Glenn Greenwald
Born	(1967-03-06) March 6, 1967 (age 45) Queens, New York
Nationality	United States
Citizenship	United States
Education	B.A., 1990 J.D., 1994
Alma mater	George Washington University New York University Law School
Genres	non-fiction, political and legal commentary
Subjects	US politics, law
Notable work(s)	How Would a Patriot Act? A Tragic Legacy
salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Glenn Greenwald (born March 6, 1967) is an American lawyer, columnist, blogger, and author. Greenwald worked as a constitutional and civil rights litigator before becoming a contributor (columnist and blogger) to Salon.com, where he focuses on political and legal topics.^[1] He has also contributed to other newspapers and political news magazines, including The New York Times,^[2][3][4] The Los Angeles Times,^[5] The Guardian,^[6][7][8] The American Conservative,^[9] The National Interest,^[10] and In These Times.^[11][12]

Greenwald has written four books, three of which have been New York Times bestsellers: How Would a Patriot Act? (2006); A Tragic Legacy (2007), and With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful, released in October 2011. He also wrote Great American Hypocrites (2008).

In March 2009, he was selected, along with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, as the recipient of the first annual Izzy Award by the Park Center for Independent Media, an award named after independent journalist I.F. "Izzy" Stone and devoted to rewarding excellence in independent journalism. The selection panel cited Greenwald's "pathbreaking journalistic courage and persistence in confronting conventional wisdom, official deception and controversial issues."^[13]

In October 2010, he won the Online Journalism Award for Best Commentary, for his investigative article on the arrest of U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning as the alleged leaker to WikiLeaks.^[14] The same year, he was a Finalist for the National Magazine Awards category of "excellence in online reporting and commentary published as a blog."^[15]

His commentaries "on surveillance issues and separation of powers" have been cited in The New York Times, in The Washington Post, in United States Senate floor debates, and in House "official ... reports on executive power abuses,"^[16] and he appears on various radio and television programs as a guest political pundit.^[17]

Background[link]

Greenwald was born on March 6, 1967, in Queens, New York City, the son of Arlene and Daniel Greenwald.^[18] Shortly after his birth Greenwald moved with his family to South Florida.^[1][19] He earned a B.A. from George Washington University in 1990 and a J.D. from New York University Law School in 1994.^[1] During law school, he worked as an intern and Summer Associate at the New York law firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, and after graduation, he practiced law in the Litigation Department at Wachtell, Lipton (1994–1995); in 1996 he co-founded his own litigation firm, called Greenwald Christoph & Holland (later renamed Greenwald Christoph PC), where he litigated cases concerning issues of U.S. constitutional law and civil rights.^[1][19]

One of Greenwald's most notable First Amendment clients was Matthew Hale, a leader of the organization now known as the Creativity Movement. On April 6, 2005, Hale was sentenced to a 40-year prison term for soliciting an undercover FBI informant to kill federal judge Joan Lefkow.^[20] and was incarcerated in the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado.^[21] Although he "represented Hale and his organization in several civil cases" and was not involved in Hale's criminal defense case, after the subsequent killing of Judge Lefkow's mother and husband while Hale was incarcerated for the earlier conviction, Greenwald was approached by Hale's mother, Evelyn Hutcheson. She asked Greenwald to deliver a purportedly "encoded message" from the imprisoned Hale to one of his supporters on the outside; Greenwald declined to do so.^[22][23]

In his entry in Unclaimed Territory for July 10, 2006, Greenwald states, "I decided voluntarily to wind down my practice in 2005 because I could, and because, after ten years, I was bored with litigating full-time and wanted to do other things which I thought were more engaging and could make more of an impact, including political writing."^[19]

In the same entry, Greenwald observes that he has been openly gay for 20 years and that, while he has lived in the United States all his life, he divides his time between New York City and Rio de Janeiro, the hometown of his partner:

Revealingly, American law prevents the recognition of our relationship as a ground for him to live in the United States, while Brazilian law recognizes same-sex relationships for visa and immigration purposes. As a result, for the past year [2006], I have spent substantial time in Brazil while also having a residence in New York. Spending substantial time in another country does not make one an 'expatriate.' And even those American citizens who do give up American residence and live abroad retain full rights of citizenship, including voting rights. But I have not done so.^[19]

An April, 2011 Out Magazine profile describes Greenwald's six-year relationship with his Brazilian partner, David Michael Miranda, and explains that "he lives in Rio de Janeiro" because he is "barred from moving to the United States" with Miranda^[24]. Another profile of Greenwald, from a New Zealand political magazine in 2012, says the interview with Greenwald was conducted from "Rio de Janeiro, where he lives with his husband and 10 dogs, which they keep rescuing from the streets^[25].

According to Ken Silverstein's interview with Greenwald published in Harper's Magazine on February 22, 2008, conducted by telephone while Greenwald was in Brazil, he lives there "much of the time."^[26] On July 22, 2008, when Greenwald participated in a debate with Cass Sunstein, an adviser to then Senator Barack Obama, moderated by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, their exchange was also conducted by telephone from Brazil.^[27]

In a May 2008 interview, Greenwald explained that "even though Brazil has the largest Catholic population of any country in the world" and "was a military dictatorship until 1985": "I’m able to obtain from the Brazilian government a permanent visa because my Brazilian partner's government recognizes our relationship for immigration purposes, while the government of my supposedly 'free,' liberty-loving country enacted a law explicitly barring such recognition."^[28]

Political views[link]

Greenwald is critical of actions that have the support of both Democrats and Republicans, writing: "the worst and most tyrannical government actions in Washington are equally supported on a fully bipartisan basis."^[29]

In the preface to his first book, How Would a Patriot Act? (2006), Greenwald begins by giving some of his own personal political history, describing himself as at first neither liberal nor conservative but as one who had taken positions that can be ascribed to both liberals and conservatives, voting neither for George W. Bush nor for any of his rivals, indeed not voting at all.^[30] Bush's ascendancy to the U.S. Presidency "changed" Greenwald's previous uninvolved political attitude toward the electoral process "completely":

