Noam on stuff

[Skeptic]

I didn't say the situation in the world is simple, or that the relation between workers and capital is simple. I said that Chomsky's political views are simple. I certainly appreciate complexity in thought, and in the world. But there isn't any such complexity in Chomsky's political (as opposed to scientific or linguistic) writing. It's a rather simple worldview: capitalism bad, USA bad, anybody who opposes either, good.

There is fake complexity--he makes all the right noises while pretending to be "objective" on the issues--but there is about as much chance of him deciding the USA did anything right as there is of, say, Michael Behe (of "intelligent design" notoriety) deciding there is no God.

One doesn't need to be an expert on global economics to realize the rather obvious truth that what drives Chomsky is an attempt to find something--anything--that Marxism got right about capitalism, any more than one have to be a lunar geologist (selenologist?) to realize the moon isn't made of green cheese.

 

[Garrette]

Well, as a non-American, I must add that of course there is also the possibility of "anti-americanism", or non-American nationalistic feelings that go contrary to the US.

Personally, though I'm often critical of US foreign policy, I do not complain that the US foreign policy is guided by self interest. I think it is frequently guided too little by self-interest, and too often either guided by special interests or marred by short-sightedness and unability to foresee consequences of some action or lack thereof. However, US foreign policy debate seems to me to be more openly concerned with self-interest compared to similar debate in Europe. For this reason, I think the US debate is more fruitful and clarifying.

I frequently disagree with you, but it is posts like this that make you always worth reading and your comments worth considering.

 

[Dave1001]

I didn't say the situation in the world is simple, or that the relation between workers and capital is simple. I said that Chomsky's political views are simple. I certainly appreciate complexity in thought, and in the world. But there isn't any such complexity in Chomsky's political (as opposed to scientific or linguistic) writing. It's a rather simple worldview: capitalism bad, USA bad, anybody who opposes either, good.

There is fake complexity--he makes all the right noises while pretending to be "objective" on the issues--but there is about as much chance of him deciding the USA did anything right as there is of, say, Michael Behe (of "intelligent design" notoriety) deciding there is no God.

One doesn't need to be an expert on global economics to realize the rather obvious truth that what drives Chomsky is an attempt to find something--anything--that Marxism got right about capitalism, any more than one have to be a lunar geologist (selenologist?) to realize the moon isn't made of green cheese.

Sorry for the misinterpretation of your post.

I'm a bit more cynical in my estimation of what drives Chomsky- I think it's the successful Western approach of preempting and internalizing the best criticisms against it. Sort of Hitler's critique of the Jews (they attack from the left and the right) -I think it applies very well to the West, and probably to any successful human social organization, in a game theory type way. Chomsky's a professor at MIT, not a pure ideological revolutionary in the jungles of X, if they even exist any more. Basically I perceive Chomsky as playing a role, which is becoming kabuki, of covering the ass of a privilege cohort. I don't think it's actually necessary any more (they're in no danger of being guillotined), but it's a kabuki that's still carried out, presumably for the social aesthetics of tolerating observers, a social arrangement equivalent to whatever the latest piece of art hanging in the MoMA is. Chomsky-Obama-McCain-Robertson and other celebrosphere members of that spectrum: social performance artists to feed some sort of social aesthetic of the observing American public and media.

 

[marksman]

Dave, I didn't follow you at all. Could you restate your assessment of Chomsky's motivations without the analogies, metaphors and similes?

 

[TriangleMan]

but there is about as much chance of him deciding the USA did anything right as there is of, say, Michael Behe (of "intelligent design" notoriety) deciding there is no God.

I thought this was a pretty broad statement but looking through the book I have of some of his Q&As it looks like you're right! If by "USA" you mean the government and other key structures of US society (military, economic structure etc) then I can't really see anything where Chomsky admits that the USA did something right.

Now I suppose if I search enough there'll be something in there, but it would still mean 99.5% negative and 0.5% positive. I hadn't really noticed that before.

 

[Dave1001]

Dave, I didn't follow you at all. Could you restate your assessment of Chomsky's motivations without the analogies, metaphors and similes?

