RONNIE... just discovered who Chomsky is.

[mburbank]

I'm just reallly pleased you discovered there are left wingers who aren't movie stars or comedians.

Seriously, one would think you just rolled over in bed and found Chomsky you're so surprised and horrified.

Yes, he's a deeply controversial political figure which has been his second job for what, thirty years now? Do you even know what his actual field is?

No friend of the US?!?!? No friend of Israel?!?!? OH MY GAWD!!! THE SHOCK!! THE HORROR!! Say, now that you're awake, how's about you make the bed?

[mburbank]

I just realized something. There is NO way Naldo could concieve of this bizarre anti-chomsky jizz fest without some sort of prompting. I will now put down my dollar to your donuts that there is some sort of talk-radio and or internet neocon push on to attack Chomsky.

Why? Because there are so few left wing voices out there (as noted by the fact that the right wing media are starting to look foolish attacking Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon and Sontag over and over and over) They feel a need for a credible poster boy.

I know, I know, CONSPIRACY, CONSPIRACY!!!

But lets say for sake of argument that Ronnie is not responding directly to some speciffic call to give this anti-Chomsky wave as wide dispersal as possible like a mindless robot. Let's check the dates these articles came out, what else is out there coming out in the conservative media on Chomsky and compare it to similar articles over the last year. I guarantee you'll see the a huge, sudden spike. Like pavlovs dog, you don't need to command your Naldo's exactly, just ring te bell whn you want them to drool.

Oh, CONSPIRACY! CONSPIRACY!

My dear, Naldo. Tell me you been reading Chomsky. Tell me you've been meaning to research him and that this broadside was the result of an epiphany.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

I just realized something. There is NO way Naldo could concieve of this bizarre anti-chomsky jizz fest without some sort of prompting. I will now put down my dollar to your donuts that there is some sort of talk-radio and or internet neocon push on to attack Chomsky.

This isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory at all, Max. The only thing that motivates Ronnie is the calling and demand of his interpreters, his opinion makers, his task masters.

It would be interesting to look through transcripts of Hannity & Colmbs, or perhaps Mike Savage and Rush Limbaugh, to see if this has come up.

It wouldn't be the first time they've ordered a call to action, the re-counting of the ballots in Florida in 2000 being a note worthy example.

[FS]

Perhaps Rush is transmitting subliminal messages through rhythmic flapping of his chins.

"You hate... Chomsky. You hate... Chomsky. You love... Limbaugh."

[The_Rorschach]

Well thats all good and fine Burbank, but I don't see too many people putting up any defense for Comsky's statements. I've heard a couple grumblings about disagreement, but nothing refuting has been offered.

While all the banter is a nice distraction, it would actually kind of seem that Ronnie is winning this one :/

[mburbank]

I think you're looking at two seperate issues here. If you're keen to start a Chomsky pros and cons thread, ie. a real one, by all means lets. The New Yorker wrote a lengthy profile of him just a few issues ago and it's was pretty much a character sketch of Chomsky's life in poloitics and liguistics. It's great place to start, but don't expect me to chime in on it as rapidly as I do other threads. Chomsky is incredably complicated and his personality is so entangled with his views it's very hard to parse.

In short, while I often agree with the body of his arguments, I find his starting premises deliberately provacative and his conclusions extreme. I think he's an idealogue, something I've always disliked. On the other hand I have great admiration for his dogged commitment to his vision of justice. I don't think people appreciatte that this is a man who spends most of his time speaking on causes that are not his primary interest or calling (ligusitics is his primary field) because he feels he it is his duty as a human being to do so. Agree or disagree, this is a man sacraficing a great deal for his personal concept of Justice, and I think that's admirable.

Ronnies salvo has nothing to do with any of this and that's so obvious you don't need to have even heard of Chomsky before to adress it. Vinces puerile whinings that the field of Lingusitics is insignificant reveals far more about Vince than any argument about any idea at all. Dignifying their apelike chest thumping and bellowing with discussion would strike me as capitulation.

Think about it this way. If I select six articles from the Nation and the Progressive, cut and paste them here as six threads and offer no insite of my own, offer no hint that I've read or understood them, what have I done? If Ronnie can put together a full paragraph on his thoughts on Chomsky, I might be moved to respond seriously. But I don't think Ronnie HAS any thoughts on Chomsky. I think it's just a funny little name for a straw boogeyman.

