Quote:
|
Originally posted by thunderous_funker: I don't see how it has anything to do with his job as an Academic unless you want to prove that he blurs the lines between his role as scientist/researcher/instructor and his role as a political activist. Is he biased against students who don't share his views? Is he unfair to students who don't share his views? If not, his political life has absolutely nothing to do with his job at a university. |
While I agree with the spirit of these sentiments, Chomsky was interviewed in his academic office (at least that's the implication) on a "uniquely Chomskyan day" (oh, to have my last name adjective-ized in print).
Quote:
|
From the interview: This is not pre-emptive war; there is a crucial difference. Pre-emptive war has a meaning, it means that, for example, if planes are flying across the Atlantic to bomb the United States, the United States is permitted to shoot them down even before they bomb and may be permitted to attack the air bases from which they came. Pre-emptive war is a response to ongoing or imminent attack. |
Either I disagree with his definition of "preemptive war" or his example is flawed (or his definition of "war" is very broad). If bombers were flying the Atlantic (strangely, not the Pacific), and the U.S. shot them down, the only aspect it preempted was the planes' success. That's actually self-defense. If the U.S. were to take out from wherever the flights originated (somewhere on the other side of the Atlantic), it would be retaliation and probably justified in the world view (maybe not).
Preemption would be if, by having intelligence that the strikes would occur, the U.S. bombed the air bases before the planes took flight.
Anyway, the only reason Chomsky's being interviewed is his activism and celebrity--it's not because of his field; he didn't give a linguist's perspective of the war. There are plenty of innovators in other academic disciplines, and I don't see the press beating down their office doors for some face time.