realize that the ones that hit you, hit because you share their basic
premises and took the time to understand the explication of the thought-
system. Without the ability to identify and examine those premises, your
thinking is more an accident of which powerful system clicked with you first.

You have to read enough to intelligently criticize those opinions you hold
most dear and believe most certainly. It's very hard. The "terrifying side
effect" of being "left all alone" is not quite so terrifying as the gut-
wrenching feeling you don't actually know _anything_.

It is an amazing and wonderful and terrifying experience to see the world in a
new way. But you cannot stop at _that_ new way of thinking.

~~~
johnfn
You really need to do some more research before you make statements like "you
aren't reading enough". In fact, I don't think I've read or heard of a person
more well-read than Aaron. For example, he read 130 books in 2009[1]. That's a
book every 3 days.

[1]: <http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/books2009>

~~~
chernevik
"Well-read" doesn't equate with "much read". It's a long list, but most of it
is left of center contemporary analysis. The only notable right-wing book is
"Seeing Like A State." But for a little Plato, there zero philosophy or
political philosophy there. Had he gone on to read the entirety of "Republic",
rather than Book One, he'd have seen an exercise in criticism, exploration of
ultimate values, and theoretic construction -- if nothing else, a
demonstration that Chomsky himself was following a model. There is no
Rousseau, which might have hinted at where Chomsky started, and neither Locke
nor Hobbes, which might have suggested an entirely different approach.

No Boethius, which later would have been a very apt touchstone for a person
feeling the weight of persecution.

Nor is there much story on the list. No Shakespeare, no Milton, one Hemingway,
no Faulkner. No poetry. Nothing about about what it is to be a man, to live in
conflict with one's self and with others, or to live among contradictions.

Some of it is just a waste of time. "Secrets of the Temple" is at best a
nothing book.

Perhaps he read more widely and deeply at some other time than 2009. But there
is precious little on this to challenge a progressive-liberal viewpoint, or to
provide a basis of fundamental criticism, or to suggest a perspective on
politics generally. To read like this is neither healthy nor interesting. It
certainly isn't "well read".

------
jacquesm
Chomsky is one of the most eloquent people that I've ever come across.
Manufacturing consent and Understanding power are indeed life changing books.
They are in the sense that after reading them you will look at the media and
politics in a new way and that that way will never leave you. It's like
putting on glasses when you didn't know you needed them.

~~~
Jun8
Your glasses analogy is interesting but I think is misleading, in that it
assumes there's a correct way to view things. This approach is one of the
major problems I have with Chomsky and other writers like him, i.e. "you have
been duped by the (mostly US) media, the military-industrial complex, by the
secret powers that may be; _here_ is the real truth about matters". Rather
than being presented as _the_ truth, these opinions be seen to be another
viewpoint that enhances your understanding of the situation.

Let me give an analogy that may not be totally appropriate but I find is kind
of illuminating: Many people, based on their everyday experience, believe in
the existence of the centrifugal force (otherwise how to explain what they are
experiencing daily). Then, their physics professor explains to them that _in
reality_ there is no such thing. Only if they study physics farther than the
freshman year do they learn that _that_ is not true either. Other similar
examples of hypercorrection can be given (see this interesting answer:
<http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/13568/852>). The intent of the professor
is benign, i.e. not to confuse the students, but it perpetuates a half-truth.

Coming from a non-US country, I have to say that those of you who heavily
criticize US media for manipulating opinion should look deeper into the media
of other countries (not that I'm saying that the US media is non-manipulative,
it's that the breadth of publicly sharable opinion is astonishing).

~~~
neilk
If you judge Chomsky by his fans, it is easy to dismiss him as a conspiracy
theorist. That's not what he's doing.

He's presenting another view of the world where, even in a free and democratic
society, the media has institutional, structural weaknesses that cause it to
serve power. To amplify certain messages, and attenuate others.

It's an attempt to explain how a free society could have committed such
atrocities as the Vietnam War, and later, gotten suckered into the Iraq War.

