Google Mail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
Chomsky's accuracy
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  Messages 26 - 50 of 144 - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals) < Older  Newer >
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Follow-up To:
Add Cc | Add Follow-up to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers that you hear
 
NRN Consulting  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 1 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: n...@enteract.com (NRN Consulting)
Date: 2000/07/01
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
In article <OW975.1492$I76.104...@monger.newsread.com>,

John Filiss <jfil...@bestweb.net> wrote:

>No, we formed a Worker's Council and traveled around the world to work in
>different fabs so we could avoid Marxist alienation from the product of our
>labor.  Unfortunately, Moore foolishly lapsed into reactivism, and is trying
>to run an antiquated SGI MIPS, prior to SGI's betrayal to the
>counter-revolutionary IA-64 from Intel.  His weak MIPS enables only the most
>pitiful graphics work.  I went to Dresden to get a heroic new Thunderbird
>Athlon with powerful FPU for robust rendering capabilities.

>John Filiss
>The Anarchy Board
>http://pub5.ezboard.com/btheanarchyboard

You've got too much time on your hands and your board sucks.

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Ignatz Mouse  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 1 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: Ignatz Mouse <edix5...@my-deja.com>
Date: 2000/07/01
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
In article <slocscg5je...@corp.supernews.com>,
  Matt <matth2...@my-deja.com> wrote:

I appreciate all the info on the debates. I didn't realize that it
wasn't some sort of print debate or in an official setting. I went
through the stuff portaugust posted about Donald, Chomsky and Clore on
the topic. I'm inclined to side with Chomsky. Donald seems to be
working too hard to try to impress someone to me. I hadn't really
looked at Clore's stuff, which I guess is pretty comprehensive. I've
read alot about the issue of Cambodia concerning Chomsky's and Herman's
work in the print media and haven't seen them really lose any arguments
there about what they wrote. I'll try to take some time to go through
as much of that stuff as possible to see if there is anything new being
brought to light.
Chomsky's response was interesting. He was glib as usual, but I wonder
why he felt the need to respond to something written on the internet. I
would gather from that response, that he probably doesn't spend much
time in this newsgroup.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
John Filiss  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 1 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: "John Filiss" <jfil...@bestweb.net>
Date: 2000/07/01
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy

"NRN Consulting" <n...@enteract.com> wrote in message

news:8jjgha$1ogt$1@news.enteract.com...

I always appreciate constructive and intelligent criticism.

I'm glad the board doesn't appeal to you.

John Filiss
The Anarchy Board
http://pub5.ezboard.com/btheanarchyboard


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Dan Clore  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 2 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org>
Date: 2000/07/02
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy

I don't think you understand what Herman was saying there. You might
want to go back over this again, and maybe check _Manufacturing Consent_
on the subject of "flak".

--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore

The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm

"Tho-ag in Zhi-gyu slept seven Khorlo. Zodmanas
zhiba. All Nyug bosom. Konch-hog not; Thyan-Kam
not; Lha-Chohan not; Tenbrel Chugnyi not;
Dharmakaya ceased; Tgenchang not become; Barnang
and Ssa in Ngovonyidj; alone Tho-og Yinsin in
night of Sun-chan and Yong-grub (Parinishpanna),
&c., &c.,"
-- The Book of Dzyan.


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Dan Clore  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 2 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org>
Date: 2000/07/02
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy

He doesn't spend any time on newsgroups. He does respond when this stuff
is brought to his attention at the ChomskyChat forum:
www.lbbs.org

--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore

The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm

"Tho-ag in Zhi-gyu slept seven Khorlo. Zodmanas
zhiba. All Nyug bosom. Konch-hog not; Thyan-Kam
not; Lha-Chohan not; Tenbrel Chugnyi not;
Dharmakaya ceased; Tgenchang not become; Barnang
and Ssa in Ngovonyidj; alone Tho-og Yinsin in
night of Sun-chan and Yong-grub (Parinishpanna),
&c., &c.,"
-- The Book of Dzyan.


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Ignatz Mouse  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 3 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: Ignatz Mouse <edix5...@my-deja.com>
Date: 2000/07/03
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
In article <395F8EC2....@columbia-center.org>,

While I haven't gone through everything posted on this topic about the
debates, what I have seen so far is not convincing. It seems to me that
the detractors of Chomsky on Cambodia want him to admit that there were
massive atrocities in Khmer Rouge Cambodia that were nearly as bad as
the media reported. They want him to cry uncle (sam). There's also a
lot of name calling, like left fascist, etc. Many people try to relate
other works by Chomsky into the argument, for instance the worthiness
of the propaganda model. Seems like a bit of jealousy, that the left
(and the anarchists) have a popular spokesman who needs to be cut down
to size. I don't think that it will hurt Chomsky's reputation.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Charles P. Kalina  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 3 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: Charles P. Kalina <ckal...@capaccess.org>
Date: 2000/07/03
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
In article <8jotr6$m5...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Ignatz Mouse <edix5...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> While I haven't gone through everything posted on this topic about the
> debates, what I have seen so far is not convincing. It seems to me
> that
> the detractors of Chomsky on Cambodia want him to admit that there
> were
> massive atrocities in Khmer Rouge Cambodia that were nearly as bad as
> the media reported. They want him to cry uncle (sam).

To judge by the title, this thread concerns Chomsky's accuracy, yes?

