Toothpaste
March 14, 2005 1:22 PM Subscribe
Elections Run by Same Guys Who Sell Toothpaste its my first post, go easy on me.
Then why is our electoral system rotting instead of our teeth?
On the other hand, it's Noam Chomsky. Yech.
posted by jonmc at 1:28 PM on March 14, 2005
On the other hand, it's Noam Chomsky. Yech.
posted by jonmc at 1:28 PM on March 14, 2005
Ah, Chomsky. He's long - and good - on analysis of politics. He has a great eye on who wants what, why, and what they do to get it. IMO, an excellent critic of the establishment. But nothing I've ever read by Chomsky has ever had any more than the sketchiest possible solutions.
posted by graymouser at 1:32 PM on March 14, 2005
posted by graymouser at 1:32 PM on March 14, 2005
The classic issue: present a problem and blame someone for it. Notice that little to no mention of ways to fix these problems are discussed in any meaningful depth?
posted by mystyk at 1:45 PM on March 14, 2005
posted by mystyk at 1:45 PM on March 14, 2005
"IMO, an excellent critic of the establishment." Yes, as far as lying mouthpieces for genocidal regimes go.
Inflammatory anyone? Sorry, I just have no stomach for the man or his fawning turnspits.
posted by Heminator at 1:46 PM on March 14, 2005
Inflammatory anyone? Sorry, I just have no stomach for the man or his fawning turnspits.
posted by Heminator at 1:46 PM on March 14, 2005
Like him or hate him, this line "The point is to undermine markets by projecting imagery to delude and suppressing information—and similarly, to undermine democracy by the same method." makes a damned lot of sense to me.
posted by fenriq at 2:00 PM on March 14, 2005
posted by fenriq at 2:00 PM on March 14, 2005
Indeed I don't remember of Chomsky proposing articulate "solutions", as far ask my memory goes, but I haven't really analyzed Chomsky's production with due attention.
But I've got this sensation ...imagine a guy is crying wolf, wolf wolf, but people isn't really paying attention. Then some guy says "hey, the guy is crying wolf" and all the others "yeah, but he doesn't have any gun to shoot wolf so why pay attention to him ? "
Why should we expect just ONE guy to
1. find problem
2. analyze it
3. let the world know
4. solve it
Jeee...yeah why is someone always expecting another superhero to solve everything ALONE ?
posted by elpapacito at 2:01 PM on March 14, 2005
But I've got this sensation ...imagine a guy is crying wolf, wolf wolf, but people isn't really paying attention. Then some guy says "hey, the guy is crying wolf" and all the others "yeah, but he doesn't have any gun to shoot wolf so why pay attention to him ? "
Why should we expect just ONE guy to
1. find problem
2. analyze it
3. let the world know
4. solve it
Jeee...yeah why is someone always expecting another superhero to solve everything ALONE ?
posted by elpapacito at 2:01 PM on March 14, 2005
Whatever else Chomsky is, he is also a scientist. Scientists make models and then test them. In this case, Chomsky's model is that politics in America is run by people who put image above substance for people who have been taught to respond to image before substance. If a few more people became aware of that fact, which I believe is the case, then perhaps some of them could begin to address it.
There are no easy solutions, but a beginning might be to just let people know what they are doing. One interesting fact, that really made me open my eyes, was when I found out that most negative campaign ads are not aimed at changing voters minds and getting them to vote for the advertiser's candidate by bad-mouthing the opponent. It is primarily to create an image which will discourage people who favor the opponent from bothering to vote at all. Thus, leaving the loyalists to carry the day. Take the shine off the apple and, if you don't like pears, you just forget about it. This is one reason why the voting turn-out in America is so small. You've got to know what's happening before you can even begin to do something about it.
posted by donfactor at 2:03 PM on March 14, 2005
There are no easy solutions, but a beginning might be to just let people know what they are doing. One interesting fact, that really made me open my eyes, was when I found out that most negative campaign ads are not aimed at changing voters minds and getting them to vote for the advertiser's candidate by bad-mouthing the opponent. It is primarily to create an image which will discourage people who favor the opponent from bothering to vote at all. Thus, leaving the loyalists to carry the day. Take the shine off the apple and, if you don't like pears, you just forget about it. This is one reason why the voting turn-out in America is so small. You've got to know what's happening before you can even begin to do something about it.
posted by donfactor at 2:03 PM on March 14, 2005
i was not aware that anyone, other than chomsky, needed to answer for chomsky's claims Heminator.
if you can't read the post and comment on it, i guess that is our (mefi) loss, but i for one would enjoy hearing your opinion on the substance of the article.
posted by nola at 2:05 PM on March 14, 2005
if you can't read the post and comment on it, i guess that is our (mefi) loss, but i for one would enjoy hearing your opinion on the substance of the article.
posted by nola at 2:05 PM on March 14, 2005
Yes, as far as lying mouthpieces for genocidal regimes go.
you fawning turnspits of brad delong give me gas.
and if your understanding of chomsky is so limited that you don't know that the faurisson incident, for instance, is a bonfire in a dixie cup, then do more exploring. here, i'll help you.
how's the bed you're in with david horowitz and andy sullivan, by the way? warm? cozy?
posted by Hat Maui at 2:11 PM on March 14, 2005
you fawning turnspits of brad delong give me gas.
and if your understanding of chomsky is so limited that you don't know that the faurisson incident, for instance, is a bonfire in a dixie cup, then do more exploring. here, i'll help you.
how's the bed you're in with david horowitz and andy sullivan, by the way? warm? cozy?
posted by Hat Maui at 2:11 PM on March 14, 2005
Chomsky has his hits and misses. He's worth listening to because he's one of the very few people in the country to actually talk about some subjects. His approach to most topics are very sterile and remove most of the emotion, both pro and con, of the subject he is addressing.
Also, I think there is a role for people who help identify problems, even if they have no ready solution. That's at least a step in the right direction, I would think.
He has a point about the seeming disconnect between the desires of the people, and how those desires are reflected by the politicians. If the "80% want healthcare guaranteed by the government" statement is true, then I think that is a topic that would certainly deserve discussion.
Chomsky makes the typical liberal mistake though... he gives a viewpoint and leaves it to the audience to arrive at the "proper" conclusion.
I have become assured that doing this is reckless, if not outright dangerous. The people of the US have indeed spoken, and they want pabulum. Asking them to think about something is too hard when we have "Terra" to spend sleepless nights worrying about.
posted by Ynoxas at 2:11 PM on March 14, 2005
Also, I think there is a role for people who help identify problems, even if they have no ready solution. That's at least a step in the right direction, I would think.
He has a point about the seeming disconnect between the desires of the people, and how those desires are reflected by the politicians. If the "80% want healthcare guaranteed by the government" statement is true, then I think that is a topic that would certainly deserve discussion.
Chomsky makes the typical liberal mistake though... he gives a viewpoint and leaves it to the audience to arrive at the "proper" conclusion.
I have become assured that doing this is reckless, if not outright dangerous. The people of the US have indeed spoken, and they want pabulum. Asking them to think about something is too hard when we have "Terra" to spend sleepless nights worrying about.
posted by Ynoxas at 2:11 PM on March 14, 2005
Read it, digested it, then thought, well duh! Way to state the obvious.
posted by Edible Energy at 2:15 PM on March 14, 2005
posted by Edible Energy at 2:15 PM on March 14, 2005
Edible, do you have a link to an entry on your LiveJournal stating the obvious. I can't find a way to search the site -- well, not in an easy way.
posted by gsb at 2:29 PM on March 14, 2005
posted by gsb at 2:29 PM on March 14, 2005
I have a pair of panties once worn by Chomsky in a 1984 linguistics convention at the University of Ohio, handsomly enframed and mounted on the wall above my bed.
posted by ori at 2:30 PM on March 14, 2005
posted by ori at 2:30 PM on March 14, 2005
It’s claimed that people who were concerned about values voted for Bush, but that’s mostly a statistical artifact. When you asked the further question, “What values do you have in mind?” it turned out that the major values were things like, “I don’t like this society because it’s too materialistic,” and “There’s too much oppression.”
Is this really the case? I was under the impression most of the "values voters" were more intrested in stopping teh gays.
posted by delmoi at 2:38 PM on March 14, 2005
Is this really the case? I was under the impression most of the "values voters" were more intrested in stopping teh gays.
posted by delmoi at 2:38 PM on March 14, 2005
But nothing I've ever read by Chomsky has ever had any more than the sketchiest possible solutions.
