Frontpagemag.com conducted a symposium on Noam Chomsky, one of the intellectual morons discussed in my book by the same title. They included me, another Chomsky critic, and two fans of the MIT professor. Sparks flew. Read the debate and find out why I was left wondering about one participant's sanity, and another's honesty.

You guys got way too heated on what was supposed to be a debate.

That said, I thought it wierd that Scialabba kept asking the conversation to be limited to Summer's issue, but he kept misstating what that issue was. He kept saying "academic journals" when Summers' issue was "historical journals".

Somebody lit into you because you brought up non-historical journals (clearly within the Jamie's stated topic: "Chomsky: icon or marginalized"). One typically think that the symposium can set the topic---usually. But it was relevant because Scialabba kept phrasing it that way.

Yet because Chomsky couldn't say black was white, and had to admit that the US and USSR had differences, Nichols couldn't call them "twins". But the quotes they pulled from Chomsky backed up the fact that Chomsky wanted to redefine totalitarianism so it could inculde a society that "on the outside" allowed liberties, but kept the masses sedated with sports and X-box.

And I find it odd that a whole side of political theory that thrives on mindreading their opponents and deciphering their "codewords", says that Chomsky's personal letters are no matter. Like Chomsky would reciprocate if he found an angry letter from Bush Jr.!

I think the best answer is "Chomsky isn't mentioned in the history journals? Hunh? What do you know about that?" with a mile-wide smirk on my face.

But before I leave that strain, telling historians that they need to include Chomsky runs kind of counter to the AAUP's objection to the Academic Bill of Rights. Because asking professors to purvey other than what they purvey is not the handing down from on high that it needs to be to ensure that pholgiston is not taught in chemistry classes.

---

By the way, I just finished Morons. Good solid work. I don't think I have ever read flat out what you stated and that was that Hitler was a socialist. I disagree about the Coke vs. Pepsi ana-logy, but that's a quibble.

Interesting discussion. I find it somehow promising that the two Chomsky fans busily denied his bad scholarship, his outright lies, and his ant-American stance. It means they are uncomfortable with these dishonest aspects of their hero. Some minute particle of their conscience screams at them to not trust Chomsky. I don't think they are insane, just arguing a legitimate call with the ref.

The charge that historians don’t want to confront Chomsky’s inconvenient truths (read anti-American crap) is belied by the number of books reviewed in history journals that address the same inconvenient ideas, minus the lies and plus good scholarship.

You are accused of trying to stifle consideration of Chomsky’s thought through character assassination, but how can you read his work intelligently unless you are alerted to his willingness to obscure the truth and lie? His books should have child-proof caps and warnings. And the one jackass’s notion of police (smears, insults, summary judgments) is just part of his group think mentality and is highly insulting to police.

These guys are not interested in truth. They have a certain system for looking at the world, and they are devoted to the system's defense.

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
-- George Orwell --

Webster, on what you said about other historians covering the same ground.

It just hit me: I take it those guys have heard of Howard Zinn. In the fuzzy mind of left, you wonder if they are somehow saying that Zinn is the more pro-establishment voice.

Why do they need Chomsky, when they have Zinn? That econiche is already occupied.

Sea King,
These folks need everyone they can muster. They are seriously outnumbered, not within academia of course. Chomsky is leather-jacketed Mr. Outside, and Zinn is tweedy Mr. Inside. Of course, Chomsky has never wielded a shovel or hoe in his life, so he is not exactly a "worker of the world."

I have to say that I find laughable the Left's tendency to see the people who disagree with them as dupes. There is no difference of opinion, the opponents are dupes. As you say, they are "sedated with sports and x-box." And religion is the opiate of the masses. Can these people not just grant a difference of opinion? I want to be unchained, to the highest degree possible, from the government in order to do what I want to do. I actively want to be responsible for taking care of myself and my family by working and saving. And I am glad to give away a large portion of my income, to private charities, to help people in need. And I actually think that the world would be better run and life more fulfilling if people relied upon themselves to the utmost. Now this is entirely counter to the Chomsky vision of people as ants, so have I just been watching too much sports? (Rant over)

"I have to say that I find laughable the Left's tendency to see the people who disagree with them as dupes. There is no difference of opinion, the opponents are dupes."

Why not? If you watch the ongoing political debate, there is also no side soooo guilty of imputing motives to people through the "code word" argument. When you say something that they can't object to they still take their meaning over your words. Then, they invent this cabal of cloaked conservatives who dare not show their face in public (then why are they a problem in a representative government?) that you are really speaking to.

None of can pass for serious argument. But it goes unquestioned by a sympathetic media.

I thought everyone behaved quite gentlemanly, and two of you behaved logically, during the debate. I can only strive and hope to be as good a polemicist as you, Mr. Flynn. Kudos for making great points and helping me learn a great deal more about a man who is lionized by many of my closest friends. I used to feel stupid and ignorant that I hadn't read any Chomsky, but I don't feel like that anymore knowing that he is mainly heralded by the true believers, and that my time reading would be much better spent with more reliable and qualified authors.