Therefore, the relevant question is whether his comments about post-war
Cambodia were accurate or not.  If they were not correct, then he
should acknowledge his earlier mistake and correct the error.  If he
doesn't, then it's fair to say that he is not accurate -- which is
evidence that he is not a credible commentator.

There were indeed massive atrocities in Khmer Rouge Cambodia;  media
reports at the time may have contained minor errors but were
substantively correct.  If Chomsky perceives it as defeat ("crying
uncle") to admit this fact, that's his problem.

[...]

> Seems like a bit of jealousy, that the left
> (and the anarchists) have a popular spokesman who needs to be cut down
> to size.

Chomsky can hardly be described as a "popular spokesman".  He is not
exactly well-known outside certain intellectual and academic circles,
and among those who do know his work, he finds more detractors than
admirers.

He provides intellectual ammunition and affirmation for a certain
subset of the far left, and among such persons he is no doubt very
popular, but I don't think he convinces many people who didn't already
share his view of the world.  Indeed, his work has become so repetitive
and self-referential that I think affirmation can be its only use.

To say that Chomsky is expected to "cry uncle" implies that his
commentary is substantively accurate, but that he is nonetheless
expected to surrender to some sort of ideological force-majeure.

Certainly one can understand why he (and his partisans) would try to
frame the debate in such favorable terms.  Nevertheless, it begs the
question:  is his commentary generally accurate, or not?

The fact remains that Chomsky has been a poor judge of foreign regimes,
his comments on the Khmer Rouge being only the most grotesque
instance.  Frankly I don't care whether he admits this ("cries uncle")
or not -- old men are entitled to their snits and quibbles.

What interests me is the devotion he inspires among his acolytes
despite this evident lack of judgment and (ahem) accuracy.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Adam Bayliss  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 3 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: Adam Bayliss <rabayl...@students.wisc.edu>
Date: 2000/07/03
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy

Speaking of framing the debate notice the attempt to exclude the
importance of US involvement with the term post war, as if pre-1975
Cambodia did not exist.  Chomsky's comments about Cambodia pertained to
a critique of media reports.  He did not make any error with these
critiques, the media had lied and made repeated mistakes.
> If they were not correct, then he
> should acknowledge his earlier mistake and correct the error.  If he
> doesn't, then it's fair to say that he is not accurate -- which is
> evidence that he is not a credible commentator.

He certainly has, in every way, acknowledged the brutality of the KR (I
am pretty sure I can find a dozen or so quote pointing this fact out).
It seems that the one statement anti-chomskyites see as easy pickins' is
his 1977 Nation bit.  In this case he relied on evidence provided by
credible sources.  
> There were indeed massive atrocities in Khmer Rouge Cambodia;  media
> reports at the time may have contained minor errors but were
> substantively correct.  

Had 2 million to 3 million people been killed by the KR in 1977?  Were
atrocity photographs not faked?  Did the US press not downplay the
effect of bombing campaigns?  The press was relying on falsified
evidence to make their conclusions.  Should Chomsky have accepted the
conclusions of a media that was using falsified, and erroneous evidence?

>If Chomsky perceives it as defeat ("crying
> uncle") to admit this fact, that's his problem.

How odd.  Chomsky admits the KR were brutal, but denies that this
affects his thesis about the media's portrayal of the events in
Cambodia.  His conclusions are clearly supported by fact: the media did
fake photos, exaggerate numbers without evidence, and downplay the
slaughter in East Timor.  Yet, this newsgroup's ardent critics continue
in their constant silliness of getting him to revoke statements which
were correct, who's trying to get who to say "uncle" here?  

> [...]
> > Seems like a bit of jealousy, that the left
> > (and the anarchists) have a popular spokesman who needs to be cut down
> > to size.

> Chomsky can hardly be described as a "popular spokesman".  He is not
> exactly well-known outside certain intellectual and academic circles,
> and among those who do know his work, he finds more detractors than
> admirers.

This is true, his circle is limited to those who read the New York
Times, who refer to him as "possibly the most important intellectual of
our time."  As for detractors, every great mind is sure to find more
than are countable (it is the sign that you are doing something right).
You will find that outside America, Chomsky is widely respected, as for
America itself, Mozart never caught on in Salzburg until after his
death.

> He provides intellectual ammunition and affirmation for a certain
> subset of the far left, and among such persons he is no doubt very
> popular, but I don't think he convinces many people who didn't already
> share his view of the world.  Indeed, his work has become so repetitive
> and self-referential that I think affirmation can be its only use.

Unlike your statements here, which offer nothing more than your personal
opinion, Chomsky relies on something more substantive.

> To say that Chomsky is expected to "cry uncle" implies that his
> commentary is substantively accurate, but that he is nonetheless
> expected to surrender to some sort of ideological force-majeure.

> Certainly one can understand why he (and his partisans) would try to
> frame the debate in such favorable terms.  Nevertheless, it begs the
> question:  is his commentary generally accurate, or not?

> The fact remains that Chomsky has been a poor judge of foreign regimes,

You cite his critique of the media's handling of Cambodia (your attacks
are in dispute), perhaps you wish to offer another "foreign regime" in
which you find Chomsky's account deficient?

>  Frankly I don't care whether he admits this ("cries uncle")
> or not -- old men are entitled to their snits and quibbles.

...as are young men to their youthful arrogance.

> What interests me is the devotion he inspires among his acolytes
> despite this evident lack of judgment and (ahem) accuracy.

How fitting to your above comments, that the term "accuracy" might cause
your speech to falter.

