charlie, you're participating in a journalism where your personality is inhibiting the messages that you want people to hear from your guest. i suppose that for broadcasting reasons you need to keep interrupting your guests to drive at whatever angle of thought you find most interesting. but for those of us who usually exchange ideas in conversation, your style is coming across as rude. flymogram said it aptly: let the man speak.
Mr. Chomsky, "lively democratic culture" (35:00), how pleasurable to hear that from your very poised lips!
Senator Queirós (Eusébio de Q.C. Mattoso Câmara) was my grand-grand-father, but J. Mattoso Câmara, the famous brazilian linguistics professor, was closer to your business, I think.
We, brazilians, elected Lula before americans took their chances with Obama. Kind of inspiration maybe!
I hope that continue to contribute for the lively democratic cultural process as you say!
the man who is responsible for the new wave of anti semetism in the world is in fact a jew himself..How do you antisemites feel about that ha?? That the man you worship is a jew??
he tells you why he gets cut off [nonspecific] in other talks and papers etc that he's done. it's not weird, it's the institutional structure of the media.
also very plausible. it could be that what chomsky was saying was viewed as redundant and thus was eligible for cuts. but when a guy gets up and speaks the truth and can actually back it up, it's captivating. and people really want to hear what he has to say because it makes sense. so when he gets cut off, people get a little upset.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
No it's not. The first amendment was not made to apply to the states until the 1920s. Even then it was understood to mean that the state couldn't prevent publication. It did not mean the state could not punish speech. And it did. Eugene Debs was thrown in jail for opposing WWI. Speech was punished under the Smith Act. It wasn't until the 60s that three important cases were tried that granted us the free speech we enjoy today. Two of those cases come out of the civil rights movement.
See Gitlow v. New York, Times v Sullivan and Brandenburg v Ohio. There were other cases relating to freedom of speech but I think those were the major ones. There is a great book on this matter by Anthony Lewis. So Chomsky is certainly correct that freedom of speech in the US is a relatively recent win.
I can't believe that Charlie Rose is such a self indulgent asshole that he would cut off Chomsky before he could answer the question to his one Ultra mega question in Linguistics....OH MY GOD!!!!
38:35 and 38:43 charlie makes a good point that noam may have dismissed a lil to quickly what he's alluding to is that
at the point people see things that are wrong as youngsters or right for them some individuals will by force of will open the facilitation of dramatic change by thier own will from thier own individual values then look for support from the masses or the ruling elite for thier support on these things thier are quite a few historical examples
With due respect to Chomsky, he is misleading on the 1973 war. It was actually Kissinger who was a master planner of of the war and striking of peace between Egypt and Israel. That way the common arab front against Israel was broken. The war was needed to fool egypt arabs to believe that they liberated the Sinai. Acutally the war was orchestrated by Kissinger. I doubt that Chomsky is unaware of this.
Charlie Rose is a smart interviewer, but Chomsky is smarter. If you noticed, Charlie Rose frames his questions in a way that they already contain some sort of implied argument. Chomsky, on the other hand, tries to explain the issue in greater detail than the way the question is dealt. He won't let Charlie Rose move onto the next question until he gives more background behind the issue. Noam Chomsky is a genius!
Capitalism requires growth. The planet if finite. Infinite growth does not work on a finite planet. Eventually, Capitalism has to end. I'm sorry if this offends your patriotic sensibilities, but it's as basic as that. I'm not a socialist, I'm just pointing out reality.
What about our planet's finite resources limit the growth of capitalism? Salt water? Salt water is finite right? Does that mean capitalism can't grow? Are you talking about mosquitos? Mosquitos are finite? Does that mean capitalism can't continue to grow?
Its just a vague statement that doesn't disprove anything.
Also, what kind of growth are your referring to? GDP? A country doesn't have to constantly have a rising GDP. It can have a steady GDP and provide well for its citizens. What "growth" are you talking about?
The gov can provide well for its citizens without a capatlistic system. Actually if the country is going to provide well for its citizens capitalizm isnt the best way. Only the people with power are provided for in this current system. Eventually people will get tired of it when technology becomes strong enough to effectively solve problems like hunger and health. Then people will not want this power in private selfish hands.
You say that governments provide well without capitalism. Where? Russia? That collapsed and only recovered when capitalism finally was allowed in. China? That is increasingly becoming capitalistic as much as the government tries to stop it.
"Significant improvements in standards of living under Stalin."
The whole reason that Russia had to adopt capitalism in the first place was because communism WASN'T providing well. Citizens barely had enough to eat, business was completely bullied by the government, and people were damn sick of it.
I agree with you wrinkleypp. Honestly, I think we're inevitably headed towards universal peace on this planet, although still maybe a century or more away. Our problem is that we create an inherent scarcity (i.e "monetary-ism") that produces certain human behavior including greed and the lust for power.
Human ingenuity is our true divinity...so technology has to be our savior, which really means WE are our own savior.
To UnicornHead: A simple explanation would seem to be because he is; Informed, articulate, he provides an opposing viewpoint to that which is discussed in 95% of widespread public debate, and one thing for me is that in his own words he 'lacks concision'
i.e. the reason he may be overlookd by editors/producers on tv could be explained by his speaking for over 30seconds at a time, he is not a man who will attempt to explain an economic policy through the use of a one or two line phrase.
Charlie Rose seems really insecure and defensive about his obvious lack of knowledge about just about every topic he's interviewing Chomsky on. Interrupting to repeat what he just said doesn't make you sound any smarter, Charlie!