I have seen the debate about this shift in my lifetime. In the early 90s, when
the Manufacturing Consent movie came out, I was in a journalism program and
even interviewed the makers of that film. Many of the other students in my
classes found the film bewildering. They quite honestly believed the media
were just serving the people in the great engine of democracy.

Nowadays everyone is aware of how badly the media is failing the public. There
are satirists who make this point on a literally Daily basis.

Of course, the general public's cynicism is often unsophisticated, and
manifests itself as accusations of intentional bias. But there is more and
more awareness of how the structure of the media itself affects what gets
covered - perhaps because the Internet offers a counterexample.

~~~
jacquesm
> Nowadays everyone is aware of how badly the media is failing the public.

I so hope that you are right about that one.

~~~
rooshdi
Here's a recent survey that shows the media's credibility has dropped in the
double digits over the past decade:

[http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/16/further-decline-in-
cr...](http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/16/further-decline-in-credibility-
ratings-for-most-news-organizations/)

------
podperson
I love _Manufacturing Consent_ (the documentary) and it inspired me to read
some of Chomsky's books on politics and see him live. It didn't change my life
though.

In general, I think the fundamental problem with Chomsky's compelling and very
well buttressed description of The Way Things Work [in the US(1)] is that it
really doesn't offer much hope. (This actually comes up towards the end of the
movie, and his answer -- essentially that people are smarter than we think --
is pretty thin.)

In the end, the great mass of Americans are too busy with their day to day
lives to parse out what's going on with their government and the corporate
state. US democracy has essentially been reduced to a sporting event. As long
as those in power don't drive the voting population into absolute misery (and
it's hard to figure out just how much misery that is) they're happy enough
with business as usual.

(1) I'm not saying that Chomsky's observations apply uniquely to the US or
that other democracies are great, but many of Chomsky's observations are
rather specific to the US, either because of peculiarities of the US political
system or the US's undeniably unique position in world affairs.

~~~
obstacle1
I am unclear on how your "fundamental problem" is a problem. I was not aware
that when making arguments that offering hope was a prerequisite for validity
or truth. Because if that is not the case, then offering no hope is not a
fundamental problem.

~~~
podperson
You're right that I haven't expressed myself clearly.

The terms "manufacturing consent", "necessary distraction" etc. are taken from
a political science treatise arguing that for a democracy to be a world power
it must essentially distract the great unwashed from the political process so
that the smart people can run things correctly. Chomsky's aim is to expose the
workings of this process (and no, he's not a conspiracy theorist -- he's
simply pointing out naturally emergent behaviors of large institutions)
arguing that if only the great unwashed were aware of what's going on they'd
suddenly start participating and everything would be better.

But as the discussion proceeds, it really seems to be arguing that people are
stupid and uninformed and like it that way, and when presented with this
argument, Chomsky makes the claim that no they're smart because they can learn
to talk -- which I think is weak. (It's like arguing that basketball players
must be good at physics.) This leaves the original thesis -- that people are
stupid and ignorant and like it that way -- essentially standing, and thus
argues in favor of the entire political philosophy he's trying to take down.

And that's a fundamental problem with Chomsky's political philosophy, but not
with his observations. (Much as Marx was a great social critic, but his
remedies weren't much use.)

------
TerraHertz
"I remember vividly clutching at the door to my room, trying to hold on to
something while the world spun around."

Some commenters treat this as if it must be hyperbole. But what Aaron
describes is a typical reaction for someone who's just had their safe
worldview shattered, and discovered that political reality is something far
darker than they imagined.

There has been much written on the psychology of conspiracy denial, and the
cognitive dissonance that keeps many corralled within the comforting (but
false) narrative of the mainstream media propagandists.

One aspect of denial is a kind of self-worth self-preservation. To even
contemplate that the world may be controlled by vastly evil powers, and that
the historical fables we are all supposed to believe are actually gross lies
purveyed by mass murdering psychopathic conspirators, one has to consider what
that implies about one's self. To have been totally duped for so many years,
by incredibly evil people... to have cooperated in their crimes, even if only
by inaction... To discover that those one looked up to, respected, trusted
with the wise governance of the state, are actually deranged elitist liars and
criminals...