I think his motivation is cynical, and pretty much the same motivation as anyone who's a consistent celebrity: saying certain things to maximize public attention.

 

[Dave1001]

I thought this was a pretty broad statement but looking through the book I have of some of his Q&As it looks like you're right! If by "USA" you mean the government and other key structures of US society (military, economic structure etc) then I can't really see anything where Chomsky admits that the USA did something right.

Now I suppose if I search enough there'll be something in there, but it would still mean 99.5% negative and 0.5% positive. I hadn't really noticed that before.

Other posters claim he admits the US did something right in liberating france. But that could fall in to the 0.5% positive.

 

[marksman]

I think his motivation is cynical, and pretty much the same motivation as anyone who's a consistent celebrity: saying certain things to maximize public attention.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification!

 

[jimtron]

A lot of the criticism on this thread is pretty general; anyone want to take issues with specific quotes or arguments of Chomsky's?

 

[marksman]

I think that would be difficult as I've always found Chomsky's statements to be such a mixture of vagueness and emotion that both his supporters and his detractors often attribute to him statements much more radical than what he said, yet not, what I suspect, he necessarily intended.

He has a knack for taking vaguely left-of-center positions and making them sound like he believes Che Guevara is a reactionary.

Personally, I find many of his analogies childish in the guise of sophisticated analysis.

For example, in this analysis of Latin American politics, he compares the recent Bolivian election of Evo Morales, who he lauds merely because he is from the lower class, with the election ebtween Kerry and Bush, two children of privilege. Presumably, the fact that out candidates are wealthy and educated is considered contemptible, while the election of uneducated but "common" Morales is worthy. It's simplistic class-conscious reasoning in the extreme.

And of course, although the article -- talking about the maturation of Latin American democracy -- really has little to do with the US, Chomsky can't help but digging at the US by claiming that "this shift is highly unwelcome in Washington." Which, of course is a gross and inaccurate overgeneralization. The Bush administration is wary of Morales' ties and support of the indisputably undemocratic Cuba, and of his association with the conspiracy-theorist paranoic Hugo Chavez. That America has fine relations with many other "mature" Latin democracies, such as Costa Rica, Ecuador and Peru is, of course, inconsequential.

I find this to be typical of Chomsky's articles. They sound pretty, but the facts are usually skewed, if not outright wrong. He tosses in off-hand class-conscious comments about "imperialist" America or neo-colonialism, even if it has no obvious connection to the topic (or reality).

Another example is this article, a self-contradictory defense of Iran's nuclear program. On the one hand, Chomsky argues there is no evidence that Iran's program is anything but peaceful. On the other hand, he claims that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is totally justified because Israel has made "very credible" threats to Iran's security (I'm not aware of any) and because the West hasn't taken "good-faith" efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons, even though the US' nuclear sotckpile has been falling steadily since 1988.

Or this historicaly inaccurate article in which he bizarrely claims that "at last" Asia and Latin America are leaving America's "grip." And by finally, he means since World War II, which is really odd, since I'm pretty sure China was never in America's grip after World War II, and if anything, most other Asian conuntries are pretty cozy with America -- particularly South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore -- mostly out of fear of a strong China or a nuclear North Korea. As for Latin America, what he really means is Hugo Chavez' Venezuela, ignoring the fact that most Latin American nations -- even Chavez' friend in Bolivia -- want stronger ties with America. Of course, this entire article is predicated on the very questionable assumption that having ties to America (and the benefits of trade that come with it) are bad.

He's become a darling of the American radical left, I suspect, because he is a very good writer who tells them what they want to hear, much like Patrick Buchanan and the American radical right. And much like Buchanan, when you scratch the surface, there's little research and very little logic to the arguments. Particularly, there is absolutely no enunciation of the premises of the argument, which must be ferreted out. But inevitably, those premises come down to American policies are presumptively flawed.

 

[Merko]

There is fake complexity--he makes all the right noises while pretending to be "objective" on the issues--but there is about as much chance of him deciding the USA did anything right as there is of, say, Michael Behe (of "intelligent design" notoriety) deciding there is no God.

