Just an information link for those interested:

http://bostonreview.net/BR28.5/chomsky.html

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Do you really think anyone is interested in that avowed anti-American and Comunist Noam Chomsky, who, BTW, makes his living here in the good old USA and enjoys all it's freedoms and rights?

__________________
Regards

Warren

Currently 1965 220Sb, 2002 FORD Crown Vic Police Interceptor

Had 1965 220SEb, 1967 230S, 280SE 4.5, 300SE (W126), 420SEL

ENTER > = (HP RPN)

Not part of the in-crowd since 1952.

Is three minutes all it took for you to read it? That's the time between Kerry's post and your's.

I like to read opposing viewpoints. It challenges me to solidify my positions and refine my arguments. Sometimes I even learn something. Not challenging yourself is like playing chess against pushover opponents.

__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Robert A. Zimmerman

I am certainly not a Noam Chomsky fan however some of his works make for great comic relief for me.

__________________
Brandon



2008 S550
1957 Dodge D100
1967 VW Microbus 21 Window
2001 Suburban
2004 Beach cruiser bicycle
-----------------GO DUKE!-----------------

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here." Patrick Henry 1776

I probably shouldn't bother responding, but here goes.

Chomsky is not a communist, he is a libertarian socialist.

Chomsky opposes US foreign policy but writes positively about the freedoms in the USA.

Why wouldn't someone be interested in reading it? He's the most quoted intellectual on the planet. Even if your only interested in knowing the enemy a person should be familiar with his arguments.

I read Wolfowitz and Milton Friedman but I don't agree with either one.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Are you talking about his political positions or his more meaningful (no pun intended) work in linguistics?

__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Robert A. Zimmerman

Wanted to chime in.

I haven’t read anything by Chomsky for over a decade. In the past I thought he was a buffoon, more capable in wordage than in any cogent reflection of some of the notable historians/philosophers/or even linguists I studied. But that aside, Chomsky reminds me a lot of William Safire. Safire writes for the NY Times, in case no one knows, and Safire knows how to tell a tale, and, more to the point, how to employ a protagonist and antagonist to help the story along. Chomsky doesn’t, but they tell similar stories.

Anyway, trying to come to grips with Chomsky in a short article is akin to trying to get a clue about William Faulkner in 500 words or less. So rather than comment on how cool, or not Chomsky is, lets just turn to the article.

Chomsky writes: “The most powerful state in history announced a new National Security strategy, asserting that it will maintain global hegemony permanently: any challenge will be blocked by force, the dimension in which the United States reigns supreme.”

This is not true. As anyone knows, the US is not after “global hegemony” any more than it is after eradicating differences in religion. Even Bush and his low-brow cabinet mates, along with the dogs of war (and note that Powell and Rumsfeld are both cabinet mates and dogs of war) aren’t that pompous. But of course this is just Chomsky providing a tease, dangling some ripe bait to all who are ready to be railed by such assertions (or, perhaps more appropriately, he’s just trying to keep folks awake through the first few paragraphs).

”That is a significant difference” Chomsky continues with rye wit. And at this point we get to some of the meat of the issue; albeit tough meat, and one that is, dare I say it – as half baked as his breathless overture.

“The imperial grand strategy is based on the assumption that the United States can gain “full spectrum dominance” through military programs that dwarf those of any potential coalition and that have useful side effects. One is to socialize the costs and risks of the private economy of the future, a traditional contribution of military spending and the basis of much of the “new economy.” Another is to contribute to a fiscal train wreck that will, it is presumed, “create powerful pressures to cut federal spending, and thus, perhaps, enable the administration to accomplish its goal of rolling back the New Deal,”4 a description of the Reagan program that is now being extended to far more ambitious plans.”

Now, I for one wish this were true. It would be awesome. Could you imagine something to ultimately reduce government spending? What a laugh. The only way government spending will ever be notably reduced is on the day we can get a 2/3rds majority of US Senators to agree to abolish the Constitution and the US Government along with that ultimate big and very low-brow dog of war – the US Treasury. Presumably, on that august day (as opposed to on a day in August, when most Senators are off somewhere playing with their families or golf clubs), the Government, the National Debt and all other bets will be off; all in a few mighty strokes of the pen. Don't hold yer breath waiting for that train wreck, or for government spending to ever be reduced, either.

And on to other “truths” Chomsky writes: “For the political leadership, mostly recycled from more reactionary sectors of the Reagan–Bush I administrations, “the global wave of hatred” is not a particular problem. They want to be feared, not loved.”

Oddly then, for one noting how the leaders want to be feared, he suggests: “The selected target must meet several conditions. It must be defenseless, important enough to be worth the trouble, and an imminent threat to our survival and ultimate evil nature. Iraq qualified on all counts.”

Am I the only one who sees the puppet handler, just a little too clearly, by this comment? Chomsky is suggesting the “Imperial Grand Strategy” will only work with a hapless, sniveling, and much reviled target of opportunity! Woe is me for a “Strategy” that preys on the weak! Any bully can do that! Okay, well maybe it is not that unique of an idea. After all, Kennedy, later Johnson, then Nixon all behaved as if Vietnam was an easy target of opportunity. Just as did GB the first think Iraq was a cake walk. Naturally, the elders didn’t account for the energies, money, and weapons of several other large nations being on the other side.....Bush is another story. But to read Chomsky, you’d think he was talking about personal taxation and not military destruction in the name of preemptive-strike. Oops! Preemptive-Strike - is a term of Israeli origin, except they said it in Hebrew and Yiddish. And they’re saying it again, BTW. Anyway, our term is “preemptive war.” What the heck is Chomsky thinking?