Indeed. Seems to be trying to prove his smarts. That`s the problem I suppose when journalists are given too much publicity, they stop listening to the story and try to become the story. Enough to drive Chomsky to violence.
why do people invest so much political, philisophical, and socioeconomic reliability in a man who's expertise is in language?
dont get me wrong, chomsky's contributions to linguistics are without question as genius as they are academically priceless, but why does this man get to undermine capitalism?
it may be reasonable if he had credentials that were sociopolitically associated with economic and social issues, but such is not the case.
Unicorn - can I answer your question reasonably? Your question is "why does he get to undermine capitalism?" and your argument is that he shouldn't either be given air time or considered seriously because he is a linguist.
Well, he gets to because everyone gets to in a democracy. He takes democracy seriously and he always has. The reason people listen is because he is so incredibly well informed about history and discusses it in a scientific way, relying on independently verifiable evidence.
He has the same credentials to discuss politics as Henry Kissinger: absolutely none. The assumptions behind your statement are interesting - only a state or educational institution can give you benediction to discuss global affairs. That assumption is so absurd it doesn't even merit response.
wow! At 9 minutes, listen to the question Rose submits and then watch him interrupt Chomsky. I have caught this on a few occasions, but not so badly as this! He asks him, 'are there any mega-questions out there that you would like to see answered' and, as Chomsky goes into responding, Rose just cuts him off and starts asking him a question about some guy in New York. WOW! What a way to say "i am not even trying to listen to you!" GOT to love Chomsky!
Why were the comments on linguistics cut off at the beginning of the conversation. Did Chomsky go into detail about the biological language systems, or was that his only point?
i just watched that section 3 times wondering if it was cut out or if the interviewer was just that clueless/rude. it seemed like the most interesting point chomsky was going to make.
i love rose, but when it comes to chompsky i respect and love him more...rose you can cut the guy off like that, are you tryin to tell us he wrong...when he is not, look at the records, in the newspaper,newyork times, the midia..loooooooooooool
i see the same question repeat it self again in diffrent interviews" do u love the state"... his answer is always the same.. i don't support the policy...but i love the state, every one does..there is no nation better then the american nation
Yeah, Rose has a bit of trouble hearing the "straight truth" from Chomsky. Rose has always been a good interviewer, but Chomsky is so far up the "dissident Richter scale" Charlie doesn't know what to do.
I wonder is Charlie even listens to people. He asks Noam about, "what's the biggest question he had in his field" then cut Noam off before if was finished with the set up for his answer.
WoW, Charlie really got his blood pressure up at listening to the TRUTH!!! He can't believe that his cronies could be so evil...haha! Noam Chomsky is an American Hero!
Commercial TV requires simplification of complex issues which essentially dumbs down the viewer that watches such programs.
Sure, we could ask Chomsky to be more concise. But even then he'd still have cut out words thus eroding the original meaning until we're left with no substance.
Every single idea, story, analysis, fact and even news dissimated by the corporate media like this, is only to make the elite more comfortable, and always with violence.
Charlie is not a tool of these ills but an important part of it.
The economic elite is looting people every where, in US, in the rest of the world, not just of entitlement but of justice too.
See how Charlie only wants no dialogue but just echos to his voice of words put in his rotten sick head by the establishment of the economic elite.
He tries to suppress Noam Chomsky so much that he does not want to hear the full details of the facts and reality of the situation which his questions point to.
FUCK CHARLIE ROSE. He completely edited out the best part of this fucking program around 9:04. And instead wanted to talk about a fucking trip in new york.
SUCK A FAT DICK CHARLIE ROSE. U SUCK!
Goddamn, I wanted to hear what Chomsky said. I'm taking linguistics thats why im so pissed. .. Maybe someone out there can relate. :-(
I think it is part of Rose's interviewing style to interrupt and butt in to put his 2 cents worth. I don't think he's showing off to Chomsky. He has to be smart enough to understand he's in front of an intelectual giant who will not be easily impressed. Rose does have an agenda which mainly entails covering certain topics within a limited amount of time and he obviously wanted to talk about Iraq very much. He also has an elitist and conventional POV but that makes the interview more interesting
You gotta love it. Constantly cutting off Chomsky or twisting things up. After not being able to engage Chomsky meaningfully, the only way to win is the editing bay.
Charlie looks like he's got hemroids, can't sit still; Charlie, you've got to let Chomsky speak. He's the Voltair, Descart, Dewey, Eugene Debs of our time, all rolled-into-one. Chomsky's at his best when he gets rolling...
At 9:04, why the hell did they edit Chomsky's reply? He's just finishing an introductory observation and appears to be about to tell us what his "personal obsession" is, and them just cut straight to the next topic.
As it stands it makes no sense to leave any of it in at all.
Absolutely ridiculous! It is as if Rose chopped one of the most interesting parts of the interview because he is to damned ignorant to realize the worth. Charlie you blew it. Now I'll finish watching the rest...
It's difficult to watch this interview. Charlie Rose should have done more research on his guest. From what I've seen you ask Mr. Chomsky a question and let him answer uninterrupted. He was obviously getting aggravated with the interruptions.
Few people can compete with Chomsky on an intellectual level. He is modest and patient, but certain interviewers really seem to push him to his limits.
No matter what evidence and claims can be made, this person is wrong? Pardon me if I sound a bit presumptuous, but that sounds a lot like a *gasp* belief! You know, like religion. Your beliefs aren't of any consequence here; falsifiable claims are what makes a strong argument. You're merely stating that you're dogmatically opposed to anything "left". Haha, you're real "brilliant". Anyone with half a brain would realize why such a thing is flagrantly and arrogantly retarded.
it is good to use every available channel for self expression, and getting people to self express is a good idea, telling people to be quiet is a bad idea, even if people ar speaking ignorantly at least we can critically think and learn to better seperate the crap the more intelligent and insightful.