Hmm. I read one of the links provided by marksman below, it contains:
Chomsky: "The Bush administration argues that article four [of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] should be strengthened, and I think that makes sense."

There's no catch. He agrees with Bush on this particular point and has no problems admitting it.

One doesn't need to be an expert on global economics to realize the rather obvious truth that what drives Chomsky is an attempt to find something--anything--that Marxism got right about capitalism, any more than one have to be a lunar geologist (selenologist?) to realize the moon isn't made of green cheese.

Uh, could you provide any sort of evidence that Chomsky was, ever, any sort of Marxist? I'm ready to claim that he has never been a Marxist.

For example, in this analysis of Latin American politics, he compares the recent Bolivian election of Evo Morales, who he lauds merely because he is from the lower class, with the election ebtween Kerry and Bush, two children of privilege.

I think this is an observation that the "American Dream", eg that anyone can rise from poverty and reach the highest echelons of society, appears to be more real in the South than in the North currently. I think it is taking it entirely too far to assume that just because Morales was poor, he must be a better leader according to Chomsky. But clearly it is possible for a poor man to become elected president in Bolivia, which is noteworthy.

And of course, although the article -- talking about the maturation of Latin American democracy -- really has little to do with the US, Chomsky can't help but digging at the US by claiming that "this shift is highly unwelcome in Washington." Which, of course is a gross and inaccurate overgeneralization. The Bush administration is wary of Morales' ties and support of the indisputably undemocratic Cuba, and of his association with the conspiracy-theorist paranoic Hugo Chavez. That America has fine relations with many other "mature" Latin democracies, such as Costa Rica, Ecuador and Peru is, of course, inconsequential.

I don't think it is gross and inaccurate. The US itself has 'ties' and 'associations' with many indisputably undemocratic countries. Clearly that cannot explain why the US administration has more or less strained relations with many current South and Central American democracies such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and to a considerable degree also Chile, Argentina and Brazil.

Not many decades ago, such left-leaning leaders in South or Central America were routinely overthrown in coups, either directly orchestrated from the US or given US support after the fact. Note that the coup against Chavez was initially met with cautious approval by the US - in stark contrast to many conservative leaders of South and Central America, who condemned the coup and demanded that Chavez be returned, despite their very strong political differences with him. I think that fact alone speaks volumes about the 'maturation' that Chomsky is referring to. It happens on the left too, for example the ruling leftist party of Brasil only a few years ago finally acknowledged, internally, that given an election defeat, they must step down. That is not to say they would not have before, but such opinions were not explicitely rejected by that party.

On the one hand, Chomsky argues there is no evidence that Iran's program is anything but peaceful. On the other hand, he claims that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is totally justified because Israel has made "very credible" threats to Iran's security (I'm not aware of any) and because the West hasn't taken "good-faith" efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons, even though the US' nuclear sotckpile has been falling steadily since 1988.

I do not see anything in that article suggesting that a theoretical development of Iranian nuclear weapons would be justified. I also fail to see any contradiction. I suppose what you refer to is this: "The first is to call off the very credible US and Israeli threats that virtually urge Iran to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent."
This seems like a very sensible statement to me. You have to be blind not to see the thinly veiled threats of a 'first strike' from either the US or Israel. You have to be stupid not to understand that Iran may want to safeguard itself against that. This is no 'justification'. I would argue that the analysis is so obvious that it shouldn't have to be done, but clearly it has to be.

As for Latin America, what he really means is Hugo Chavez' Venezuela, ignoring the fact that most Latin American nations -- even Chavez' friend in Bolivia -- want stronger ties with America. Of course, this entire article is predicated on the very questionable assumption that having ties to America (and the benefits of trade that come with it) are bad.

I don't think Chomsky minds South America benefiting from trade with the US. I don't think that's the kind of 'ties' he's talking about. What he is referring to, I think it should be clear, is again the tendency of the US to organise coups, provide 'advisors' (often trained in methods of torture at the infamous School of the Americas) and generally meddle in the affairs of these countries. There has been a clear shift away from this, towards more mature relationships, more on equal terms, based on mutual benefit rather than domination.