Most people simply cannot bear to contemplate such a level of gullibility and
culpability in themselves. So they remain in vigorous denial. And in self
defense, attack those attempting to enlighten them to the true state of the
world.

<http://everist.org/archives/links/!_About_Conspiracy.txt>

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the
American public believes is false." \-- William Casey, Director of Central
Intelligence. An observation by the late Director at his first staff meeting
in 1981.

------
merinid
The extent to which Chomsky has remained relevant in _both_ political and
scientific arenas never ceases to amaze me.

~~~
francesca
Agreed. Ironic that Chomsky still teaches at MIT

~~~
gadders
Not sure about his linguistics, but his politics is adolescent.

~~~
jules
Norvig (Director of Research at Google, and author of the most popular AI book
[1]) has written a criticism of Chomsky's linguistics in relation to AI:
<http://norvig.com/chomsky.html>

tl;dr: Norvig argues that language is best modeled statistically, Chomsky's
model is deterministic. He also disagrees about what makes good science
(usefulness for engineering is a valid criterium & gathering facts over
developing theories).

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence:_A_Mode...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence:_A_Modern_Approach)

~~~
beagle3
Norvig has written criticism about specific ideas that Chomsky uttered in some
convention (which are also reflected in some of his written works on natural
languages and their computational models).

But Chomsky's contribution to linguistics in general and computational
linguistics in particular goes well beyond anything like that, e.g. [1]. I'm
not sure, but I suspect that linguistics and computational linguistics where
unrelated fields before Chomsky tied them together.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy>

~~~
jules
You are minimizing the criticism, which isn't just about some utterance at a
convention, it's about the core premise on which Chomsky's entire work rests,
namely determinism. And more generally, that success of a model should be
tested empirically rather than that it should "provide insight" in some
abstract way. There is no doubt that Chomsky has done great work in the area
of formal languages, it's just that the relationship with natural language is
not as strong as initially hoped.

------
iandanforth
I can also recommend Power and Struggle (Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part
1). It is an absurdly trenchant look at how power is derived from and
maintained in a society. Gene Sharp is unparalleled in his research into
effecting change through non-violent action and should be required reading for
activists of all kinds.

~~~
jackpirate
I used to be a nuclear submarine officer, but left the US Navy as a complete
pacifist and conscientious objector. What the pacifist movement needs is books
willing to engage nonviolent strategy in the same way that military tacticians
do it. That's what Gene Sharp's books claim to be, but IMHO they fail. They
paint nonviolence in a little bit too good of a light, without fully
acknowledging its limitations.

~~~
jacquesm
From one conscientious objector to another (ages ago), thank you.

~~~
jackpirate
Would you mind sharing your experience? I like collecting other people's CO
stories, and I've never heard of another computer nerd doing it. If you prefer
privacy, my email is mike@izbicki.me.

The NY Times did a write up on my court case:
([http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/nyregion/23objector.html?p...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/nyregion/23objector.html?pagewanted=all)),
and I've written up some of the testimony from my hearing on my own blog
(<http://izbicki.me/blog/category/religion/my-co-discharge>).

~~~
jacquesm
hey Mike,

I don't mind, it's long ago and I'm not at all ashamed about it.

In the Netherlands, where I was born lots of people were doing it. There was
the threat of jail time and there was a bunch of military police sent to pick
up people to force them into the army. Lots went to prison or were forced to
do a replacement service. I managed to stay ahead of them for quite long but I
did have a regular place to stay so that wasn't a tenable situation in the
longer term. It also made my mom quite nervous. Finally we got a summons from
the regular police, I could choose to come in to talk with one particular
officer or I'd be picked up. I went there nervous as hell and fully expected
to be arrested but in fact the guy was very reasonable.

I explained my issues with authority (this was at the time that our military
was sent to the middle east), and that I have a pretty bad streak running
through me from a military point of view: that I can't handle injustice and
that putting me in a situation where injustice is perpetrated on an ongoing
basis is likely going to blow up sooner or later, likely sooner. I was 17 at
the time, I'd just quit school and I still didn't have my aggressive streak
bottled up (much better now, and it should be, approaching 48) and I really
foresaw trouble.

The guy said he'd see what he could do, he asked me to call him in a few days.
And so I did, he asked me to come in and sign some papers that essentially
came down to me not being able to reverse my decision later or become a police
officer and that was the end of that. No jail time, no formal court case or
hearing.

I realized later that I got off _really_ light compared to some in my age
group. This was one of the last, if not the last year when there was still a
draft in the Netherlands.

The thing that bugs me about the military and this is something that I really
don't understand is the blind obedience expected of the soldiers. I have no
doubt that I can be pretty nasty to people if the circumstances would push me
that far but to blindly follow orders is not in my genetic make-up.