Why do you people waste your time arguing on youtube? If someone has said something so tremendously moronic, chances are it won't matter what you say to the contrary. There is no cure for terminal stupidity.
It seems to me that your brother being a 'tenured profossor' has had very little positive influence on you. Your language is foul and wasteful of such small space as is afforded here. I suggest you display your fascist tendencies in a less offensive manner...if for no other reason than your health. Anger is so corrosive.
I can't find my original post, and don't intend to look, but there is no doubt that the negotiating position of the Israelis vis a vis the palestinians is in contravention of international law. the palestinian position at this point is the what they are entitled to under UN resolutions, which is far less than would be considered fair from the original negotiating position (pre balfour declaration). If it were based on legal contract, the citizens that founded israel would be entitled to
roughly 6-7% of the mandate of palestine, based on contract law (meaning thats how much land they had legal title to by way of purchase). If property rights are what we are going by, that is the founding state, basically most of jerusalem, all of tel aviv, and if I recall correctly, a portion of Hebron. That is in no way going to happen of course, but that is what the palestninans could claim by entitlement. the fact that they don't shows how much they give up in negotiations.
IF you want to talk about that in more detail, do so. However, judging by the invective laden tantrums you're having, you simply want to represent an intransigent side to the negotiations, akin to the point of view of yigal amir.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'm a conservative, a Paleoconservative in the vein of Tom Metzger and David Duke and I agree with much of what Chomsky says. Where I disagree with him is his worldview in terms of the solution. He's a hard core Socialist. But with regard to identifying the problems with U.S. foreign policy, I agree with most of what he says.
It seems to me Charlie (in his constant interrupting) is trying to demonstrate is knowledge to Chomsky. Much like a child would try to impress a modest adult.
Eh? Have you ever actually been around a professor before? It is hard work. They teach you how to think and help give your skills. How about research as well. Do you like you technological gadgets and other things that enhance your life? Much of that science was pioneered those on "academic welfare".
Yet you turn to a doctor, someone who's ACADEMICALLY TRAINED, for your health, or some science for your use of free speech to spit on the very same academia that created the vehicle you're doing it on (Computers). you're a waste of space and your opinion is neither important nor useful. Also incorrect.
Whoa, whoa, let's not forget the important issue at hand: 1. Dr. Brain (PhD)'s flagrant misuse of the hyphen! For a man with an extra-terrestrial IQ, Dr. Brain seems to let his impatience for the Left to get in the way of using the goddamn English language correctly! Or is that just a Leftist tactic as well? How do you plead, doctor brain? Stubby fingers?
You don't sound too bright for 2 main reasons. The first one being you feel the need to resort to name-calling to express your point. The second one, you can't seem to think (judging from the only two posts I've read from you) beyond the typical "Left-wing-Right-wing" or "Liberal-Conservative" type of mind frame, hence dismissing facts as either leftist or liberal propaganda. In fact, your comments kinda remind me of Bill O' Reilly of Fox News, and I'd be damned if he's considered "intelligent".
As someone with an IQ 3 SDs above the mean, I can tell that you're lying about your intelligence. Intelligent people don't think in terms of crabbed clichés the way you do.
Thank U for your informative commentary below on Noam Chomsky. I never knew he was such a Lefty Loon and I never knew you were so smart and you are not a loon. Are you lefty or righty? Hahaha, no no, U are just really smart. It says so in your post! (1% of the top minds in the world with NO trying). Have you considered aliens. They might be a good match for your brain. Thanks for posting on Utube! I hope to read more of your mind's 1% interesting posts!
i know. noam chomsky is so intelligent you fear him, that makes him a loon. why is it so hard for conservatives to think? they're just dumb on so many fronts.
42:30
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
Was Chomsky interrupted at 9:15?
Or was that editing?
Either way, it was awkward and extremely frustrating, especially since I was anticipating the answer.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
charlie, you're participating in a journalism where your personality is inhibiting the messages that you want people to hear from your guest. i suppose that for broadcasting reasons you need to keep interrupting your guests to drive at whatever angle of thought you find most interesting. but for those of us who usually exchange ideas in conversation, your style is coming across as rude. flymogram said it aptly: let the man speak.
superdupersimon 2 years ago
Jesus Charlie, let the man speak!!!!
flymogram 2 years ago
Chomsky should calm down.
vasco1469 3 years ago
Mr. Chomsky, "lively democratic culture" (35:00), how pleasurable to hear that from your very poised lips!
Senator Queirós (Eusébio de Q.C. Mattoso Câmara) was my grand-grand-father, but J. Mattoso Câmara, the famous brazilian linguistics professor, was closer to your business, I think.
We, brazilians, elected Lula before americans took their chances with Obama. Kind of inspiration maybe!
I hope that continue to contribute for the lively democratic cultural process as you say!
mrqsilveira 3 years ago
I agree with the recent commentators. Rose is constantly cutting off Chomsky and it is getting annoying.
owenswim 3 years ago
the man who is responsible for the new wave of anti semetism in the world is in fact a jew himself..How do you antisemites feel about that ha?? That the man you worship is a jew??
skymunro 3 years ago
that just shows we're not anti-semites you idiot.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
Anyone else find themselves wanting Charlie Rose to stfu? Let Chomsky TALK!