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
NRN Consulting  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 6 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: n...@enteract.com (NRN Consulting)
Date: 2000/07/06
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
In article <rNl75.1589$I76.114...@monger.newsread.com>,

John Filiss <jfil...@bestweb.net> wrote:

>I always appreciate constructive and intelligent criticism.

You also enjoy talking to yourself.

>I'm glad the board doesn't appeal to you.

I'm sure I'm in good company, Mr. "Anarchist."

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
James A. Donald  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 8 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
Date: 2000/07/08
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
    --
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 19:43:19 GMT, "John Filiss" <jfil...@bestweb.net>
wrote:

> There seems to be a pretty good body of literature on both sides concerning
> Chomsky's accuracy, or lack of it, on the matter of the Khmer Rouge and
> atrocities in Cambodia.  I'm curious to know if there are similar debates
> going on regarding any of Chomsky's other, extensive writings on foreign
> policy.

I have never read anything truthful by Chomsky.  Even when he is
making a case for something that is perfectly true, for example that
Ustashi were really bad guys, he uses made up facts and fraudulent
citations in support of that position.

Cambodia is however a convenient tree to nail him to, because of the
infamous U turn on Cambodia that the left committed when the Soviet
line changed, just as we nailed earlier generation of commies onto
their U turn on Hitler.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     naN4sfts3KBXmUIlhB4budWYFOt7VEgIjeT6kNmI
     4RqaGOIvy+VN70OyIr5NFYIQNPo42Bu4FwP7UPkOc

  ------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
James A. Donald  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 8 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
Date: 2000/07/08
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
    --
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 18:47:04 GMT, "John Filiss" <jfil...@bestweb.net>
wrote:

> Which is why I want to know of other critiques of Chomsky's
> perspective on world affairs.  I'd like to know what sort of footing
> he's really on.

Chomsky committed equally wacky errors on North Vietnam, which he
depicted as a democracy and in large part a participatory democracy,
while depicting Thailand as a totalitarian terror state.  He defended
non communist regimes, regimes that murdered anyone vaguely to the
left, when those regimes were aligned with the Soviet Union, and
condemned when they changed alliance.  He supported the communist
aggression against Greece.  He produced rationalizations for the
Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia, and all the justifications he
produced for all these things were like his works on Cambodia, phony
facts and twisted citations.

The only difference is that there are lots of people even today who
will defend his position on North Vietnam etc, but after 1979 when the
Soviet Union changed its line, no one, not even Chomsky himself, will
defend the position he took on Cambodia.  Instead of defending his
position, he lies about his position, claiming that his post 1979
position was also his pre 1979 position.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     CvYnp8AQLrR9DqIwTdcCp68mZYMic21JBZEg2lvt
     4aq13pwqRZ+t0w6Yfl4lZu5foAoeH1ha0oN+abW10

  ------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
James A. Donald  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 8 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
Date: 2000/07/08
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
    --
On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 01:45:47 -0400, Matt <matth2...@my-deja.com>
wrote:

> Of course, he can find them in Deja--when it's working and if he's
> willing to look. Meantime, here is a large concatenation of posts I
> saved from early spring:

> http://people.bu.edu/mfhill/Clore-KalinaFeb-2000.txt

This concatenation represents the end of a debate, rather than the
beginning.  People simply assert their positions, in quick summary
form, over and over.

> This is a good deal of material there.  David Friedman reviewed it and
> offered the following concise account of a major problem in Chomsky's
> work on Cambodia.  I couldn't get it from Deja, but luckily it was saved
> in my Internet Explorer scrapbook:

> http://people.bu.edu/mfhill/DonaldvChomsky.txt.

In which David Friedman, in his very polite and pleasant manner,
accuses Chomsky of falsifying the evidence.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     9y6GECumUQ26H3GpjmAH0FgtCgqBeAGAy6WjT3jw
     43LzbIbNfiLs5AM76Rr1skEutIbzkCc5mBjUY/0PV

  ------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
James A. Donald  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 8 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
Date: 2000/07/08
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
    --
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 18:09:26 -0500, Adam Bayliss

<rabayl...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
> Speaking of framing the debate notice the attempt to exclude the
> importance of US involvement with the term post war, as if pre-1975
> Cambodia did not exist.  Chomsky's comments about Cambodia pertained
> to a critique of media reports.  He did not make any error with
> these critiques, the media had lied and made repeated mistakes.

Chomsky lied about the media, just as he lied about what was happening
in Cambodia, and lied about what evidence was available for what was
happening in Cambodia.

Shawcross gives an account of world reaction to the holocaust by
governments, mass media, the radical left, and Chomsky in particular,
and an account of what evidence was available, and when it became
available:
<http://catalog.com/jamesd/shawcross.htm>

Compare Shawcross's account with Chomsky's account
<http://catalog.com/jamesd/chomsdis.htm>

Shawcross's account is diametrically opposite to Chomsky's account on
almost every issue.

Which is more likely:  That Shawcross is lying to support a war that
he opposed, or that Chomsky is lying to support totalitarian terror?

Further, we can easily check many of Shawcross's points.  I have done
so.  The events in Cambodia were massively under reported.  Many in
the western press did not want to hear the news, and sought to
discredit and deny it.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     Jcc3ysOlmOtIlM6/VWs3z32KmYJ0hD+2/E1maF51
     4HRxl3jogj0S0pYV8CNYDkXi8oLS5Uj3f4HYZWC4h

  ------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
James A. Donald  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 8 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
Date: 2000/07/08
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
    --

Stephen Denney wrote:
> > In the June 25, 1977 _Nation_ review-essay ("Distortions at Fourth Hand")
> > Chomsky co-authored with Edward Herman, they said:
> >  In the Chomsky Chat commentary forwarded by Adam Bayliss a few weeks ago
> > (which got this whole discussion thread rolling), Chomsky claimed that
> > despite their greatest efforts his critics could find nothing incorrect or
> > misleading in what he and Herman wrote on the Khmer Rouge.