Fascinating debate!! If any kind of conservative tenured professor was as wreckless with the truth as Noam Chomsky is he or she would have been fired for incompetence. Oh well what's new? The left gets to play by a much looser statndard than anyone else. We already knew this. This is why we have sites such as flynnfiles and frontpagemag, to expose the left in all their falsehoods.

Flynn talked at my school a few weeks ago and his attack on Chomsky was that he had maybe 3 predictions that were wrong. These 3 predictions that did not come out how Chomsky thought some how makes him a Moron. I want to ask all you harcore gun-ho America supporters, what happened to critical thinking? When our government tells us something are we not supposed to question it? i remeber some very important people in America's history such as Jefferson and Paine you said the people must protect themselves from their government. It is becoming clearer than ever that the State is not on the side of average people. Our leaders have motivs that do not include ours. Chomsky may not be a "worker" but he understands the necesity of workers and why workers deserve more! Its not right to call Chomsky and unqualified author, because he does a ton of research (read the notes in his book). I read Chomsky because i do believe that the US governments motives are not aimed at improving the condition of people, I believe there is a lot of emphisis on making profits, and people get left behind. Now, i do not support republicans nor do i support democrates, or even communists. I do have high hopes for the future as does Chomsky. But this does not make us Morons. Flynn on the other hand has some pretty crazy ideas. When he came to my school he mantained that Global Warming is not real. It is obvious that global warming is happeneing and it is virtually universally agreed upon (or is it...oh no, could it be? another left wing conspericy?) i doubt it. He also made remarks about a prediction that a million children would die in the year 1970 or something, Flynn said it was wrong and everything is fine. In reality, as agreed upon by UNICEF, OXFAM and most other human-rights organizations 34,000 children do die every day due to starvation and cureable disease. That is a lot of children in an age of vast resources. Globalization sure is really working... So i just want to say that Flynn messes up too and we are all people how believe what we agree with based on our perception of the world. Obviously a poor worker is going to have a different perspective than a millionare CEO. Ok, so i have rambled..do not believe everything the state or the corporations tell you.

love & rage,
@

"global warming is happeneing and it is virtually universally agreed upon"

Last thing I read the theory that global warming was a human-driven problem, was at 50% of associated specialiasts and falling. It is not universally agreed upon.

If you wanted to know about geological ages, we are at one of the cooler points that the eart has ever been. The mean temperature of earth over its entire life span is a bit higher than our current mean. That a system will travel toward its mean, is not a sign that something is out of balance.

And you do understand that 34,000 is two orders of magnitude below 1 million, don't you? In fact that makes Chomsky's guess---oh, about +2800% off. But why quibble about a few thousand percent.

One thing to consider when attacking Chomsky as being such a popular citation in the humanities is that most of that is from his work on linguistics and not from his political views. He is a teneured professor because of linguistics not political science. The reason he gets so much credit for his political views is because of the breakthroughs he has made in linguistics. This makes it seem reasonable to think he is a smart person. Flynn calls him a moron because of a few predictions, but i dont know if Flynn has ever read any of Chomskys work on linguistics. Something to consider...

love & Rage

@

@:
I suspect Mr. Flynn isn't qualified to speak to Chomsky's linguistic insights. However he is aware that Chomsky denied the millions killed in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge. I believe Mr. Flynn is competent to recognize a liar when he sees one.

Renown as a linguistics professor does not suggest acute socio-political perceptions. The example of Chomsky bears this out.

A,

I have read some of Chomsky's linguistic work. One thing you learn in linguistics pretty quickly is how often you run into a theorem or a corallary with his name on it.

He's a very smart man. His work in linguistics and formal languages are quite solid. But it appears that you have missed the subtitle : "How ideology makes smart people fall for stupid ideas."[italics mine]

Flynn says a couple places that he is not denying that these people have some brain power. He's not calling them garden variety morons. He's saying they are the intellectual equivalent of morons. And Flynn stipulates that some are legitimate scholars in one field that venture into another field where they use much less critical ability.

If Chomsky was off ~2800% in some measured morphology rule, he would have never gained the ground he has in linguistics. I get the idea, having read some of his linguistic work, some of his formal language work, and a collection of essays mixing language and politics, Chomsky's may have begun to think he understood language better than everybody else and that as a result it was his duty to parse political language for us. But that is just my take, I'm no expert on Chomsky.

Another thing, in WTLHA, Dan takes pains to differentiate the liberal from the leftist. A number of people have attacked Dan's work because they find themselves on the left side of things and they think he's trying to slur everyone to the left of center---not so. In the same way, Dan does not call the people featured in his second book uniformly idiots, some of them just that they become so when they let their ideology think for them.