ShutterOfMouths 3 years ago
Weird! Why do they cut off Noam mid-answer???
thepacey 3 years ago
he tells you why he gets cut off [nonspecific] in other talks and papers etc that he's done. it's not weird, it's the institutional structure of the media.
intrepgun 3 years ago
It's called editing for time. It happens in television programs.
Xenu 3 years ago
also very plausible. it could be that what chomsky was saying was viewed as redundant and thus was eligible for cuts. but when a guy gets up and speaks the truth and can actually back it up, it's captivating. and people really want to hear what he has to say because it makes sense. so when he gets cut off, people get a little upset.
intrepgun 3 years ago
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Yes Freedom of Speech is in the Bill of Rights
Zoomon42 3 years ago
No it's not. The first amendment was not made to apply to the states until the 1920s. Even then it was understood to mean that the state couldn't prevent publication. It did not mean the state could not punish speech. And it did. Eugene Debs was thrown in jail for opposing WWI. Speech was punished under the Smith Act. It wasn't until the 60s that three important cases were tried that granted us the free speech we enjoy today. Two of those cases come out of the civil rights movement.
Xenu 3 years ago 2
See Gitlow v. New York, Times v Sullivan and Brandenburg v Ohio. There were other cases relating to freedom of speech but I think those were the major ones. There is a great book on this matter by Anthony Lewis. So Chomsky is certainly correct that freedom of speech in the US is a relatively recent win.
Xenu 3 years ago
"I'm not gonna be able to answer the question because the assumptions are wrong" @ 46:15.
Sorry Charlie, but your loaded questions are not going to work on somebody like Chomsky.
lionofthejungle 3 years ago 3
charlie rose should shut his mouth and just let chomsky talk.
VelvetRazz 3 years ago
I can't believe that Charlie Rose is such a self indulgent asshole that he would cut off Chomsky before he could answer the question to his one Ultra mega question in Linguistics....OH MY GOD!!!!
Poontasty 3 years ago
seriously that little bit ruined the interview for me
PlasticJesus341 3 years ago
Certainly ruined the question.
sshuck 3 years ago
I think was a result of clumsy editing rather than Rose cutting him off.
klilk 3 years ago
yeah I think so too, however this whole interview didn't impress me nearly as much as most chomsky videos do
PlasticJesus341 3 years ago
I really really really wanted to know the rest of that answer!!
kniehk 3 years ago
38:35 and 38:43 charlie makes a good point that noam may have dismissed a lil to quickly what he's alluding to is that
at the point people see things that are wrong as youngsters or right for them some individuals will by force of will open the facilitation of dramatic change by thier own will from thier own individual values then look for support from the masses or the ruling elite for thier support on these things thier are quite a few historical examples
xlightwavex 3 years ago
charlies a cool guy he truly trys to understand his guests and convey something of that to people who watch
so that viewer understands what that
person is all about
hes unbias and proffesional
in fact i think he trys to come of as a simple fellow
but he lets a lil bit of how intellegent he really is slip thru here and thier
xlightwavex 3 years ago
It's so much fun to watch Charlie. He is so far in over his head with Chomsky.
hamletworker 3 years ago 3
like everybody else then..
mangemang 3 years ago
With due respect to Chomsky, he is misleading on the 1973 war. It was actually Kissinger who was a master planner of of the war and striking of peace between Egypt and Israel. That way the common arab front against Israel was broken. The war was needed to fool egypt arabs to believe that they liberated the Sinai. Acutally the war was orchestrated by Kissinger. I doubt that Chomsky is unaware of this.
Nakhch 3 years ago
boring but interesting!
steviesteve7000 3 years ago
I am returning the politicians I bought because they do not work.
UnconcernedCitizen 3 years ago 3
Chomsky got a style.
SmokiSounds 3 years ago
what was the mega uestion in linguistics that chomsky wants to ask? they edited out that part, right?
zotski2001 3 years ago
Noam Chompsky is an intellectual titan
Struckgold 3 years ago 3
Charlie Rose is a smart interviewer, but Chomsky is smarter. If you noticed, Charlie Rose frames his questions in a way that they already contain some sort of implied argument. Chomsky, on the other hand, tries to explain the issue in greater detail than the way the question is dealt. He won't let Charlie Rose move onto the next question until he gives more background behind the issue. Noam Chomsky is a genius!
lionofthejungle 3 years ago 11
Capitalism requires growth. The planet if finite. Infinite growth does not work on a finite planet. Eventually, Capitalism has to end. I'm sorry if this offends your patriotic sensibilities, but it's as basic as that. I'm not a socialist, I'm just pointing out reality.
kbjorem 3 years ago
It doesn't offend me at all.
Its just a very simplistic statement.
What about our planet's finite resources limit the growth of capitalism? Salt water? Salt water is finite right? Does that mean capitalism can't grow? Are you talking about mosquitos? Mosquitos are finite? Does that mean capitalism can't continue to grow?
Its just a vague statement that doesn't disprove anything.
Argonaut22j 3 years ago
Also, what kind of growth are your referring to? GDP? A country doesn't have to constantly have a rising GDP. It can have a steady GDP and provide well for its citizens. What "growth" are you talking about?
Argonaut22j 3 years ago
The gov can provide well for its citizens without a capatlistic system. Actually if the country is going to provide well for its citizens capitalizm isnt the best way. Only the people with power are provided for in this current system. Eventually people will get tired of it when technology becomes strong enough to effectively solve problems like hunger and health. Then people will not want this power in private selfish hands.
wrinkleypp 3 years ago 2
You say that governments provide well without capitalism. Where? Russia? That collapsed and only recovered when capitalism finally was allowed in. China? That is increasingly becoming capitalistic as much as the government tries to stop it.