Over the past five years, a creeping extremism has taken hold of our federal government, and it is threatening to radically alter our system of government and who we are as a nation. This extremism is neither conservative nor liberal in nature, but is instead driven by theories of unlimited presidential power that are wholly alien, and antithetical, to the core political values that have governed this country since its founding"; for, "the fact that this seizure of ever-expanding presidential power is largely justified through endless, rank fear-mongering—fear of terrorists, specifically—means that not only our system of government is radically changing, but so, too, are our national character, our national identity, and what it means to be American."^[30]

Believing that "It is incumbent upon all Americans who believe in that system, bequeathed to us by the founders, to defend it when it is under assault and in jeopardy. And today it is", he stresses: "I did not arrive at these conclusions eagerly or because I was predisposed by any previous partisan viewpoint. Quite the contrary."^[30]

Resistant to applying ideological labels to himself, he emphasizes repeatedly that he is a strong advocate for U.S. constitutional "balance of powers"^[12] and for constitutionally-protected civil and political rights in his writings and public appearances.^[1]

Throughout them he has relentlessly criticized the policies of the George W. Bush administration and those who support or enable it, arguing that most of the American "Corporate News Media" excuse Bush's policies and echo administration talking points rather than asking hard questions.^[26][31]

Entitling his Unclaimed Territory blog entry for January 16, 2006, "Bush Followers Are Not Conservatives", Greenwald explains this position:

It has long been clear that there is nothing remotely "conservative" about this Administration, at least in the sense that conservative ideology has stood for a restrained Federal Government which was to be distrusted. There has been a long line of decidedly un-conservative actions by this Administration – from exploding discretionary domestic spending to record deficits to an emergency convening of the Federal Government to intervene in one woman's end-of-life decisions to attempts to federalize, even constitutionalize, marriage laws – all of which could not be any more alien to what has been meant by "conservatism" for the past 40 years.^[32]

The New York Times describes Greenwald as a liberal.^[33][34]

In his various media guest appearances and publications, Greenwald elaborates his political views, which he also summarizes succinctly in responding to "six questions ... about political campaign coverage and the media" that Ken Silverstein posed to him in an article published in Harper's Magazine on February 21, 2008.^[26]

Greenwald holds a favourable view of drug liberalization. He conducted research, commissioned by the Cato Institute, on the effect of the abolition of all criminal penalties for personal drug possession in Portugal, which occurred in 2001. According to Greenwald, "decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success... It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does".^[35]

He also opposes capital punishment on the ground that it is "unjust."^[36]

In a discussion about civil liberties in the age of Obama, he elaborated on his conception of change when he said, "I think the only means of true political change will come from people working outside of that [two-party electoral] system to undermine it, and subvert it, and weaken it, and destroy it; not try to work within it to change it."^[37] He did, however, raise money for Russ Feingold's 2010 Senate re-election bid ^[38], Bill Halter's 2010 primary challenge to Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln ^[39], as well as several Congressional candidates in 2012 he described as "unique"^[40].

[edit] Unclaimed Territory

Greenwald started his blog Unclaimed Territory in October 2005, focusing initially on the investigation pertaining to the Plame affair, the CIA leak grand jury investigation, and the federal indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Two months later, when the National Security Agency warrantless surveillance controversy became news, he began to focus primarily on that issue. In January 2006 Greenwald attracted national media attention after he wrote in Unclaimed Territory that U.S. Senator Mike DeWine had proposed an easier standard for domestic eavesdropping by federal agents in 2002 but that the administration had declined any interest in the legislation and advised him that it would probably be unconstitutional, a direct contradiction of much of the later rationale for the NSA warrantless domestic spying program once it was known; Dan Eggen, of The Washington Post, for example, observed that "The DeWine amendment" — "the latest point of contention in a fierce political and legal battle over the NSA monitoring program" — was "first highlighted ... by Internet blogger Glenn Greenwald and widely publicized yesterday by the Project on Government Secrecy, an arm of the Federation of American Scientists...."^[41]

In March 2006, Senator Russ Feingold quoted Greenwald's comments in Unclaimed Territory on the floor of the U.S. Senate when he introduced Senate Resolution 398, to censure President Bush.^[42]

In April 2006, Unclaimed Territory received the 2005 Koufax Award for "Best New Blog".^[1]

In February 2008, during a debate over the FISA and Telecom Immunity bill on the floor of the U.S. Senate broadcast on C-Span, Senator Chris Dodd quoted Greenwald's comments posted in Unclaimed Territory.^[43]

Salon.com[link]

In February 2007, Greenwald became a contributing writer at Salon.com, and the new column and blog superseded Unclaimed Territory, though Salon.com prominently features hyperlinks to it in Greenwald's dedicated biographical section.^[44][45]

Joe Klein[link]

In his Salon.com column of November 21, 2007, Greenwald documented factual errors in a national column written by Joe Klein in Time magazine.^[46][47][48] In response to such criticism, Time subsequently added an intended clarification (or quasi-retraction) in an online version of Klein's disputed column — "In the original version of this story, Joe Klein wrote that the House Democratic version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would allow a court review of individual foreign surveillance targets. Republicans believe the bill can be interpreted that way, but Democrats don't." — but Greenwald observed that the text of the legislation does not require court review of individual targets, and Time's response repeating "what each side says" disregards that point.^[49][50] Pertaining to this controversy, Time published letters from U.S. Senator Russ Feingold and others in its later issues of the magazine.^[51][52]

Anthrax reporting[link]