I don't understand. Why is this a fault? Why is it Chomsky's role to propose "solutions"? He's not a politician. The guy is an anarchist, he would be hypocritical to critique authority and then say "here, this is my plan!". The whole point is to make people aware of issues so that they can act on them. He's delivering information and he's considering you responsibe enough to react appropriately as you see fit.
As for Brad de Long's criticism as well as assorted other critiques of Noam Chomsky, I think this article covers them all.
I would like to note anyway that the sheer number of "ad hominem attacks" directed at the man, instead of what he actually writes, suggest surely that he might be saying something substantiative.
posted by talos at 2:41 PM on March 14, 2005
I don't understand. Why is this a fault? Why is it Chomsky's role to propose "solutions"? He's not a politician. The guy is an anarchist, he would be hypocritical to critique authority and then say "here, this is my plan!". The whole point is to make people aware of issues so that they can act on them. He's delivering information and he's considering you responsibe enough to react appropriately as you see fit.
As for Brad de Long's criticism as well as assorted other critiques of Noam Chomsky, I think this article covers them all.
I would like to note anyway that the sheer number of "ad hominem attacks" directed at the man, instead of what he actually writes, suggest surely that he might be saying something substantiative.
posted by talos at 2:41 PM on March 14, 2005
mystyk said: "The classic issue: present a problem and blame someone for it. Notice that little to no mention of ways to fix these problems are discussed in any meaningful depth?"
Usually i don't bother reading the overly lefty links here, but mystyk's and other comments made me want to check out Mr. Chomsky again. I find that he speaks clearly about the issue, and his solution is quite simple:
"There is an alternative, and that is to try to run a program that’s committed to developing a democratic society in which people’s opinions matter."
Get more people to speak clearly about the problems with the advertising-based political system.
Now if someone would just make a nice music video or 30 sec. ad based on this article, we'd be in business.
posted by svenni at 2:53 PM on March 14, 2005
Usually i don't bother reading the overly lefty links here, but mystyk's and other comments made me want to check out Mr. Chomsky again. I find that he speaks clearly about the issue, and his solution is quite simple:
"There is an alternative, and that is to try to run a program that’s committed to developing a democratic society in which people’s opinions matter."
Get more people to speak clearly about the problems with the advertising-based political system.
Now if someone would just make a nice music video or 30 sec. ad based on this article, we'd be in business.
posted by svenni at 2:53 PM on March 14, 2005
how's the bed you're in with david horowitz and andy sullivan, by the way? warm? cozy?
In addition to being a de facto Horowitz-loving neocon, sounds like Herminator could also be a Racist, and or maybe even wish Death to Reporters! One can never be too sure. With us or Against us, eh?
posted by dhoyt at 2:53 PM on March 14, 2005
In addition to being a de facto Horowitz-loving neocon, sounds like Herminator could also be a Racist, and or maybe even wish Death to Reporters! One can never be too sure. With us or Against us, eh?
posted by dhoyt at 2:53 PM on March 14, 2005
Is this really the case? I was under the impression most of the "values voters" were more intrested in stopping teh gays.
People have been all over the place on this, but the most recent thing i heard was that us fags only caused 1 million or so haters to come out and vote specifically because of the gay marriage issue.
Far more than that 1 million, tho, said they vote on "values", so go figure.
posted by amberglow at 3:03 PM on March 14, 2005
People have been all over the place on this, but the most recent thing i heard was that us fags only caused 1 million or so haters to come out and vote specifically because of the gay marriage issue.
Far more than that 1 million, tho, said they vote on "values", so go figure.
posted by amberglow at 3:03 PM on March 14, 2005
"There is an alternative, and that is to try to run a program that’s committed to developing a democratic society in which people’s opinions matter."
You're seeing it a little with blogs and online communities, but the days of the established things that made people feel like their opinions mattered (Unions, Kiwanis Clubs and the ilk, Congresspeople not in the pocket of corporations and lobbyists, etc) are long gone. Most Americans don't feel that anyone even listens when they voice an opinion, and so have stopped trying, unless something that directly affects them crops up--see the Social Security thing now. We saw with the worldwide Anti-Iraq marches and protests that voicing your opinion didn't make a difference, tragically.
posted by amberglow at 3:09 PM on March 14, 2005
You're seeing it a little with blogs and online communities, but the days of the established things that made people feel like their opinions mattered (Unions, Kiwanis Clubs and the ilk, Congresspeople not in the pocket of corporations and lobbyists, etc) are long gone. Most Americans don't feel that anyone even listens when they voice an opinion, and so have stopped trying, unless something that directly affects them crops up--see the Social Security thing now. We saw with the worldwide Anti-Iraq marches and protests that voicing your opinion didn't make a difference, tragically.
posted by amberglow at 3:09 PM on March 14, 2005
Re: the moral values thing. Chomsky is referring to a related Zogby poll that was:
"...sponsored by the liberal Center for American Progress, Res Publica and Pax Christi USA, [and] underscored the nation's deep division on issues of sexual morality and social justice issues.posted by talos at 3:16 PM on March 14, 2005
While almost a quarter of all voters said they voted solely on abortion and gay marriage - a phenomenon tracked in last week's exit polls - the majority of 10,550 randomly selected voters said they were influenced by a range of moral concerns from issues of war and peace to greed. Asked to identify the single greatest moral crisis facing America, for instance, a third of voters selected materialism and greed, followed by poverty (31 percent) and then abortion and same-sex marriage (totaling 28 percent).
Amid Catholic voters, who were decisive in Bush's win, 31 percent selected materialism and greed as their top moral concern, 31 percent poverty, and 31 percent abortion and gay marriage. Though Catholics supported Bush 52-47 percent, the poll found 25 percent turned off by conservative leaders trumpeting "non-negotiable issues" and 20 percent who said those messages made them more likely to vote Republican. Fifty-six percent said those messages had no effect on them. "
This post could have used a lot more links, if you wanted it to be about the issues instead of about Chomsky.
(And chomsky.info could use a lot more links, if they want it to be about the issues instead of about Chomsky.)
posted by mistersix at 3:33 PM on March 14, 2005
(And chomsky.info could use a lot more links, if they want it to be about the issues instead of about Chomsky.)
posted by mistersix at 3:33 PM on March 14, 2005
Hat Maui:
Actually I wasn't even thinking of the Faurisson Affair -- though even if you believe that to be a tempest in a tea cup, it still shows that Chomsky is crazy enough to sign on to opinons of something that he knew nothing about. Hell, he's made an entire career out of that. (I might also add that that the dissmissive tone of that particular Wikipedia entry is a classic example of Wikipedia's weaknesses wherein the aforementioned turnspits can write their own history.)
No, I was thinking more of Chomsky's blatant dishonesty in his academic work. Also, while I never imagined myself in a Sullivan/Horowitz sandwhich thanks for the mental image.
It is however preferable to leaping on to the four-poster and making sweet, sweet love to the Khmer Rouge.
Oh and let's not forget his egregious moral equivalency -- that the US is worse than Slobodan Milosevic or that the United States would commit genocide in Afghanistan.
Oh, and I hope you'll forgive me for bothering to link The Nation and The New Republic instead of Horowitz and Sullivan. I feel ENTIRELY comfortable dissmissing everything Chomsky says about politics.
posted by Heminator at 3:40 PM on March 14, 2005
Actually I wasn't even thinking of the Faurisson Affair -- though even if you believe that to be a tempest in a tea cup, it still shows that Chomsky is crazy enough to sign on to opinons of something that he knew nothing about. Hell, he's made an entire career out of that. (I might also add that that the dissmissive tone of that particular Wikipedia entry is a classic example of Wikipedia's weaknesses wherein the aforementioned turnspits can write their own history.)
No, I was thinking more of Chomsky's blatant dishonesty in his academic work. Also, while I never imagined myself in a Sullivan/Horowitz sandwhich thanks for the mental image.
It is however preferable to leaping on to the four-poster and making sweet, sweet love to the Khmer Rouge.
Oh and let's not forget his egregious moral equivalency -- that the US is worse than Slobodan Milosevic or that the United States would commit genocide in Afghanistan.