 

[Darth Rotor]

He has a knack for taking vaguely left-of-center positions and making them sound like he believes Che Guevara is a reactionary.

Personally, I find many of his analogies childish in the guise of sophisticated analysis.
==
He's become a darling of the American radical left, I suspect, because he is a very good writer who tells them what they want to hear, much like Patrick Buchanan and the American radical right. And much like Buchanan, when you scratch the surface, there's little research and very little logic to the arguments. Particularly, there is absolutely no enunciation of the premises of the argument, which must be ferreted out. But inevitably, those premises come down to American policies are presumptively flawed.

I agree with Chomsky about the wrongness of bombing Serbia in 1999, but for different reasons than he did. Mine had to do with a basis in the Weinberger doctrine and the absurdity of Albanian security being a primary American concern, his the usual "cabal of imperialist evil" that taints some of his commentary.

I still like to read his stuff, now and again, as it is a nice change from the canned crap on hears on radio and TV. I also scan Al Jazera coverage at times, to see what they are up to.

DR

 

[marksman]

I think this is an observation that the "American Dream", eg that anyone can rise from poverty and reach the highest echelons of society, appears to be more real in the South than in the North currently.

Which of course ignores that the President immediately preceding our current one was Bill Clinton, who also rose form abject poverty. Again, Chomsky's elucidation of fatcs is skewed, if not outright false. The implication that Latin America is improved because on one of the many nations there one poor person became president, but America is stratified becaus ein the most recent election, only privileged sons were on the ballot is, as I said before, overly simmplistic and outright false.

It's a tendency all too frequent in Chomsky. Even a modicum of critical analysis would expose these facts, but Chomsky supporters always seem to take his assertions at face value.

But clearly it is possible for a poor man to become elected president in Bolivia, which is noteworthy.

Not particularly. Chomsky's argument, that Latin American democracy is more robust than America falls flat as soon as it is shown that his examination of the facts is absurdly selective.

I don't think it is gross and inaccurate. The US itself has 'ties' and 'associations' with many indisputably undemocratic countries.

So what? Chomsky's assertion is that America opposes Morales, and that's just not true. At most, Bush's administration is cautious about Morales given his ties to two avowed enemies of America. Chomsky's argument is transparent hyperbole.

Clearly that cannot explain why the US administration has more or less strained relations with many current South and Central American democracies such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and to a considerable degree also Chile, Argentina and Brazil.

But Chomsky's article isn't even trying to explain this phenomenon. Now you're just reading content into the article that isn't there. (The very tendency in both Chomsky's supporters and detractors that I mentioned!)

I do not see anything in that article suggesting that a theoretical development of Iranian nuclear weapons would be justified.

Well, except that his article presumes the cause of their pursuit of nuclear materials would be caused by their "credible" belief that the US and Israel are going to attack them. He ignores other causes, for example, Iran's desire to expand its influence over tis neighbors through political and military intimidation.

You have to be blind not to see the thinly veiled threats of a 'first strike' from either the US or Israel.

And you'd have to be blind not to see that those threats are tied to Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Chomsky's argument is implicitly circular: Iran pursues nukes because Israel and the US threatened Iran if they pursue nukes.

I would argue that the analysis is so obvious that it shouldn't have to be done, but clearly it has to be.

And I would argue that his argument is inherently flawed and internally inconsistent. Of course, if Chomsky would actually explain what his argument was, we wouldn't have to read these tea leaves.

I don't think Chomsky minds South America benefiting from trade with the US.

Except that his discussiong of Latin independence are all about how Latin countries are diversifying their trade!

What he is referring to, I think it should be clear, is again the tendency of the US to organise coups...

Except he nowhere mentions any of that in his article. His article is entirely about economic trade and economic ties.

Once again, a Chomsky defender is reading into an article a position that Chomsky has not taken.