In August 2008, following the apparent suicide of terror suspect Bruce Ivins, Greenwald wrote a series of long entries, detailing the evidence that there has been a cover-up by individuals in the US government and ABC News in the 2001 anthrax attacks, calling for "a full-scale Congressional hearing or even an external Commission of the type that investigated the 9/11 attacks – endowed with full subpoena power – to examine all of the unresolved issues here."^[53] Greenwald also expressed interest in the identity of the individual who allegedly told ABC News' Brian Ross falsely in 2001 that the anthrax contained bentonite and falsely linking the anthrax attack to Saddam Hussein and argued that the broadcasting of this claim by ABC News was instrumental in guiding the US media and public opinion towards war with Iraq; subsequently, according to Dan Gillmor, who prominently cites and links to Greenwald in an article published in the guardian.co.uk, Brian Ross refused to divulge the identity of the individual who purportedly misled him.^[54]

John O. Brennan[link]

After U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's victory in November 2008, the media reported that former CIA official John O. Brennan, who had served as Senator Obama's top intelligence adviser during his 2008 election campaign, was the leading candidate to be named by Obama as either the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (D/CIA) or the next Director of National Intelligence (DNI).^[55] In a lengthy essay published in Salon.com, Greenwald argued that Brennan had supported many controversial detention and interrogation policies of the Bush administration, including "enhanced interrogation tactics" and extraordinary rendition.^[56] Other notable writers such as Andrew Sullivan credited Greenwald's Salon.com essay as the impetus for their opposition to Brennan's nomination.^[57] On November 24, Brennan wrote a letter to President-elect Obama withdrawing his name from consideration for any top intelligence posts, citing "strong criticism in some quarters."^[57] Media reports and other political pundits cited the "firestorm in liberal blogs" as the cause of Brennan's withdrawal.^[58][59]

Bradley Manning[link]

On December 15, 2010, Greenwald wrote of the detention conditions in which U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning, the accused WikiLeaks leaker, was being held. Based on interviews with Manning's visitors and officials at the Marine brig where he was being held, Greenwald reported that the Army Private was being held "under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture": specifically, that he "has been held in intensive solitary confinement. For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions."^[60]

Greenwald's reporting ultimately led to a formal investigation by the U.N. high official on torture,^[61] denunciations by Amnesty International,^[62] and the resignation of State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley after he publicly criticized Manning's detention conditions.^[63] Since then, Greenwald has been a strong supporter of Manning. He calls Manning "a whistle-blower acting with the noblest of motives", and "a national hero similar to Daniel Ellsberg."^[64]

Hacking of security company HBGary's email servers by Anonymous revealed that as a result of his advocacy on behalf of Manning and WikiLeaks, Greenwald has been targeted in "[a] bizarre plan" — outlined in a report by Palantir Technologies, HBGary Federal and Berico Technologies — "saying that his 'level of support' for WikiLeaks 'needs to be disrupted.'"^[65] The report "was developed following a request from Hunton and Williams, a law firm that represents Bank of America, as well as others", and claims that "[w]ithout the support of people like Glenn wikileaks would fold."^[65]

Greenwald said his "initial reaction to all of this was to scoff at its absurdity. . . . But after learning a lot more over the last couple of days, I now take this more seriously -- not in terms of my involvement but the broader implications this story highlights."^[66] Salon.com editor-in-chief Kerry Lauerman wrote:

We have no reason not to take the report seriously. As a result, I've asked both Hunton and Williams and Bank of America to explain any role they played and address whether HB Gary (or any of the firms) were being paid, or promised payment, for its development. . . . As bumbling as this whole saga sounds — Internet security firm can't keep its shadowy dirty tricks campaign from being hacked — what's outlined in these sets of proposals, as Glenn points out, "quite possibly constitutes serious crimes." And as it relates to Glenn and the others, it constitutes an unconscionable attempt to silence journalists doing their jobs.^[65]

Books[link]

Greenwald's first book, How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values From a President Run Amok, published by Working Assets, in 2006, was a New York Times bestseller^[67] and ranked number one on Amazon.com both before its publication due to pre-orders based on attention from other bloggers and for several days after its release, ending its first week at number 293.^[68]

A Tragic Legacy, his second book, aims to examine the presidency of George W. Bush "with an emphasis on his personality traits and beliefs that drove the presidency (along with an emphasis on how and why those personality traits have led to a presidency that has failed to historic proportions)."^[69] Published in hardback by Crown, a division of Random House, on June 26, 2007, and later reprinted in a paperback edition by Three Rivers Press on April 8, 2008, it also appeared on "The New York Times Best Seller List" after its original release and was ranked number one for a day on Amazon.com's "Non-Fiction Best Seller List", before becoming number two the next day, also due to heavy "discussions and promotions by blogs – a campaign catalyzed by Jane Hamsher [at FireDogLake]", according to Greenwald.^[70]

His third book, entitled Great American Hypocrites, was published by Random House in April 2008, the same month that Three Rivers Press reissued A Tragic Legacy in paperback.^[71]

His fourth book, entitled With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful. Metropolitan Books (Div. of Henry Holt and Company), 2011

Media appearances[link]

Greenwald has appeared as a roundtable guest on ABC's Sunday morning news show "This Week", NPR's "All Things Considered", as well as numerous times on C-SPAN's Washington Journal; Pacifica Radio's syndicated series Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman;^[31] on Public Radio International's To the Point; MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, "Morning Joe" and Dylan Ratigan's "Morning Meeting"; Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume;^[72] and The Colbert Report.^[73] Greenwald has also become a regular guest on PBS's Bill Moyers Journal.,^[74][75] and is a regular guest on the Hugh Hewitt Show, and was a friend and favorite guest of Hewitt's frequent guest host, Dean Barnett.