On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:08:34 -0400, Brian Siano

<bsi...@cceb.med.upenn.edu> wrote:
> Nothing controversial here: C & H are reporting on what experts
> were saying at the time.

Chomsky and Herman were lying about what experts were saying at the
time.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     pvpCiAt2km6CWCh0y8lf30oPFsm7UlUTQPajDEAc
     4iZD6s6qGZ6L6ipr1Lqp83mmTI2p6B9gYWqcB/d4y

  ------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
James A. Donald  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 8 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky, alt.anarchism, soc.culture.cambodia
From: jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
Date: 2000/07/08
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
    --
On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 07:47:37 GMT, Dan Clore

<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> Depends on what "roughly on the scale of what actually occurred" means.
> Total deaths caused by the Khmer Rouge are estimated (scholarly
> estimates based on population figures) at anywhere from 600,000 to 1.7
> million.

This rather like claiming that scholarly estimates of the murder of
the jews by the nazis range from six hundred thousand to four million.

There are no scholarly estimates lower than 1.5 million, and the 1.5
million figure and similar lowball figures come from communist
scholars.  

Vickery is the source for the six hundred thousand figure, and he
falsifies his citations even more flagrantly and outrageously than
Chomsky.  Vickery is a scholar in the same sense as Irving and Chomsky
are scholars.  Vickery does not attribute that six hundred thousand to
Pol Pot, but to hardship caused by the US bombing, undisciplined
troops taking revenge contrary to Pol Pots generous and mild orders,
spontaneous peasant outrage, and internal warfare caused by lack of
adequate central discipline.

For a discussion of one of Vickery's more infamous falsified citations
see <http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=640861360>
See also <http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=640603767>, and
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=640694477>

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     2V8QvFcp37ZhifPYLzs5vrW+Pe1yv275qrDYcJHz
     4b1OqduZbpOkd+2C2nhxhbVcpkO+vzNf1X4OzZ4Sp

  ------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Tobold Rollo  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 8 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky, alt.anarchism, soc.culture.cambodia
From: "Tobold Rollo" <tro...@sprint.ca>
Date: 2000/07/08
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy

> Vickery is the source for the six hundred thousand figure, and he
> falsifies his citations even more flagrantly and outrageously than
> Chomsky.  Vickery is a scholar in the same sense as Irving and Chomsky
> are scholars.  Vickery does not attribute that six hundred thousand to
> Pol Pot, but to hardship caused by the US bombing, undisciplined
> troops taking revenge contrary to Pol Pots generous and mild orders,
> spontaneous peasant outrage, and internal warfare caused by lack of
> adequate central discipline.

    I wonder how Jimmy MacD would fair in a formal public debate with
Chomsky. Looks like Chomsky would be humiliated by James' extensive
knowledge of the issues.

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
James A. Donald  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 9 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
Date: 2000/07/09
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
    --
On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 11:00:35 -0500, Adam Bayliss

<rabayl...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
> It has always been very important since it is the thrust of
> Chomsky's stance in ATC.  James argues that Chomsky's attempt to
> point out flaws in the media's account is nothing more than
> communist sympathizing, despite the fact that these critiques are
> inarguable fact (many authors revised their work after Chomsky pointed out their inconsistencies).

But these inconsistencies were inconsequential.  Chomsky is like those
holocaust revisionists who make a big deal out of the absence of a
blue stain on the walls of such and such a gas chamber, and argue that
therefore the holocaust of the jews never happened.

As Lacouture pointed out when he corrected his errors, these errors
did not significantly alter the big picture of mass murder, terror,
and universal slavery with many slaves treated with appalling cruelty.
Before and after these corrections, Lacouture's work still projects
the same entirely accurate picture of Cambodia, and Chomsky's work
projects a wildly false picture of Cambodia.

Yes, Lacouture was careless about details.  But he relying on sources
that were very careful about details, and the overall picture he gave
of those sources was accurate

Further, why make a big deal about inaccuracies that do not change the
overall picture, when Chomsky's work contains inaccuracies that
radically change the picture.  An inaccuracy that does not change the
story is an error.  An inaccuracy that radically reverses the story is
a lie.  Lacouture erred.  Chomsky lied.

As I have been saying, compare Shawcross's account of what was known,
what was said, with Chomsky's account of what was known, what was
said, compare
<http://catalog.com/jamesd/shawcross.htm>
with Chomsky's account
<http://catalog.com/jamesd/chomsdis.htm>

One of them has to be knowingly lying.  They cannot both be sincerely
telling what they honestly believe to be the truth.

We can check out Chomsky's citations, they are deceptive.  We can
check out Shawcross's citations.  They are accurate.

