There is no plausible theory under which the record of the Pentagon Papers can be interpreted as relating to the national defense.
Noam ChomskyRead
When a politician uses the word 'folks,' we should brace ourselves for the deceit, or worse, that is coming.
Interpretation
Politicians often use friendly language to mask dishonesty or manipulation.
Noam Chomsky highlights the danger of trusting politicians who employ colloquial language such as 'folks,' suggesting that this friendliness is often a faΓ§ade for deceitful intentions or actions. The warning serves as a reminder to be skeptical and aware of the motivations behind political rhetoric.
In practice
In a political debate, you can quote Chomsky to underscore the importance of critical listening.
There is no plausible theory under which the record of the Pentagon Papers can be interpreted as relating to the national defense.
The 'free-floating intellectual' may occupy himself with problems because of their inherent interest and importance, perhaps to little effect.
If you're teaching today what you were teaching five years ago, either the field is dead or you are.
There are very few people who are going to look into the mirror and say, 'That person I see is a savage monster;' instead, they make up some construction that justifies what they do.
The Republican Party has become overwhelmingly so extreme that it's hardly a traditional political party anymore.
There is still much debate about whether torture has been effective in eliciting information - the assumption being, apparently, that if it is effective, then it may be justified.
In handing over the Government of India to these so-called political classes, we are handing over to men of straw, of whom, in a few years, no trace will remain.
It is amazing how soon one becomes accustomed to the sound of ones voice, when forced to repeat a speech five or six times a day. As election day approaches, the size of the crowds grows; they are more responsive and more interested; and one derives a certain exhilaration from that which, only a few weeks before, was intensely painful. This is one possible explanation of unlimited debate in the Senate.
It's too much show business and too much prompting, too much artificiality, and not really debates. They're rehearsed appearances.
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
I don't approve of the notion that we should be announcing who should step down from the position of a head of a state unless we are seriously prepared to remove that person. But if we are not, if we are being prudent and careful, then let's also be careful with how we talk.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.