Popularity[link]

On August 24, 2008, the day before the start of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, which was held in Denver, Colorado, Dan Amira of New York magazine ranked Greenwald as number 36 in his list of "top 40" most popular American political pundits.^[76]

On January 22, 2009, Forbes named Greenwald one of the "25 Most Influential Liberals in the U.S. Media". The magazine placed him at number eighteen, just below Hendrik Hertzberg and just ahead of Andrew Sullivan.^[77]

On July 6, 2009, former MSNBC host Dan Abrams launched a new site, Mediaite, reporting on media figures. The site ranked all print and online columnists in America by influence. Greenwald was ranked # 9, immediately behind Charles Krauthammer.^[78][79]

In August 2009, the Web search engine Technorati ranked Glenn Greenwald's Salon.com blog as number 45 in its "Top 100" list of "the most popular 100 blogs based on Technorati Authority" (in its case, 2,056 blog links in the past six months).^[80][81]

In November 2009, The Atlantic launched a new site, TheAtlanticWire.com, and named America's 50 most influential political pundits ("The Atlantic 50"). Greenwald was ranked #22 on the list.^[82]

In December, 2011, Business Insider named him one of the Politix 50: The Only Pundits You Need To Pay Attention To Between Now And The Election.^[83]

In January, 2012, the British political journal New Statesman named Greenwald one of America's Top 20 Progressives^[84]

Notes[link]

References[link]

Bibliography[link]

External links[link]

• "Glenn Greenwald" – Glenn Greenwald's column and blog hosted on Salon.com.
• Unclaimed Territory, by Glenn Greenwald – Previous personal blog hosted on Blogspot.com; superseded by and moved to Greenwald's Salon.com column and blog on February 12, 2007
• Glenn Greenwald at the Internet Movie Database

Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky visiting Vancouver, British Columbia in 2004
Other names	Avram Noam Chomsky
Born	(1928-12-07) December 7, 1928 (age 83) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Era	20th / 21st-century philosophy
Region	Western philosophy
School	Generative linguistics, Analytic philosophy
Main interests	Linguistics · Psychology Philosophy of language Philosophy of mind Politics · Ethics
Notable ideas	Generative grammar, universal grammar, transformational grammar, government and binding, X-bar theory, Chomsky hierarchy, context-free grammar, principles and parameters, Minimalist program, language acquisition device, poverty of the stimulus, Chomsky–Schützenberger theorem, Chomsky Normal Form, propaganda model[1]
Influenced by Dwight Macdonald,[2] Pāṇini, Bertrand Russell,[3] Ludwig Wittgenstein, John Dewey, Mikhail Bakunin, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Adam Smith, Zellig Harris, Rudolf Rocker, Immanuel Kant, René Descartes, George Orwell, C. West Churchman, Alan Turing, W. V. O. Quine, Russian literature, Hebrew literature[4]
Influenced Colin McGinn, Edward Said, Christopher Hitchens, Steven Pinker, Peter Ludlow, Tanya Reinhart, Morris Halle, Gilbert Harman, Jerry Fodor, Howard Lasnik, Robert Fisk, Neil Smith, Ray Jackendoff, Norbert Hornstein, Jean Bricmont, Marc Hauser, Norman Finkelstein, Robert Lees, Hugo Chavez, Mark Baker, Julian Boyd, Ray C. Dougherty, Derek Bickerton, Amy Goodman, Michael Albert

Avram Noam Chomsky (/ˈnoʊm ˈtʃɒmski/; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,^[5][6] cognitive scientist, historian, and activist. He is an Institute Professor and Professor (Emeritus) in the Department of Linguistics & Philosophy at MIT, where he has worked for over 50 years.^[7] Chomsky has been described as the "father of modern linguistics"^[8][9][10] and a major figure of analytic philosophy.^[5] His work has influenced fields such as computer science, mathematics, and psychology.^[11][12]

Ideologically identifying with anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism, Chomsky is known for his critiques of U.S. foreign policy^[13] and contemporary capitalism,^[14] and he has been described as a prominent cultural figure.^[15] His media criticism has included Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), co-written with Edward S. Herman, an analysis articulating the propaganda model theory for examining the media.

According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar from 1980 to 1992, and was the eighth most cited source overall.^{[16][17][18][19]} Chomsky is the author of over 100 books.^[20] He is credited as the creator or co-creator of the Chomsky hierarchy, the universal grammar theory, and the Chomsky–Schützenberger theorem.

Life and career[link]

Chomsky was born on December 7, 1928, to Jewish parents in the affluent East Oak Lane neighborhood of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the elder son of noted professor of Hebrew at Gratz College and IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) member William Chomsky (1896–1977), a native of Ukraine. His mother, Elsie Chomsky (née Simonofsky)—a native of what is present-day Belarus—grew up in the United States and, unlike her husband, spoke "ordinary New York English". Chomsky's parents' first language was Yiddish,^[21] but Chomsky said it was "taboo" in his family to speak it.^[21] Although Chomsky's mother was part of the radical activism in the 1930s, he was influenced largely by his uncle who, having never passed 4th grade, owned a newsstand that acted as an "intellectual center [where] professors of this and that argu[ed] all night".^[22] Chomsky was influenced also by being a part of a Hebrew-based, Zionist organization, as well as by hanging around anarchist bookstores.^[22]

He describes his family as living in a sort of "Jewish ghetto", split into a "Yiddish side" and "Hebrew side", with his family aligning with the latter and bringing him up "immersed in Hebrew culture and literature", though he means more a "cultural ghetto than a physical one".^[23] Chomsky also describes tensions he experienced with Irish Catholics and German Catholics and anti-semitism in the mid-1930s. He recalls "beer parties" celebrating the fall of Paris to the Nazis.^[23] In a discussion of the irony of his staying in the 1980s in a Jesuit House in Central America, Chomsky explained that during his childhood, "We were the only Jewish family around. I grew up with a visceral fear of Catholics. They're the people who beat you up on your way to school. So I knew when they came out of that building down the street, which was the Jesuit school, they were raving anti-Semites. So childhood memories took a long time to overcome."^[24]

Chomsky remembers the first article he wrote was at age 10 while a student at Oak Lane Country Day School about the threat of the spread of fascism, following the fall of Barcelona in the Spanish Civil War. From the age of 12 or 13, he identified more fully with anarchist politics.^[25]

A graduate of Central High School of Philadelphia, Chomsky began studying philosophy and linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania in 1945, taking classes with philosophers such as C. West Churchman and Nelson Goodman and linguist Zellig Harris. Harris's teaching included his discovery of transformations as a mathematical analysis of language structure (mappings from one subset to another in the set of sentences). Chomsky referred to the morphophonemic rules in his 1951 master's thesis—The Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew—as transformations in the sense of Carnap's 1938 notion of rules of transformation (vs. rules of formation), and subsequently reinterpreted the notion of grammatical transformations in a very different way from Harris, as operations on the productions of a context-free grammar (derived from Post production systems). Harris's political views were instrumental in shaping those of Chomsky.^[26] Chomsky earned a BA in 1949 and an MA in 1951.