The connections he discusses in the linked article are:

• Saudi Arabia's recent oil deal with China
• Iran's increased oil exports to China.
• An India-China deal to share marketable technologies.
• Bolivia and Ecuador's nationalization programs.
• Venezuela's increased oil exports to China
• Venezuela joining Mercosur, a new economic trading bloc
• Venezuela buying Argentinian debt
• Bolivian trade agreements with Venezuela
• Cuban-Venezuela oil-for-education exchanges
• Cuban medical assistance to Pakistan

All but the last of these are economic linkages. There is no references to American CIA coups or other banana republic imagery. That's a chimera of your imagination.

The only derogatory reference to a specific policy of America is it's support for the International Monetary Fund, a reference to Chomsky's belief that the IMF is a tool for neo-colonialism, and not to covert CIA operations.

 

[Merko]

The implication that Latin America is improved because on one of the many nations there one poor person became president, but America is stratified becaus ein the most recent election, only privileged sons were on the ballot is, as I said before, overly simmplistic and outright false.

I could agree with you that it can be seen as simplistic, seen on its own, but outright false? Certainly not. Besides, you're reading him as though he was stating some general law, which he isn't. It's just a little comment in a short article.

Not particularly. Chomsky's argument, that Latin American democracy is more robust than America falls flat as soon as it is shown that his examination of the facts is absurdly selective.

Excuse me, but why do you think that's his argument? I'm quite sure he would agree that the US democracy is far more robust. The argument here is that the Latin American democracies are improving. Which is very good, according to Chomsky.

So what? Chomsky's assertion is that America opposes Morales, and that's just not true.

It is just true. Morales' opponent, during the presidential campaign, frequently threatened voters that an election of Morales would cause US aid to be withdrawn, and this wa[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]s c[/FONT]onfirmed by the US Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Otto Reich: "We do not believe we could have normal relations with someone who espouses these kinds of policies." And the US Ambassador Manuel Rocha: "I want to remind the Bolivian electorate that if they vote for those who want Bolivia to return to exporting cocaine, that will seriously jeopardise any future aid to Bolivia from the United States."[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT]
The reference to cocaine was of course part of the scare campaign against Morales, who argues the right to grow coca for its wide customary Bolivian use outside of cocaine production.

The US meddling has, with hindsight, widely been characterised as a gross mistake, actually boosting Morales' popularity. After the elections, it also appears that the US may not actually carry out the threats, although there may be some 'repercussions'.

But Chomsky's article isn't even trying to explain this phenomenon. Now you're just reading content into the article that isn't there. (The very tendency in both Chomsky's supporters and detractors that I mentioned!)

You're offering your interpretation, I'm offering mine.

Well, except that his article presumes the cause of their pursuit of nuclear materials would be caused by their "credible" belief that the US and Israel are going to attack them. He ignores other causes, for example, Iran's desire to expand its influence over tis neighbors through political and military intimidation.

So? These other imaginable causes are not relevant in that context. Do you deny that there is a credible belief that the US and/or Israel may launch a preemptive strike against Iran?
Do you deny that the rational fear against such a first strike would serve as a strong motivation for Iran to actually develop nukes, while they still have time?

And you'd have to be blind not to see that those threats are tied to Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Chomsky's argument is implicitly circular: Iran pursues nukes because Israel and the US threatened Iran if they pursue nukes.

No, you're making a huge mistake here. It is not Chomsky's arguments that are circular, it's the political reality. Which is frequently the case. Yes, the US and Israel are threatening Iran with a first strike, based on the fear that they may develop nuclear weapons. Yes, this is a very compelling argument for Iran to actually develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Yes, this is a circular chain of events. You can't blame that on Chomsky!

Except that his discussiong of Latin independence are all about how Latin countries are diversifying their trade!

Ok, sorry, I missed that link. Well, are they diversifying their trade, or are they not? If they are, does that not imply that they are becoming less reliant on the US, as Chomsky argues?

 

[marksman]

I could agree with you that it can be seen as simplistic, seen on its own, but outright false?

Yes, it is outright false. He unfavorably compares AMerican and Latin politics because one Latin election had a lower-class candidate and one AMerican election did not. And yet he does nto recognize that the prior American President was himself from the lower class. His analogy was flase and transparently so, to anybody who would think abotu it cirtically.