For example Chomsky leads the reader to believe that Hildebrand and
Porter presented a neutral evaluation of observations by neutral
observers, when in reality they were merely mouthpieces for official
Khmer propaganda. Chomsky and Herman lie about the evidence presented
by Ponchaud, claiming it was second hand, and implying that it was
extorted by fear from refugees who were forced to tell Ponchaud that
which they imply he wished to hear.  Chomsky and Herman also denied
the existence of direct observation of the tortured bodies of murdered
women and children by outsider who saw these bodies near the border.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     QQMR0jsBbXUqdilEiDc5+MC1xCij3P33RN3Cpc/u
     4ZqcDrtnMMGZKNE0zSg23c1T6IiCBX0ioEsxNoLrj

  ------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Charles P. Kalina  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 11 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: Charles P. Kalina <ckal...@capaccess.org>
Date: 2000/07/11
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
In article <39611D26.79E4A...@students.wisc.edu>,
  Adam Bayliss <rabayl...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:

> "Charles P. Kalina" wrote:
> > Therefore, the relevant question is whether his comments about post-
war
> > Cambodia were accurate or not.
> Speaking of framing the debate notice the attempt to exclude the
> importance of US involvement with the term post war, as if pre-1975
> Cambodia did not exist.

If you'd like to discuss Chomsky's comments on Cambodian events prior
to 1975, fine.  I'm not trying to exclude any disucssion of such
issues -- in fact, I don't think his judgment during the war was any
better than his judgment after it.

However, I was addressing his specific misjudgment of the Khmer Rouge
regime.  Since the Khmer Rouge took power after the war, I referred to
this as "post-war Cambodia".

> Chomsky's comments about Cambodia pertained to
> a critique of media reports.

His critique of the media contained, both logically and in fact, an
assertion regarding the facts in post-war Cambodia.  When you accuse
someone of lying, you are implicitly asserting an alternative version
of the truth (even if only a very general assertion that the truth is
something other than what the alleged liar says).

Chomsky's technique was to establish a set of alleged facts by
selecting certain sources.  The major media did not report these facts,
or contradicted them;  therefore media reports were false (and guided
by ideology rather than fact).

The problem is that he gave no good reason why we should believe his
sources were more credible than the mass media.  Otherwise his argument
worked just as well in reverse:  instead of using his sources to
discredit the mass media, we could use the mass media to discredit his
sources.

> He did not make any error with these
> critiques, the media had lied and made repeated mistakes.

He didn't even identify more than a handful of specific errors in media
reports about Cambodia.  His demonstrated only that media content
diverged from his preferred sources, but unless we can show that his
sources were more credible, that doesn't constitute evidence of error.

It goes without saying that any major historical event will generate a
certain number of false or exaggerated reports.  No doubt there were
some false or exaggerated reports of Khmer Rouge atrocities, and no
doubt some number of inaccurate reports were accepted as fact by the
western press because they were consistent with the weight of evidence
available.

Even if Chomsky could identify specific errors, it would not be
reasonable to generalize (as he does) to media coverage of Cambodia as
a whole, still less to media behavior generally.

By analogy:  While it's widely believed that the Nazis made soap out of
human corpses, apparently they never actually did.  It would be obvious
nonsense to argue on this basis that all evidence for the Holocaust is
likewise open to question -- nor could we argue that the absence of
such inquiry is evidence of a sinister hegemony.

Of course, there are revisionists who make just such arguments.  My
contention is that Chomsky's argument is essentially identical, which
is why I feel it's appropriate to call him a revisionist in the
pejorative sense.

[...]

> He certainly has, in every way, acknowledged the brutality of the KR
(I
> am pretty sure I can find a dozen or so quote pointing this fact
out).
> It seems that the one statement anti-chomskyites see as easy pickins'
is
> his 1977 Nation bit.  In this case he relied on evidence provided by
> credible sources.

One of Chomsky's techniques is to offer disclaimers that are at odds
with the substance of his argument.  When he is attacked for the
argument, he points to the disclaimer, and insists he's being
misrepresented.

Thus: I'm sure one can find passages in which Chomsky acknowledges that
the Khmer Rouge are brutal and violent.  Taken in isolation these
quotes would seem to acquit him of the charge that he was a Khmer Rouge
apologist who denied their crimes.

However, in context, his argument was consistently that the Khmer Rouge
were much less brutal and violent than they were reported to be.  One
can thereby be an apologist and denier while still averring, quite
sincerely, that the regime in question was brutal and violent.

Again, Holocaust denial provides a parallel.  Revisionist authors will
routinely intone that the Nazi state was brutal and violent and that it
did kill some large number of Jews.  One could defend these authors by
citing these comments, in isolation, to prove that they are not pro-
Nazi and do not deny the Holocaust.

Yet the substance of these authors' argument is that the Nazis weren't
all that brutal, that they didn't kill that many Jews, that the real
war crimes were committed by the Nazis' enemies, and that we think
otherwise only because of powerful propaganda.  The parallel to
Chomsky's own commentary hardly needs further exploration.

> > There were indeed massive atrocities in Khmer Rouge Cambodia;  media
> > reports at the time may have contained minor errors but were
> > substantively correct.
> Had 2 million to 3 million people been killed by the KR in 1977?

His 1977 article cites no source which claims three million deaths.  He
does cite estimates in the 1-2 million range.  This was not an
unreasonable estimate and it is neither surprising nor sinister that it
was reported in the western press.  It was certainly in the correct
order of magnitude and was far closer than the low-five-figure
estimates Chomsky suggested as alternatives.

To repeat my earlier point:  even if we can point to specific errors,
media reports were substantively correct.  Chomsky's view of the psot-
war regime was substantively wrong.  Khmer Rouge Cambodia was indeed
analogous to Stalin's regime, or Hitler's -- not, as Chomsky tried to
argue, to France after liberation from the Nazis.

> Were atrocity photographs not faked?