In 1949, he married linguist Carol Schatz. They remained married for 59 years until her death from cancer in December 2008.^[27] The couple had two daughters, Aviva (b. 1957) and Diane (b. 1960), and a son, Harry (b. 1967). With his wife Carol, Chomsky spent time in 1953 living in HaZore'a, a kibbutz in Israel. Asked in an interview whether the stay was "a disappointment" Chomsky replied, "No, I loved it"; however, he "couldn't stand the ideological atmosphere" and "fervent nationalism" in the early 1950s at the kibbutz, with Stalin being defended by many of the left-leaning kibbutz members who chose to paint a rosy image of future possibilities and contemporary realities in the USSR.^[28] Chomsky notes seeing many positive elements in the commune-like living of the kibbutz, in which parents and children lived together in separate houses, and when asked whether there were "lessons that we have learned from the history of the kibbutz", responded,^[29][30] that in "some respects, the kibbutzim came closer to the anarchist ideal than any other attempt that lasted for more than a very brief moment before destruction, or that was on anything like a similar scale. In these respects, I think they were extremely attractive and successful; apart from personal accident, I probably would have lived there myself – for how long, it's hard to guess."

Chomsky received his PhD in linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1955. He conducted part of his doctoral research during four years at Harvard University as a Harvard Junior Fellow. In his doctoral thesis, he began to develop some of his linguistic ideas, elaborating on them in his 1957 book Syntactic Structures, one of his best-known works in linguistics.

Chomsky joined the staff of MIT in 1955 and in 1961 was appointed full professor in the Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics (now the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy). From 1966 to 1976 he held the Ferrari P. Ward Professorship of Modern Languages and Linguistics, and in 1976 he was appointed Institute Professor. As of 2010, Chomsky has taught at MIT continuously for 55 years.

In February 1967, Chomsky became one of the leading opponents of the Vietnam War with the publication of his essay, "The Responsibility of Intellectuals",^[31] in The New York Review of Books. This was followed by his 1969 book, American Power and the New Mandarins, a collection of essays that established him at the forefront of American dissent. His far-reaching criticisms of U.S. foreign policy and the legitimacy of U.S. power have raised controversy,^[32][33] and he is frequently sought out for his views by publications and news outlets internationally. In 1977 he delivered the Huizinga Lecture in Leiden, the Netherlands, under the title: Intellectuals and the State.

Chomsky has received death threats because of his criticisms of U.S. foreign policy.^[34] He was also on a list of planned targets created by Theodore Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber; during the period that Kaczynski was at large, Chomsky had all of his mail checked for explosives.^[34] He states that he often receives undercover police protection, in particular while on the MIT campus, although he does not agree with the police protection.^[34]

Chomsky resides in Lexington, Massachusetts, and travels often, giving lectures on politics.

Thought[link]

Linguistics[link]

Chomskyan linguistics, beginning with his Syntactic Structures, a distillation of his Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (1955, 75), challenges structural linguistics and introduces transformational grammar. This approach takes utterances (sequences of words) to have a syntax characterized by a formal grammar; in particular, a context-free grammar extended with transformational rules.

Perhaps his most influential and time-tested contribution to the field is the claim that modeling knowledge of language using a formal grammar accounts for the "productivity" or "creativity" of language. In other words, a formal grammar of a language can explain the ability of a hearer-speaker to produce and interpret an infinite number of utterances, including novel ones, with a limited set of grammatical rules and a finite set of terms. He has always acknowledged his debt to Pāṇini for his modern notion of an explicit generative grammar, although it is also related to rationalist ideas of a priori knowledge.

It is a popular misconception that Chomsky proved that language is entirely innate, and that he discovered a "universal grammar" (UG). In fact, Chomsky simply observed that while a human baby and a kitten are both capable of inductive reasoning, if they are exposed to exactly the same linguistic data, the human child will always acquire the ability to understand and produce language, while the kitten will never acquire either ability. Chomsky labeled whatever the relevant capacity the human has that the cat lacks the "language acquisition device" (LAD) and suggested that one of the tasks for linguistics should be to figure out what the LAD is and what constraints it puts on the range of possible human languages. The universal features that would result from these constraints are often termed "universal grammar" or UG.^[35]

The Principles and Parameters approach (P&P)—developed in his Pisa 1979 Lectures, later published as Lectures on Government and Binding (LGB)—makes strong claims regarding universal grammar: that the grammatical principles underlying languages are innate and fixed, and the differences among the world's languages can be characterized in terms of parameter settings in the brain (such as the pro-drop parameter, which indicates whether an explicit subject is always required, as in English, or can be optionally dropped, as in Spanish), which are often likened to switches. (Hence the term principles and parameters, often given to this approach.) In this view, a child learning a language need only acquire the necessary lexical items (words, grammatical morphemes, and idioms), and determine the appropriate parameter settings, which can be done based on a few key examples.

Proponents of this view argue that the pace at which children learn languages is inexplicably rapid, unless children have an innate ability to learn languages. The similar steps followed by children all across the world when learning languages, and the fact that children make certain characteristic errors as they learn their first language, whereas other seemingly logical kinds of errors never occur (and, according to Chomsky, should be attested if a purely general, rather than language-specific, learning mechanism were being employed), are also pointed to as indications of innateness.