Oh, and I hope you'll forgive me for bothering to link The Nation and The New Republic instead of Horowitz and Sullivan. I feel ENTIRELY comfortable dissmissing everything Chomsky says about politics.
posted by Heminator at 3:40 PM on March 14, 2005
elpapacito, were you using "crying wolf" in the correct sense there? If not, the irony is running thick!
Whatever else Chomsky is, he is also a scientist. Scientists make models and then test them.
Funny you should say that, donfactor, because not an insignificant number of scientists reckon he might be wrong on the science side of things.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 3:44 PM on March 14, 2005
Whatever else Chomsky is, he is also a scientist. Scientists make models and then test them.
Funny you should say that, donfactor, because not an insignificant number of scientists reckon he might be wrong on the science side of things.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 3:44 PM on March 14, 2005
In addition to being a de facto Horowitz-loving neocon, sounds like Herminator could also be a Racist, and or maybe even wish Death to Reporters! One can never be too sure. With us or Against us, eh?
shouldn't you be under a bridge, hannity?
re: death to reporters -- what's the righty spin these days now that berlusconi is officially Aggrieved?
posted by Hat Maui at 3:46 PM on March 14, 2005
shouldn't you be under a bridge, hannity?
re: death to reporters -- what's the righty spin these days now that berlusconi is officially Aggrieved?
posted by Hat Maui at 3:46 PM on March 14, 2005
I don't understand. Why is this a fault? Why is it Chomsky's role to propose "solutions"? He's not a politician. The guy is an anarchist, he would be hypocritical to critique authority and then say "here, this is my plan!".
Actually, anarchists tend to have plans. They also tend to enumerate these plans in often mind-numbing detail, and disagree over rather technical matters within them (a fault in the Left in general). I find Chomsky lacking on anything other than general criticism of the political establishment. This may be a sort of hidden virtue; after all, he's not in those endless debates and disagreements. But it's not typical anarchism.
posted by graymouser at 3:50 PM on March 14, 2005
Actually, anarchists tend to have plans. They also tend to enumerate these plans in often mind-numbing detail, and disagree over rather technical matters within them (a fault in the Left in general). I find Chomsky lacking on anything other than general criticism of the political establishment. This may be a sort of hidden virtue; after all, he's not in those endless debates and disagreements. But it's not typical anarchism.
posted by graymouser at 3:50 PM on March 14, 2005
it still shows that Chomsky is crazy enough to sign on to opinons of something that he knew nothing about
he did no such thing, which you'd know if you actually read about it.
I hope you'll forgive me for bothering to link The Nation and The New Republic
you mean those dogged liberals chris snitchens and jon cheat? yeah, color me convinced.
posted by Hat Maui at 3:53 PM on March 14, 2005
he did no such thing, which you'd know if you actually read about it.
I hope you'll forgive me for bothering to link The Nation and The New Republic
you mean those dogged liberals chris snitchens and jon cheat? yeah, color me convinced.
posted by Hat Maui at 3:53 PM on March 14, 2005
chris snitchens and jon cheat
3 MetaFilter user(s) link to Hat Maui:
nofundy (sibling)
*forehead slap*
posted by dhoyt at 4:03 PM on March 14, 2005
3 MetaFilter user(s) link to Hat Maui:
nofundy (sibling)
*forehead slap*
posted by dhoyt at 4:03 PM on March 14, 2005
it still shows that Chomsky is crazy enough to sign on to opinons of something that he knew nothing about.
Saying you support a person's right to free expression (which is what Chomsky did in that specific instance) is not the same as agreeing with them. If it was, then Voltaire supported Hitler.
posted by drezdn at 4:06 PM on March 14, 2005
dhoyt, i always thought you were annoying, but... damn.
is the person who started the most notorious thread in MeTa history actually inviting scrutiny of his posting record?
while you're slapping some sense into yourself (at least that's what i hope this is, and not some other type of self-abuse), why not wash it down with a nice tall glass of STFU?
i won't respond to you further. you bore me.
posted by Hat Maui at 4:14 PM on March 14, 2005
is the person who started the most notorious thread in MeTa history actually inviting scrutiny of his posting record?
while you're slapping some sense into yourself (at least that's what i hope this is, and not some other type of self-abuse), why not wash it down with a nice tall glass of STFU?
i won't respond to you further. you bore me.
posted by Hat Maui at 4:14 PM on March 14, 2005
Herminator, uncanny hengeman etc: considering some of Chomsky's views ie 'America is plagiarizing the most horrendous episodes of european imperialism' I am amazed there are not more compelling critiques of his work. I mean, Oliver Kann's pedantic bitching about quotations and an essay on Chomsky's (obviously dated) universal grammar theory don't carry enough weight to discredit his views on the state of democracy in the US- at least in a resonable person's opinion.
posted by verisimilitude at 4:20 PM on March 14, 2005
posted by verisimilitude at 4:20 PM on March 14, 2005
oops... reasonable
posted by verisimilitude at 4:22 PM on March 14, 2005
posted by verisimilitude at 4:22 PM on March 14, 2005
Herminator: Have you checked these links you've posted? The Hitchens tirade does not quote Chomsky as saying anything like the "US is worse than Milosevic" (although as far as death-toll caused by military interventions is concerned that would be exactly correct), the closest I could find is:
"...The huge slaughter in East Timor is (at least) comparable to the terrible atrocities that can plausibly be attributed to Milosevic in the earlier wars in Yugoslavia, and responsibility is far easier to assign, with no complicating factors..."
Which is not at all the same.
Then you link to Oliver Kamm on Chomsky in which he claims that Chomsky misquoted Moynihan, yet when the author actually quotes the relevant passage, it takes quite a lot of intellectual leaps of faith to argue that it means anything other than what Chomsky said it means... In fact the accusation is so overblown (and self-defeating: the author himself states that Moynihan himself later described the US policies as shameless - unwittingly conceding Chomsky's main point) that it hardly consists meaningful criticism. Anyway, this isn't Chomsky's acedemic work. (and I use the quotes advisedly, the vast majority of critics of NC's work seem to not have read his work) because it does adress most of the credibility issues you raise. See also this companion piece on the Khmer Rouge issue.
graymoyser: Anarchists might "tend to have plans" but they usually center around the general moral principles that NC himself often repeats. The whole idea is that pushing a pre-thought masterplan as a solution is authoritarian. The people themselves will self-organize and democratically decide on tactics.
But that's beside the point. The josh burmann article adresses this criticism as well:
posted by talos at 4:39 PM on March 14, 2005
"...The huge slaughter in East Timor is (at least) comparable to the terrible atrocities that can plausibly be attributed to Milosevic in the earlier wars in Yugoslavia, and responsibility is far easier to assign, with no complicating factors..."
Which is not at all the same.
Then you link to Oliver Kamm on Chomsky in which he claims that Chomsky misquoted Moynihan, yet when the author actually quotes the relevant passage, it takes quite a lot of intellectual leaps of faith to argue that it means anything other than what Chomsky said it means... In fact the accusation is so overblown (and self-defeating: the author himself states that Moynihan himself later described the US policies as shameless - unwittingly conceding Chomsky's main point) that it hardly consists meaningful criticism. Anyway, this isn't Chomsky's acedemic work. (and I use the quotes advisedly, the vast majority of critics of NC's work seem to not have read his work) because it does adress most of the credibility issues you raise. See also this companion piece on the Khmer Rouge issue.
graymoyser: Anarchists might "tend to have plans" but they usually center around the general moral principles that NC himself often repeats. The whole idea is that pushing a pre-thought masterplan as a solution is authoritarian. The people themselves will self-organize and democratically decide on tactics.
But that's beside the point. The josh burmann article adresses this criticism as well:
He doesn't address the alternatives, or propose solutions.
"When asked what we should do about this disturbing state of affairs, Chomsky says, "I don't think these institutions even have a right to exist. So the question is where we go between undermining particular forms of tyranny ... and constraining or limiting them, which is a narrower objective. The more restricted moves are the ones on the immediate agenda, but the long-term moves should not be far from our minds.""