Certainly not. Besides, you're reading him as though he was stating some general law, which he isn't. It's just a little comment in a short article.

But that's the point. All his articles are "short little articles" with "little comments". That's one of the ways he can get away with shoddy research and vague innuendo.

Excuse me, but why do you think that's his argument? I'm quite sure he would agree that the US democracy is far more robust.

No, he wouldn't because that's what he wrote!

In the 2004 U.S. presidential election, voters had a choice between two men born to wealth and privilege, who attended the same elite university, joined the same secret society where young men are trained to join the ruling class and were able to run in the election because they were supported by pretty much the same conglomerations of private power. Their programs were similar, consistent with the needs of their primary constituency: wealth and privilege.

For contrast, consider Bolivia and Evo Morales' election last December.​

He is favorably contrasting the Bolivian election of working man Morales with the American election between Kerry and Bush. If he thought the AMerican democracy was robust, the contrast makes no sense. Either he believes the Bolivian democracy is more robust than America's or he's making a nonsensical argument. Either way, he's wrong.

The argument here is that the Latin American democracies are improving.

No, the argument is that Latin America is improving while America stagnates. Otherwise, there is no reaosn to bring America into the discussion in a comarative fashion.

It is just true. Morales' opponent, during the presidential campaign, frequently threatened voters that an election of Morales would cause US aid to be withdrawn, and this wa[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]s c[/FONT]onfirmed by the US Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Otto Reich: "We do not believe we could have normal relations with someone who espouses these kinds of policies." And the US Ambassador Manuel Rocha: "I want to remind the Bolivian electorate that if they vote for those who want Bolivia to return to exporting cocaine, that will seriously jeopardise any future aid to Bolivia from the United States."[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT]

The article was written in October 2006, ten months after the blog you cited. ANd the only cut was to military aid for Bolivia. Why? Because the military aid was to cut coca production, which Bolivia no longer wants to do.

Has economic aid to Bolivia been substantively cut? Has financial aid? Does Chomsky even bother to support his assertions, or is he relying on defenders liek you to do it for him?

You're offering your interpretation, I'm offering mine.

Which is because Chomsky doesn't really say anything or support the things he says.

You seem to think I'm criticizing his conclusions. I'm not. I'm criticising his argumentation and his research.

So?

SO it renders the argument circular.

These other imaginable causes are not relevant in that context. Do you deny that there is a credible belief that the US and/or Israel may launch a preemptive strike against Iran?

I deny that Iran's nuclear rpogram is caused by credible threat against Iran if they pursue a nuclear program, which is the necessary assumption of Chomsky's poorly articulated argument.

It is not Chomsky's arguments that are circular, it's the political reality.

Are you serious?! Chomsky is relying on an inherently fallacious reasoning for Iran when a perfectly consistent one exists: Iran's own ambitions in the region that are not at all related to Israel.

Yes, this is a circular chain of events. You can't blame that on Chomsky!

I can blame him for buying such a nonsensical argument. It requires us to believe that Iran is idiotic even though a reasonable explanation exists.

Well, are they diversifying their trade, or are they not?

Who cares, since my criticism has nothing to do with that aspect of the article. That was your ridiculous rebuttal.

If they are, does that not imply that they are becoming less reliant on the US, as Chomsky argues?

That's not my criticism!!! My criticism is that America's influence over Asia is tightening, not lessening, thanks to Chin's ascendancy, and that his examples of "Latin America's" independence is limited to two nations: Venezuela and Bolivia, totally ignoring the deepening ties that have been occurring over the same period with the rest of Latin America.

I am not criticizing his political bent, but his shoddy research, his selective use of facts and his astoundingly ppoor grasp of history. It amazes me that in that article, he claims that China(!) has been in America's grip since World War II, even though America and China fought a proxy war in Korea in the 1950's and Viet Nam in the 1960's.

Even more astounding is when people will ignore these glaring hisotircal issues in his defense.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Even more astounding is when people will ignore these glaring hisotircal issues in his defense.