More recently, in his Minimalist Program (1995), while retaining the core concept of "principles and parameters," Chomsky attempts a major overhaul of the linguistic machinery involved in the LGB model, stripping from it all but the barest necessary elements, while advocating a general approach to the architecture of the human language faculty that emphasizes principles of economy and optimal design, reverting to a derivational approach to generation, in contrast with the largely representational approach of classic P&P.

Chomsky's ideas have had a strong influence on researchers of language acquisition in children, though many researchers in this area such as Elizabeth Bates^[36] and Michael Tomasello^[37] argue very strongly against Chomsky's theories, and instead advocate emergentist or connectionist theories, explaining language with a number of general processing mechanisms in the brain that interact with the extensive and complex social environment in which language is used and learned.

His best-known work in phonology is The Sound Pattern of English (1968), written with Morris Halle (and often known as simply SPE). This work has had a great significance for the development in the field. While phonological theory has since moved beyond "SPE phonology" in many important respects, the SPE system is considered the precursor of some of the most influential phonological theories today, including autosegmental phonology, lexical phonology and optimality theory. Chomsky no longer publishes on phonology.

Generative grammar[link]

The Chomskyan approach towards syntax, often termed generative grammar, studies grammar as a body of knowledge possessed by language users. Since the 1960s, Chomsky has maintained that much of this knowledge is innate, implying that children need only learn certain parochial features of their native languages.^[38] The innate body of linguistic knowledge is often termed universal grammar. From Chomsky's perspective, the strongest evidence for the existence of Universal Grammar is simply the fact that children successfully acquire their native languages in so little time. Furthermore, he argues that there is an enormous gap between the linguistic stimuli to which children are exposed and the rich linguistic knowledge they attain (the "poverty of the stimulus" argument). The knowledge of Universal Grammar would serve to bridge that gap.

Chomsky's theories have been immensely influential within linguistics, but they have also received criticism. One recurring criticism of the Chomskyan variety of generative grammar is that it is Anglocentric and Eurocentric, and that often linguists working in this tradition have a tendency to base claims about Universal Grammar on a very small sample of languages, sometimes just one. Initially, the Eurocentrism was exhibited in an overemphasis on the study of English. However, hundreds of different languages have now received at least some attention within Chomskyan linguistic analyses.^{[39][40][41][42][43]} In spite of the diversity of languages that have been characterized by UG derivations, critics continue to argue that the formalisms within Chomskyan linguistics are Anglocentric and misrepresent the properties of languages that are different from English.^[44][45][46] Thus, Chomsky's approach has been criticized as a form of linguistic imperialism.^[47] In addition, Chomskyan linguists rely heavily on the intuitions of native speakers regarding which sentences of their languages are well-formed. This practice has been criticized on general methodological grounds. Some psychologists and psycholinguists,^[who?] though sympathetic to Chomsky's overall program, have argued that Chomskyan linguists pay insufficient attention to experimental data from language processing, with the consequence that their theories are not psychologically plausible. Other critics (see language learning) have questioned whether it is necessary to posit Universal Grammar to explain child language acquisition, arguing that domain-general learning mechanisms are sufficient.

Today there are many different branches of generative grammar; one can view grammatical frameworks such as head-driven phrase structure grammar, lexical functional grammar, and combinatory categorial grammar as broadly Chomskyan and generative in orientation, but with significant differences in execution.

Chomsky hierarchy[link]

Chomsky is famous for investigating various kinds of formal languages and whether or not they might be capable of capturing key properties of human language. His Chomsky hierarchy partitions formal grammars into classes, or groups, with increasing expressive power, i.e., each successive class can generate a broader set of formal languages than the one before. Interestingly, Chomsky argues that modeling some aspects of human language requires a more complex formal grammar (as measured by the Chomsky hierarchy) than modeling others. For example, while a regular language is powerful enough to model English morphology, it is not powerful enough to model English syntax. In addition to being relevant in linguistics, the Chomsky hierarchy has also become important in computer science (especially in compiler construction and automata theory).^[48] Indeed, there is an equivalence between the Chomsky language hierarchy and the different kinds of automata. Thus theorems about languages are often dealt with as either languages (grammars) or automata.

An alternate method of dealing with languages is based upon Formal Power series.^[49] Formal Power series as well as the relationship between languages and semi-groups continued to occupy M. P. Schützenberger at the Sorbonne. Formal Power Series are similar to the Taylor Series one encounters in a course on Calculus, and it is especially useful for languages where words (terminal symbols) are commutative.^[50]

Politics[link]