--Interview with Steven Allen of the Weekly Wire
His thoughts on the student movement are also highly apropos to what we should be doing, but to quote him further, on policy "I don't give advice"
Ie. do whatever one can, basically. Strike you as a little weak? This might be better,
"It is far from clear that the alternatives are sensibly to be posed as "reform or revolution." There is also the possibility of working towards what André Gorz calls "structural reform": namely, "a decentralization of the decision-making power, a restriction on the powers of State or Capital, an extension of popular power, that is to say, a victory of democracy over the dictatorship of profit" (his italics). As Gorz argues, such reforms may have a potentially revolutionary content. It is impossible to predict whether an attempt to extend democratic decision-making will, if it ever develops on a mass scale, face such repressive force that it leads to a revolutionary confrontation, or whether it will be able to proceed peaceably. The goal of a movement for social change should be to introduce meaningful structural reforms, in this sense, avoiding unnecessary confrontations but remaining committed to the defense of democratic values against repression, if it arises."
--An Exchange on Liberal Scholarship
posted by talos at 4:39 PM on March 14, 2005
well done, talos. it often seems that critics of chomsky's are merely parroting their favorite chomsky-disdainer and not actually investigating any source material.
posted by Hat Maui at 4:46 PM on March 14, 2005
posted by Hat Maui at 4:46 PM on March 14, 2005
Funny you should say that, donfactor, because not an insignificant number of scientists reckon he might be wrong on the science side of things.
Not insignificant? How about marginal by your own link's admission. In the very fist paragraph they state the dominance of the Chomsky's contribution:
you will find that the majority of material on language acquisition - whether of a first or a second language - is strongly Nativist and often simply takes it for granted that Chomsky and Fodor have, between them, swept away all possibility of opposition.
It is a nice rhetorical ploy to set your argument up as the underdog slaying Goliath as this linked article did...but if your going to try and claim that Chomsky's got significant detractors you would do better than finding an article that immediately acknowledges his dominance before pointing a few critics. After all what would the numbers be by this articles own admission? 10,000 to 20? 15,000 to 20, or is it more effective to make it [unknown and unmentioned] verses 20.
This is a lot like fair and balanced journalism.
posted by srboisvert at 5:02 PM on March 14, 2005
Not insignificant? How about marginal by your own link's admission. In the very fist paragraph they state the dominance of the Chomsky's contribution:
you will find that the majority of material on language acquisition - whether of a first or a second language - is strongly Nativist and often simply takes it for granted that Chomsky and Fodor have, between them, swept away all possibility of opposition.
It is a nice rhetorical ploy to set your argument up as the underdog slaying Goliath as this linked article did...but if your going to try and claim that Chomsky's got significant detractors you would do better than finding an article that immediately acknowledges his dominance before pointing a few critics. After all what would the numbers be by this articles own admission? 10,000 to 20? 15,000 to 20, or is it more effective to make it [unknown and unmentioned] verses 20.
This is a lot like fair and balanced journalism.
posted by srboisvert at 5:02 PM on March 14, 2005
A lot of people dislike Chomsky because he values lives of non-Americans as much as Americans. That drives a lot of Americans batshit crazy.
posted by MillMan at 5:03 PM on March 14, 2005
posted by MillMan at 5:03 PM on March 14, 2005
To consider Chris Hitchens a "liberal" is to listen to what he says about himself, while lacking the ability to analyze and understand it.
He spent the Clinton years trying to nail the Comeback Kid and has now officially become a lickspittle for the neocon movement. His claim to liberalism are little but a red herring... and they're working.
posted by clevershark at 5:07 PM on March 14, 2005
He spent the Clinton years trying to nail the Comeback Kid and has now officially become a lickspittle for the neocon movement. His claim to liberalism are little but a red herring... and they're working.
posted by clevershark at 5:07 PM on March 14, 2005
I couldn't even read the Brad DeLong piece, it was so badly organized and poorly written. And the many, many quotes with elipses in them - how am I supposed to know if he's quoting in good faith?
My understanding of the Faurisson business was that Chomsky offered testimony in a legal case in France arguing that Faurisson was entitled to free speech, and that the academic "marketplace of ideas" would de facto censor him, thus relieving the Frnech government from having to. This deposition was then included without his permission as a forward to the Faurisson book.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:07 PM on March 14, 2005
My understanding of the Faurisson business was that Chomsky offered testimony in a legal case in France arguing that Faurisson was entitled to free speech, and that the academic "marketplace of ideas" would de facto censor him, thus relieving the Frnech government from having to. This deposition was then included without his permission as a forward to the Faurisson book.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:07 PM on March 14, 2005
uncanny hengeman: yeah it may seem ironic and I was using "crying wolf" in the -proper- sense ...which is the proper sense again ?
AH ! To cry wolf means "to claim there's a danger when there is no danger" ..something that is dangerous indeed, because nobody is going to believe you when the wolf finally arrives.
But interestingly some would like to point attention on the fact that the guy crying wolf doesn't have a gun (or solution to the wolf) while the attention should be pointed FIRST to checking if there's a wolf.
Interestingly, if one falls for the dismissive argument "but he doesn't offer a solution" he's more likely not to even BOTHER checking if there's a problem : but what if the problem was really there ? We didn't bother checking because we dismissed the guy pointing out the problem as irrelevant, because he didn't offer a solution as well.
This way, cleverly, the problem isn't only unnoticed...it's not even checked..as our attention was drawn from the problem to the solution.
Summing it up: why is this related to Chomsky or any other person ? One shouldn't dismiss one person admonishment just _because_ he doesn't offer the solution as well.
posted by elpapacito at 5:11 PM on March 14, 2005
AH ! To cry wolf means "to claim there's a danger when there is no danger" ..something that is dangerous indeed, because nobody is going to believe you when the wolf finally arrives.
But interestingly some would like to point attention on the fact that the guy crying wolf doesn't have a gun (or solution to the wolf) while the attention should be pointed FIRST to checking if there's a wolf.
Interestingly, if one falls for the dismissive argument "but he doesn't offer a solution" he's more likely not to even BOTHER checking if there's a problem : but what if the problem was really there ? We didn't bother checking because we dismissed the guy pointing out the problem as irrelevant, because he didn't offer a solution as well.
This way, cleverly, the problem isn't only unnoticed...it's not even checked..as our attention was drawn from the problem to the solution.
Summing it up: why is this related to Chomsky or any other person ? One shouldn't dismiss one person admonishment just _because_ he doesn't offer the solution as well.
posted by elpapacito at 5:11 PM on March 14, 2005
and he said, earlier, in one of the debates linked on the site:
"what I'm arguing is this: if we have the choice between trusting in centralised power to make the right decision in that matter, or trusting in free associations of libertarian communities to make that decision, I would rather trust the latter. And the reason is that I think that they can serve to maximise decent human instincts.....
posted by hank at 5:21 PM on March 14, 2005
"what I'm arguing is this: if we have the choice between trusting in centralised power to make the right decision in that matter, or trusting in free associations of libertarian communities to make that decision, I would rather trust the latter. And the reason is that I think that they can serve to maximise decent human instincts.....
posted by hank at 5:21 PM on March 14, 2005
Anyone got a link to that clip of Foucault bitchslapping our Noam? That was fun.
posted by docgonzo at 5:58 PM on March 14, 2005
posted by docgonzo at 5:58 PM on March 14, 2005
*forehead slap*
posted by dhoyt at 4:03 PM PST on March 14
i won't respond to you further. you bore me.
posted by Hat Maui at 4:14 PM PST on March 14
its my first post, go easy on me.
posted by nola at 1:22 PM PST
Fucking awesome. Your first post and you decided you wanted to create another politics puddle on the front page. Just because there's going to be 150 comments by the end of the day doesn't mean that you did a good job. Remember that.
posted by underer at 6:09 PM on March 14, 2005
posted by dhoyt at 4:03 PM PST on March 14
i won't respond to you further. you bore me.
posted by Hat Maui at 4:14 PM PST on March 14
its my first post, go easy on me.
posted by nola at 1:22 PM PST
Fucking awesome. Your first post and you decided you wanted to create another politics puddle on the front page. Just because there's going to be 150 comments by the end of the day doesn't mean that you did a good job. Remember that.
posted by underer at 6:09 PM on March 14, 2005
nola, it's not exactly fashionable to state the fact that it's your first post and so you inadvertantly asked for some of the negative comments.
