Lionel Mandrake: So in the High Church of the American Left...

Aaaaaaand that's where I stopped.

Your infantile blog sucks

Nothing like blinders to make you smart, LM.

Yes, that tyrant Noam Chomsky - attacking innocent people left and right. Being attacked by Noam Chomsky definitely qualifies one as a hero, that brute.

battleswarmblog.com?

Best case scenario, a blog about Starcraft.. which isn't saying much..

\rtfa

I remember reading Chomsky's works in psycholinguistics while I was in graduate school, and was completely unaware of his political activities and beliefs. I think there can only be a few geniuses who live in your own time. Chomsky is one of them.

Marcus Aurelius: Speaking of blinders, I stopped reading at the irrational and misplaced hatred of Noam Chomsky.

Exactly. This seems to be written from a similar mindset as "Improve the environment? Dammit, we already allow for some recycling, WHAT MORE COULD YOU WANT?!"

s2s2s2: Lionel Mandrake: So in the High Church of the American Left...

Aaaaaaand that's where I stopped.

Your infantile blog sucks

Nothing like blinders to make you smart, LM.

That blog DOES suck.

Here ya go Subby....read some honest truth from a non liberal about the evil perpetrated ALL OVER THE WORLD in the name of American Empire:

Link (new window)
this is not my blog, but I agree with Chris Floyd though

Communism was just the boogeyman of the day. Just like terrorism is today's boogeyman.

Pursuit of Empire will destroy America. And in fact, it is one of the primary positions of our founding fathers that we NOT pursue empire.

Der Vassermeister: I remember reading Chomsky's works in psycholinguistics while I was in graduate school, and was completely unaware of his political activities and beliefs. I think there can only be a few geniuses who live in your own time. Chomsky is one of them.

First learned of him through his work in linguistics, too. Had no idea until a couple of years ago that he was actively political.

Lionel Mandrake: So in the High Church of the American Left...

Aaaaaaand that's where I stopped.

Your infantile blog sucks

Stopped same spot.

X-boxershorts: That blog DOES suck.

I was encouraging LM to open his eyes to the value of NC hate.

Lionel Mandrake: Hey, he can bag on Chomsky all he wants - I'm not particularly a fan myself. But if he's going to do it like a petulant 8 year-old, fark him.

Indeed.

Lionel Mandrake: So in the High Church of the American Left...

Aaaaaaand that's where I stopped.

Your infantile blog sucks

It got better.

OK, it didn't. This is one of those blogs that is written with almost no actual input from the author, just "here's a long passage of something I disagree with, followed by another long passage of something I disagree with and punctuated by sanctimonious whining."

Or, in other words, a fine example of almost all blogging done today.

s2s2s2: Lionel Mandrake: So in the High Church of the American Left...

Aaaaaaand that's where I stopped.

Your infantile blog sucks

Nothing like blinders to make you smart, LM.

Ironically, this blog is complaining about a group of intellectuals with tremendous stakes on the line having heated conversations about their various divergences. Putting blinders on indeed.

:p

I especially like the part where he condemned the entire left wing for the sins of Noam Chompsky. Was the guy a valuable thinker? Absolutely. Is he the sole purveyor of leftist thought? Are you farking retarded. Way to go blogger-patriot. Win big or go home, I guess...

Noam was hamfisted as all hell. Hitchen's had a penchant for debate and loathed echo chambers. I'm sure if this article were written while he lived, he would be tearing it apart for misrepresenting his history and opinions for the sake of scoring ideological points. But since the author's dancing on his grave it's A-OK and worth our time? Fark that. Author's a hack of the first order. And he has plenty of tells. Not the least of which is the characterization of a political ideology as a religious one.

You're smarter than that S2^3

Your blog sucks, submittard. GFY.

BeesNuts: Noam was hamfisted as all hell.

I have to *VIGOROUSLY* protest the use of the term "hamfisted". I'm a ham, and I have a damn good fist, thankyouverymuch.

/My SKCC number is available upon making a valid straight key contact with me.

Actually, Chomsky is making a good point.

mikemoto: Chomsky probably thinks that Obama is a right-wing ultra capaitalist Nazi. That man should not be taken seriously.