~~~
beagle3
> The thing that bugs me about the military and this is something that I
> really don't understand is the blind obedience expected of the soldiers

There is a level in which it is expected; and at that level, the soldiers are
basically pawns in a game, and the only reason they have not been replaced by
robots is that we're not sufficiently advanced technologically.

At a higher level (how much higher depends on country and branch), you're
actually expected to think, although not to disagree often.

As a corporal, I routinely told my (several level up in the chain of command)
lieutenant colonel that, (respectfully and less respectfully), he is talking
nonsense, and as long as I was able to substantiate it (I was), it was
accepted as criticism. It didn't work as well with his superior (a colonel) -
I got listened to once, and basically told to not do that again. Yes, I got to
talk to these people often -- as in daily and at least monthly respectively.

But that depends on the culture of the army and branch you end up with - in
many places, any individual thinking before you reach captain is reprimanded.
I was lucky to be somewhere where it was usually merit that was judged, rather
than seniority.

------
OldSchool
Surely he's not perfect in his views but he is highly objective, intelligent
and visionary.

Given the chance to sit in on a random lunch with Chomsky or a captain of
industry (Buffett, Gates, etc.) I'd pick Chomsky without pause.

~~~
lins05
Yes, I agree with you.

------
Zimahl
_I remember vividly clutching at the door to my room, trying to hold on to
something while the world spun around._

Maybe I'm a bit too simple or pragmatic but I sincerely hope that this was
simply hyperbole. If not, I think we might have an early glimpse into a
special, yet troubled, mind. From a lot of things I've read about Mr. Swartz
since his suicide, it doesn't seem like he was all that mentally stable.

~~~
david927
Are you really stating that his feeling physically dizzy at comprehending
something that changed his world view is a "glimpse into troubled mind"?
Seriously?

