Bonafide Hustler

If you are a guy you shouldn't worry too much about appearances. Enough decent women will always gravitate towards guys with attractive personalities. It maybe cliche but just be confident in yourself and command respect. A sense of humour and ambition also go a long way. Unfortunately for women it is different and looks tend to play a bigger role.

Macbooks are strongly built machines, but Apple dropped the ball with Yosemite, Windows 10 will overall be far more feature rich and superior unless Apple releases a significant OS update. In fact there are reports that Windows 10 preview runs more efficiently on a mac than mac os itself. Apple did unveil their next os today, it has minor upgrades consisting on features already present in Chrome and Windows for years.

No he doesn't, you obviously haven't paid any attention to him. Chomsky demystifies the world and shatters popular myths much more efficiently, he always gets back to the underlining philosophies and principles that define us, and moves forward utilizing intelligently compiled facts, which is what sensible people of reason do, the sheer amount of data in Marx's analysis is a case in point, someone who Zizek has profound admiration for. There is constant reference to classical liberal/conservative thought, enlightenment values, left philosophy, libertarian ideology and so on. Exposing inherent contradictions and ills of markets, roots of power consolidation in a state capitalist apparatus and all its accompanying vehicles (Neo liberal policy, class warfare, intellectual subordination, professional apathy etc) is far from ignoring the elephant in the room, so I don't quite understand what you are on about.

Blasphemous, that's like my two favourite teams being Barcelona and Real Madrid.

We already have an over-abundance of ideology, it's more of a disease than a cure, in its dominant use anyway, it isn't king, it's mostly dangerous. This is why Chomsky is important, he can cut through the BS straight to the root of an issue. Zizek was wrong, Chomsky isn't purely empircal, to suggest this is beyond ludicrous, he organizes his arguments based on a framework of understanding of ethical and moral principles (which he admits are not grounded in unshakable evidence), appeal to elementary human emotions and rich factual insight. Zizek mostly just postures, you can take an hour long talk of his, shrink it down to a couple of sentences, and you wouldn't have missed anything of substance. If it wasn't for his speaking style and typical European intellectual posturing, he wouldn't have much of an audience anyway. Chomsky is the total opposite, his style is utterly mundane and lacks charisma, yet you have teenagers with an attention span of 5 seconds engaged for hours. That says something, it isn't posturing, it isn't the big words, it isn't the humor but it isn't just strictly facts either. I am pretty left leaning myself, so I do agree with most of what Zizek has to say and I find him quite entertaining at times, but Chomsky is mostly right about him. Ideologically speaking, they are quite similar anyway. I think he agrees with you, he's quite opposed to the mainstream notion of objectivity. Human affairs are an inherently complex affair, mostly, given how the world is run, you can be quite clear about where you stand, and in terms of strategy, it's usually more complicated. What do you expect? For him to be a cheerleader for Assad? I think he was very opposed to military intervention, he's always recognized and condemned the takfiris, and he acknowledges their not so benign interests in fighting Assad, same in Bahrain. I doubt where he stands on Syria is much different from Finkelstein, they have very similar views on the recent events in Egypt as well, I also recall Chomsky having a lot of good things to say about Hezbollah. Anyway, Chomsky or Finkelstein do not have to be right about everything. I agree about Finkelstein, he is a very brave academic by conventional standards, but in terms of their scholarship, he's only really different from Chomsky in his tone, he has a very similar approach, very factual and detailed. He even mentioned that he has mostly adopted his approach from Chomsky, so I don't see how you can be so impressed with one and not the other, who is essentially his mentor. Chomsky is a pretty big deal now, but it's not like he falls short on intellectual courage either. He was one of the first intellectuals who publicly denounced the Vietnam war and exposed the US state with virtually 0 support, his career was on the line as well and he faced a prison sentence. There has been constant lobbying in the past to remove him from his post at MIT, MIT just happened to stick by him. You have to remember that Chomsky has been doing this thing for a while, when US society was far less receptive and quite hostile. Anyway, they are both awesome.

Jeez, kids these days just don't have a clue about the never-ending responsibilities of marriage, in all probability, given we generally need to worry about religious compatibility, personality match, physical attraction, social/family/financial responsibility, cultural differences, an insanely long full time commitment, outside interference and on and on and on, I doubt whether more than 20% of married couples are actually in a good place. As far as children are concerned, muslims produce too many already, overpopulation is a serious concern in major muslim areas, lets be nicer to the countless unattended, oppressed and uncared for ones first, instead of these personal ambitions of 5-6 of our own.

I quite enjoy Zizek, but he's not in the same league as Chomsky, seriously, lets not go there.