0/10

So, what's his FARK handle?

X-boxershorts: Communism was just the boogeyman of the day. Just like terrorism is today's boogeyman.

I can't disagree that America and "The West" certainly farked things up over the last 200 years, but to say Communism was just a boogeyman is infantile ignorance. It was a boogeyman that, at worst, killed almost 100 million people in the 20th century and, at best, gave rise to totalitarian regimes that brutalized and enslaved millions.

Eh, Chomsky has one line, and that's it: America is evil. I probably agree with him in many cases, but unfortunately his views have surprisingly little nuance. The thing that disgusted me the most about him was his stalwart defence of the Khmer Rouge regime, even as the evidence continued to build there was a massive bloodbath. Of course, once the incontrovertible proof came out, he completely changed his tune.

This site has an excellent run-down of Chomsky's main downplay-the-atrocity article. It's also nice because it contrasts Chomsky's reading of sources to what they actually say, and reveal a pretty shoddy research: a letter to the editor in the Economist, for instance, is cited as a factual statement by that newspaper.

atomsmoosher: I can't disagree that America and "The West" certainly farked things up over the last 200 years, but to say Communism was just a boogeyman is infantile ignorance. It was a boogeyman that, at worst, killed almost 100 million people in the 20th century and, at best, gave rise to totalitarian regimes that brutalized and enslaved millions.

Depends on what you mean by "boogieman." If you mean "imaginary" you are correct. But if you mean "fictional threat," it was a boogieman.

For all our cold war fear, when it all fell apart we saw an impoverished and paranoid society that couldn't reliability manufacture light-bulbs. The whole endeavor was doomed from the start as an unsustainable exercise in central planning.

atomsmoosher: X-boxershorts: Communism was just the boogeyman of the day. Just like terrorism is today's boogeyman.

I can't disagree that America and "The West" certainly farked things up over the last 200 years, but to say Communism was just a boogeyman is infantile ignorance. It was a boogeyman that, at worst, killed almost 100 million people in the 20th century and, at best, gave rise to totalitarian regimes that brutalized and enslaved millions.

You can say the exact same thing about "democracy" or capitalism.

Hitchens I can understand. While I loved reading him and seeing him on Politcally Incorrect while agreeing w/almost nothing he said, he definitely deserved some criticism for his behavior at times. Attacking Havel? Stay classy, Chompskyites.

DarnoKonrad: For all our cold war fear, when it all fell apart we saw an impoverished and paranoid society that couldn't reliability manufacture light-bulbs. The whole endeavor was doomed from the start as an unsustainable exercise in central planning.

The Soviet Union of the 1960s was a far cry from that of the 1980s. Yes, they're economy was incredibly inefficient, but it was still growing and providing by (what we now know) was an massively increasing labour input. There was a real time when Americans were unsure of their supperiority, and that wasn't a hoax by the CIA. And the USSR had nukes. And they had Kruschev banging his shoe on the table screaming "WE WILL BURY YOU". The threat may have been overblown, and in hindsight ridiculous, but at the time...

And a book recommendation, if you're interested: Red Plenty

"East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise" - Noam Chompsky

I'm sure all the people who lost relatives in the gulags agree.

Both sides are equally bad when it makes liberals look good.

DarnoKonrad: For all our cold war fear, when it all fell apart we saw an impoverished and paranoid society that couldn't reliability manufacture light-bulbs. The whole endeavor was doomed from the start as an unsustainable exercise in central planning.

Yes, yes it was, for light bulbs and consumer products...and feeding itself. However, it was also a very real mechanized threat that produced decent weapons. And, also, their nukes worked very well, as did their planes in combat (as we learned in Korea). Not to mention their tanks, machine guns and (at the time) their subs.

Was it overblown? In hindsight, yes. Don't forget, we're used to seeing modern, Rusty Russia, that can't keep their subs afloat. At the time, however, we had ever reason to believe that the Soviets could make good on their threats. The West was also nearly powerless to stop them from expansion in the aftermath of WWII, which they helped start, let's not forget.