This syndrome reminds me of how the feminists leapt to the defense, or to the sudden silence on, their guy: Bill "cheat on my wife" Clinton. The behavior has the same pathology. (Damnit, let's not start sounding like Chomsky.)

DR

 

[Merko]

Yes, it is outright false.

Morales comes from a poor background. Bush and Kerry are from rich families. Chomsky's comparison is thus outright true. Your interpretation to make this into some sort of general law is yours, not Chomsky's. Of course you can invent false theories if you want to. Don't do that.

All his articles are "short little articles" with "little comments".

No, they are not. Personally I find the short commentaries of little interest, because as you say, they offer few facts. The analysis, I can perform myself, and as I usually agree with Chomsky I find little interest in his.

He is favorably contrasting the Bolivian election of working man Morales with the American election between Kerry and Bush. If he thought the AMerican democracy was robust, the contrast makes no sense.

Nonsense. First, what does the wealth of presidents have to do with robustness? Chomsky often praises the high level of political freedom in the USA, and I believe he also sometimes contrasts it favourably with other strong democracies, such as the European ones.

It's a bit difficult to find quotes on such obvious subjects, but here is one: "Take the US, which has been as free as any, since its origins."

(incidentally, this interview also seems to definitely counter Skeptic's theory that Chomsky would be a Marxist)

Either he believes the Bolivian democracy is more robust than America's or he's making a nonsensical argument.

Or he's comparing the Bolivian democracy to a well known standard, which happens to be his own, and which is therefore always relevant - especially when the audience is also overwhelmingly American.

Has economic aid to Bolivia been substantively cut? Has financial aid?

So if I threaten to kill your dog and your wife, and then I actually only spray graffiti on your mailbox, it would be untrue to claim that I oppose you?

I deny that Iran's nuclear rpogram is caused by credible threat against Iran if they pursue a nuclear program, which is the necessary assumption of Chomsky's poorly articulated argument.

The assumption is that that would be a contributing cause, not necessarily the sole cause. Need for determent is a commonly accepted cause for nuclear weapons development. I believe it is commonly held that all states that have developed nuclear weapons so far, have done it for this reason. You don't seem to offer any support for your alternative theory for why Iran would develop nuclear weapons for any different reason, much less any support for the theory that it would be the only reason. You're on the fringe here, Chomsky is merely recycling commonly accepted knowledge.

Are you serious?! Chomsky is relying on an inherently fallacious reasoning for Iran when a perfectly consistent one exists: Iran's own ambitions in the region that are not at all related to Israel.

Perfectly consistent?! I think that is a raving mad theory, but you're entitled to it of course. How would nuclear weapons promote Iran's ambitions in this way? Why would Iran be the only country that did not realise the value of nukes for determent? Is it really just a coincidence that the nuclear developments of Iran and North Korea happen just after Bush changes the 'no first strike' doctrine and sets out on a mission to topple unsympathetic governments?

That's not my criticism!!! My criticism is that America's influence over Asia is tightening, not lessening, thanks to Chin's ascendancy, and that his examples of "Latin America's" independence is limited to two nations: Venezuela and Bolivia, totally ignoring the deepening ties that have been occurring over the same period with the rest of Latin America.

Are you kidding? Do I need links to show you how the Bush administration's least favourite candidates also have come to power in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Nicaragua? Well, those are just mentioned off the top of my head - I started checking out with Uruguay which also qualifies, but hey - do your own research.

 

[Merko]

This syndrome reminds me of how the feminists leapt to the defense, or to the sudden silence on, their guy: Bill "cheat on my wife" Clinton. The behavior has the same pathology. (Damnit, let's not start sounding like Chomsky.)

Uh, it's Conservatives, not Feminists, who make it an issue of national importance if someone is eternally faithful in their union under God, or not.

I'm sure there are some 'conservative feminists' too who would stress family values as the number one issue on the feminist agenda, but I dare say that most feminists would consider this an issue between Clinton and his wife, even if indicative of a chauvinist culture where 'conquering' women is an accepted social norm.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Uh, it's Conservatives, not Feminists, who make it an issue of national importance if someone is eternally faithful in their union under God, or not.