Part of the Politics series on
Anarchism
Schools of thought Buddhist Capitalist Christian Collectivist Communist Egoist Existentialist Feminist Green Individualist Infoanarchism Insurrectionary Leftist Mutualist National Nihilist Naturist Pacifist Philosophical Platformist Post-anarchist Post-colonial Post-left Primitivist Queer Social Syndicalist Synthesist Vegan Voluntaryist Without adjectives
Theory practice Anarchy Anarchist Black Cross Anti-authoritarianism Anti-militarism Affinity group Black bloc Class struggle Communes Consensus democracy Conscientious objector Decentralization Deep ecology Direct action Direct democracy Dual power Especifismo Expropriative anarchism Free association Free love Free school Freethought Horizontalidad Illegalism Individualism Individual reclamation Isocracy Law Participatory politics Permanent Autonomous Zone Prefigurative politics Propaganda of the deed Refusal of work Revolution Rewilding Social center Social ecology Social insertion Somatherapy Spontaneous order Squatting Temporary Autonomous Zone Union of egoists
People William Godwin Josiah Warren Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Henry David Thoreau Max Stirner Mikhail Bakunin Louise Michel Peter Kropotkin Benjamin Tucker Errico Malatesta Johann Most Leo Tolstoy Emma Goldman Émile Armand Nestor Makhno Rudolf Rocker Buenaventura Durruti Alexander Berkman Francesc Ferrer i Guàrdia Volin Murray Bookchin Colin Ward Noam Chomsky Alfredo M. Bonanno John Zerzan
Issues Anarcho-capitalism Animal rights Capitalism Education Criticisms Islam LGBT rights Lifestylism Marxism Nationalism Orthodox Judaism Religion Sex/love Violence
History Paris Commune Hague Congress International Conference of Rome Trial of the thirty Haymarket affair May Day Anarchist Exclusion Act Congress of Amsterdam Tragic Week High Treason Incident Manifesto of the Sixteen 1919 United States anarchist bombings Biennio rosso Bavarian Soviet Republic Kronstadt rebellion Third Russian Revolution Free Territory Amakasu Incident Escuela Moderna Individualist anarchism in Europe Individualist anarchism in France Spanish Revolution Barcelona May Days Red inverted triangle Labadie Collection May 1968 Provo LIP Kate Sharpley Library Australian Anarchist Centenary Carnival Against Capitalism 1999 WTO Conference protest
Culture Anarchist films Anarchist Bookfair Anarcho-punk Arts Black anarchism Culture jamming DIY culture Freeganism Independent Media Center Infoshop The Internationale Jewish anarchism Land and liberty Lifestylism Popular education Property is theft! Radical cheerleading Radical environmentalism Squatting Symbolism Terminology A las barricadas
Economics Communization Co-operatives Counter-economics Economic democracy Free store Gift economy Infoanarchism Market abolitionism Mutual aid Mutualism Participatory economics Planned economy Really Really Free Market Wage slavery Workers' self-management
By region Africa Argentina Australia Austria-Hungary Brazil Canada China Cuba Ecuador England France Germany Greece India Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Mexico Poland Russia Spain Sweden Turkey Ukraine United States Vietnam
Lists Anarcho-punk bands Communities Fictional characters Jewish anarchists Musicians Organizations Periodicals Poets Pornographers Russian anarchists Films
Related topics Anti-capitalism Anti-consumerism Anti-corporatism Anti-fascism Anti-globalization Antimilitarism Anti-statism Anti-war Autarchism Autonomism Labour movement Left communism Libertarianism Libertarian perspectives on revolution Libertarian socialism Situationist International
Anarchism Portal Politics portal
v t e

Chomsky has stated that his "personal visions are fairly traditional anarchist ones, with origins in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism",^[51] and he has praised libertarian socialism.^[52] Although Chomsky tries to avoid the ambiguity of labels, his political views are often characterized in news accounts as "leftist"^{[53][54][55][56]} or "left-wing," and he has described himself as an anarcho-syndicalist.^[57] He is a member of the Campaign for Peace and Democracy and the Industrial Workers of the World international union.^[58] Chomsky is also a member of the International Organization for a Participatory Society which he describes as having the potential to "carry us a long way towards unifying the many initiatives here and around the world and molding them into a powerful and effective force."^[59][60] He published a book on anarchism titled Chomsky on Anarchism, published by the anarchist book collective AK Press in 2006.

Chomsky has engaged in political activism all of his adult life and expressed opinions on politics and world events, which are widely cited, publicized, and discussed. Chomsky has in turn argued that his views are those the powerful do not want to hear, and for this reason he is considered an American political dissident.

Chomsky asserts that authority, unless justified, is inherently illegitimate, and that the burden of proof is on those in authority. If this burden can't be met, the authority in question should be dismantled. Authority for its own sake is inherently unjustified. An example given by Chomsky of a legitimate authority is that exerted by an adult to prevent a young child from wandering into traffic.^[61] He contends that there is little moral difference between chattel slavery and renting one's self to an owner or "wage slavery". He feels that it is an attack on personal integrity that undermines individual freedom. He holds that workers should own and control their workplace, a view held (as he notes) by the Lowell Mill Girls.^[62]

Chomsky has strongly criticized the foreign policy of the United States. He claims double standards in a foreign policy preaching democracy and freedom for all while allying itself with non-democratic and repressive organizations and states such as Chile under Augusto Pinochet and argues that this results in massive human rights violations. He often argues that America's intervention in foreign nations, including the secret aid given to the Contras in Nicaragua, an event of which he has been very critical, fits any standard description of terrorism,^{[63][dead link]} including "official definitions in the US Code and Army Manuals in the early 1980s."^[64][65] Before its collapse, Chomsky also condemned Soviet imperialism; for example in 1986 during a question/answer following a lecture he gave at Universidad Centroamericana in Nicaragua, when challenged about how he could "talk about North American imperialism and Russian imperialism in the same breath," Chomsky responded: "One of the truths about the world is that there are two superpowers, one a huge power which happens to have its boot on your neck; another, a smaller power which happens to have its boot on other people's necks. I think that anyone in the Third World would be making a grave error if they succumbed to illusions about these matters."^[66]

Regarding the death of Osama bin Laden, Chomsky stated: "We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a 'suspect' but uncontroversially the 'decider' who gave the orders to commit the 'supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole' (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, [and] the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region."^[67]

He has argued that the mass media in the United States largely serve as a "bought priesthood"^[68] of the U.S. government and U.S.-based corporations, with the three intertwined through common interests. In a famous reference to Walter Lippmann, Chomsky along with his coauthor Edward S. Herman has written that the American media manufactures consent among the public. Chomsky has condemned the 2010 US Supreme Court Citizens United ruling revoking the limits on campaign finance, calling it a "corporate takeover of democracy."^[69]

Chomsky opposes the U.S. global "war on drugs", claiming its language is misleading, and refers to it as "the war on certain drugs." He favors drug policy reform, in education and prevention rather than military or police action as a means of reducing drug use.^[70] In an interview in 1999, Chomsky argued that, whereas crops such as tobacco receive no mention in governmental exposition, other non-profitable crops, such as marijuana are attacked because of the effect achieved by persecuting the poor.^[71] He has stated:

U.S. domestic drug policy does not carry out its stated goals, and policymakers are well aware of that. If it isn't about reducing substance abuse, what is it about? It is reasonably clear, both from current actions and the historical record, that substances tend to be criminalized when they are associated with the so-called dangerous classes, that the criminalization of certain substances is a technique of social control.^[72]

Chomsky is critical of the American "state capitalist" system and big business; he describes himself as a socialist, specifically an anarcho-syndicalist, and is critical of "authoritarian" communist branches of socialism.^{[citation needed]} He also believes that socialist values exemplify the rational and morally consistent extension of original unreconstructed classical liberal and radical humanist ideas to an industrial context. He believes that society should be highly organized and based on democratic control of communities and work places. He believes that the radical humanist ideas of his two major influences, Bertrand Russell and John Dewey, were "rooted in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism, and retain their revolutionary character."^[73]

Chomsky has stated that he believes the United States remains the "greatest country in the world",^[74] a comment that he later clarified by saying, "Evaluating countries is senseless and I would never put things in those terms, but that some of America's advances, particularly in the area of free speech, that have been achieved by centuries of popular struggle, are to be admired."^[75] He has also said "In many respects, the United States is the freest country in the world. I don't just mean in terms of limits on state coercion, though that's true too, but also in terms of individual relations. The United States comes closer to classlessness in terms of interpersonal relations than virtually any society."^[76]

Chomsky objects to the criticism that anarchism is inconsistent with support for government welfare, stating in part:

One can, of course, take the position that we don't care about the problems people face today, and want to think about a possible tomorrow. OK, but then don't pretend to have any interest in human beings and their fate, and stay in the seminar room and intellectual coffee house with other privileged people. Or one can take a much more humane position: I want to work, today, to build a better society for tomorrow – the classical anarchist position, quite different from the slogans in the question. That's exactly right, and it leads directly to support for the people facing problems today: for enforcement of health and safety regulation, provision of national health insurance, support systems for people who need them, etc. That is not a sufficient condition for organizing for a different and better future, but it is a necessary condition. Anything else will receive the well-merited contempt of people who do not have the luxury to disregard the circumstances in which they live, and try to survive.^[77]

Chomsky holds views that can be summarized as anti-war but not strictly pacifist. He prominently opposed the Vietnam War and most other wars in his lifetime. He expressed these views with tax resistance and peace walks. In 1968, he signed the “Writers and Editors War Tax Protest” pledge, vowing to refuse tax payments in protest against the Vietnam War.^[78] He published a number of articles about the war in Vietnam, including "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". He maintains that U.S. involvement in World War II to defeat the Axis powers was probably justified, with the caveat that a preferable outcome would have been to end or prevent the war through earlier diplomacy. He believes that the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "among the most unspeakable crimes in history".^[79]

Chomsky has made many criticisms of the Israeli government, its supporters, the United States' support of the government, and its treatment of the Palestinian people, arguing that " 'supporters of Israel' are in reality supporters of its moral degeneration and probable ultimate destruction" and that "Israel's very clear choice of expansion over security may well lead to that consequence."^[80] Chomsky disagreed with the founding of Israel as a Jewish state, saying, "I don't think a Jewish or Christian or Islamic state is a proper concept. I would object to the United States as a Christian state."^[81] Chomsky hesitated before publishing work critical of Israeli policies while his parents were alive, because he "knew it would hurt them" he says, "mostly because of their friends, who reacted hysterically to views like those expressed in my work."^[82] On May 16, 2010, Israeli authorities detained Chomsky and ultimately refused his entry to the West Bank via Jordan.^[83] A spokesman for the Israeli Prime Minister indicated that the refusal of entry was simply due to a border guard who "overstepped his authority" and a second attempt to enter would likely be allowed.^[84] Chomsky disagreed, saying that the Interior Ministry official who interviewed him was taking instructions from his superiors.^[84] Chomsky maintained that based on the several hours of interviewing, he was denied entry because of the things he says and because he was visiting a university in the West Bank but no Israeli universities.^[84]

Chomsky has a broad view of free-speech rights, especially in the mass media, and opposes censorship. He has stated that "with regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you reject it and prefer Stalinist/fascist standards".^[85] With reference to the United States diplomatic cables leak, Chomsky suggested that "perhaps the most dramatic revelation ... is the bitter hatred of democracy that is revealed both by the U.S. Government -- Hillary Clinton, others -- and also by the diplomatic service."^[86] Chomsky refuses to take legal action against those who may have libeled him and prefers to counter libels through open letters in newspapers. One notable example of this approach is his response to an article by Emma Brockes in The Guardian which alleged he denied the existence of the Srebrenica massacre.^[87][88][89] Chomsky's complaint prompted The Guardian to publish an apologetic correction and to withdraw the article from the paper's website.^[90]

Chomsky has frequently stated that there is no connection between his work in linguistics and his political views and is generally critical of the idea that competent discussion of political topics requires expert knowledge in academic fields. In a 1969 interview, he said regarding the connection between his politics and his work in linguistics:

I still feel myself that there is a kind of tenuous connection. I would not want to overstate it but I think it means something to me at least. I think that anyone's political ideas or their ideas of social organization must be rooted ultimately in some concept of human nature and human needs.^[91]

Some critics have accused Chomsky of hypocrisy when, in spite of his political criticism of American and European military imperialism, early research at the institution (MIT) where he did his linguistic research had been substantially funded by the American military.^[92] Chomsky makes the argument that because he has received funding from the U.S. military, he has an even greater responsibility to criticize and resist its immoral actions.

He is also an outspoken advocate against the use of the death penalty and has spoken against the execution of Steven Woods.

I think the death penalty is a crime no matter what the circumstances, and it is particularly awful in the Steven Woods case. I strongly oppose the execution of Steven Woods on September 13, 2011.

In March 2012,^[93] Chomsky endorsed Jill Stein for President of the United States in 2012, saying,