We never find out what Chomsky is thinking, as he too, seems to see the strings he’s using to advance his flailing supposition and he turns off, rather than dashing the conclusion to bits on the rocky shore of reality. So naturally, Chomsky diverts our attention to the alleged dichotomy of Old Europe and New Europe; which, is a guise for a little France/Germany bashing. But the bashing has a point: to indicate that the USA doesn’t have the free license it desires, no matter what it’s strategy, but is itself dogged by those low-brow independent Old Europeans. Worse yet, he intones, the people of Asia are massing, if only in trade revenue, and perhaps even in their own ideology. So in a future we cannot yet see, our leaders idea of an “Imperial Grand Strategy” might someday come home to roost in the form of the emergence of Asia as a World Power, and not the World’s Assembly Line that it is now.

I would suggest that the so-called Imperial Grand Strategy is simply the time tested and time-honored approach of fulfilling an urgent need. Nothing more, and nothing less. Of course, calling an urgent need an urgent need is not dramatic or diverting. Just like calling a used POS car a used POS car – it won’t sell. So the wise seller diverts your attention and the car is called carefully driven, and look at those new tires! Gosh they are good for at least another 30 t-h-o-u-s-a-n-d miles! The point being that the more you stretch it out, the less likely you see the point. You no longer see the car, but only the newish tires. This is a Chomsky specialty, if I remember correctly....

Another element that makes Chomsky’s the discussion laughable is that GB’s two most influential public cronies – Powell and Rumsfield, have said they want out. That Chomsky didn’t foresee this little detail gets back to my point about his skill with words greatly exceeding his competence as someone to assert knowledge about history writ as Imperial Grand Strategy or POS used car. Just think how much more entertaining this would be had he pointed out the unrest in GB’s cabinet and then used that as a springboard to other rising powers!

But I do have a question: Kerry, did you post this to really discuss Chomsky?

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

I wasn't intending to discuss Chomsky in this thread. His name had come up in other threads so I just posted the link so that his views were available.

Here's a link to GB's national defense policy which is the document to which Chomsky refers:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

My view is that when you combine with document with the views of the Neo Conservatives in the Pentagon found in the papers from the Project for the New American Century, that Chomsky is substantially correct. The fact that the NeoCons call for a Pax Americana (to copy the Pax Romana) in itself says volumes.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

I don't see any need to defend Chomsky himself, as I think his works and words, considered with reason and intellect, are more than enough defense. If you've got a problem with his politics... well then, I think you've definitely got a problem.

His assessment of the contextual history of the Neo-con project really nails it. I'm especially intrigued with his reference to the notion of an agenda to starve the public sector's domestic programs of funding by narrowly focusing and prioritizing political and popular attention on the 'perpetual war' abroad. 911 offers a very convenient focal device for this agenda. William Greider, writing in The Nation, described this as seeking to "Roll back the 20th Century."

I'm sure some visitors to this page consider Chomsky's assessment to be tantamount to 'tinfoil hat' conspiracy theories. But of course his analysis IS based on the published ideas of the very folks in control of our foreign and domestic agenda--it can't get much more 'real' than that.

Old Europe indeed!...oh Thomas Friedman, let me count the ways in which you've been so very wrong over the years. Hubris must be your middle name.

Zeitgeist:
That 'Roll back the 20th Century' piece is downright frightening isn't it?

Here's a link:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20030512&s=greider

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

"While he's right to be concerned about the long term implications of the current NSS,. . ."

Since analysis of US foreign policy has been Chomsky's long term project, little more needs to be said.

If I understand his argument correctly, the reason that domestic policy can be changed under the pressure of terrorism, is that the American public would be opposed to the changes barring military pressures on the budget.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Instead of 1224 words the above text might be a little more appropriate.

Maybe, he wanted to prompt a debate? You don't have to look to deep to see that.



BTW

I agree, but it's worth the read to see what the self proclaimed intellects are up to.

Chomsky is consistent.

My favorite example of Chomsky extremis is the debate in "The Nation" between Chomsky and Chris Hitchens a couple of years ago. I'll not burden everybody with it, but in order to argue with either of those guys you better have rhino hide.

Having read several of Chomsky's essays (the result of which left me uninspired to read deeper) and given careful, considered thought and objective analysis, I think he's an ass.

But I could be wrong.

Botnst

I am really disappointed. Botnst appears to have reappeared on the scene after dropping the English bombshell and skedadelling, but I suspect an imposter. All this new Botnst can muster is "he's an ass." Surely a scientist wouldn't fall to that level.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Awww, busted! You're right, Kerry.

I didn't do Chomsky justice and I did sort of dump-and-run the "English Lesson". A real criticism of Chomsky would require a lot more effort than what we put into the Ayn Rand expose'. At this time, I just can't seem to find the interest, but I'll sign-on with Lebenze as a heck of a start. I think Lebenze points out a frequently used technique of Chomsky when analyzing politics: he misstates the position of his oponents and then proceeds to attack the misstated position.

On that other score, I had to go out of town for several days and didn't have access to the internet. I felt like Limbaugh on a day without Oxycontin.

Botnst