Zizek can be entertaining but Chomsky is dead on about him. Chomsky covers in 10 mins what Zizek rambles on about for hours. Anyway, just stumbled upon a very recent Finkelstein interview, just a couple of weeks old, he was actually asked about Chomsky: the whole interview is worth a read: http://urbantimes.co/2014/01/norman-finkelstein-interview/?utm_content=buffer85ad1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer You’ve mentioned Professor Chomsky a few times in this interview - a man I intend to interview in the future. I know he’s been a good friend of yours for many years. What do you most admire about him? Everyone admires his brilliance but that’s a commonplace. And also, that’s the throw of the dice, God was very generous to him when it came to his mental capacity. Though of course the mental capacity is only, as Thomas Edison famously said, it applies in whole to Professor Chomsky: “It’s 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration.” Professor Chomsky is a perpetual motion machine. He is an indefatigable worker. But that’s not what I admire most about him, that as I said is discipline which of course I respect, the throw of the dice which is fortune. The thing that I admire most about Professor Chomsky is he is an absolutely faithful person, he will never betray you. He’s constitutionally incapable of betrayal. The thing that I admire most about Professor Chomsky is he is an absolutely faithful person, he will never betray you. He’s constitutionally incapable of betrayal. To the point that he will defend friends even though I think he knows they’re wrong, but he won’t ever betray you. And he has a sense of moral responsibility that’s just kind of breathtaking. I cannot tell you, because it’s really hard to imagine how many people I have met in my life who said “reading Noam Chomsky changed my life”. I can’t tell you, it is the most incredible testament to a single human being how many lives, including yours truly, were decisively altered as a result of his prose. It’s a marvel. There are legions of people in the world whose lives were turned upside down literally because of reading him. I spoke at a rally in Kerala, India. It was about six months ago and it was a huge rally, it was about 60,000 people. These were the unwashed masses, it was a rally from a progressive Muslim organization. The only recognizable name for the rally from anyone in the West, except of course Obama for negative reasons, the only recognizable name for the unwashed masses of Kerala was Noam Chomsky. The organizer of the rally was an absolutely wonderful human being named Shahin, a really devoted, committed, principled fellow. “I want to visit the United States, I’ve tried several times but they won’t give me the visa. I only want to go for one reason. I want to go to Boston and shake the hand of Noam Chomsky.” That’s such an incredible testament for a single human being. From the state of Kerala, in India, this organizer, very smart committed guy, he has one purpose for coming to the U.S. Not the glitter, not the tinsel, not Times Square, not Disney World, not the Statue of Liberty. One reason and one reason alone, to shake the hand of Noam Chomsky. And that’s the impact he’s had on legions of people in the world, including myself. Somebody said a few nights ago, I was out with a Muslim fellow from Pakistan named Ali Qureshi. He like many other people said, and it’s true, that when Chomsky leaves the scene it’s going to be a huge loss. Not just the loss in terms of the brain power, but I think the bigger loss is for an entire generation, Chomsky has served as the moral compass. That’s no small issue. With complex questions, whether it’s something like Libya, or Kosovo, or a whole number of other issues – people who don’t have time to research a question in its exhaustiveness – they look to Professor Chomsky to provide the moral judgement. What should we do, which side should we stand on? He served that purpose, and let’s be clear his answers were never obvious. On a specific political question, his answers were never easily predictable. In broad moral judgments yeah, you know where he stands. But should you support a foreign intervention in Libya, should you support the NATO intervention in Kosovo, now where should you stand on Syria? Those can be quite tricky questions, and the so-called Left can be sharply divided. But for the larger constituent of what you call the Left, the way they resolved their position was they looked to Chomsky because they trusted his moral and political judgment. And once he passes from the scene, that unifying factor will disappear. I think the so-called Left will become even more fragmented than it is now because Professor Chomsky has served as the unifying factor for a broad section of the Left, people just defer to his judgement. Okay. Now move on.

Good lord, stop being annoying, it wasn't meant literally, and FYI Malcolm (wasn't shia) and Khomeini are dead.

Depends on what's cool in your eyes, but for me, not really. Finkelstein is from Chomsky's school, he's mostly focused on the Israeli-Palestinian issue and his scholarship is brilliant in this area. Chomsky is a genius, he literally founded an entire field, and there isn't another public intellectual on the planet that can come close to his insight and knowledge in multiple disciplines (Cognitive science, philosophy, politics, economics, media/press studies, and world political history) combined. He's become an intellectual moral authority that most sensible people naturally just defer to at this point, and this is earned based on his impeccable record. He is by far the most important intellectual alive. No.

This recipe is better though

Paya (Urdu: پایا‎) is a traditional breakfast dish of Pakistan. It is also served at various festivals and treated to special guests and get togethers. Paaya means feet in Urdu or Hindi.[1] The main ingredients of the dish are the Trotters or Hoof of a cow, goat or lamb; cooked with various spices. I like paye as well, but there needs to be some meat in there, don't really enjoy them alone.

They pretty much have the same views, Finkelstein was inspired by Chomsky, he loves the man to bits. Chomsky is opposed to states period. In principle he wishes for a no state solution where Jews and Palestinians can live together, if not that then a bi-national state where both Palestinians and Jews have equal rights, he is totally opposed in principle to the concept of a "Jewish" state.