I cannot speak to this, as I have not researched the question (and am
not prepared to take Chomsky's word for it).  Nevertheless, even if we
stipulate that some false evidence did surface, we cannot generalize
from that to the evidence as a whole.  We cannot ignore the weight of
valid evidence merely because we find some specific piece of evidence
that isn't valid.

By analogy, Holocaust revisionism doesn't become credible just because
we discover that the Nazis never made soap from human remains.

> The press was relying on falsified evidence to make their
> conclusions.  Should Chomsky have accepted the conclusions of a
> media that was using falsified, and erroneous evidence?

Chomsky never demonstrated that the media's conclusions about Cambodia
were based on false or erroneous evidence.  The most we can say is that
Chomsky drew attention to one or two instances when false evidence
surfaced in the western press.

When one has thousands of pieces of evidence supporting a certain
conclusion, it hardly discredits the conclusion if we discover that one
or two of those pieces are actually false.  Nor does it demonstrate
that people who accepted these erroneous bits of information (e.g. the
news media) were somehow dishonest when they did so.

That is not to say that Chomsky correctly identified errors in media
coverage of Cambodia;  most of the alleged errors were merely instances
when media coverage did not correspond to the information he got from
his preferred sources.

We can quibble whether 1-2 million was a fair estimate in 1977, or a
shade to high.  The fact remains, as I said, that media reports about
post-war Cambodia were substantively correct.  Conversely, Chomsky was
substantively wrong.  The Khmer Rouge did indeed compare to Hitler or
Stalin, not to the French after liberation in 1944, and Chomsky was
wrong to say otherwise.

[...]

> This is true, his circle is limited to those who read the New York
> Times, who refer to him as "possibly the most important intellectual
> of
> our time."

Strange:  doesn't this falsify the propaganda model?  Chomsky
frequently invokes the New York Times as an example of the alleged
propaganda system at work.  What "elite interest" is served by
describing Chomsky in such favorable terms?

> As for detractors, every great mind is sure to find more
> than are countable (it is the sign that you are doing something
> right).

If having a lot of detractors is the sign you're doing something
right... then how can you tell when you're doing something wrong?

("They laughed at Galileo.  They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.")

[...]

> You cite his critique of the media's handling of Cambodia (your
> attacks
> are in dispute), perhaps you wish to offer another "foreign regime" in
> which you find Chomsky's account deficient?

Previously in this forum, I have explored his treatment of communist
Vietnam (both before and after 1975) at some length.  In fact I think
Vietnam provides a better example of his propaganda technique;  while
Hanoi's crimes were less grotesque than those of the Khmer Rouge,
Chomsky's apologism for the Vietnamese regime was far less equivocal.

Needless to say, many regulars here did not think my comments on his
Vietnam work had merit, so I suppose you may classify this too as "in
dispute".  Readers, as I always say, must judge for themselves.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Matt  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 11 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: Matt <matth2...@my-deja.com>
Date: 2000/07/11
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
In article <8kdokv$h4...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Charles P. Kalina

<ckal...@capaccess.org> wrote:
> Again, Holocaust denial provides a parallel.  Revisionist authors will
> routinely intone that the Nazi state was brutal and violent and that it
> did kill some large number of Jews.  One could defend these authors by
> citing these comments, in isolation, to prove that they are not pro-
> Nazi and do not deny the Holocaust.

> Yet the substance of these authors' argument is that the Nazis weren't
> all that brutal, that they didn't kill that many Jews, that the real
> war crimes were committed by the Nazis' enemies, and that we think
> otherwise only because of powerful propaganda.  The parallel to
> Chomsky's own commentary hardly needs further exploration.

Have you read Irving's _Hitler's War_?  (I think that's the title).  
Based on what I've read of it, it closely resembles Chomsky's work on
Cambodia.

--
Matt
matth2...@my-deja.com


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Charles P. Kalina  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 11 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: Charles P. Kalina <ckal...@capaccess.org>
Date: 2000/07/11
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
In article <sml7mhp0n...@corp.supernews.com>,
  Matt <matth2...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> Have you read Irving's _Hitler's War_?  (I think that's the title).
> Based on what I've read of it, it closely resembles Chomsky's work on
> Cambodia.

Yes, I read _Hitler's War_ about ten years ago.  I've always been
interested in debunkers;  unfortunately, when I was young, I didn't
always have enough experience to distinguish legitimate debunkers from
charlatans.

Chomsky's techniques bear comparison to David Irving's, but I think
there are also some distinctions.  Irving does original research, but
dishonestly manipulates what he finds.  Chomsky does little or no
primary research;  he relies almost entirely on secondary sources, and
the manipulation comes in his source-selection.

In that sense, Chomsky could be compared to an author who wrote about
the Holocaust relying entirely on authors like David Irving (and others
like him).

When Chomsky proves to be wrong (as he was in Cambodia), this allows
defenders (like Mr. Bayliss) to insist that Chomsky was relying on
credible sources.  This shifts the debate from questions of fact to
judgements about source credibility, which are inevitably easier to
fudge and obfuscate, especially in cases where only limited information
was available.

The most precise parallel to Chomsky's work is, IMHO, Stalin's
apologists in the 1920s and 1930s -- the sort of "comfortable
professor" Orwell satirized.  One thinks of the Webbs, for instance,
who insisted that while there had been some hardships and privation in
the Soviet Union, the Ukranian terror-famine was a fabrication of
hostile western propaganda.