Argonaut22j 3 years ago
fyi there was significant improvements in standards of living under Stalin. Also, a lot of capitalist policies were rolled back when putin took over.
PatrickWJ 3 years ago
"Significant improvements in standards of living under Stalin."
The whole reason that Russia had to adopt capitalism in the first place was because communism WASN'T providing well. Citizens barely had enough to eat, business was completely bullied by the government, and people were damn sick of it.
You call that "providing well"?
Argonaut22j 3 years ago
And Russia never really recovered as the U.S.S.R. but split into separate countries.
Argonaut22j 3 years ago
People always fight for what's in the individual best interest. My best interest is your freedom.
chewbaca1989 3 years ago
I agree with you wrinkleypp. Honestly, I think we're inevitably headed towards universal peace on this planet, although still maybe a century or more away. Our problem is that we create an inherent scarcity (i.e "monetary-ism") that produces certain human behavior including greed and the lust for power.
Human ingenuity is our true divinity...so technology has to be our savior, which really means WE are our own savior.
Peace and love. :)
The Venus Project
Jacque Fresco
Peter Joseph
TheTophaLoaf 3 years ago
we are not headed towards peace.
in fact man will destroy the planet in a variety of ways ,war included and the planet will destroy the people reclaiming itself.
mans evolution will only advance to peace once he is reduced to near extinction .
JadeTomZ 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Noam Chomsky Is Literally Retarded.
hughugh 3 years ago
A guy who is a pioneer in generative grammar is 'literally retarded'?
lionofthejungle 3 years ago 7
What?
Pommit 3 years ago
you are retarded
Raford146 3 years ago
No, you are retarded.
Pommit 3 years ago
According to who? you?... go back to your church dude..
badem 3 years ago
the recognition of this man ideas is the only way to guarantee the US CULTURAL leadership of the world. obama's rhetoric will lead to nowhere.
scheix 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hes a fraud
Jabulon88 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Norm Chimpsky has worked for the Pentagon for decades. He's a stooge!
JasonRadley 3 years ago
To UnicornHead: A simple explanation would seem to be because he is; Informed, articulate, he provides an opposing viewpoint to that which is discussed in 95% of widespread public debate, and one thing for me is that in his own words he 'lacks concision'
i.e. the reason he may be overlookd by editors/producers on tv could be explained by his speaking for over 30seconds at a time, he is not a man who will attempt to explain an economic policy through the use of a one or two line phrase.
dontsayusernametaken 3 years ago
Charlie Rose seems really insecure and defensive about his obvious lack of knowledge about just about every topic he's interviewing Chomsky on. Interrupting to repeat what he just said doesn't make you sound any smarter, Charlie!
ambivalentwaltz 3 years ago 3
Indeed. Seems to be trying to prove his smarts. That`s the problem I suppose when journalists are given too much publicity, they stop listening to the story and try to become the story. Enough to drive Chomsky to violence.
carntspell 3 years ago 3
I agrree, the sign of a good interviewer is one who listens sincerely...and if he's self-critical.
Meloman0001 3 years ago
why do people invest so much political, philisophical, and socioeconomic reliability in a man who's expertise is in language?
dont get me wrong, chomsky's contributions to linguistics are without question as genius as they are academically priceless, but why does this man get to undermine capitalism?
it may be reasonable if he had credentials that were sociopolitically associated with economic and social issues, but such is not the case.
why? I would like a REASONABLE explanation.
UnicornHead 3 years ago
Unicorn - can I answer your question reasonably? Your question is "why does he get to undermine capitalism?" and your argument is that he shouldn't either be given air time or considered seriously because he is a linguist.
Well, he gets to because everyone gets to in a democracy. He takes democracy seriously and he always has. The reason people listen is because he is so incredibly well informed about history and discusses it in a scientific way, relying on independently verifiable evidence.
Argonaut22j 3 years ago 6
Chomsky is just gathering and relaying facts - Capitalism is doing a pretty damn good job undermining itself.
boxedj 3 years ago 3
pretty much
Argonaut22j 3 years ago
great answer
Seano71 3 years ago
He has the same credentials to discuss politics as Henry Kissinger: absolutely none. The assumptions behind your statement are interesting - only a state or educational institution can give you benediction to discuss global affairs. That assumption is so absurd it doesn't even merit response.
Xenu 3 years ago
why the hell does charlie interrupt him so much?
i used to think he was a good interviewer!
saeedman 3 years ago 3
same, he really pissed me off.
0101110110001100 3 years ago 2
wow! At 9 minutes, listen to the question Rose submits and then watch him interrupt Chomsky. I have caught this on a few occasions, but not so badly as this! He asks him, 'are there any mega-questions out there that you would like to see answered' and, as Chomsky goes into responding, Rose just cuts him off and starts asking him a question about some guy in New York. WOW! What a way to say "i am not even trying to listen to you!" GOT to love Chomsky!
semasiologistics 3 years ago 2
Noam Chomsky is the wisest public person alive today.
All the people I respect have great respect for Mr.Chomsky.
Blastabola 3 years ago
charlie needs to shut up and let chomsky rant for a solid hour
amobashe 3 years ago
Where can we find what Chomsky actually said regarding the "megaquestion" he is most intriged by?
pabloyounew4 3 years ago 3
Why were the comments on linguistics cut off at the beginning of the conversation. Did Chomsky go into detail about the biological language systems, or was that his only point?
angrygary101 3 years ago 2
i just watched that section 3 times wondering if it was cut out or if the interviewer was just that clueless/rude. it seemed like the most interesting point chomsky was going to make.
neverdieyoungdc 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Judaism is the highest stage of capitalism.
ludachris475 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just as always in capitalism...