On the bright side, Great Post! I love Noam, and although I agree with what some have said about his not providing resolutions to the problems he speaks of, he does ask the right questions.
posted by snsranch at 6:21 PM on March 14, 2005
On the bright side, Great Post! I love Noam, and although I agree with what some have said about his not providing resolutions to the problems he speaks of, he does ask the right questions.
posted by snsranch at 6:21 PM on March 14, 2005
You know, I'm sure that Chomsky has some good things to say, but whenever I think of him, I'm reminded of all my idiot college friends who voted for Nader.
posted by afroblanca at 6:33 PM on March 14, 2005
posted by afroblanca at 6:33 PM on March 14, 2005
Just because there's going to be 150 comments by the end of the day doesn't mean that you did a good job.
But you did do a good job. Cheers.
posted by mrgrimm at 6:37 PM on March 14, 2005
But you did do a good job. Cheers.
posted by mrgrimm at 6:37 PM on March 14, 2005
Damn nola, if this is your first post, what the hell am I going to do for mine....damn.
Well until I run across something worthwhile, I guess I'll just wait for your next one. If it causes this kind of reaction it will be well worth it.
posted by The Infamous Jay at 6:38 PM on March 14, 2005
Well until I run across something worthwhile, I guess I'll just wait for your next one. If it causes this kind of reaction it will be well worth it.
posted by The Infamous Jay at 6:38 PM on March 14, 2005
I agree with snsranch - and asking the right questions is part way to helping find solutions.
I particularly liked the point about there being "no political support" for public health, in spite of a supposed 80% in favour ":
Why? Because the pharmaceutical industry is opposed, the financial institutions are opposed, the insurance industry is opposed, so there’s “no political support.” It doesn’t matter if 80% of the population regard it as a moral obligation: That doesn’t count as political support.
This reminded me of a nice quote from Eduardo Galeano, along the lines of "political donations have become such an integral part of the American political system that expecting any politician to do something serious to address the issue would be like asking a surgeon to perform open-heart surgery on himself".
So there you have it: Noam asked the question, and I suggest a solution: ban political donations! End that utterly fucking ridiculous Presidential election circus that you guys have, and maybe the politicians will start speaking to the real issues.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:41 PM on March 14, 2005
I particularly liked the point about there being "no political support" for public health, in spite of a supposed 80% in favour ":
Why? Because the pharmaceutical industry is opposed, the financial institutions are opposed, the insurance industry is opposed, so there’s “no political support.” It doesn’t matter if 80% of the population regard it as a moral obligation: That doesn’t count as political support.
This reminded me of a nice quote from Eduardo Galeano, along the lines of "political donations have become such an integral part of the American political system that expecting any politician to do something serious to address the issue would be like asking a surgeon to perform open-heart surgery on himself".
So there you have it: Noam asked the question, and I suggest a solution: ban political donations! End that utterly fucking ridiculous Presidential election circus that you guys have, and maybe the politicians will start speaking to the real issues.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:41 PM on March 14, 2005
well not everyone's first post can be this informative underer
posted by nola at 7:22 PM on March 14, 2005
posted by nola at 7:22 PM on March 14, 2005
I suggest a solution: ban political donations! End that utterly fucking ridiculous Presidential election circus that you guys have, and maybe the politicians will start speaking to the real issues.
The problem is that donations have been held to be free speech, so i think adding to that speech might be more feasible--look at how tiny donations added up in 2004--it gave us power, and still is. I think many Dems running in 06 are coming hat in hand to us online--especially challengers.
posted by amberglow at 7:41 PM on March 14, 2005
The problem is that donations have been held to be free speech, so i think adding to that speech might be more feasible--look at how tiny donations added up in 2004--it gave us power, and still is. I think many Dems running in 06 are coming hat in hand to us online--especially challengers.
posted by amberglow at 7:41 PM on March 14, 2005
oh, and another very important point: Corporations and lobbyists have enormous power, but can not vote. We have to clean up the voting fraud and shit that goes on all over the country too. We still each have a vote and that's more than any org or corporation has.
posted by amberglow at 7:43 PM on March 14, 2005
posted by amberglow at 7:43 PM on March 14, 2005
The problem is that donations have been held to be free speech
Well, I guess you will just have to change the constitution, too! ;D
(As far as I am aware, every western democracy (?) has similar problems with political donations, to a greater or lesser extent, but the amount of $ spent on prez elections...sheesh! Can anybody mount an argument along the lines that a quintillion dollars worth of advertising is *anti* free-speech, becoz it drowns out anybody who tries to keep the discourse at a level on which it actually *means* something...?)
We have to clean up the voting fraud and shit that goes on all over the country too.
Independent electoral commissioners would be a nice start.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:40 PM on March 14, 2005
Well, I guess you will just have to change the constitution, too! ;D
(As far as I am aware, every western democracy (?) has similar problems with political donations, to a greater or lesser extent, but the amount of $ spent on prez elections...sheesh! Can anybody mount an argument along the lines that a quintillion dollars worth of advertising is *anti* free-speech, becoz it drowns out anybody who tries to keep the discourse at a level on which it actually *means* something...?)
We have to clean up the voting fraud and shit that goes on all over the country too.
Independent electoral commissioners would be a nice start.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:40 PM on March 14, 2005
Corporations and lobbyists have enormous power, but can not vote [...] We still each have a vote and that's more than any org or corporation has.
But if we only get to vote on agendas set by the corporations and lobbyists?
"Good evening, sir. What will it be tonight? Shit pie or shit soup?"
"Well, I quite fancied a nice, juicy steak..."
"Sorry. That's not on the menu, sir."
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:52 PM on March 14, 2005
But if we only get to vote on agendas set by the corporations and lobbyists?
"Good evening, sir. What will it be tonight? Shit pie or shit soup?"
"Well, I quite fancied a nice, juicy steak..."
"Sorry. That's not on the menu, sir."
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:52 PM on March 14, 2005
mefiecho: If i disagree with one thing chomsky says, i disagree with it all, theres no possible way i could learn anything from him, i like my political thinkers to be christlike, not human, christlike in the sense that they never stray from my own opinions, or patterns of coincidence cemented by the blunt naming system of language... every time theres a post about chomsky im going to say something about how hes a bitchass, just so everyone knows that i have the capability to call some smartguy individual a bitchass... i learned this trick from satapher, who is totally rad.
posted by Satapher at 8:57 PM on March 14, 2005
posted by Satapher at 8:57 PM on March 14, 2005
underer, not cool--at all.
Sorry. Upon review, that was unnecessarily shitty. It was obviously pointed in the wrong direction, and the poster isn't really responsible for the fact that certain people keep fighting the same exact fights every time a political post goes up. Nola, I'm sorry for bringing you down.
posted by underer at 9:49 PM on March 14, 2005
Sorry. Upon review, that was unnecessarily shitty. It was obviously pointed in the wrong direction, and the poster isn't really responsible for the fact that certain people keep fighting the same exact fights every time a political post goes up. Nola, I'm sorry for bringing you down.
posted by underer at 9:49 PM on March 14, 2005
Whatever else Chomsky is, he is also a scientist.
Most respectable linguists disagree.
posted by NickDouglas at 10:00 PM on March 14, 2005
Most respectable linguists disagree.
posted by NickDouglas at 10:00 PM on March 14, 2005
Most respectable linguists disagree.
Do you have the faintest idea of what you're talking about?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:13 PM on March 14, 2005
Do you have the faintest idea of what you're talking about?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:13 PM on March 14, 2005
If you can read Chomsky's articles on the Khmer Rouge from the seventies and not see that he was seriously in error than I don't know what is wrong with you. Similarly, if you consider Hitchens and Jonathan Chait not liberal enough to comment on Chomsky I'm again speechless.
The Kamm article is also fairly damning -- Kamm trades in quite a few specifics, sorry Talos but generalities like "it takes quite a lot of intellectual leaps of faith to argue that it means anything other than what Chomsky said it means... " isn't quite going to cut it. Kamm is also hardly alone in dissmissing him for this pattern of mendacity. Arthur Schlesinger famously called him out for his dishonesty 35 years ago (is he too conservative to criticize the good professor as well?) Suffice to say, Chomsky and his minions deflect all criticism by playing semantic games; Chomsky can say something that seems perfectly clear but yes the professor of linguistics can't quite ever be pinned down. Again Chomsky will criticize and criticize but never actually state what he belives for fear of being cornered logically. There's probably never been a man in human history that lived in such mortal fear of being publicly wrong.