I'm sure there are some 'conservative feminists' too who would stress family values as the number one issue on the feminist agenda, but I dare say that most feminists would consider this an issue between Clinton and his wife, even if indicative of a chauvinist culture where 'conquering' women is an accepted social norm.

You are aware, I hope, that the dalliances of WJ Clinton were not confined to a knobber in the Oval Office from a groupie. (IMO, that dalliance was most definitely something for Hill and Bill to handle in private. Monica was a willing accomplice in the philandering.) The more serious charges/cases were two sexual harassment bits (Paula Jones and Cathleen Willey) that presented ample chance for feminists to speak out and pillory their boy.

The silence was deafening, particularly when compared to the screech attacks on Clarence Thomas.

The Gennifer Flowers affair, on the other hand, clearly established the hypocrisy of the feminists in Democrats clothing in 1992. It was a reasonablly well documented affair, not refuted, and the voters simply chose to overlook it. Some of us were of the opinion that Ms Flowers revelation, in Penthouse, regarding WJC's enthusiastic pursuit of cunnilingus added to his appeal, and his vote count, but we'll never know.

In any case, Wilbur Mills wept.

DR

 

[marksman]

Morales comes from a poor background. Bush and Kerry are from rich families. Chomsky's comparison is thus outright true.

But disingenuous because it takes such an insanely selective sample.

He is arbitrarily comparing one election in Latin America and one election in the US and making general observations from them.

No, they are not.

Have you read his books and determined whether they are the product of historical research? I have. His books are like his articles. Glib conclusions with little to know factual basis, that takes facts out of context, refuses to deal with contrary facts and then wraps it up in eminently quotable prose.

Again, I don't care about his politics, but his research is abysmal and his arguments poorly constructed.

Personally I find the short commentaries of little interest, because as you say, they offer few facts. The analysis, I can perform myself, and as I usually agree with Chomsky I find little interest in his.

But if his facts are badly researched and not placed into proper context, what use is it?

Nonsense. First, what does the wealth of presidents have to do with robustness?

Ask Chomsky.

So if I threaten to kill your dog and your wife, and then I actually only spray graffiti on your mailbox, it would be untrue to claim that I oppose you?

What? When did America threaten to kill Morales's dog or wife?

Need for determent is a commonly accepted cause for nuclear weapons development.

But the deterrent need exist before the program. If someone pursues a program and is then threatened, the threat cannot cause the program! It's basic temproral physics. Iran begins pursuing a program and izs then threatened. Now Chomsky says the threats caused the program to exist in the first place! It's historical revisionism at best.

You don't seem to offer any support for your alternative theory for why Iran would develop nuclear weapons for any different reason

You don't believe Iran has political ambitions in the area?

Here is a brief article detailing some of Iran's activities in expanding its sphere of influence recently. However, this has been a consitent pattern of behavior by the radical Shia regime since the overthrow of the Shah. One would never know about this from Chomsky's articles because, although he often discusses Iran he has never, to my knowledge, acknowledged that Iran's regional ambitions predate any implicit or explicit threat against them by Israel.

You're on the fringe here, Chomsky is merely recycling commonly accepted knowledge.

I don't accept your definition of "fringe" or "accepted". Heck, I don't have any basis to accept your definition of "knowledge" since you don't seem to have any understanding of Iran's history.

Is it really just a coincidence that the nuclear developments of Iran and North Korea happen just after Bush changes the 'no first strike' doctrine and sets out on a mission to topple unsympathetic governments?

Are you insane? North Korea's nuclear developments have been going on since the 1990's! Iran has been pursuing nukes since the Ford Administration and continued to do so even after the US withdrew its support.

Do I need links to show you how the Bush administration's least favourite candidates also have come to power in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Nicaragua?

No, you need to show that America is defined by the Bush adminsitration. The article I cited -- which was published before Chomsky's article on the subject -- clearly shows that many aspects of the US government seeks closer ties and is friendly to these regimes. You, like Chomsky, oversimplify the entire political map and ignore inconvenient complexities.