Chomsky: Who should you vote for president in 2012?

I happen to concur with Chomsky's opinion in this matter. And it should apply not only to "Progressives", but to any thinking person. JZ
______

Noam Chomsky on How Progressives Should Approach Election 2012

By Matthew Filipowicz, AlterNet

“I think they should spend five or ten minutes on it -- seeing if there’s a point in taking part in the carefully orchestrated electoral extravaganza.

"READ MORE»
______________

Boycott the vote! It only legitimizes the illegitimate... Where should Occupy go next? Civil Disobedience in the footsteps of Thoreau and Gandhi!http://www.scribd.com/doc/75348301/
_____

MORE ON CHOMSKY AND THE COURTS

Chomsky in the past concurred with my opinion on an entirely different matter (caution, this requires some thinking):

For those, who do not know Chomsky's bio, his true claim to faim is as one of the founders of computer science.  His seminal contribution to the field was in developing the fundamentals of linguistic theories, which are applicable to computer languages.

Some years ago, I disucssed with him the following line of argument of mine.

1. A computer program is an assembly of rules of operations.
2. The statement in 1., above, is valid regardless of whether such computer program is written in machine language, higher level computer language, or in natural (human) language.
3. A computer system that runs the operations of a court, is an assemly of rules of operations of such court.
4. In most civilized societies, no court is permitted to institute its own rules of opetation.  That perogative is reserved to another branch of government (most often - the legislative branch).

Therefore, no court of any nation should be permitted to implement it own computer system.  Such systems should be treated as Rules of Civil Procedure/ Rules of Criminal Procedure, and must be implemented under the same branch of government that is lawfully permitted to institute  Rules of Civil Procedure/ Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Therefore, the implementation of Sustain by the Los Angeles Superior Court through a privately owned corporation, the implementation of PACER and CM/ECF under the US Administration of the Courts, and similarly, the implementation of the courts' computer sysstems in the State of Israel under the State of Israel Administration of the Courts, with help from IBM and EDS, are unlawful on their face (that is - without any review of the systems in and of themselves).

Chomsky agreed with my position. However, he refused to provide me a short opinion letter on this matter.  I sought the opinion for the 2010 Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United States.  The reason he provided for refusing to provide the opinion in writing: An opinion bearing his name would only hurt my cause, given his reputation...

Although I never get into the discussion above in my reports, the basic recommendation of my reports to the United Nations is: 

NO COURT OF ANY NATION SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO IMPLEMENT ITS OWN COMPUTER SYSTEMS.  PERMITTING A COURT TO IMPLEMENT ITS OWN COMPUTER SYSTEMS AMOUNTS TO AN UNANNOUNCED CONSTITUTIONAL REVOLUTION.

P.S.

If he takes the time to think it over, I believe that even Mr Woldgram would concur with this opinion, based on his modest recent experience in the US District Court (and he only experienced the tip of the iceberg...