A pyramid is built with the wealthy Jew on top subjugating the rest.
ludachris475 3 years ago
The interviewer ask so stupid questions.
viotech 3 years ago 4
I was breastfed on Chomsky. The interviewer obviously knows nothing.
ludachris475 3 years ago
LMAO AT 13;11 HE MAKES A POP SOUND WITH HIS MOUTH.
i found this hilarious.
funny pop is funny.
mdoob11 3 years ago
LOL, pop pop!
Its his ill fitting eastern bloc communist dentures :)
Hey talking politics (and because I can't be asked listening to hes chomping pop pop sounds) is Chompy Chomsky still a communist/leftist/socialist?
Danni4815162342 3 years ago
(at 8:44) anyone know what Chomsky would have said if Rose had not cut him off?
MoistKumquat 3 years ago
I'm curious too. At first I thought it was a skipped scene.
AFlintoff101 3 years ago
Chomsky was about to tell us the question he obsesses over when Charlie Rose INTERRUPTED him!
What was he gonna say?
MoistKumquat 3 years ago
NOAM CHOMSKY IS THE MAN Americam HERO
no QUESTIONS ABOUT IT
REGWHY 3 years ago
Having trouble sleeping? Watch this interview.
tobreakcustom 3 years ago
I'm sure the answer was edited out for reasons of time.
Xenu 3 years ago
Noam Chomsky IS an american hero. I wish him a long, healthy and productive life (for the sake of our country).
edjmarquez 3 years ago 2
Normally love Rose, but it seems obvious that he was thinking about what his right-wing friends would say about the interview
mexicanmonkey123 3 years ago 6
Charley Rose should learn to shut up when he interviews. We want to hear what the interviewer has to say not Charley Rose. DON'T interrupt please.
markandmalekah 3 years ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
Chomsky is gay
POlNTMAN 3 years ago
Charlie you are a bad loser!!!
raja2oo8 3 years ago
i love rose, but when it comes to chompsky i respect and love him more...rose you can cut the guy off like that, are you tryin to tell us he wrong...when he is not, look at the records, in the newspaper,newyork times, the midia..loooooooooooool
fb416 3 years ago
i see the same question repeat it self again in diffrent interviews" do u love the state"... his answer is always the same.. i don't support the policy...but i love the state, every one does..there is no nation better then the american nation
fb416 3 years ago
Yes there is...Canada.
zigzagbigbag 3 years ago 2
Yeah, Rose has a bit of trouble hearing the "straight truth" from Chomsky. Rose has always been a good interviewer, but Chomsky is so far up the "dissident Richter scale" Charlie doesn't know what to do.
DCseeker71 3 years ago 2
Charlie keeps interrupting when the topic becomes unpopular.
Nickalispicalis 3 years ago 5
Nickalispicalis:
I don't think his views are no longer unpopular.......:)
MajNorberg 3 years ago
I wonder is Charlie even listens to people. He asks Noam about, "what's the biggest question he had in his field" then cut Noam off before if was finished with the set up for his answer.
fathead8489 3 years ago 3
WoW, Charlie really got his blood pressure up at listening to the TRUTH!!! He can't believe that his cronies could be so evil...haha! Noam Chomsky is an American Hero!
farida2223 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Chomsky is an establishment propagandist. Paid by the man himself.
danieleriskay 3 years ago
wha???
BoDiddleyHeadHunter 3 years ago
Yeah, Rose should know better to invite Chomsky on his show for just ONE HOUR and expect Noam to be pigeon holed by Rose's assumed statements.
gizmo2084 3 years ago
lol@skutre
True!
gizmo2084 3 years ago
Commercial TV requires simplification of complex issues which essentially dumbs down the viewer that watches such programs.
Sure, we could ask Chomsky to be more concise. But even then he'd still have cut out words thus eroding the original meaning until we're left with no substance.
gizmo2084 3 years ago 2
Every single idea, story, analysis, fact and even news dissimated by the corporate media like this, is only to make the elite more comfortable, and always with violence.
Charlie is not a tool of these ills but an important part of it.
The economic elite is looting people every where, in US, in the rest of the world, not just of entitlement but of justice too.
VmShan 3 years ago
See how Charlie only wants no dialogue but just echos to his voice of words put in his rotten sick head by the establishment of the economic elite.
He tries to suppress Noam Chomsky so much that he does not want to hear the full details of the facts and reality of the situation which his questions point to.
VmShan 3 years ago
Chrlie Rose was a muskito for Noam Chomsky
Rose is a Zionist advertiser, Who the hell he is to talk with Chomsky the highest scholar in the US and probably in the world
perazh 3 years ago
hahahaha...chomsky classic reply at 6:35...i really dont care LOL
imwatchinvideos 3 years ago
Charlie Rose you f*%king liberal. Chomsky bitched slapped you and laid the smackdown on you. You can't fuck with libertarian socialism.
bootleg42 3 years ago
Why is it that Charlie Rose can upload a video that lasts 58 minutes long yet the rest of us are supposed to keep our videos at 10 minutes length?
NRob84 3 years ago 5
does charlie rose's agenda shape the way he runs an interview have anything to do with him being CFR and Trilateral?
57ricta 3 years ago
FUCK CHARLIE ROSE. He completely edited out the best part of this fucking program around 9:04. And instead wanted to talk about a fucking trip in new york.
