LewRockwell.com posted an article yesterday that praises Noam Chomsky for "speaking truth to power." Rather than make anyone reassess Chomsky, the piece is likely to compel the site's readers--I count myself as one--to reassess the judgment of Lew Rockwell. Noam Chomsky served as an apologist for the Khmer Rouge, imagined a post-WWII conspiracy between Nazis and the US State Department, and conjured up the idea of millions of deaths resulting from America's military campaign against the Taliban. Chomsky's errors always seem to cast America in a more negative light, which makes them more self-delusion than error. The MIT professor's penchant for falling for ridiculous conspiracy theories and parroting anti-American propaganda are among the reasons why he is included as one of the intellectual morons I discuss in my forthcoming book.

The fawning LewRockwell.com piece maintains, "contrary to what you may read elsewhere, Chomsky does not hate America." What I have read elsewhere does indeed indicate that Chomsky hates America. What I have read elsewhere that indicates this is Noam Chomsky himself.

Chomsky is a complex fiqure. No one can defend everything he's said or done. But the "hating America" charge is false, and so overdone. I think Chomsky considers himself a human being first, and an American second. That's why his writings have such a "anti-American" flavor. He is able to care about more than his fellow nationals. This anti-nationalistic tendency is not uncommon among men of his age, particually Jews. The Second World War taught people the danger of putting country over principle. It is a lesson we are loosing as the memory of that horridly nationalistic conflict fades. Chomsky, for all his many faults, at leasts brings the perils of nationalism into the debate.

Also, rather than pointing out Chomsky's mistakes, (such as never admitting he's wrong, even over the Cambodia charge), could the right please refute his more sane arguments. Was this man wrong about the uselessness of the Vietnam war? Was he wrong about the shadyness of the many Latin American wars of the 1980's? Is he wrong when he points to the unnoticed massacares of East Timor in the 70's and Turkish Kurdistan in the past three decades, and crys foul? And is he wrong about the press? Manufacturing Consent was quite convincing. (I'd be surprised if any of his rightist critics have ever even read it.) So any answers? Aside from the obvious bonehead blunders, and aside from the strange cult-like following he has, where is the fault with Chomsky's thinking?

Am I the only one who thinks DB is the Liberal "Rain Man"?

Was he wrong about those few issues?. . . ultimately yes in his reflexively blame-America first stance that he came to and bases his conspiracies on. There are people who feel similarly on these issues mention that don't come to the same, tired hate-America rhetoric. His answer is always the same. If the "hating America" charge is false and so overdone, why do you concede he has an "anti-American" flair in his writings? Take 9/11. As the nation reacted with saddness, grrief, and anger ove the attacks, there were those, like Chomsky who used it as a -to steal a flynnfiles word- brickbat for their own political grand standing. People of good faith can disagree on an issue. People of good faith can disagree on the war on terrorism, whether they are peace activitsts, or anti-war activists, or what have you. But if you start justifying the attacks on America, or middle east terrorism, as something that America is to be blamed for then that's a far more serious game of moral equivalency that is wrong. For all of Chomsky's "complexities" and "nuances" we've seen his "complex" and "nuanced" look at Spetember 11. That's Chomsky. He lies and distorts to suit his needs, and what he writes should not be trusted. Don't have time now to post on others. will soon.....

I can't speak to Chomsky's views on 9/11. But I can say that even if Chomsky has a reflexive blame america stance, as you suggest, does that make him wrong all the time? A broken clock is right twice a day. Wasn't America wrong in Vietnam? Weren't we wrong with internment camps in WW2?

No. We weren’t wrong with internment camps in World War II. In fact, there were some pretty good reasons and examples of why it was necessary to round up certain segments of the population based on ethnicity and categorize many of them as national security risks.

How P.C. we’ve gotten since. And as such we’ve developed a guilt complex about what we did and why we did it to the extent that many in this country swear it will not happen again at the continued risk of our national security.

Lame brained ideas and weak people who are ultra-sensitive along with rampant P.C. behavior (is) will bring this country to its knees. Wait and see.

hahaha. now I know just what a right wing nut you are.

It’s all about national security, knucklehead. If it becomes necessary to inconvenience and control some people so that the majority of the population is safe, then so be it.

Since 9/11 (and long before), security measures needed to change and the government agencies charged with keeping an eye on any threats to our national domestic security better be doing their jobs. 9/11 just highlighted the importance of the threat and anybody who hasn’t learned from this need to do some serious self-examination.

This means that the FBI, Immigrations and other monitoring agencies have to and are starting to get tough. More attention is given to being proactive and following up on any leads where a threat may exist.

This has the usual suspects howling but we ALL need to be serious about this or perish.

As in ALL countries, Civil Liberties (if provided at all) are a privilege and not a right. Unfortunately, most left wing liberal loonies do not understand this. They are generally too immature to understand that everything has a cost and Civil Liberties are one of those things.

So yes, I do believe that if any one group of people are proven to be an overall threat to the safety of the greater population (especially in a time of war), internment of that group might need to be considered.