[The_Rorschach]

Ronnie may not have any thoughts on Chomsky, but I certainly do. By all means let us begin a serious discussion of the man here. I'll argue that Chomsky is a psuedo intellectual who shows great consistancy is trying to make a villain of the United States at every concievable occasion. For instance:

"In the early 1990s, primarily for cynical great power reasons, the U.S. selected Bosnian Muslims as their Balkan clients..." -Chomsky

Contrast that quote this that of Otto Von Bismarck who said:

"There is nothing in the Balkans that is worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier."

Lets assume that his faulty premise is correct, that the US does indeed, for cynical great power reasons, select client states. Why the Balkans? Have the Bosnian Moslems suddenly become the cornerstone of US military or political strategem within Europe? Are those same Moslems, who were being murdered daily at exponentially rising rates, intrinsically valuable to the United States? Is the region itself of strategic importance, or possessing of security interests? While the outcome of our interference can be debated, it is clearly obvious that the only plausible explaination for our presence was humanitarian in conception.

But I'm bored already. Lets move swiftly on, we have quite a bit of ground to cover Max, because I'd also like to illustrate that his standing as a peerless intellectual preaching Plato's Republic to ungrateful pigs is a terrible misconception.

Allow me to introduct Mr Robert Faurisson. You may have heard of him, he was a professor of French literature at the University of Lyon, France. 'Was' being the operable word as he has since been thoroughly relieved of his duties. Why? Well, "on the grounds that he could not be protected from attacks carried out against him as a result of his views, and he was sued in court for writings denying the existence of gas chambers in Nazi Germany and calling into question the Holocaust itself" - Edward S. Herman, "Pol Pot"

More than tried, he was actually convicted for the blatant falsification of history. That judgement, according to Chomsky, "reeks of Stalinism and fascism, and was naturally applauded by the French intellectuals, who proceeded to lie outrageously about it, as do Dershowitz and others Â* the truth being too embarrassing to allow," - March 31, 1995

You see, Chomsky also wrote the preface for Faurisson's book, and saw the man -using his own words- as "a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort." Chomsky went so far as to insist he had never read anything in Faurisson's works to make him believe the man was a Nazi supported, and in fact, that if anything he was an "anti-Nazi." Again, his words. Later, when seeing the reaction of his support, he attempt to retract his sentiments saying that in truth, he only did so to support free speech. . .Right.

Then why bother to misrepresent Faurisson's beliefs? Why the attempt to make him out to be "a relatively apolitical liberal"and that there is no evidence he is pro-Nazi? If you wish to make a case for the absolute tolerance of free speech, wouldn't his cause be better served to show Faurisson as the Holocaust-denier's he truly is rather than "a relatively apolitical liberal" being martyred for his unbiased research?

Seems to me he is a tit monkey who is quick to swing towards whatever hypothesis supports his, and I use the term emphatically, insane ideals without bothering to do any ample research before embracing it en toto. Furthermore, he is just as quick to cower and cover his tracks rather than admit he may have erred. He is a weak man who seems to be unjustifiably full of his own self importance and crippled diatrobes.

[mburbank]

I was going to insist on a whole new thread for this, something along the lines of "Chomsky discussion for those who actually know who he is" But I started this thread, so what the hell.

Shach. You should know better than to hand me a single quote and expect a reaction to your reaction.What is the source? A lecture, and article? I would absolutely need to read the whole thing before responding. As I've already said (and it was critcism) I find Chomsky purposefully inflammatory, almsot as if he disred people to do what you just did. I'm not sure I understand why, I think it's an academic habbit (and an ugly one) for roping people and dragging them in angry for an intellectual thumping. Its a functional tactic in question and answer if you're an intellectual bully (and I think he is), but it doesn't really play as sound bites. So. Without conext, I've nothing to say.

His blurbing of a book without a thourough (or quite possibly any) reading is absolutely shameful and a habbit, like his signing of petitions without reading them, that gets him into lots of trouble. It's lazy, it's irresponsible, it muddies the water and it reflects very badly on him as a person. He's a very strange guy and frankly his growing celebrity status baffles me. If you're looking for an apologist in me, you've got the wrong guy.

BUT. Like lots of folks on the very outside on the envelope he can be very useful in forcing things into the middles discussion that would not be there otherwise. I think people who like him AND people who hate him tend to read his work far too lightly and I think calling him a 'psuedo' intellectual is an unfair charge. A mean intellectual, a hasty or vendictive intellectual, slippery, bossy, aloof, egomaniacal, all arguable. Calling him Psuedo, though, strikes me as short shrift.

[The_Rorschach]

Well, the reason why I shorted the quote, is because he doesn't elaborate on this issue:

http://www.zmag.org/chomskygsf.htm

"In the early 90s, primarily for cynical great power reasons, the US selected Bosnian Muslims as their Balkan clients, to their enormous harm.