SUCK A FAT DICK CHARLIE ROSE. U SUCK!
Goddamn, I wanted to hear what Chomsky said. I'm taking linguistics thats why im so pissed. .. Maybe someone out there can relate. :-(
kidcapri009 3 years ago
Oh bother.
mistertakeda 3 years ago
yeah wtf eh? is there a longer version anywhere?
dpjpike3000 3 years ago
"SUCK A FAT DICK CHARLIE ROSE. U SUCK!"
"I'm taking linguistics..."
Is that so?
spilk84 3 years ago 3
I think it is part of Rose's interviewing style to interrupt and butt in to put his 2 cents worth. I don't think he's showing off to Chomsky. He has to be smart enough to understand he's in front of an intelectual giant who will not be easily impressed. Rose does have an agenda which mainly entails covering certain topics within a limited amount of time and he obviously wanted to talk about Iraq very much. He also has an elitist and conventional POV but that makes the interview more interesting
estontin123 3 years ago 3
Exactly. His style is really interesting. It's almost like he picks fights with his guests and that always makes for good interviews
jamianm 3 years ago
charlie rose should shut the fluk up
jona2jona 3 years ago
at the end chomsky left as quickly as possible, right!?
oooodaxteroooo 3 years ago
You gotta love it. Constantly cutting off Chomsky or twisting things up. After not being able to engage Chomsky meaningfully, the only way to win is the editing bay.
katiekamera 3 years ago
He does the same thing in the Naomi Klein interview.
jgunn81 3 years ago
NO, YOU SHUT UP! NO, YOU!
jimmcain96 3 years ago
no, you need to listen
jimmcain96 3 years ago
How do you explain this? Charlie asks. Because we appreciate Chomsky's truthfulness. It's so rare these days. That kind of integrity.
ImaginationBlue 3 years ago 2
Rose needs to learn to be quiet and listen.
mrtvsmith 3 years ago 6
where's the last 20 minutes?
great interview throughout, but Chomsky was just getting warmed up...where's the last 20 minutes?
eh, maybe its just my connection...or computer.
rohaynes1 3 years ago 3
let me stop you for a second....eh actually Charlie, if you could just not talk for about an hour we could probably learn something from this.
rohaynes1 3 years ago
yeah wtf. 9:04. would very much like to hear that answer.
rohaynes1 3 years ago 2
Charlie looks like he's got hemroids, can't sit still; Charlie, you've got to let Chomsky speak. He's the Voltair, Descart, Dewey, Eugene Debs of our time, all rolled-into-one. Chomsky's at his best when he gets rolling...
charletripi 3 years ago 7
At 9:04, why the hell did they edit Chomsky's reply? He's just finishing an introductory observation and appears to be about to tell us what his "personal obsession" is, and them just cut straight to the next topic.
As it stands it makes no sense to leave any of it in at all.
kvaks3000 3 years ago 5
Absolutely ridiculous! It is as if Rose chopped one of the most interesting parts of the interview because he is to damned ignorant to realize the worth. Charlie you blew it. Now I'll finish watching the rest...
8richyrich8 3 years ago
It's difficult to watch this interview. Charlie Rose should have done more research on his guest. From what I've seen you ask Mr. Chomsky a question and let him answer uninterrupted. He was obviously getting aggravated with the interruptions.
Few people can compete with Chomsky on an intellectual level. He is modest and patient, but certain interviewers really seem to push him to his limits.
mgrafius 3 years ago 9
No matter what evidence and claims can be made, this person is wrong? Pardon me if I sound a bit presumptuous, but that sounds a lot like a *gasp* belief! You know, like religion. Your beliefs aren't of any consequence here; falsifiable claims are what makes a strong argument. You're merely stating that you're dogmatically opposed to anything "left". Haha, you're real "brilliant". Anyone with half a brain would realize why such a thing is flagrantly and arrogantly retarded.
NwZ2 3 years ago
Chomsky is simply far too smart and well read to have a debate with Rose. Good try though.
yourmain 3 years ago
chomsky doesn't shake. that's impressive for an 80 year old.
mrtyles 3 years ago
You are jewish, i am palestinian, but i like you very much. What should i say? Only the truth.
P.S. Please don't correct my english :)
nasir440 3 years ago 3
it is good to use every available channel for self expression, and getting people to self express is a good idea, telling people to be quiet is a bad idea, even if people ar speaking ignorantly at least we can critically think and learn to better seperate the crap the more intelligent and insightful.
catgumart 3 years ago
Why do you people waste your time arguing on youtube? If someone has said something so tremendously moronic, chances are it won't matter what you say to the contrary. There is no cure for terminal stupidity.
dazedandconfucious 3 years ago 3
not with that attitude
LazyHippi 3 years ago
Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.
youtert 3 years ago
Mr. Silicondoc:
It seems to me that your brother being a 'tenured profossor' has had very little positive influence on you. Your language is foul and wasteful of such small space as is afforded here. I suggest you display your fascist tendencies in a less offensive manner...if for no other reason than your health. Anger is so corrosive.