Aside from the Soviet Union and its own atrocities, those almost paled in comparison to the acts perpetrated by the Chinese Communists, Khmer Rouge, etc. Millions upon millions dead in the name of "progress." So, yeah, I totally agree that The West is guilty of outrageous hypocrisy in pursuit of greed and empire, but it is almost small potatoes compared to the legacy of communism. The fact that there are still Communist apologists out there is mindboggling. I took a train ride not long ago with an old-school Greenwich Village-style Red, and within minutes of a polite "hello" she went off on how "forces" (read "the Jews and the CIA") tricked Russians into betraying the Soviet dream of Lenin and (!?) Stalin. (CSB)

mikemoto: Would love to know what Chomsky thinks of Kim Jong Il, who also died this weekend. He probably regards him as a sort of messiah, who delivered a communist paradise to the impoverished masses of North Korea.

0/10

Why are you still here?

Because People in power are Stupid: Marcus Aurelius: Unlike subby, Noam Chomsky actually gives a crap about America.

Uh, no. That would be nationalistic. Big no. He's a 'citizen of the world' first. Anti-American propagandist second.

Chomsky is a dumbass. (It's takes one to know one)

Havel was brilliant.

Guess why I'm pretty sure you're half-right.

mat catastrophe: atomsmoosher: X-boxershorts: Communism was just the boogeyman of the day. Just like terrorism is today's boogeyman.

I can't disagree that America and "The West" certainly farked things up over the last 200 years, but to say Communism was just a boogeyman is infantile ignorance. It was a boogeyman that, at worst, killed almost 100 million people in the 20th century and, at best, gave rise to totalitarian regimes that brutalized and enslaved millions.

You can say the exact same thing about "democracy" or capitalism.

I think you're missing the point, unless you can explain to me how "democracy" or capitalism's excesses caused the Soviets, Chinese Communist Party or Khmer Rouge to slaughter millions of their own. (The Soviets, of course, come off as "naively misguided" in comparison to China's acts.)

I'll try it again, you can rightfully protest the awfulness of "The West" all you like, but to praise the Communist model (as it was put into practice in the 20th c.) at the same time is hypocrisy to almost insane levels.

turbidum: Der Vassermeister: I remember reading Chomsky's works in psycholinguistics while I was in graduate school, and was completely unaware of his political activities and beliefs. I think there can only be a few geniuses who live in your own time. Chomsky is one of them.

First learned of him through his work in linguistics, too. Had no idea until a couple of years ago that he was actively political.

He wasn't very good at linguistics, either.

Havel and Hitchens both supported the Iraq war too.

turbidum: Der Vassermeister: I remember reading Chomsky's works in psycholinguistics while I was in graduate school, and was completely unaware of his political activities and beliefs. I think there can only be a few geniuses who live in your own time. Chomsky is one of them.

First learned of him through his work in linguistics, too. Had no idea until a couple of years ago that he was actively political.

That should tell you all you need to know about the US corporate media blackout of Chomsky. He is rarely interviewed in the US though he is often asked for his views in the rest of the world.

Diagonal: turbidum: Der Vassermeister: I remember reading Chomsky's works in psycholinguistics while I was in graduate school, and was completely unaware of his political activities and beliefs. I think there can only be a few geniuses who live in your own time. Chomsky is one of them.

First learned of him through his work in linguistics, too. Had no idea until a couple of years ago that he was actively political.

He wasn't very good at linguistics, either.

He's like the Steve Jobs of political punditry.

Communism doesn't kill people. People kill people.

So, Chomsky attacked the guy that attacked Mother Teresa? What an animal!

beta_plus: "East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise" - Noam Chompsky

I'm sure all the people who lost relatives in the gulags agree.

You realize that a sin of omission is still a sin, right?

alybaba: Havel and Hitchens both supported the Iraq war too.

While I disagreed vehemently with his support of the Iraq debacle, I am compelled to admit that Hitch presented a factually and logically consistent argument. He was one of the very few who did (or could).

RIP to both of them.

masercot: So, Chomsky attacked the guy that attacked Mother Teresa? What an animal!

I'm curious... have you ever actually read Hitchins' critique of Mother Teresa?