As for the Milosevic issue, Chomsky has repeatedly criticized the US' reasons for getting involved in the Balkans. One can only infer from that he believes the situation would be better if the US had not gotten involved. He can't criticize the US' reasons for stopping Milosevic and still expect us to believe that he ultimately concedes that America did a good thing. Or can he? It's a classic Chomsky logical half-gainer.
I'm just amazed that you people still insist on defending a marginal and fundamentally wrong person like Chomsky. If I wasn't interested in trying to make the Left in this country somewhat more relevant I would encourage you to keep defending and elevating him. I think the only thing Chomsky hates more than American foreign policy is himself.
Oh and sorry to dissapoint -- like all good J-school majors I have read "Manufacturing Consent." It's interesting drivel, but drivel nonetheless. Like everything else he's done it's only worthy if you too are drinking the Kool-Aid. Seriously, their should be some sort of Goodwin's law for foreign policy debates. First person to invoke Chomsky loses. When discussing economic issues, we'll change it to Rand.
posted by Heminator at 10:29 PM on March 14, 2005
The Kamm article is also fairly damning -- Kamm trades in quite a few specifics, sorry Talos but generalities like "it takes quite a lot of intellectual leaps of faith to argue that it means anything other than what Chomsky said it means... " isn't quite going to cut it. Kamm is also hardly alone in dissmissing him for this pattern of mendacity. Arthur Schlesinger famously called him out for his dishonesty 35 years ago (is he too conservative to criticize the good professor as well?) Suffice to say, Chomsky and his minions deflect all criticism by playing semantic games; Chomsky can say something that seems perfectly clear but yes the professor of linguistics can't quite ever be pinned down. Again Chomsky will criticize and criticize but never actually state what he belives for fear of being cornered logically. There's probably never been a man in human history that lived in such mortal fear of being publicly wrong.
As for the Milosevic issue, Chomsky has repeatedly criticized the US' reasons for getting involved in the Balkans. One can only infer from that he believes the situation would be better if the US had not gotten involved. He can't criticize the US' reasons for stopping Milosevic and still expect us to believe that he ultimately concedes that America did a good thing. Or can he? It's a classic Chomsky logical half-gainer.
I'm just amazed that you people still insist on defending a marginal and fundamentally wrong person like Chomsky. If I wasn't interested in trying to make the Left in this country somewhat more relevant I would encourage you to keep defending and elevating him. I think the only thing Chomsky hates more than American foreign policy is himself.
Oh and sorry to dissapoint -- like all good J-school majors I have read "Manufacturing Consent." It's interesting drivel, but drivel nonetheless. Like everything else he's done it's only worthy if you too are drinking the Kool-Aid. Seriously, their should be some sort of Goodwin's law for foreign policy debates. First person to invoke Chomsky loses. When discussing economic issues, we'll change it to Rand.
posted by Heminator at 10:29 PM on March 14, 2005
>First person to invoke Chomsky loses. When discussing economic issues, we'll change it to Rand.
No! Low choices.
First person to invoke "drinking the Kool-Aid" loses. When discussing economic issues, we'll change it to Friedman.
OR
First person to invoke "Chomsky hates" loses. When discussing economic issues, we'll change it to Fisher.
OR...
posted by gsb at 10:50 PM on March 14, 2005
No! Low choices.
First person to invoke "drinking the Kool-Aid" loses. When discussing economic issues, we'll change it to Friedman.
OR
First person to invoke "Chomsky hates" loses. When discussing economic issues, we'll change it to Fisher.
OR...
posted by gsb at 10:50 PM on March 14, 2005
amberglow: not one to hate on small donations (or ahem the first amendment), but the original limits on political donations, created the GOP direct-mail fundraising machine starting in the 70's, (read up on Richard Viguerie) which was seen to work best by stirring hostilities: the more hate/fear you stir up the more money gets sent to you...
democrats have BARELY begun to catch up. I suppose it's a very strange balance between freedom of speech and equality of speech... who knows how that one will work out.
Also about Chomsky: As I read him he's a catergorically imperative driven idealist, he doesn't reside in a realistical world to which he would be able to give solutions, "This is bad, therefore this should not be." Any solutions, or ideal worlds which he has in mind (and you have to dig through his stuff to get glimmers of what he thinks are ideal solutions: Anarcho-Syndicalism, i recall he mentions) are way out of question. What did Kant did say about idealism with realism, and realism with idealism again?
The institutions that he rails on and rejects are entrenched by virtue of the reality in which they are placed. You can't just take these sorts of systems that have developed with lots of time and lots of money down with a bunch of media education and ensuing democratic revolutions (btw does anyone think that democracies are being waaaay reified in this day and age, I mean anyone remember that little thing tyranny of the majority?). I mean he doesnt give feasible steps beyond, do what you think you should do, which i admire (reading his books got me interested in doing what I plan on doing *ahem* realistically).
On the original article: Chomsky's main point is about how the financing of institutions drives the governance strucutres, fine when we're talking about companies, but not so fine when we're talking about a democracy... very very very interesting, especially since it seems very legal under our constitution. How money destroys both checks and balances.
posted by stratastar at 10:51 PM on March 14, 2005
democrats have BARELY begun to catch up. I suppose it's a very strange balance between freedom of speech and equality of speech... who knows how that one will work out.
Also about Chomsky: As I read him he's a catergorically imperative driven idealist, he doesn't reside in a realistical world to which he would be able to give solutions, "This is bad, therefore this should not be." Any solutions, or ideal worlds which he has in mind (and you have to dig through his stuff to get glimmers of what he thinks are ideal solutions: Anarcho-Syndicalism, i recall he mentions) are way out of question. What did Kant did say about idealism with realism, and realism with idealism again?
The institutions that he rails on and rejects are entrenched by virtue of the reality in which they are placed. You can't just take these sorts of systems that have developed with lots of time and lots of money down with a bunch of media education and ensuing democratic revolutions (btw does anyone think that democracies are being waaaay reified in this day and age, I mean anyone remember that little thing tyranny of the majority?). I mean he doesnt give feasible steps beyond, do what you think you should do, which i admire (reading his books got me interested in doing what I plan on doing *ahem* realistically).
On the original article: Chomsky's main point is about how the financing of institutions drives the governance strucutres, fine when we're talking about companies, but not so fine when we're talking about a democracy... very very very interesting, especially since it seems very legal under our constitution. How money destroys both checks and balances.
posted by stratastar at 10:51 PM on March 14, 2005
One thing I don't get is how detractors of Chomsky will attack attack attack his foreign policy stances, but completely ignore his domestic analysis. The general line of argument goes: I think he's wrong about a,b,c issues, and so I pull a reductio on everything the guy has, could, or will write about. (not that people don't do this with say Bush also), but as a reasonable person this shouldnt force one into ad hominem attacks on the guy.
And as a pretty old crotchety guy who as I also see it does not like being wrong, can't you move past that fact, people get pretty set in their thinking at 30, nevermind 80!
And I don't know that much about it, but there were alot of people on the left who thought that the Khmer Rouge were going to be a force for good in the 70's, before the massacre stuff came out. Didn't the US government originally think so too?
posted by stratastar at 11:02 PM on March 14, 2005
And as a pretty old crotchety guy who as I also see it does not like being wrong, can't you move past that fact, people get pretty set in their thinking at 30, nevermind 80!
And I don't know that much about it, but there were alot of people on the left who thought that the Khmer Rouge were going to be a force for good in the 70's, before the massacre stuff came out. Didn't the US government originally think so too?
posted by stratastar at 11:02 PM on March 14, 2005
It occurs to me that Chomsky himself has been reduced to a brand name in the media--chomsky.info and whatnot. On one hand, this further supports his thesis. On the other hand, he might make more headway if he detached his name from his ideas (eg anonymous or ghostwriting?). Of course, maybe that would lend more fire to his detractors if he were found out. It'd be nice to get away from all the nitpicking/ad hominem funtimes we always have when his name comes up and just focus on the core ideas, which, to me, make sense.
posted by Skwirl at 11:20 PM on March 14, 2005
posted by Skwirl at 11:20 PM on March 14, 2005
Heminator: "If you can read Chomsky's articles on the Khmer Rouge from the seventies and not see that he was seriously in error than I don't know what is wrong with you"
Having actually read most of what he has written on the Khmer Rouge in the seventies, I can honestly say that despite efforts to portray him (and Herman) as Pol Pot apologists, what he actually wrote is completely different. One could reasonably suggest that the factual criticisms of Chomsky's opinions regarding the Khmer Rouge (to separate them from the vast majority of related criticisms by people who never took the trouble to actually read what NC and EH wrote), can be described by what Josh Buermann says about Sophal's arguments: being "unable to identify an outright favorable position on the Khmer revolution", they "must second-guess Chomsky and Herman's true intentions over those they explicitly state."