PeelTower 3 years ago
I can't find my original post, and don't intend to look, but there is no doubt that the negotiating position of the Israelis vis a vis the palestinians is in contravention of international law. the palestinian position at this point is the what they are entitled to under UN resolutions, which is far less than would be considered fair from the original negotiating position (pre balfour declaration). If it were based on legal contract, the citizens that founded israel would be entitled to
sabonis15 3 years ago
roughly 6-7% of the mandate of palestine, based on contract law (meaning thats how much land they had legal title to by way of purchase). If property rights are what we are going by, that is the founding state, basically most of jerusalem, all of tel aviv, and if I recall correctly, a portion of Hebron. That is in no way going to happen of course, but that is what the palestninans could claim by entitlement. the fact that they don't shows how much they give up in negotiations.
sabonis15 3 years ago
IF you want to talk about that in more detail, do so. However, judging by the invective laden tantrums you're having, you simply want to represent an intransigent side to the negotiations, akin to the point of view of yigal amir.
sabonis15 3 years ago
you guys are fucking idiots
voyce0reezon 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm a conservative, a Paleoconservative in the vein of Tom Metzger and David Duke and I agree with much of what Chomsky says. Where I disagree with him is his worldview in terms of the solution. He's a hard core Socialist. But with regard to identifying the problems with U.S. foreign policy, I agree with most of what he says.
jimj122680 3 years ago
Well, I didn't actually mean to be rude with my first comment but it certainly sounded that way.
Your responses have been revealing about you, however. Better to be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
Simbelmyne13 3 years ago
what is the liberal propoganda silicondoc?
i don't see chomsky raking in millions of dollars and laying in luxury yachts off others money.
ilikeicecreamandcake 3 years ago
Chomsky's philosophy makes my prostate brittle.
ludachris475 3 years ago
volume is too fucking low on this.
both my speaker and video volumes are on max and yet, barely audible.
i wanted to hear chomsky schooling rose.
fuckkkkkkkkk. some youtube vids always do this.
ilikeicecreamandcake 3 years ago
'American Power and the New Tangerines.'
ludachris475 3 years ago
QUOTE
"American Power and the New Tangerines."
(".)
Chinamen.
De5054 3 years ago
It seems to me Charlie (in his constant interrupting) is trying to demonstrate is knowledge to Chomsky. Much like a child would try to impress a modest adult.
blah148 3 years ago 4
it«s the way he does all interviews - at least it«s different... but yeah... but then again, who is not ignorant next to chomsky.
knutoletube 3 years ago 3
Listening to this man is refreshing.
neolamanite 3 years ago 6
More refreshing than a coke or a sprite?
antiiraqwar 3 years ago 3
I would snort Chomsky.
(*SNIFF**)
ludachris475 3 years ago 3
noam chomsky inspires me to read
HanzSygnal 3 years ago 2
where this man is originaly from?
HeresSeem 3 years ago
philly
HanzSygnal 3 years ago
He's, from, north Philadelphia, born and raised, as a linguist was how he spent most of his days
youtert 3 years ago 2
One of the very few American intellectuals I actually admire. God bless you, Chomsky!
jjmhamir89 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
chomsky is academic-pinhead.
Never spent a single day outside of skool.
Read bio: age 5-75 in skool.
what about real-job in real-world.
get off academic-welfare.
charlesdarwinxxx 3 years ago
Eh? Have you ever actually been around a professor before? It is hard work. They teach you how to think and help give your skills. How about research as well. Do you like you technological gadgets and other things that enhance your life? Much of that science was pioneered those on "academic welfare".
Simbelmyne13 3 years ago 4
clearly you haven't spent a day in school, you punk faggot!
antiiraqwar 3 years ago
really?
ekirent 3 years ago
Yet you turn to a doctor, someone who's ACADEMICALLY TRAINED, for your health, or some science for your use of free speech to spit on the very same academia that created the vehicle you're doing it on (Computers). you're a waste of space and your opinion is neither important nor useful. Also incorrect.
NwZ2 3 years ago
Whoa, whoa, let's not forget the important issue at hand: 1. Dr. Brain (PhD)'s flagrant misuse of the hyphen! For a man with an extra-terrestrial IQ, Dr. Brain seems to let his impatience for the Left to get in the way of using the goddamn English language correctly! Or is that just a Leftist tactic as well? How do you plead, doctor brain? Stubby fingers?
xiuxiu12 3 years ago
You don't sound too bright for 2 main reasons. The first one being you feel the need to resort to name-calling to express your point. The second one, you can't seem to think (judging from the only two posts I've read from you) beyond the typical "Left-wing-Right-wing" or "Liberal-Conservative" type of mind frame, hence dismissing facts as either leftist or liberal propaganda. In fact, your comments kinda remind me of Bill O' Reilly of Fox News, and I'd be damned if he's considered "intelligent".
Katharsis2006 3 years ago
As someone with an IQ 3 SDs above the mean, I can tell that you're lying about your intelligence. Intelligent people don't think in terms of crabbed clichés the way you do.
jqbtube 3 years ago 2
Dear Dr. Brain, PhD.
Thank U for your informative commentary below on Noam Chomsky. I never knew he was such a Lefty Loon and I never knew you were so smart and you are not a loon. Are you lefty or righty? Hahaha, no no, U are just really smart. It says so in your post! (1% of the top minds in the world with NO trying). Have you considered aliens. They might be a good match for your brain. Thanks for posting on Utube! I hope to read more of your mind's 1% interesting posts!
Professor Ass
xiuxiu12 3 years ago
Hegemony or Survival is a good book.
VinnyBarbarino29 3 years ago 7
noam for world chancellor.
djalternegro 3 years ago 2
i know. noam chomsky is so intelligent you fear him, that makes him a loon. why is it so hard for conservatives to think? they're just dumb on so many fronts.
djalternegro 3 years ago
Damn, Charlie needs to learn to let the genius talk sometimes. He interrupted way too much to try and look important.
x1soundgarden1x 3 years ago 6