Without continuing, exactly where do we find the divide between "civilizations." Are we to conclude that there is a "clash of civilizations" with the Catholic Church on one side, and the US and the most murderous and fanatic religious fundamentalists of the Islamic world on the other side? I do not of course suggest any such absurdity. But exactly what are we to conclude, on rational grounds?"

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Onward
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I believe that Psuedo Intellectual suits him.

And I don't think I'm short changing him in the least, and that I supported the title well, especially when one takes in to consideration his words and writings. He embraces a one sided intellectual totalitarianism which is reminiscient of Zeb's "If You Don't Agree With Me You're Misinformed" attitude. Take for instance, his book, What Uncle Sam Really Wants.

He launches the narrative by stating that it is first going to explore the history of U.S. foreign relations since World War II. Barely having ventured into page 2, Chomsky is in the middle of a brief discussion of planning for the postwar period. Four paragraphs are devoted to (National Security Council) NSC 68 and its consequences, in which NSC 68 is exhibited in a sterile vacuum. He does not even bother to pretend indulging the idea that there was a gradual shift in U.S. policy from Roosevelt era cooperation with Stalin to Truman's Cold War confrontation tendancies. There is nary a word concerning how NSC 68 had no prospects of becoming policy until Josef Stalin took off the leash and Kim Il Sung began the Korean War. Context is everything, but Chomsky seems to believe that his thesii are above answering to it.

Now this is a book, buddy Burbank. Not a glib explanation to a generalist, or a message board post. One should expect only this low brow level of journalistic quality from say, Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore. Oh, but there is worse to come. . .

While centering his attenion on European political events, he alledges U.S. armies conquered North Africa and Italy, and then Roosevelt decided to put fascists like Darlan and Badoglio back into power. Do I even need to respond to this? The true events surrounding those two men coming to power is far, far more complicated. We had over overextended the U.S. forces deployed in those regions, and as a consquences, were forced to make capitulate to the tinier tyrants that we might better prepare ourselves to battle our main opposition. Anyone with a High School education should be willing to agree that Roosevelt's decisions to back Darlan and Badoglio were mistakes, but one would have to be a shit witted fool to believe we orchestrated those events as Chomsky seems to believe.

My biggest objects to Chomsky revolved around his tendancy to twist events almost wantonly, and to further more offer only information agreeable with whatever thesis he is exploring at the moment. These tendancies makes it impossible for anyone ignorant of the topic to even understand what the live and much-debated points of contention are. It also reduces his work to the status of Propaganda and Misinformation. When one educates, they do so by through explanation and citation, not brainwashing. The lack of background he employs is appalling. The lack of context is abhorrant. These are not simple mistakes which can be disregarded as simply lazy investigation techniques. That is far too benign of an explanation.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Yeah, Cody (Rorschach for the non-believers), I think you're missing a big point here in this Chomsky matter:

MOST OF US DON'T ARDENTLY FOLLOW NOAM CHOMSKY

I have found pages equivelent to Bob's homepage that rant on about how David Horowitz's father was a Stalinist, thus Horowitz was, thus discrediting him, etc. etc.

Chomsky himself, in quite a smug fashion, refutes Horowitz by claiming that he didn't bother w/ Horowitz when he was writing Stalinist apologetics, so he won't bother with him now (not completely true, but I digress).

The reason I, and I'm assuming others like Max, don't want to persue this defense of Chomsky is because we don't really see the point. Is he definitely an anti-semite? I dunno. Is his PhD "in question"??? I dunno, and frankly, I don't care. Show me a professor who MAY have not really earned their degree, and I'll show you maybe 1/4 of the staff at my University.

Chomsky, for better or for worse, IS without question anti-American. EVERYTHING relates back to how bad America is, what wrong has been commited by America to create some obscure global crisis in South East Asia, etc. I'm not saying all of his claims are false, I just feel that he inevitably biases his data from the beginning, because he is ardently anti-American, and it blinds him.

So, since none of us (or at least most of us) aren't truly Noam cheerleaders, the question then is what is the motivation here? A lot of people on the Left follow him devoutly, yes. But, while we're questioning Chomsky's credentials, why don't we begin checking the political credentials (or lack there of) of Rush Limbaugh? What was Bill O'Reilly's day job before he became popular? Who the hell is Sean Hannity anyway, and why do ratings = intelligence? These men dwarf Chomsky here in America as far as followings go, yet we NEVER seem to question their ratings based credibility. At least with Chomsky you generally have to pick up a book and read it in order to digest it. The gentlemen I just mentioned offer no such debate, they automatically have their very public stump, and what they say is truth by default, because it has been broadcasted.