Yet the meme "Chomsky supported the Khmer Rouge" is so strong that I have no illusions that demonstrating that it lacks a factual basis, will end it.
On Kamm, since I'm accused of spouting generalities I present to you Kamm's Moynihan Quote:
That this is considered evidence that NC is an "intellectual crook" by Kamm, is incredible. In fact someone else who took the trouble to fact check NC on this, was surprised that NC's quote was very accurate. Anyway this is the sort of thing that passes for criticism of NC's *opinions*. You decide: is this meaningful?
Regarding the former Yugoslavia: It's a long argument but IMHO the Kosovo "intervention" was a disaster and attempted under false pretenses - NC was absolutely right and you only need to take a look at the current situation in Kosovo (a crime haven, possibly the most monoethnic region in the former Yugoslavia as a result of KLA ethnic cleansing) to appreciate that. As for Bosnia, Hitchens forgets to mention that Chomsky was *for* the lifting of the arms embargo to the Bosnian Muslims. BTW Chomsky was indeed wrong about assessing the situation in Bosnia IMHO (And he does fail to admit it), but for reasons other than what Hitchens states (who was also wrong about Bosnia). That's another post though.
Again I'm surprised at the level of ad hominem attacks directed against Chomsky; one would guess that you know him personally, Heminator, to be aware of his drives and psychological faults in such detail. Especially since I'd venture to guess that you haven't read NC's actual analysis of American foreign policy yourself, and seem to depend on the criticisms of people who have an ideological grudge against the man.
posted by talos at 2:27 AM on March 15, 2005
Having actually read most of what he has written on the Khmer Rouge in the seventies, I can honestly say that despite efforts to portray him (and Herman) as Pol Pot apologists, what he actually wrote is completely different. One could reasonably suggest that the factual criticisms of Chomsky's opinions regarding the Khmer Rouge (to separate them from the vast majority of related criticisms by people who never took the trouble to actually read what NC and EH wrote), can be described by what Josh Buermann says about Sophal's arguments: being "unable to identify an outright favorable position on the Khmer revolution", they "must second-guess Chomsky and Herman's true intentions over those they explicitly state."
Yet the meme "Chomsky supported the Khmer Rouge" is so strong that I have no illusions that demonstrating that it lacks a factual basis, will end it.
On Kamm, since I'm accused of spouting generalities I present to you Kamm's Moynihan Quote:
"[S]uch was the power of the anticolonial idea that great powers from outside a region had relatively little influence unless they were prepared to use force. China altogether backed Fretilin [a Marxist group that had seized power] in Timor, and lost. In Spanish Sahara, Russia just as completely backed Algeria, and its front, known as Polisario, and lost. In both instances the United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success."Now you only have to know that Fretlin was crushed by the Indonesian invasion to conclude that Chomsky's version:
Moynihan was particularly honest and, to give him credit, he said in his memoirs that at the time of the Indonesian invasion: "The State Department wanted things to turn out as they did. It was my responsibility to render the United Nations utterly ineffective in any action and I carried that out with no inconsiderable success." And the next sentence of the memoirs says that within the next two months 60,000 people were killed, approximately the proportion of the population that the Nazis killed in Eastern Europe. And then he turns to some other topic. So he's taking credit for having succeeded in killing a proportion of the population comparable to what Nazis did in Eastern Europe...was a fair description of what Moynihan said.
That this is considered evidence that NC is an "intellectual crook" by Kamm, is incredible. In fact someone else who took the trouble to fact check NC on this, was surprised that NC's quote was very accurate. Anyway this is the sort of thing that passes for criticism of NC's *opinions*. You decide: is this meaningful?
Regarding the former Yugoslavia: It's a long argument but IMHO the Kosovo "intervention" was a disaster and attempted under false pretenses - NC was absolutely right and you only need to take a look at the current situation in Kosovo (a crime haven, possibly the most monoethnic region in the former Yugoslavia as a result of KLA ethnic cleansing) to appreciate that. As for Bosnia, Hitchens forgets to mention that Chomsky was *for* the lifting of the arms embargo to the Bosnian Muslims. BTW Chomsky was indeed wrong about assessing the situation in Bosnia IMHO (And he does fail to admit it), but for reasons other than what Hitchens states (who was also wrong about Bosnia). That's another post though.
Again I'm surprised at the level of ad hominem attacks directed against Chomsky; one would guess that you know him personally, Heminator, to be aware of his drives and psychological faults in such detail. Especially since I'd venture to guess that you haven't read NC's actual analysis of American foreign policy yourself, and seem to depend on the criticisms of people who have an ideological grudge against the man.
posted by talos at 2:27 AM on March 15, 2005
Herminator: I feel ENTIRELY comfortable dissmissing everything Chomsky says about politics.
That's a very strong statement, and it indicates that you are not reasonable in this regard, since if only makes sense to dismiss unreasonable statements. If you dismiss everything Chomsky says, you're missing out on the parts where he's right. Which parts are they? That's up to you to decide, but getting ENTIRELY too emotional about him is counterproductive.
posted by arjuna at 4:24 AM on March 15, 2005
That's a very strong statement, and it indicates that you are not reasonable in this regard, since if only makes sense to dismiss unreasonable statements. If you dismiss everything Chomsky says, you're missing out on the parts where he's right. Which parts are they? That's up to you to decide, but getting ENTIRELY too emotional about him is counterproductive.
posted by arjuna at 4:24 AM on March 15, 2005
Presidential candidate John Kerry’s platform and program were way to the right of popular opinion on just about every issue in the 2004 U.S. elections.
I often find Chomsky's work thought-provoking, but this piece might have worked better as the speech it was than in this written form. From the very first sentence I was thinking "that can't be right." He is making claims that are are contrary to conventional wisdom, which is great. But he doesn't back up his claims with any specific support. That leaves me feeling like he is just spouting off.
For example, Kerry's platform was strongly pro-choice -- he wants to limit parental notification and supports the right to late-term dialation and extraction (so-called "partial birth") abortions. That is out of tep with the majority, alas.
He opposes the death penalty while the majority support it.
And so on...
posted by Cassford at 7:56 AM on March 15, 2005
I often find Chomsky's work thought-provoking, but this piece might have worked better as the speech it was than in this written form. From the very first sentence I was thinking "that can't be right." He is making claims that are are contrary to conventional wisdom, which is great. But he doesn't back up his claims with any specific support. That leaves me feeling like he is just spouting off.
For example, Kerry's platform was strongly pro-choice -- he wants to limit parental notification and supports the right to late-term dialation and extraction (so-called "partial birth") abortions. That is out of tep with the majority, alas.
He opposes the death penalty while the majority support it.
And so on...
posted by Cassford at 7:56 AM on March 15, 2005
"being 'unable to identify an outright favorable position on the Khmer revolution', they "must second-guess Chomsky and Herman's true intentions over those they explicitly state."
But that's exactly the point! Chomsky won't ever actually come out in favor of anything. So when you actually try and parse what he says you have to work backwards from who he's criticizing in response. That way he can't ever be proven wrong. Chomsky will criticize the US foreign policy in say Southeast Asia or the Balkans or Afghanistan in the strongest possible terms -- yet that somehow that also doesn't amount to an endorsement of Pol Pot or Milosevic or the Taliban. (Though I still contend that Chomsky's writings on the Khmer Rouge for all intents and purposes amount to an endorsement of the regime.)
Yet, Chomsky and his followers are mystified that anyone could believe that based on his reasoning that is what people understand. He criticizes the US for taking on regimes that he must ultimately admit are committing attrocities (though getting a moral judgment out of Chomsky that doesn't involve some sort or ridiculous equivalency involving imperialism is like pulling teeth) -- then proposes no alternative way of dealing with the problem. In political reality people make practical judgments about either/or propositions. They don't have time to play logical games about pinning down what their critics are saying, especially one as deliberately obfuscating as Chomsky.