I must disagree. It is correct to say that in face of a legitimate threat, a curb of civil liberties may be nessacary. (Incidentally, everyone, even us Commie Liberals know that civil liberties are a privledge and not a right. That'what distinguishes civil liberties from civil rights.) However, the size of the curbs must be related to the size of the threat. And that just isn't happening in today's "war on terror". The terrorist threat to our nation has been vastly overblown. Despite all the horror terrorism brings, a person is more likely to die of a car accident, a prescription drug mishap, preventable forms of cancer, or workplaces accidents than in a terrorist attack. And despite 9/11's disruption of our economy, more damage has been done by corporate scandals then is likely to be done by another attack. As for freedom, George Bush, because he has more power over the American population, is a greater threat to the freedom of Americans than any terrorist. (Not to say he is a terrorist, just that his policies have restricted freedom in this country.) Given these facts, I do not believe (as many conservatives do) that our government's primary resposability post 9/11 is to keep us safe from terrorists.It is one of thier resposiblites, but the government has many others, including protecting people's rights.

That was a whopper. Sounds like GWB is the root of all problems with the modern world again.

Don't have the time or inclination to respond to right your wrongs, so all I can say is : Ay Carumba!!

It is intersting to note that most external threats to our nation have been overblown. Many on the left make this point, put so do some on the right, such s Pat Buchanan, whose isolationist views lend to such critisim. The Soviet Union always was decades behind us in technological progress and throughout its history was teetering on the brink of collapse. Only American aid during WW2 and the dividends reaped from territorial gains made in that war kept the insane Soviet system working. Throughout the Cold War, the Soviet Union could have been ended by the whim of the President. (For instance, by cutting off grain supplies. The damn country couldn't even feed itself.)Or by stop sharing technoloy. (Kruschev wrote in his memoirs that on his famous trip to the US to vist Kennedy he was scared shitless because he was afriad the Soviet built plane would crash.) But these facts didn't stop the millitary right from scare mongering people into believing horror stories about the Red Menace spreading throughout the world, in order to justify high levels of millitary spending and intervetionist forign policy. In electorial politics, the scare mongering helped many a Republican to win elections. The situation today is hardly different. Al-Queda is much less of a threat than the American government would have you believe. It's a real threat,it exists, and should be dealt with. But it is not a threat that warrents two wars, a reorginiztion of the functions of government, a mass domstic propaganda campaign (Tom Ridge in those ridiculous ads), endless dollars spent on costly new security technologies that hardly improve security, etc. In fact I will go on record as saying that if we wanted to capture Osama Bin Laden, we would have by now. Just like the Soviet Union, the Republicans want this war to go on as long as possible to milk it for all it worth in terms of millitary contracts, homeland security technologies, and electorial gain. To use a [sic] French term, Plus ca change.

Says DB: "The Soviet Union always was decades behind us in technological progress and throughout its history was teetering on the brink of collapse."

This sentence contains two propositions. The first is false, and the second is something that liberals are capable of believing only decades after the fact. I don't think that this was conceivable as true to most informed people in the 70s. Far from continuously 'teetering on the brink of collapse throughout its history', it was aggressively taking over countries.

Geesh....sometimes I wonder if the only way liberals can win is WEAR YOU OUT.

Truly exhausting.

That is incorrect. The Soviet Union did not continually take over countries. Nations such as Cuba and Vietnam had Communist revolutions, but these were not takeovers from Moscow. And the Soviets were indeed always an inch away from falling apart. Most truly informed people during the Cold War knew this. Those who were fed government propaganda were misinformed. Among the most knowldegable were the members of the Western press core stationed in Moscow at the time. One of these men, niether conservative nor liberal, but meerly a reporter in Moscow from the 60's to the 90's has written an excellent book entitled Deccline and Fall of the Soviet Empire, in which he mentioned that it was a well know secrect among the press core that the Soviets were far weaker than gernally thought to be in the West. American polititions, especially Republicans, wanted the Cold War to go on indefintly. It distrated the populace and scared them into electoral submission. As long as Reagan railed the "evil empire" no one payed attention to his own evil doing at home. And as long as the Democrats were the party of peace, no one would vote for them for fear of being drowned in a sea of red. It was an age of paranoia and confusion, working to the advantages of those in power. Now veterans of that war, Rumsfield, Cheney, an Co. are creating a new Cold War with the terrorists. They don't want to win the war. They want it to continue. Now they can pour public money into defence industries they have connections to with no one caring. Now they can scare voters into believing that a vote for a Democrat is a vote for the terrorists. Now they have a free hand to do whatever the want, and cannot be held accountable because all they have to say is "terrorism" and the dissent dissapears. They want it to take advantage of this situation for as long as they can. Those of you in the service, get ready for a long hard slog. (When it could have been a quick easy victory.)

DB says: "As long as Reagan railed the 'evil empire' no one payed attention to his own evil doing at home."