Hence my point: Critique Chomsky, that's fine. But when evaluating his Right-Wing counter-parts, such as the bigoted Mike Savage, who is worse, and WHEN do we start 17 threads trashing them....?

[mburbank]

I've started my Horowitz thread, and I promise to start more. Not Rush, though, as there's an excellent book on him, "Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot" that says everything I might say.

But thank you, Kevin, as you made my overall points better than I did. I always find Chomsky interesting, but I oftn do not agree with him. Ror, I understand your desire for discussion, but I'm probably the wrong guy. I've read quite a bit, but more of his early lingusitics stuff than his politics, and I've never read it with an eye toward defending him.

That said, I don't think I agree with an 'anti-american' label as I've never read anything by him on our constitution. I also think that term is thrown around for all the wrong reasons. Bin Laden? He's anti-american.

[VinceZeb]

Please explain how Michael Savage is a bigot. Does he scream about wanting to put the mud people into camps and destroy them? I must have missed that. But then again Kevin is good at twisting words and talking out of his ass, which is convinently placed on his neck.

Wow, Max, you cited Al Franken's book as a retort to Rush. Man... you must be desperate or stupid. Probably both.


And I question all the people I listen to constantly. Many times I disagree or they are flat out wrong. Just because I constantly don't shout out about it doesn't mean that always agree with them.

[mburbank]

Have you read it? It's really good and quite funny. I think even people who strongly disagree might see the humor in it, much as I find PJ Ororke funny despite the fact he's a Republican. Good, insightful comedy is good, insightful comedy.

"I question all the people I listen to constantly. Many times I disagree or they are flat out wrong. "

Excellent. If you can give even one example of that, you'll be full step toward ahead of Naldo towards being reasonable. I'll tell you what, lets play a game. You tell me something Neil Boortz has said you disagree with and you cn name anyone, anyone at all whom you think I'm in "Lock Step" with, and I'll show you where we differ.

[VinceZeb]

Simple. Complete legalization of drugs. Libertarians agree with it, I do not.

[mburbank]

"Liiberatarians" is a very broad group, one that it would be next too impossible to fall into lock step with.

My speciffic request was that you find something, anything in Boortz you disagree wiith, but I'll let you off the hook. Find someone you agree with say about %75 of the time with. Give me a name and find me something they said that you don't agree with. I'm not saying you can't, in fact, I think you probably can. I am giving you a chance to increase your credability. I'm responding to your arguments. Are you up to it?

[VinceZeb]

Boortz thinks we should legalize all drugs, I do not think that is a good idea. We disagree. How much plainer can it get?

I disagree with Michael Savage's approach when it comes to the younger generation of our country. He alienates a lot of would be conservatives/libertarians and I am one of the people that is not a country club conservative that points out that you can want to be in an orgy with a troop of schoolgirls but yet want tax cuts as the same time.

[mburbank]

Not much clearer, just properly supported so it can be responded. Is that SO much to ask, concidering the stte of current computer search technology.

Never mind, I'll do it myself at some point and then I'll respond.

I think I see the niche you're going for and currently it's wide open. Right wing Republicans who have no problem admitting they're perverts. I think that's great. Right wing republicans are often brought low by their hypocrisy when it comes to vice, and perahps you can help people of your 'ilk' acept themsleves. Bravo. Think how happy Bill Bennet would be today had his book been titled "Fuck you, I can gamble with my own money if I want to" instead of "The Book of Virtues". Think how much better off Jimmy Swaggart would be had he just one time preeched on the Godliness of watching prostitutes masturbate. Why even Bill Clinton might have benefitted from an open minded philosiphy like yours. He should have had a cigar plank in his platform.

You begin to convince me that you are indeed more your own person than... well, Naldo so far, but its a start.

I'm not all that impressed with this weak comment, though.
"I disagree with Michael Savage's approach when it comes to the younger generation of our country."
First, you don't say what his 'approach' is, and 'approach' is pretty nicey nicey word for someone as nasty as Mike Savage. Surely you can find more to disagree with than just some vague 'approach'.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Vince, you really need to stop coming to the aid of racists and morons. It makes it all the easier to discredit you, which is ALREADY pretty damn easy:

http://www.fair.org/activism/msnbc-savage.html

Savage routinely refers to non-white countries as "turd world nations" and charges that the U.S. "is being taken over by the freaks, the cripples, the perverts and the mental defectives" (San Francisco Bay Guardian, 9/20/00). In a recent broadcast he justified ethnic slurs as a national security tool: "We need racist stereotypes right now of our enemy in order to encourage our warriors to kill the enemy," he explained (San Francisco Chronicle, 2/6/03).