Please, for all that is holy, unless you have a background in mental health,
please avoid making armchair diagnoses. (Those that have that background are
loathe to jump to conclusions, for example.) It's neither your place, nor your
field. Don't do it.

~~~
Zimahl
I'll stand by what I said, he seemed very troubled and it is clear that he was
since _he killed himself_. Suicide typically doesn't happen overnight so I'll
assume he's had issues long before the DOJ decided to target him.

I'm not getting this from one single blog post. Others have posted how he had
trouble communicating personally. There was another blog where he was
sympathetic to the Joker from 'The Dark Knight'. If his blog was a personal
one I bet there are probably hundreds of other examples.

If you hear something that is so profound that the you get physically dizzy at
the thought, enough to require you to hold onto something, there's nothing
else to say but you should get help. Like I said, if it was just hyperbole,
fine, but I don't get the feeling it was.

------
dade_
This book may very well have changed his life, but I suggest that discovering
that there are serious problems with our society is not really that
enlightening. Far more important is learning why and how we got here.

My view is that John Raulston Saul has identified the very essence of the
beginning of this mess and the good intentions that started it hundreds of
years ago in his book, "Voltaire's Bastards". Further, the identification of
the fundamental (flaws/errors/oversights) that became a part of the fabric of
our civilization now based on reason.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ralston_Saul>

------
k1m
The link to the torrent for _Manufacturing Consent_ at the end of his piece no
longer works, but the full film is up on YouTube:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AnB8MuQ6DU>

------
DigitalJack
I found the following review of the book interesting. I always like to read
the "negative" reviews of something because I find it easier to make a
decision whether to read something or buy something (books, software, food,
etc...) based on whether I can identify with the negative comments or not.

If someone has recommended something to me, and the negative comments are
inconsequential to me (or absurd, etc...), I'm more likely to follow that
recommendation. Likewise the reverse.

[http://www.amazon.com/review/R31KSCZ4TXPLIR/ref=cm_cr_pr_per...](http://www.amazon.com/review/R31KSCZ4TXPLIR/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0099466066&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=)

Reposting:

Understanding Power is, without question, the most comprehensive and
compelling presentation of Noam Chomsky's ideas. Reading this book will change
the way you see the world. If you are interested in Chomsky, it is likely that
you are a noble person who genuinely cares for others and yearns for a better
world. Beware, reader, and make sure you choose the right vehicle for your
hope. While his intentions are for a peaceful, safe, and healthy world,
Chomsky's political writings systematically assume conscious malevolence
without evidence, ignore context, and romanticize Third World struggles,
regardless of their goals.

Let's briefly examine some of his convictions on a pressing topic: the War on
Terror. Following the September 11th attacks, Chomsky immediately presented
them as our fault: the result of U.S. Middle East policy, and equally evil
U.S. Cold War efforts (training Mujahadeen to oust the Soviets from
Afghanistan). His presumption here is that if the United States changes its
behavior, that terrorist attacks will then cease. Islamic terrorists, in fact,
want a pan-world government under Talibanesque repressive sharia law, a vision
that mandates the overthrow of all free nations beginning with ours. These
facts are easily learned by reading about the historical development of
Islamic radicalism, which is rooted in reinterpretations of the Qur'an's
dictates for action, NOT in wishes to live peacefully in a U.S.-free Middle
East. These facts, however, do not enter into the Chomskyan world-view, which
romanticizes Third World underdogs as brave and legitimized no matter what
they stand for.

The linguist also described the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan as a
conscious "silent genocide," predicting wrongly that millions would be severed
from food supplies. As is typical, Chomsky here focused solely on the negative
aspects of the situation, those for which the U.S. deserved his bitter
recrimination. For a man who lives prosperously in America and is supposedly
the voice of the downtrodden, Chomsky certainly did not put himself into the
shoes of the Afghan women. For them, whose existence was akin to slavery, the
liberation was a cause for great joy. Actual sentiments were fully
antithetical to Chomsky's condemnatory remarks to his villainous U.S.
government, which he and he alone believed was consciously bent on killing as
many innocent Afghans as possible. Omitting what is significant (the
liberation of people living under tyranny, in this case) to emphasize his
often ludicrous misperceptions about American motives and motivations is a
constant in Chomsky's writings. His Cold War depictions are even more
stunning, as Understanding Power's abundant examples attest.

In the case that you are already entrenched in his manner of thinking, at
least admit that Noam Chomsky MIGHT be wrong, and see if his positions hold up
under review: read Chomsky's articulate, sane critics (The Anti-Chomsky Reader
is a good place to start). If he is perfect, then you have nothing but gain to
acheive from this exercise; it will only serve to strengthen your ability to
effectively argue and implement Chomsky's ideas in the world. After clear-eyed
reassessment of his political writings, if you STILL think he is on-point,
then all the best to you. If, however, you reevaluate his "wisdom," you will
have saved yourself from much needless confusion and despair.

Were Chomsky's views simply false, there would not be need for this posting.
They become perilous, however, in their blind, wholesale demonization of the
United States. Chomsky's own fear and anger about the state of our world are
projected, with great urgency: anger at and fear of U.S. "elites" is the
Chomsky program. The result is often flat-out hatred. What would Chomsky do
were he President? We do not know; he avoids that inconvenient question by
telling us that were he to run (which he admits he would never do), the first
thing he would do is tell us not to vote for him. Furthermore, why does
Professor Chomsky not include himself in the "elites" so prominent in his
analyses? Does he not pay taxes, and drive a BMW, and teach at a cushy,
prestigious university? The questions may seem too simplistic, but they point
to a core issue: if Chomsky cannot look into the mirror regarding his own
status and societal position, then how much more impaired must his assessments
be of things outside of himself? On paper, it is unclear exactly what Chomsky
IS calling for, and putting aside the constant onslaught of judgment-filled
writings and audio programs, neither does his life provide us an example of
what he conceives to be right-action. Those who want an idea of who believes
IN Chomsky, however, need look no further than Hugo Chavez, who recently
proclaimed allegiance and military support to his "brother" Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad, for anyone who needs reminding, daily denies the
Holocaust, and calls for the destruction of Israel and the United States. Is
it a coincidence that those who love Chomsky also embrace a world-view rooted
in blame, anger, and vilification?

Good and evil do exist in this world, but Noam Chomsky is not capable of
distinguishing between the two. The U.S.A. is not perfect, and never will be.
Nevertheless, if we fail to recognize the good that IS here, we may soon lose
our nation. Chomsky's writings are little more than a good reminder that
appearance is not essence. It is worth noting as well, that Chomsky is an
avowed atheist, and believes that life is meaningless. If we bear in mind that
evil is in the eye of the beholder, then Chomsky--an American, an Israelite, a
millionaire--is instantly unmasked in all of his self-revulsion. Understanding
Power should be retitled as "Understanding Blame." Stear clear and take heart,
reader; there is hope in this world, and your country is good, but you will
discover neither in Avram Noam Chomsky.