How many gulags and starvation death camps did Reagan run? Were Reagan's political prisoners sentenced as insane people? Stop being stupid. It was an evil empire; it killed millions of people. Get over it.

Also, the USSR was _involved_ in the supposed spontaneous revolutions of Cuba etc even if they didn't send in the infantry. But more to the point, do you think Poland and Hungary etc were being ruled willingly by atheistic communist Soviet-puppet governments? Try saying that to a Pole over the age of 40 and send me the pictures of your broken nose.

What you need to do is learn to recognize the difference between the way the world was in fact, and the way you would like to believe it was in order to support your ideology. Really, dude, this has to do with acquiring a responsible civic voice.

DB. Dude you just lost an argument. Big Time. This site aint no mud club or CBGB. Bring your guns next time, cause you just took a knive to an intelecual gun fight. Beatch.

You want details Jasper Sue? Regan went on a deregulatory zeal in is eight years that cost the economy dearly. Savings and Loan scandal. He became the most protectionist President since Herbert Hoover. He spent millions of taxpayer dollars on fishing expeditions of wars in Latin America. He allowed our enviroment to go to waste, undermining the Clean Air and Clean Water acts of the seventies. He continuted the unconsitutional act of sending troops to war without congress's approval. He percecuted to gays. He hesitated on AIDS. He appointe Paul Volker as head of the Federal Reserve. He put assholes on the Supreme Court. He elimintated the Equal Time Legislation. He defunded public broadcasting. He insituted the policies that led to the American Gulag, where six million people are in prison, often for minor offeces, and one and ever 3 black men has been to jail.

Mols, you make many very justified critizems of my post.

Factually, you're correct about Paul Volker. Regan did keep him on however, and allowed his disasterous fiscal policy to continue.

Sandra Day O'Conner is indeed an unpleasant person. I've read her opnions,which are unpleasant enough, and also heard from people in legal circles that her personality leaves nothing to be desired. (I hear her husband is quite a nice guy, however).

Gulag may carry unfair connotations, perhaps it would be better to clarify by stating that the sheer size of prision system in this country is comparable to that of the Soviet Gulags, if not
the conditions. There is an element of Sovietism, however, in the wide socioeconomic disparites between those in prsion and those who are not.

As to weather or not Reagan was evil, you are probably correct in asserting that he was not evil in his heart. But I believe I stated, and if I didn't I will state now, that Reagan's policies were evil. Regardless of his intentions,Reagan made certain policies that I believe were threatening to the people of the United States, and thus evil.

You are correct in pointing out my incomplete and sometimes silly list of Regan's policies. Defunding PBS did stand out to me at the time of writting to be a silly addition to the list, however it was part of a Reagan era campaign to corportize and deregulate the media, which has had disaterous consequences for our democracy.

You are correct. Deregulation of the airline industry was a smart move, from the perspective of you and me. It lowered ticket prices. But it also destroyed the airlines' financial security. In fact, airline deregulation ended up doing what most conservatives should hate, it wound up forcing the government to periodically subsidize the industy whenever it goes into one of its crisis. Right now the US Government is proping up half the airlines in the bussiness. If the airlines were regulated as they were before Carter, ticket prices would be higher, but the government would not have to subsidize. I am actually for the subsidation, actually for partial nationalization of the airline industy. This is because we're already subsidizing it so much we might as well nationalize and and because our transportation system is vital infrastrucute for the rest of the economy.

Lastly, I would like to apoligize for my gratuitous use of the word f*ck in my posts. I am used to being engaged in uncivilized gutter debates with posters on this site. (Of the Sean Hannity type) I am thankful for the opportuniy to speak to someone rational like yourself.

Thanks DB. I think that the government should let airlines who can't compete go under instead of propping them up. You imply that it is just the lower prices that causes the 'need' for being propped up, but the fact of the matter is that the airlines with lower prices are not the ones in 'need' of government subsidy. Southwest etc may be rather low-brow, but it is financially sound.

Fascism (not in the synonym-of-'evil' sense, but in the economic sense) is actually rather like what you advocated regarding the government-business joint management of the airline industry. I have a leftist friend who admits that he is a fascist in the economic sense. and I think that leftists often now are not communists but fascists economically, but they can't see this because of historical reasons; that is, they can't admit that Nazis were, like many of them, non-communist socialists. In contrast, I am for the free market under the rule of law.

But notice one more thing. Your argument for the subsidizing of the airline industry is based on the goal of financial security of the industry. But the purpose of the airline industry is only accidentally to make money; essentially the function of an airline company is to offer its air travel to the population. So under your plan the airline industray would be more 'secure' in its accidental mission of money-making, but it would not accomplish its real raison d'etre as well. The people who would suffer from the higher prices are the poorer people, the people who use Southwest. If you really are dedicated to the good life of the lower middle class, then you should abandon your plan of denying them affordable air travel.

Peace out.

Well that shows how out of touch you are. The lower middle classes are yearning for education, food, decent jobs, and your solution is to drop the price of a two-way to Tampa!