"Turd world" immigrants are a frequent target of Savage's anger: "You open the door to them, and the next thing you know, they are defecating on your country and breeding out of control" (Oregonian, 4/24/02).

At times Savage's arguments echo the conspiratorial scapegoating of the white supremacist movement: "With the [Latino] population that has emerged, since they breed like rabbits, in many cases the whites will become a minority in their own nation... The white people don't breed as often for whatever reason. I guess many homosexuals are involved. That is also part of the grand plan, to push homosexuality to cut down on the white race" (San Francisco Bay Guardian, 9/20/00).

Commenting on the "Million Mom March" in favor of gun control (which he dubbed the "Million Dyke March"), he dismissed organizers' reference to American children killed by guns (5/15/00): "They뭨e not kids, they뭨e ghetto slime... they뭨e the same kids that are in Sierra Leone toting AK47s."

Misogyny and homophobia are staples of Savage's show as well as racism. In his book Savage Nation, he argues that Sen. Hillary Clinton and Supreme Court justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor have "feminized and homosexualized much of America, to the point where the nation has become passive, receptive and masochistic."

Discussing student volunteers distributing food to the homeless in San Francisco, Savage declared that "the girls from Branson [school] can go in and maybe get raped... because they seem to like the excitement of it. There's always the thrill and possibility they'll be raped in a dumpster while giving out a turkey sandwich" (San Francisco Bay Guardian, 9/20/00).
---

[Jeanette X]

My God, this man is a monster! How can anyone defend him?!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Apparently Vince finds little difficulty in it.

[VinceZeb]

You can argue with his methods, but not the logic.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

You can argue with his methods, but not the logic.

LOGIC?!?!?!

Vince, did you even READ these quotes?

Discussing student volunteers distributing food to the homeless in San Francisco, Savage declared that "the girls from Branson [school] can go in and maybe get raped... because they seem to like the excitement of it. There's always the thrill and possibility they'll be raped in a dumpster while giving out a turkey sandwich" (San Francisco Bay Guardian, 9/20/00).

Commenting on the "Million Mom March" in favor of gun control (which he dubbed the "Million Dyke March"), he dismissed organizers' reference to American children killed by guns (5/15/00): "They're not kids, they're ghetto slime... they're the same kids that are in Sierra Leone toting AK47s."

"With the [Latino] population that has emerged, since they breed like rabbits, in many cases the whites will become a minority in their own nation... The white people don't breed as often for whatever reason. I guess many homosexuals are involved. That is also part of the grand plan, to push homosexuality to cut down on the white race" (San Francisco Bay Guardian, 9/20/00).

Those are just a handful of examples, Vince. Christ! You can't defend this man! Not even the Rush Limbaugh would defend him!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Actually, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but not even RONNIE RAYGUN will defend this man. That places poor old Vince in a small category of fringe weirdos and racists.

[VinceZeb]

I will defend what I can defend.

When he talked about the killing of kids by guns, he was correct in what he said, but he said it in an extreme way. A lot of the kids that are "killed" by guns are actually gang members below the age of 21. They are not talking about accidental shootings inside the home as a seperate entity, it is lumped together with the gang-bangin thugs that are out there. What he said was factually correct but not P.C.

White people don't produce as many offspring as "minority" people. That is a statistical truth. Now, is it because they are trying to push homosexuality down white people's throat? No, that is just being stupid. BUT, you have to agree that as a society we do push homosexuality down people's throats a lot. And who is the one tanget of society that always wants to be seen as "open" and "caring" and "understanding"? White people.

[mburbank]

Even if you find his 'logic' appealing, don't you feel that the conclusions of a man who uses 'methods' like his are questionable?

More pertinent; Do you like him? Do you enjoy him? Do you feel he serves your views?

Does it bother you that he thinks rape is funny if the right people are raped? Or that Latino's 'breed like rabbits'? It's probbly becuase they're 'hot'.

Even if his logic was unasailable (and it isn't) might he not be promoting all sorts of very bad stuff while disseminating this 'logic'.

I'm not questioning his right to speech, I'm saying, the guys a pig, right? A vicious ugly racist son of a bitch, right?

I mean, Hitler was great for the train schedules, but he was still monster, right? The ends don't justify the means, do they?