~~~
zby
Not entirely convincing. I personally prefer Falkenstein as my Chomsky critic:

The spread is a debating tactic where you present a set of supporting
arguments so wide and particular your opponents are unable to rebut them all
because 1) they have day jobs and 2) they have limited space or time to
address them in any particular forum. A champion spreader is Noam Chomsky, who
selectively recites facts of world history from Indonesia, Russia, to El
Salvadore and 200 places in between, which no one but a professional in
Comparative Economic Systems would be familiar with (indeed, comparative
economic systems was a flourishing economic subdiscipline precisely because it
couldn't be easily refuted because those communist countries didn't have a
free press and made up their production data, but after 1989 it was obvious
this field was simple wishful thinking dominated by deluded Marxists-note:of
the ones I knew!).

[http://falkenblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/economists-love-
sprea...](http://falkenblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/economists-love-spread.html)

~~~
gruseom
Well that's a new one: the evidence he cites is so voluminous and wide-
ranging, there must be something wrong with him.

~~~
jonny_eh
The problem is the amount, it's the fact that it's wide-spread (i.e.
horizontal) but when you examine deeply any one piece you find it to be quite
weak, i.e. shallow.

It's a similar technique used by conspiracy theorists and Creationists.

~~~
obstacle1
The author is quite explicitly saying that the problem is the volume _and_
variety of information. There is no mention of the 'shallowness' of any one
particular reference.

The author justifies this by saying no reader can reasonably be expected to be
"familiar with" the references Chomsky uses. So what? The references are all
there and available for the reader to look up. Once looked up, the reader is
familiar with it. No problem. Incredibly weak argument and one that can only
be accepted if we accept lazy reading as a given.

~~~
bromang
I think it is quite obviously implied that Chomsky's understanding of all his
examples is quite shallow and that they are being used mainly to add weight to
a predetermined world view. falkenstein's point is that it is almost
impossible to understand such a variety of examples in real depth and it is
also unlikely that Chomsky himself is using them all correctly. To dismiss
this criticism as simply an acceptance of "lazy reading" seems a little naive.

~~~
jacquesm
> it is also unlikely that Chomsky himself is using them all correctly.

That's low hanging fruit then, go for it. After all proving Chomsky decisively
wrong on a large number of things is something a lot of people would like to
be able to do, by reading you I get the impression that this is easy. After
all criticizing Yehudi Menuhin does not even require one to be able to play
the violin.

------
engtech
Did anything ever come from the book he was talking about writing?

He was 19 when he wrote that blog post.

------
steveeq1
A life changing book in a similar vein is "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil
Postman: <http://tinyurl.com/a26wscp> . I found out about it via Alan Kay's
excellent reading list ( <http://tinyurl.com/c6fjhj> )