I don't feel "ENTIRELY comfortable dissmissing everything Chomsky says about politics" because I think that Chomsky is stupid. Quite the contrary. He may very well be a brilliant political theorist, emphasis on theorist. I feel that way because every line of reasoning he offers up is a dead end when it comes to moral concerns or realpolitik.
Secondly, I've read plenty of Chomsky over the years domestic and foreign. I am relying on the writings of others simply beacuse I don't have time to sort out the hellbroth of contortions that Chomsky likes to engage in. I've had plenty of my own objections to the man over the years and I don't have time to go back to the source in this forum. The fact that there is a virtual cannon out there debunking Chomsky in both the left and mainstreams of thought should tell you something -- but if you want to look into that and say it must be a conspiracy to suppress the man so be it. But when a thousand voices (including my own) tell me he's dishonest -- I conclude the man is dishonest, not "misunderstood."
posted by Heminator at 8:43 AM on March 15, 2005
But that's exactly the point! Chomsky won't ever actually come out in favor of anything. So when you actually try and parse what he says you have to work backwards from who he's criticizing in response. That way he can't ever be proven wrong. Chomsky will criticize the US foreign policy in say Southeast Asia or the Balkans or Afghanistan in the strongest possible terms -- yet that somehow that also doesn't amount to an endorsement of Pol Pot or Milosevic or the Taliban. (Though I still contend that Chomsky's writings on the Khmer Rouge for all intents and purposes amount to an endorsement of the regime.)
Yet, Chomsky and his followers are mystified that anyone could believe that based on his reasoning that is what people understand. He criticizes the US for taking on regimes that he must ultimately admit are committing attrocities (though getting a moral judgment out of Chomsky that doesn't involve some sort or ridiculous equivalency involving imperialism is like pulling teeth) -- then proposes no alternative way of dealing with the problem. In political reality people make practical judgments about either/or propositions. They don't have time to play logical games about pinning down what their critics are saying, especially one as deliberately obfuscating as Chomsky.
I don't feel "ENTIRELY comfortable dissmissing everything Chomsky says about politics" because I think that Chomsky is stupid. Quite the contrary. He may very well be a brilliant political theorist, emphasis on theorist. I feel that way because every line of reasoning he offers up is a dead end when it comes to moral concerns or realpolitik.
Secondly, I've read plenty of Chomsky over the years domestic and foreign. I am relying on the writings of others simply beacuse I don't have time to sort out the hellbroth of contortions that Chomsky likes to engage in. I've had plenty of my own objections to the man over the years and I don't have time to go back to the source in this forum. The fact that there is a virtual cannon out there debunking Chomsky in both the left and mainstreams of thought should tell you something -- but if you want to look into that and say it must be a conspiracy to suppress the man so be it. But when a thousand voices (including my own) tell me he's dishonest -- I conclude the man is dishonest, not "misunderstood."
posted by Heminator at 8:43 AM on March 15, 2005
Chomsky will criticize the US foreign policy in say Southeast Asia or the Balkans or Afghanistan in the strongest possible terms -- yet that somehow that also doesn't amount to an endorsement of Pol Pot or Milosevic or the Taliban.
This is an example of a "false dillema" fallacy. Criticizing US foreign policy in Southeast Asia certainly doesn't imply an endorsement of Pol Pot.
In the case of the Khmer Rouge, Chomsky pretty clearly was comparing the sort of coverage a bad guy atrocity was receiving in the US press as compared to the coverage of a similar scale atrocity, perpetrated by an "ally" in East Timor. He was not making a moral statement about the Pol Pot regime. The fact that this was taken as some sort of "support" for the Khmer Rouge" shows the desparation of his critics.
He criticizes the US for taking on regimes that he must ultimately admit are committing attrocities
No, he criticizes the US government (in the case of Cambodia) for creating the conditions that led to the Khmer Rouge lunatics (and siding with them after the Vietnamese Army, in what was the mother of all "humanitarian interventions", toppled them). He criticizes the US government for creating a bigger problem in Kosovo thanthe one it supposedly "solved" (and ultimately and predictably overseeing one of the largest ethnic cleansing operations in the ex-Yugoslavia: that of Kosovar Serbs by Kosovar Albanians). He also criticizes the US government for toppling elected leaders (Allende, Arbenz etc.) for suppoting the Apartheid regime, for arming terrorist groups in Central America, for invading a sovereign country to topple a dictator it initially supported, at astounding human cost etc. His alternative is very clear in all cases: stop supporting dictators and commiting atrocities in the name of the people of the United States.
You seem to think that pointing out the wrongdoings of the US is somehow not a worthy goal if it's not accompanied by a political platform. I say that pointing out the hidden atrocities behind a superpower's policies was always a worthy goal, whether we're talking about the British and the French or the Americans and the Soviets. Toppling an elected president for example, is bad regardless of whether you agree or not with the president's economic platform - and so is invading a sovereign country which never attacked you.
posted by talos at 10:27 AM on March 15, 2005
This is an example of a "false dillema" fallacy. Criticizing US foreign policy in Southeast Asia certainly doesn't imply an endorsement of Pol Pot.
In the case of the Khmer Rouge, Chomsky pretty clearly was comparing the sort of coverage a bad guy atrocity was receiving in the US press as compared to the coverage of a similar scale atrocity, perpetrated by an "ally" in East Timor. He was not making a moral statement about the Pol Pot regime. The fact that this was taken as some sort of "support" for the Khmer Rouge" shows the desparation of his critics.
He criticizes the US for taking on regimes that he must ultimately admit are committing attrocities
No, he criticizes the US government (in the case of Cambodia) for creating the conditions that led to the Khmer Rouge lunatics (and siding with them after the Vietnamese Army, in what was the mother of all "humanitarian interventions", toppled them). He criticizes the US government for creating a bigger problem in Kosovo thanthe one it supposedly "solved" (and ultimately and predictably overseeing one of the largest ethnic cleansing operations in the ex-Yugoslavia: that of Kosovar Serbs by Kosovar Albanians). He also criticizes the US government for toppling elected leaders (Allende, Arbenz etc.) for suppoting the Apartheid regime, for arming terrorist groups in Central America, for invading a sovereign country to topple a dictator it initially supported, at astounding human cost etc. His alternative is very clear in all cases: stop supporting dictators and commiting atrocities in the name of the people of the United States.
You seem to think that pointing out the wrongdoings of the US is somehow not a worthy goal if it's not accompanied by a political platform. I say that pointing out the hidden atrocities behind a superpower's policies was always a worthy goal, whether we're talking about the British and the French or the Americans and the Soviets. Toppling an elected president for example, is bad regardless of whether you agree or not with the president's economic platform - and so is invading a sovereign country which never attacked you.
posted by talos at 10:27 AM on March 15, 2005
thx to talos for your thoughtful retort to heminator regarding the issues he raises on chomsky's credibility, as it pertains to the author's body of intellectual work. i agree that people miss read chomsky , and while heminators line of reasoning may convince the uninitiated , it simply will not hold up to an actual reading of the professor's work.
that is not to say i know professor chomsky is "correct" "right" ect. in his assertions (although i should say he has my attention) but without a doubt no honest inspection of the body of his work will bear out the assertion he is in favor of one empire over another. he instead compares what empires say vs what they do, and the unsettling fact that the differences between these empires is often negligible, in so much as the out come of their individual policies.
that all being said i would like once more to invite heminator to address the substance of the current post, if you can not i submit your opinion on this article is of no use to anyone. i have no issue with you disagreeing with the author but you so far have offered weak attacks at his intention, attacks which falls on deaf ears , because it is clearly unfounded and uninformed.
posted by nola at 2:06 PM on March 15, 2005
that is not to say i know professor chomsky is "correct" "right" ect. in his assertions (although i should say he has my attention) but without a doubt no honest inspection of the body of his work will bear out the assertion he is in favor of one empire over another. he instead compares what empires say vs what they do, and the unsettling fact that the differences between these empires is often negligible, in so much as the out come of their individual policies.
that all being said i would like once more to invite heminator to address the substance of the current post, if you can not i submit your opinion on this article is of no use to anyone. i have no issue with you disagreeing with the author but you so far have offered weak attacks at his intention, attacks which falls on deaf ears , because it is clearly unfounded and uninformed.
posted by nola at 2:06 PM on March 15, 2005
« Older Metafilter wins Best Community Weblog 2004 | MA, NY, CA--who's next? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by i_cola at 1:28 PM on March 14, 2005