I wonder if, later, they had the presence of mind to insist that they
had never denied the existence of the terror-famine and had been
writing only about the attitude of the western press.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Adam Bayliss  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 11 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: Adam Bayliss <rabayl...@students.wisc.edu>
Date: 2000/07/11
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy

Procrustes

wrote:

Sure this is all well and good if you are silly enough to believe that
Chomsky's efforts are synonymous with communist apologia.  Once again,
Chomsky's admission that he is not an expert in policy, and his
continued emphasis on critiquing media methods show that he is not
dismissed as a pure apologist like the Stalinist figures you mention
(who, by the way, were prevalent until Kruschev's speech in 1956).  Your
comparisons are ludicrous and clearly demonstrate your desire to
demonize Chomsky with any cheap shot possible.  Of course, such
comparisons should be expected from individuals lacking scholarly
persistence or credibility.

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Matt  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 11 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: Matt <djaru...@usa.net.invalid>
Date: 2000/07/11
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
In article <396B63D0.AC276...@students.wisc.edu>, Adam Bayliss

<rabayl...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
> Sure this is all well and good if you are silly enough to believe that
> Chomsky's efforts are synonymous with communist apologia.  Once again,
> Chomsky's admission that he is not an expert in policy, and his
> continued emphasis on critiquing media methods show that he is not
> dismissed as a pure apologist like the Stalinist figures you mention
> (who, by the way, were prevalent until Kruschev's speech in 1956).

That doesn't follow.  Your claim would only have merit if Chomsky's
critics denied he said anything about the media.  Chomsky's critics
don't deny this.  Rather, they say his apologia is (often) a part of his
media critique.  Thus evidence of media criticism is not evidence
against his critics.  

Sometimes, however, Chomsky is just a naked apologist for
totalitarianism.  Take for example chapter 5 of _At War with Asia_, in
which he favorably reports state propaganda from the communist
government of North Vietnam.

>  Your
> comparisons are ludicrous and clearly demonstrate your desire to
> demonize Chomsky with any cheap shot possible.  Of course, such
> comparisons should be expected from individuals lacking scholarly
> persistence or credibility.

These are assertions, not arguments, and are obviously false to anyone
who has been reading these threads.

--
Matt (djaru...@usa.net.invalid)
remove "invalid" to email


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Charles P. Kalina  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 12 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: Charles P. Kalina <ckal...@capaccess.org>
Date: 2000/07/12
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
In article <396B63D0.AC276...@students.wisc.edu>,
  Adam Bayliss <rabayl...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:

> Sure this is all well and good if you are silly enough to believe that
> Chomsky's efforts are synonymous with communist apologia.

That was more or less my assertion, yes.  Whether it is "silly" or
accurate -- well, readers can judge for themselves whether the case has
been made.

Of course, I don't expect to convince many of Chomsky's fans in this
forum.  The most I expect is that they may at least understand the
reasons that many people find him less than persuasive.

> Once again,
> Chomsky's admission that he is not an expert in policy, and his
> continued emphasis on critiquing media methods show that he is not
> dismissed as a pure apologist like the Stalinist figures you mention
> (who, by the way, were prevalent until Kruschev's speech in 1956).

"Pure apologist"?  Would it be somehow less damning if we found him to
be an apologist for Stalinism, but only incidentally or imperfectly?

In fact, I don't think Chomsky is an apologist for Stalinism per se.
While I've made the case that he was an apologist for totalitarian
communism, I think this was incidental to his other beliefs and
interests.  It makes no practical difference to our judgment of his
accuracy or credibility, but it does suggest a different understanding
of Chomsky as a thinker and as an intellectual phenomenon.

Viewed charitably, he was an idealist frustrated by the obvious
imperfections of his own society.  Certain Stalinist states were able
to prey on that idealism by presenting an appealing Potemkin-village
picture of a society that compared favorably to ours.

Naturally he would want to defend this vision, since it provided hope
that his idealism could be realized.  Sadly, the vision was false, and
by defending it and disparaging contrary evidence, Chomsky was
eulogizing a Stalinist regime and concealing its crimes.

(This doesn't vitiate the analogy to Stalin's apologists in the 1920s
and 1930s, or Hitler's apologists in recent decades.  I'm sure many of
them were motivated by sincere but misplaced idealism, too.)

Viewed less charitably, Chomsky was hostile to American society, for
reasons rational or otherwise.  He adopted America's enemies simply
because, if America's enemies were good, that provided another argument
that America itself was bad.  It just happened to be the case that
America's enemies were totalitarian communists.

These two interpretations are not mutually exclusive, and in fact I
think both are true.  The gravemen of his critique seems to have
shifted in the latter 1970s, from misplaced idealism to bitter
alienation.  The themes in his work change perceptibly, but become
ossified and repetitive by the early 1980s.  That's why I think the
late 1970s are the most interesting period of Chomskyana to study.

For example, I think it's interesting that this is the period when
his "critique of the media" first becomes a major theme.  Before this
he'd only made occasional, perfunctory references to alleged US
propaganda.  Yet in his books, articles and letters circa 1977-1979 it
suddenly becomes the dominant theme, the "propaganda model" in embryo.

I think it's no accident (pardon the cliche) that he started attacking
alleged US "propaganda" just as negative reports were pouring out of
the communist regimes in Indochina.  To preserve his myth-image of
these regimes, and of US opposition to them, he needed some mechanism
to exclude these negative reports.

By dismissing these reports as "propaganda", he both disputed the
evidence and turned the accusation back against American society.
Eventually, the volume of evidence that had to be excluded became so
great that a "system" or "model" was necessary to explain how so much
false or unsubstantiated evidence could have been so widely circulated.

(The simpler explanation was that this evidence was widely circulated
precisely because it was true and well-substantiated.  However, this
implied that Chomsky had been wrong about these regimes, and was
therefore beyond the bounds of thinkable thought.)

Put simply:  Chomsky's critique of the news media is itself a principal
mechanism of his apologism.  Therefore the fact that his work
emphasizes this critique is not evidence that he isn't an apologist.

(By analogy:  Holocaust revisionists dismiss evidence of the Holocaust
as Jewish propaganda, the product of Jewish hegemony over the media and
academia.  Certainly it would make no sense to cite this assertion as
evidence that these revisionists were media critics and not Nazi
apologists.)

> Your
> comparisons are ludicrous and clearly demonstrate your desire to
> demonize Chomsky with any cheap shot possible.  Of course, such
> comparisons should be expected from individuals lacking scholarly
> persistence or credibility.

It has not been my intent to "demonize" Professor Chomsky, and I
apologize if my comments have created that impression.  On the
contrary, I would not find him so fascinating if I did not view him
with a certain sympathy.  I don't think he's a monster;  I just think
he's wrong.  But he's wrong in interesting ways that are worth
exploring.

Readers can judge for themselves whether my comments have been
mere "cheap shots".  They also must evaluate my "scholarly
credibility".  For myself, I find your resort to name-calling
unpersuasive to say the least.

As for "persistence"... well, I'm not even sure what you mean by this.
Frankly I think I'd be a lot better off if I did something more
productive rather than "persisting" in these dialogues.  But I enjoy
them, so I persist.  (I'm persistent, but not responsible... ;-)

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
James A. Donald  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 16 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky, alt.anarchism
From: jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
Date: 2000/07/16
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
    --
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 17:23:39 GMT, Charles P. Kalina

<ckal...@capaccess.org> wrote:
> These two interpretations are not mutually exclusive, and in fact I
> think both are true.  The gravemen of his critique seems to have
> shifted in the latter 1970s, from misplaced idealism to bitter
> alienation.  The themes in his work change perceptibly, but become
> ossified and repetitive by the early 1980s.  That's why I think the
> late 1970s are the most interesting period of Chomskyana to study.

> [...]

> Put simply:  Chomsky's critique of the news media is itself a principal
> mechanism of his apologism.  Therefore the fact that his work
> emphasizes this critique is not evidence that he isn't an apologist.

In his seventies work, Chomsky is simply defending the indefensible,
so his work is easy to analyze.  We know that the position he is
arguing is the complete opposite of the truth, which makes it easy to
expose the flaws in his argument and identify the tricks he uses.

However his later work, after the fall of communism, also has some
significance. Seeing the whole picture enables us to separate
deception from self deception, gives us some insight into what Chomsky
genuinely believed.

When the Soviet Union weakened and fell, Chomsky's internal vision of
the world required things to get worse in Latin America, rather than
better, since Chomsky's world view had the US, rather than the Soviet
Union, intervening in Latin America and aggressing against it, while
the Soviet Union was defending and supporting the Latin Americans
against the US. Instead there was an outbreak of democracy and
prosperity.  Chomsky then produced some articles and a book explaining
that this outbreak of peace and prosperity was realy an outbreak of
poverty and dictatorship.

This shows that he did indeed sincerely believe in his internal vision
of the world.  On the other hand it also shows that he did not believe
in the account of the world that he had been giving.  Since in his
account of the world the Soviet Union played no role whatsoever in
Latin America, the weakening and fall of the Soviet Union could have
no effect on Latin America, and therefore should in no way discredit
his account.

If he sincerely believed in his account of the world, he might need to
rewrite history and current events to show the US doing evil in Latin
America, but would have no need to rewrite current events to show that
evil in Latin America increased, rather than decreased when the Soviet
Union fell.

The fact that he found it necessary to rewrite this fact shows that he
was aware of the extensive Soviet meddling in Latin America, and
approved it, while in his writings he denied it.

On the one hand, he was sincerely deluded, and genuinely wrong.  On
the other hand, he did not say what he believed, nor believe what he
said.  From his post fall writings, we can infer that among other
things he did not believe that US dominance was as complete as he
claimed, nor did he believe Soviet dominance and influence as
irrelevant and insignificant has he claimed to believe.

From time to time, I have attempted to give the long explanation of
what commies secretly believe and intend, but no one ever gets it,
except other ex commies.

So I will now give the short account.

Commies think they will rule well, but they mean to rule.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     QqjYY0DoQQj7SvE8YyoS19HTpIpV3ztDAjxxtW3A
     4phjlOwkV5eEZuLo2Je3Ruh2R6+2mDTqMsvTobIfn

  ------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Seth Kulick  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 17 July 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky, alt.anarchism
From: skul...@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Seth Kulick)
Date: 2000/07/17
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
In article <3976c74f.28595...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:

[...]

>From time to time, I have attempted to give the long explanation of
>what commies secretly believe and intend, but no one ever gets it,
>except other ex commies.

[...]

James, this is one of the finest postings that you have ever made.
One for the ages!  You are one scary dude.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seth Kulick                      "The hypnotic splattered mist
University of Pennsylvania          was slowly lifting" - Bob Dylan
skul...@linc.cis.upenn.edu  http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~skulick/home.html  


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Messages 26 - 50 of 144 < Older  Newer >
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google