~~~
chollida1
Not sure why the above links were obfuscated/minimized but this is what they
point to:

[http://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-
Busi...](http://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-
Business/dp/014303653X)

<http://www.squeakland.org/resources/books/readingList.jsp>

------
mark_l_watson
Interesting thing about Noam Chomsky: he goes face to face with the US
government on a lot of issues and is smart enough to not have ever got in
serious trouble over it.

~~~
pravda
During the 1960s he faced prison due to his opposition to the Vietnam war.

I don't know the specifics, but I recall in one interview about his personal
life he mentioned that his wife finished her degree so that she would be able
to support their family while he was in prison.

------
afterburner
What is the purpose of posting this? My cursory looks into Chomsky's writings
showed me there might be a serious intellectual honesty problem with the man,
but I admit I haven't bothered to look into it deeply. So is posting this
about praising Chomsky and by extension Aaron's admiration of his book, or is
it a sly low blow against someone's impressionable reaction at a young age,
after that person can't defend themselves? The answer depends on what the
poster thinks of Chomsky....

Anybody care to comment on the validity of the following? The first followed
from reading the comments in Aaron's post.

<http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/wma.html>

<http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html>

------
xmlblog
Anyone who can call Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens "religious fanatics"
with a straight face is either attempting to deceive the audience or
themselves. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt9QCAUPPeY>

------
mladenkovacevic
Welcome to my world.. a place where I'm more or less convinced that every
mainstream news report is more lies than truth, carefully shaped and spun to
support some not necessarily evil, but definitely manipulative agenda. And the
worst part is, even though you're reasonably sure of it, you realize that most
people around you are either more invested into this invented narrative than
you are in your "maybe real" one... or they are just apathetic to the whole
thing and even if they did care they can't be bothered to put in the effort
and imagine the consequences of every society running what's basically a
global public opinion manipulation engine.

------
anigbrowl
_It’s undoubtedly the best documentary I’ve seen, weaving together all sorts
of clever tricks to enlighten and entertain._

This is sadly ironic; since Chomsky is one of the most manipulative and
dishonest writers I've had the displeasure of reading. I'm not going to engage
in an exhaustive deconstruction of any of his work here, since I don't keep
any of his books on my shelf. I'll just say that I think his
mischaracterization of the source material that he refers to in the endless
footnotes is beyond biased and falls into being outright dishonesty. There is
no question but that he is smart enough to know better; as an academic
linguist he would never accept such shoddy arguments if they were submitted to
him for peer review.

He's the left wing's Ayn Rand, and I don't mean that as a compliment.

~~~
flyinRyan
Thanks for your argument, I'm sure you've enlightened everyone who's had the
pleasure of reading your post.

You're the whatever wing Sean Hanity, and I don't mean that as a compliment.

------
pclark
Fateful Triangle is another _fascinating_ book. Highly recommended, especially
in times like these. Chomsky is marvellous.

------
zopticity
Dennis Ritchie is an unforgettable person in history because if it weren't for
his inventions, most of today's technology wouldn't exist or be very
different.

If you have the time, I'd recommend reading one of his books.

R.I.P., <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ritchie>

------
leoh
Interesting, but ironic given that Reddit is and was a powerful engine of
disinformation. Aaron can't be faulted for that, though.

~~~
antidaily
_Aaron can't be faulted for that, though_

------
askimto
Chomsky also knows the real inventor of email.

------
smogzer
I recommend.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_%28book%29>

Btw in Lost why did sayd was nice guy in the beginning and died as an evil
torturer ? And why does every action series and movies, event toy story 3
promotes torture ?

