> Here is Chomsky on Sport:
> This is an oversimplification, but for the eighty percent or whatever they are, the main thing is to divert them. To get them to watch National Football League. And to worry about "Mother With Child With Six Heads," or
whatever you pick up on the supermarket stands and so on. Or look at astrology. Or get involved in fundamentalist stuff or something or other. Just get them away. Get them away from things that matter. And for that it's important to reduce their capacity to think.
Now I have found that sports and competition increase my capacity to think analytically. I think that lumping sports with astrology and National Enquirer headlines is similar to when right wingers equate homosexuality with bestiality, incest, child pornography and necrophilia. Guilt by association. Sloppy thinking in both cases in my opinion.
> Take, say, sports -- that's another crucial example of the indoctrination system, in my view. For one thing because it -- you know, it offers people something to pay attention to that's of no importance. [audience laughs]
That keeps them from worrying about -- [applause] keeps them from worrying about things that matter to their lives that they might have some idea of doing something about.
Why is it of no importance? Simply beacuse Chomsky says it is? He offers no proof, just his own word as god's word. Loving sports does not prevent me from having ideas about how to change my life and my world. In fact, I sometimes read and write e-mail to the list while a sports program is on television. Chomsky makes sports fans out to be troglodytes.
> And in fact it's striking to see the intelligence that's used by ordinary people in [discussions of] sports [as opposed to political and social issues]. I mean, you listen to radio stations where people call in -- they have the most exotic information [more laughter] and understanding about all kind of arcane issues.
But above he said that sports were designed "to reduce [people's] capacity to think." Can't have it both ways, Noam.
> You know, I remember in high school, already I was pretty old. I suddenly asked myself at one point, why do I care if my high school team wins the football game? [laugbter] I mean, I don't know anybody on the team, you
know? [audience roars] I mean, they have nothing to do with me, I mean, why I am cheering for my team? It doesn't mean any -- it doesn't make sense.
Now we are getting closer to the truth. Since he didn't get sports in high school, they must not be worth anything. I do not get classical music or playing in a band. Does that mean that these things do not make sense? Should I not cheer the athletic prowess of basketball players as well as the musical prowess of band members?
> the point is, it does make sense: it's a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority, and group cohesion behind leadership elements -- in fact, it's training in irrational jingoism. That's also a feature of competitive sports.
Hey, submission can be fun with the right person LOL. But I really do not see how cheering for your high school team leads to the "building up [of] irrational attitudes of submission to authority." Has Chomsky ever heard fans boo in the Boston Garden or Fenway Park? Not very submissive to me.
And why does he equate rooting for a team with "training in irrational jingoism." I rooted for the Oakland Raiders to win the Super Bowl. They lost. It bothered me for about 30 seconds. Then I moved on.
Chomsky's smugness seems to me to be a mirror image of George Bush's: both assume that they have the correct way of looking at things -- Chomsky through rationality and Bush through Christianity.
A progressive, inclusive movement is never going to succeed if people mock others who are different as Chomsky does. Cheap and easy laughter accomplishes nothing other than swelling the egos of those who get the joke.
Well, that is my third post of the day. I hope everyone has a great weekend and enjoys the extra hour, however they use it.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister