Chavez just delivered a speech to the UN where he referred to George Bush the devil, and had some choice quotes as he brandished the Spanish-language version of Noam Chomsky’s “Hegemony and Survival.” To sum up a few picked from the blogosphere:
The devil came here, and it still smells of sulphur here at this podium… As the spokesman of imperialism he came to share his nostrums. To try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world. An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title, “ËœThe Devil’s Recipe’.
And yes, this was a speech to the United Nations. And it’s noteworthy that he recieved several rounds of applause from the audience. Yahoo news called the speech “impassioned,” but the man I saw looked dangerously unhinged.
Ah yes, Hotair has the video. I’m sure this will be all over Youtube in a few hours.
Get the RSS
Comments to this entry
Dan tdaxp
September 20, 2006
5:33 pm
Gollios
September 20, 2006
5:51 pm
An Iranian ex-pat friend of mine asked me if I had seen the latest NBC interview with Ahmedinijad.
"I missed it...anything new?"
"No. It's all bullshit. [pronounced'boolshit'] Why do these newscasters let him talk? He doesn't know nothing. He'll say something outlandish just to get attention, and then deny that he said anything controversial."
"Yeah, I know...he's like a kid who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar."
"So why do they keep doing it? It be better just to ignore him. He's not calling the shots in Iran anyway."
I missed the interview because I was at presentation on Central American gangs. While I was there I had to endure some ex-hippie unrecostructed communist (probably a college prof.) was poetic about Castro & Chavez. I suspect he's jumping for joy now, and viewing the fact that Chavez read Chomsky as proof that he's an even more intelligent and reasonable man than he though previously.
Gollios
September 20, 2006
6:02 pm
http://newsisyphus.blogspot.com/2006/09/best-picture-ever.html
Chirol
September 20, 2006
6:34 pm
askance
September 20, 2006
9:04 pm
Question: does this image make Chomsky wish he'd stuck to linguistics? Or does this mean he's reached his intended audience? I find Noam Chomsky interesting, or at least I did a few years ago. Since then, he's gone a...
Grendel
September 20, 2006
9:15 pm
Curzon
September 21, 2006
12:13 am
A new world order based on social justice and s h a r i n g. And puppy dogs. And fixed elections, and military coups, and nationalization of private assets, and fiscal bankruptcy.
Joe
September 21, 2006
2:15 am
WATSON
September 21, 2006
2:37 am
Joe
September 21, 2006
3:07 am
Kenneth
September 21, 2006
4:06 am
Yeah, right. "Where have we heard this before?":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
That point being made, I must be frank that Chavez does have a few legitimate grievances. After all, US policy in this region has historically been, shall we say, far from benign. And an interventionist policy abroad with assorted hangers-on (read: less-than-savoury beneficiaries) hardly does justice to the ideals espoused by America's founders. Of course, he shouldn't have "wigged out" as you put it, but I imagine he speaks for not a few folks who are rather tired of the US meddling in their business. I'm a capitalist alright, as several of you can attest, but I'm not necessarily a partisan of the west. It has to be said that the US isn't exactly blameless, though Chavez has many faults, of course.
Curzon
September 21, 2006
6:48 am
Hidden influence in media is worth analyzing, but 95% of the so-called "theories" that are put out there in this age of "media literacy" are ludicrous.
GI Korea
September 21, 2006
8:00 am
bp32
September 21, 2006
10:44 am
Chavez and Chomsky--Perfect together
Curzon
September 21, 2006
10:56 am
bp32
September 21, 2006
11:04 am
Curzon
September 21, 2006
11:18 am
germanicus
September 21, 2006
11:24 am
bp32
September 21, 2006
11:28 am
jon
September 21, 2006
3:10 pm
Mutantfrog
September 22, 2006
2:01 am
Corzine strikes me as unexceptional, but relatively competent. Probably better than McGreevey, or Whitman, or Florio. On the other hand, it is somewhat pathetic that in New Jersey we seem to feel that electing a billionaire who can self-finance his campaign is the only way to get a governor who isn't susceptible to corruption...
I do however give Whitman credit for quitting her job as EPA chief in protest over the Bush administration trying to sabotage environmental regulation.
Kevin
September 22, 2006
2:27 am
watchingtheclock
September 22, 2006
3:26 am
Prediction 1: the dictator will start his own book-a-month club, which will become wildly popular.
Prediction 2: Caracas will become the Paris of South America. Or maybe just the Iowa City of South America.
Prediction 3: the dictator will be taken out in a violent coup, which is covertly financed, not by the CIA, but by Oprah Winfrey, who installs a puppet government and an Oprah Oil & Gas company.
Joe
September 22, 2006
5:03 am
Then again, public financing and strict campaign laws, a la Japan, don't help too much. Like life, corruption always finds a way...
I also saw Chomsky when I was an undergrad at UF. A bunch of conservative protesters picketed his speech and handed out leaflets describing how he was full of shit. Pretty amusing paradigm shift. The guy still got a standing ovation (preaching to the choir), and for what it's worth I do like his linguistic theories...
davesgonechina
September 22, 2006
9:15 am
But hey, even Corzine had to appoint Menendez to fill his Senate seat to placate the Jersey Democratic machine. Self-financing only goes so far unless you want your own party stifling you in the legislature. The games still get played... ah, I miss New Jersey.
robcanuk
September 23, 2006
1:28 am
Mutantfrog
September 23, 2006
10:02 am
kb
September 23, 2006
12:24 pm
Kenneth
September 23, 2006
3:48 pm
I find myself agreeing with nearly all of this, to be honest.
Curzon
September 24, 2006
2:15 am
KB: Liberal media, Venezuela coup, and all the rest aside, have you ever noticed how Chomsky's popularity is so solidly limited to the college campus? To quote "our Bob:":http://www.cominganarchy.com/2005/11/16/chomsky-vs-kaplan/
Chomsky's analysis is one thing, but his political conclusions only appeal to non-adults.
Kenneth
September 24, 2006
3:21 am
What exactly do you mean by this?
_KB: Liberal media, Venezuela coup, and all the rest aside, have you ever noticed how Chomsky's popularity is so solidly limited to the college campus? To quote our Bob:_
_Adult choice of foreign policy is made on distinctions and the argument you presented has absolutely no distinctions. There's a big difference between the quantity and the kind of dictators we supported and the quantity and kind of things that went on in the communist world for 44 years when you had a mass system. Mao Zedong killed 20 million people as part of the Great Leap Forward between 1958 and 1962. That's just one of many, many atrocities that I name.
How can you compare that or Romania under communism, or 30 or 40 regimes like that, with the level and kind of iniquities that the Americans committed? It's about distinctions, and distinctions are about adulthood. And I don't find that even an adult argument."Â?_
_Chomsky's analysis is one thing, but his political conclusions only appeal to non-adults._
I've read Chomsky, and I don't recall him ever stating that the USA and the USSR were morally equivalent. I saw him rail on at lengths about the evils of Leninism and the "Red Bureaucracy", as well as the "military-bureaucratic elite" of the USSR, how it was supposedly inimical to "true socialism", and the "intellectual fakery" of much "Marxist theory". I didn't see him morally equate the USA with the USSR, so this seems like a bit of red herring. Not to be abrasive, but the use of such a metric (at least we didn't kill as many as they did!) strikes me as somewhat disingenuous: it implies that we have the sanction to do whatever we damn well please, as long as we're not nearly as bad as "the enemy".
kb
September 24, 2006
3:21 am
"Kenneth: How does a libertarian explain the smell of sulfur?"
I'm not answering for Kenneth, but there are many varieties of libertarian. The rightwing libertarians wouldn't notice the smell, or if they did they'd probably think it was sweet, as they probably leak more or less the same smell as the rightwing cronies of the Bushites. The leftist libertarians, being somewhat removed from the foul odors of greed, anger, cynicism, etc....and a few of the remaining lingering and pathetic ideals propagated by Thamos Hobbes's pathology, don't really have to smell it other than when they walk past one of the ones mentioned above. I mean, one could go looking for the smell if one wanted. It's quite easy on the internet. And on some of them, say Oliver Kamm, or the "Conservative Intellectual", one doesn't even need to scratch the monitor to get the smell. It just starts pouring out like a smoke machine. Anyway, as I said, perhaps Kenneth has a different take. This is a very slim piece of my take. Can give you pages more if you wish. Let me know.
"KB: Liberal media, Venezuela coup, and all the rest aside, have you ever noticed how Chomsky's popularity is so solidly limited to the college campus?"
No. But this would make perfectly logical sense. Given that colleges are were education is talking place, it would make sense that this is where folks are learning about Chomsky. Don't really get too many guys down at Bass Pro Shop finding out about Chomsky while attempting to decide which lure to buy. Also don't learn much about nuclear physics there either. This is not to say that fisherman don't read Chomsky, they do, I know several. It's just that you aren't usually exposed to things like this much of anywhere that I'm aware of outside those attempting to educate themselves by reading, goingto bookstores, etc....And they sure aren't going to get it from the corporate-controlled mainstream media. So, no, I'm not surprised if it is, but I don't really think it probably is. Especially now thanks to Chavez.
"To quote our Bob:
Adult choice of foreign policy is made on distinctions and the argument you presented has absolutely no distinctions."
I made no arguments as there was nothing being argued. I simply stated well known and uncontroversial facts. The U.S. has supported coup after coup not only in South and Central America, but many other places as well. And it's not like there's a shortage of information confirming this. I mean, you sure aren't going to get it from the media. Most of it comes from the sources themselves. Hence, why many folks appreciate Chomsky's work. He uses U.S. sources much of the time to prove his points. Anyway, you can find all sorts of ex-CIA folks, the honest ones, who admit to most of the things Chomsky puts forth, and that which most of the entire planet readily knows as it happened to them. The only folks unaware are the folks who are so insulated with the states, and pumped full of propaganda that they still believe that there were Iraqis on the 9/11 planes(See P.I.P.A) Also, see John Stockwell, Ralph McGeehee, Philip Agee, and on and on...for insiders views.
"There's a big difference between the quantity and the kind of dictators we supported and the quantity and kind of things that went on in the communist world for 44 years"
Oh, it's the benevolent dictator arguement, and the "We may be bad, but see how bad they are" fairytale. This excuses nothing. That's like a mass murderer trying to downplay his damage by saying that he only killed 25 and the other guy did 45, as if this was to make things better. And besides, it would appear that Bib's analysis doesn't touch upon the very root of the problem, which is why was communism so appealing to the mass of the population in the forst place. Sort of a slight oversight, eh? I mean, can't get a better example than Cuba. Why weren't we supporting them, the population, BEFORE? The same applies most everywhere. Or let's say Iraq. The right whines about how "the left", whoever that is, would rather have left Saddam in power thereby inferring, and often explicity stating, that they "support terroists" etc...Well, it's quite odd that many years ago when Chomsky and some others were protesting against Saddam and supporting the Iraqi democratic resistance (And it was even illiegal to support the democratic resistance at the time, thereby, showing who a truer patriot is) and being called "unpatriotic at the time by the usual pseudo-patriots, those who are now "standing tough and tall" were fully supporting him. In fact, the day before the invasion of Kuwait Bush 1 tossed Saddam another billion dollars. Now to me that doesn't sound like being tough on "terror". Sounds like "aiding and abetting" a terrorist to me.
"when you had a mass system. Mao Zedong killed 20 million people as part of the Great Leap Forward between 1958 and 1962. That's just one of many, many atrocities that I name."
Blah, blah, blah....Get over it already. You aren't China. You aren't the Soviet Union. You aren't any of these countries, all of which Chomsky also criticizes thoroughly, too, even though this isn't, not should it be his primary concern. He's a citizen of the U.S. and his responsibility is to critique HIS country and what HIS tax dollars are going to support. If he believes the government to be going in the wrong direction, he gets off his butt and says so. Remember, he likes democracy. He isn't against it, nor have any of his positions ever demonstrated otherwise. Of course there have been VERY weak attempts to do so, by the likes of Oliver Kamm, and a few other illiterates who have never read a Chomsky book in their lives, or, even worse, have actually read some and "thought" they saw something inferring these comical notions. But in serious circles, you know, probably around colleges and institutions of higher learning, these notions are laughed at. Have you ever read a Chomsky book? May I ask which one(s)? If not, then it's probably a good idea to either stick to topics for which you are educated, or be a little humble and try and learn like a good student. As with most subjects either in or not in a university it does help to read and study about the topic as mcuh as possible when attempting to give opinions would you say. I mean, you can say that Chomsky is a black Catholic female opera singer, but you'd just be factually incorrect. Your choice. Bob's too!
"How can you compare that or Romania under communism, or 30 or 40 regimes like that, with the level and kind of iniquities that the Americans committed?"
Oh, it's quit easy to compare. There have been many comparisons. Look at the number of folks murdered by the U.S. supported death squads in Guatamala, Nicargua, El Salvador, etc...with those killed by Castro. There is nothing to compare. The U.S. clients are in the hundreds of thousands and Castro is perhaps in the hundreds. (See John Stockwell 6 million killed link and get back to me) And when the communists were around MANY folks looked up to them and would have loved to go to the Soviet Union. Brazil for instance. Why? They had already experienced what the U.S. had to offer. Same goes for many other places. Don't have anythingto do with these places being bad. Thery were, and most folks know. It's that for many of the people it was at least something better. And, compared to many of their own living conditions, the Soviet Union was not only a success, but a great success. Sorry, but in the real world this is what people see.
"It's about distinctions, and distinctions are about adulthood. And I don't find that even an adult argument."Â?"
Saying that their are distinctions makes an argument "adult"? I would be a little more concerned about studying the topic before I worried about "aduklt arguments". This is simply another attempt NOT to deal with issues and facts. Please tell Bob to bring it on. History isn't going to change simply because he doesn't know about it. By the way, using the 'Black Book of Communism' probably isn't the best source for learning about the world. I mean, I don't use the National Enquirer. Come on!
"Chomsky's analysis is one thing, but his political conclusions only appeal to non-adults."
And that's a good "adult" argument in itself. What not just say "He doesn't know anything! Na nana na naaa na!"? It's about the same. If Bob or you or whoever wishes to chalklenge Chomsky you are going to have to take at least the first step, and in about 99.99999% of cases this is never done, and that is to read his material FIRST, then, AFTER reading it and learning it, trying to make an argument. You know, from an educated stance. THIS, I personally would consider the "adult" way to make an argument. After you or Bob has taken this first and elementary step, and you have demonstrated a knowledge of what Chomsky's actualy positions are, THEN, you may start sounding like an adult. Until then I'd say that Bob should perhaps go back to college since even they are somewhat aware that reading and studying a topic is priobably a good idea.
Was it really necessary for my to have to tell you and Bob that studying a topic is a good idea? I don't talk about physics for a reason. I've never studied it and I don't know squat. BUt if I want to learn I'll do the "adult" thing and study the topic. Later!KB
Curzon
September 24, 2006
12:21 pm
KB: The "argument you presented" referred to a Chomsky argument contained in the link, not your argument. As for the rest of your comment, I appreciate your effort but I don't have the energy to respond. I've read most of Chomsky's books, at least the pre-9/11 ones, so I do know what I'm talking about. If you'd like to read various general counterarguments to the Chomsky viewpoint from the realist perspective I'd welcome you to page through the archives or read regularly.
kb
September 24, 2006
3:48 pm
Kenneth
September 24, 2006
3:59 pm
I'm a "right wing" libertarian, but I oppose US intervention. You might say I'm an "old rightist":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Right_%28United_States%29 of sorts, though I don't consider myself a "conservative" in any sense of the word.
_Kenneth: Sorry, I should have said "atheist"Â? instead of libertarian. My bad._
What do you mean by the whole "smell" thing, I mean?
_If you'd like to read various general counterarguments to the Chomsky viewpoint from the realist perspective I'd welcome you to page through the archives or read regularly._
As I recall, "realism" is primarily a normative set of ideas in political science, so it's kind of meaningless to refer to a "realist" critique of Chomsky, since he makes no policy recommendations other than that the US stop doing dubious deeds in various parts of the world. If you're referring to the "realism" of political theory, it holds that all states are primarily rationally self-interested power maximizers, just as neoclassical economics posits a representative agent that is a rationally self-interested utility maximizer, a view not exactly incongruent with Chomsky's (he just denies that states are homogenous entities).
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » One UN Speech Worth Listening To
September 24, 2006
9:05 pm
Curzon
September 25, 2006
12:25 am
KB: Realism is based on the theory that "power politics drive world affairs, not values or culture or ethics.":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_in_international_relations
Might I suggest that there's an imbalance here. I'm very familiar with the work of Chomsky and Zinn. However, you seem to think that Mr. Bush's politics are based in helping the rich and corporations et. al.. That's a rather juvenile understanding of conservative thought, and understanding the politics and values behind what drove 55+ million Americans to vote for Mr. Bush over Mr. Kery two years ago would probably further the discussion better.
bp32
September 25, 2006
1:23 am
Kenneth
September 25, 2006
3:06 am
Just to nitpick, it's "atheist" not "athiest". Uh, I'm no chemist or neurologist but apparently the "smell of sulfur" is caused by the interplay of sulfurous fumes and olfactory receptors, causing a certain pattern of neuron firings within key areas of the brain. I'm really not clear on just what the metaphor you're advancing is, its relevance is to the topic. Perhaps I'm merely dense, but in my sixteen years of existence I have never encountered such a phrase.
_Might I suggest that there's an imbalance here. I'm very familiar with the work of Chomsky and Zinn. However, you seem to think that Mr. Bush's politics are based in helping the rich and corporations et. al.. That's a rather juvenile understanding of conservative thought, and understanding the politics and values behind what drove 55+ million Americans to vote for Mr. Bush over Mr. Kery two years ago would probably further the discussion better._
To be fair, though, many of Bush's policies are skewed toward the rich, though of course these are not in any way representative of "free market" conservative thought. Most of Bush's tax cuts went to the uppermost stratum of the population, and the federal government gives generous amounts in corporate welfare. Such phenomenon are not of course limited to the Republican Party, but they often what modern "conservativism" entails. Unfortunately, much of modern "conservativism" is highly bastardized, exemplified by such demagogues as Limbaugh and O'Reilly: modern day "conservatives" often subscribe to an ahistorical conception of Democracy (TM), lacking the sceptical attitude of such thinkers as Edmund Burke and the like. Kb's misunderstanding can be somewhat excused because of this fact, though he does have a tendency to tar right wingers with the same brush.
kb
September 25, 2006
8:57 am
"I'm a "right wing"Â? libertarian, but I oppose US intervention. You might say I'm an old rightist of sorts, though I don't consider myself a "conservative"Â? in any sense of the word."
Once again we're stuck with almost meaningless terms. I'd personally consider manyof Chomsky's positions as conservative. And the old conservatives which you might be a part of (you used the term old rightist) would most definitely be rolling in their graves at the positions of those who nowadays call themselves conservative. They're almost the exact opposite.kb
"If you'd like to read various general counterarguments to the Chomsky viewpoint from the realist perspective I'd welcome you to page through the archives or read regularly."
"As I recall, "realism"Â? is primarily a normative set of ideas in political science, so it's kind of meaningless to refer to a "realist"Â? critique of Chomsky, since he makes no policy recommendations other than that the US stop doing dubious deeds in various parts of the world."
Making the decision NOT to do something IS a policy decision. Here, since we're discussing Chomsky, let's use one of his own analogies regarding this topic. (The topic of Chomsky not offering an alternative is a false topic anyway) Say someone says that they heard Bin Laden was hiding in a neighborhood, and they though he was in a particular house. Well, you can make one of several choices. One is to try and find out if it's true, and if it is bring him to justice if he is, or shoot him, or whatever. Another approach is to not confirm that he is there and just shoot everyone in the neighborhood and then proclaim "Well, we had to do something." In this scenario NOT doing something is the intelligent and logical thing to do. NOT doing something IS a policy choice. A corporation makes choices every day. They choose to keep dumping pollutants, paying the fines, etc...Making a decision not to pollute at all is making a policy decision, and a smart and rational one assuming that the future means anything to one. Falling back on the "Well, it'll hurt the economy" argument is about as weak as it gets, too. You change the damn economy then to where you don't pollute.kb
"If you're referring to the "realism"Â? of political theory, it holds that all states are primarily rationally self-interested power maximizers, just as neoclassical economics posits a representative agent that is a rationally self-interested utility maximizer, a view not exactly incongruent with Chomsky's (he just denies that states are homogenous entities)."
That's not all that he posits about states. They're not moral agents either. This is a part of the realism, yes?kb
"KB: Realism is based on the theory that power politics drive world affairs, not values or culture or ethics."
Yes, I'm quite well aware of that. And that why it's such a hopelessly depraved position. We can see how well it's working right now, in fact. What's really pathetic though is that the folks who keep accepting this notion and view of humanity over and over throughout the generations, and internalizing the philosophy and "logic", and in turn acting on (externalizing) their beliefs, keep the entire "power politics" disorder repeating itself in a self-fullfilling prophesy. It's the same logic as those "realists" used to use to justify slavery: "Well, it's always been around, therefore, it's natural. Don't want to mess with nature. Besides, "it will harm the economy". Sound familiar? Well, the power politics notion is a similar disease which needs to be weeded out just like slavery and/or cancer, or any other of the many diseases which do nothing but cause damage. But I'm assuming here that damage is a bad thing. I could be wrong.kb
"And that's a good "adult"Â? argument in itself. Why not just say "He doesn't know anything! Na nana na naaa na!"Â??.....kb
"Might I suggest that there's an imbalance here. I'm very familiar with the work of Chomsky and Zinn."
Then it will be no problem in giving what you believe either of their takes are on anything.kb
"However, you seem to think that Mr. Bush's politics are based in helping the rich and corporations et. al.."
I do? Not exactly, though that's pretty much a given. I'd feel much better if it were ONLY for the corporations benefit. That it's got the fundamentalist Christian aspects is what's scary. I'd rather he just say that his goal was to make every U.S. corporation as rich as possible rather than trying to "spread democracy", or "Christianity", or whatever he's trying to do, and which has most of the entire world on edge. THIS is what's scary. And this entire "war on terror" concoction is just the pretext necessary to carry out the new manifest destiny. But of course being familiar with Chomsky's work you'd be aware that he was talking about how this current terrorism would come to be over 20 years ago. Nothing the least bit surprising other than the accuracy of his writings. He quotes Reagan in the 80's saying that terrorism would have to take the place of the "Soviet threat" now that they were out of the picture. Well, here it is 20 years later and all one hears day in and day out is "war on terror". The U.S. shoud probably be a little more concerned about the war on terror in it's own streets. More folks killed by guns in the U.S. every year than on 9/11, those killed in Afghanistan, Iraq....in the past 10 years. There are also the internalized preconceived notions that the U.S. has the right to be doing anything in any other country. Where did that "right" come from? Do other countries have the same rights? If not, why not? The U.S. is currently aiding and abetting war criminals and terrorists. Do other countries have the right to invade in order to fight the war on terror? Now, what's interesting to watch is the response to even posing such questions. I simply want to know why they aren't.kb
"That's a rather juvenile understanding of conservative thought"
Saying something is juvenile is itself rather juvenile. Why not just correct the statement by backing it with something of substance. Please teach us juveniles what a "mature" understanding of "conservatism" is. And I don't recall saying much about conservative thought either.kb
"and understanding the politics and values behind what drove 55+ million Americans to vote for Mr. Bush over Mr. Kery two years ago would probably further the discussion better."
You think that I'm unaware of the "politics and driving values" of the supposed 55+? I think if the Pope told all Catholics to jump off a bridge and pretty high number would as well. And especially if he said that the devil(terrorists) would win if you didn't. There are probably millions more people who like Michael Jackson than King Crimson also. That hardly makes him better. It simply shows that the Jackson fans know little about music. I have nothing against Bush winning in free and fair elections. I mean, his first term was proven to have been a scam, another sign of the ethics of the conservatives I have a juvenile view of I guess. I'm not sure what your point is? That we should unquestioningly support Bush because a few more folks who know nothing about politics voted him into office? Why on earth would anyone do that? That's all the more reason to oppose him. Especially now that the findings came out from a government office yesterday saying that the threat of terror is greater now than before. Duh. Was this supposed to be surprisiing to anyone? No one that I know was surprised. This is why rational folks were against the Bush posse from WAY early on. It took little intelligence to see what would eventually take place. And now it has. So, what are you going to do about it? What'S your "policy" going to be? Invade more? That's "doing something". I'd say not to do more. I'd say not to do anything. However, as planned, now that the terrorism ball has been set rolling, and they continually talk about how LONG it's going to go on, there should be little surprise that it keeps going. Just as the "power politics" disease keeps being perpetuated.kb
"To be fair, though, many of Bush's policies are skewed toward the rich, though of course these are not in any way representative of "free market"Â? conservative thought."
Yes, acknowledging that Bush's policies are skewed is being fair. What "free market"? Do you mean the ultra-right neo-conartist dog eat dog free market, or the Adam Smith free market which said that the market should lead toward equality? You know, that evil thing which only the communists talk about? Or referring to the market leading to the "vile maxim of mankind. All for ourselves and nothing for anyone else."kb
"Most of Bush's tax cuts went to the uppermost stratum of the population, and the federal government gives generous amounts in corporate welfare. Such phenomenon are not of course limited to the Republican Party, but they often what modern "conservativism"Â? entails."
Correct. Agreed.kb
"Unfortunately, much of modern "conservativism"� is highly bastardized, exemplified by such demagogues as Limbaugh and O'Reilly: modern day "conservatives"� often subscribe to an ahistorical conception of Democracy┞¢, lacking the sceptical attitude of such thinkers as Edmund Burke and the like."
Correct and agreed again.kb
"Kb's misunderstanding can be somewhat excused because of this fact"
What misunderstanding? Where have I shown any misunderstanding? Please copy and paste the quotes deomnstrating this "misunderstanding". I quite well aware of the differences between the old conservatives and the new charlatans.kb
"though he does have a tendency to tar right wingers with the same brush."
He does? Where has this been done? I have said very little about the right at all. I made a few off the cuff jokes about the ultra-right libertarians thinking that sulpher smelled sweet, but not much more. And I was referring to the rightwing libertarian anarchists even then(perhaps I should have been more clear), which may be some of the most depraved logical extensions of what any real "free market" would probably lead to. I think most conservatives, and this probably goes for both the average Joe as well as many in the business world, would agree if they knew the philosophy.kb
Anyway, that Chomsky doesn't offer an alternative is simply a false statement. If you have evidence of his not doing so though I'd be happy to look at it. However, having someone look at something which isn't there is often difficult. I mean, I have an anti-Chomskyite friend(Of course he's never actually read one of his books, but...)who continually writes about him, rags on him, you know, the usual qualities which makes one an anti-Chomskyite, actually ask me to prove that Chomsky wasn't a Pol Pot apologist. All I could do was to say that I had read all of his books and that there were no such apologetics. He said that I had to prove it with (non-existent) data. So, I gave it to him. I gave him all of the books, tapes, etc...that I could find for him to read my proof that there was nothing there. He still hasn't read a one. Now, THIS is juvenile.kb
Kenneth
September 27, 2006
11:25 pm
Sorry about the delay in reply, I couldn't get to the site for a couple of days. Yes, I do mean a completely free and unfettered market. Nothing more and nothing less.
_What misunderstanding? Where have I shown any misunderstanding? Please copy and paste the quotes deomnstrating this "misunderstanding"Â?. I quite well aware of the differences between the old conservatives and the new charlatans.kb_
Sorry, you just sort of gave that general impression.
_He does? Where has this been done? I have said very little about the right at all. I made a few off the cuff jokes about the ultra-right libertarians thinking that sulpher smelled sweet, but not much more. And I was referring to the rightwing libertarian anarchists even then(perhaps I should have been more clear), which may be some of the most depraved logical extensions of what any real "free market"Â? would probably lead to. I think most conservatives, and this probably goes for both the average Joe as well as many in the business world, would agree if they knew the philosophy.kb_
Again, you sort of conveyed that impression. The "free market" is not inherently depraved: it's a logical extension of individual rights, including the right of the individual to property and hence the produce of his or her own labour. Everyone is free to associate with anyone, buy anything, and produce anything, so long as they do no harm to others or their property.
_Anyway, that Chomsky doesn't offer an alternative is simply a false statement. If you have evidence of his not doing so though I'd be happy to look at it. However, having someone look at something which isn't there is often difficult. I mean, I have an anti-Chomskyite friend(Of course he's never actually read one of his books, but"¦)who continually writes about him, rags on him, you know, the usual qualities which makes one an anti-Chomskyite, actually ask me to prove that Chomsky wasn't a Pol Pot apologist. All I could do was to say that I had read all of his books and that there were no such apologetics. He said that I had to prove it with (non-existent) data. So, I gave it to him. I gave him all of the books, tapes, etc"¦that I could find for him to read my proof that there was nothing there. He still hasn't read a one. Now, THIS is juvenile._
Yes, a lot of conservatives have lobbed accusations at Chomsky which I find to be very bizarre: I can't say I've read him thoroughly, but, sifting through some of his works, I can find no trace of apology for communism. He repeatedly compares the USA and the USSR, and talks of the latter's "brutality and deceit". He dismisses most of what he terms "Marxist 'theory'". He makes clear the parallels between Leninism and neoconservativism. He recognized the "class nature" of Soviet society. As for charges of anti-Semitism, well, let's not even go into the distortions there. Suffice to say, Chomsky isn't even anti-Israel: he advocates a two-state solution, as do most Middle Eastern policy analysts. And to talk of the chaos in the Middle East without the Israeli factor is a major omission: after all, Israel is the only state in the region with nukes and a modern military, and committed to expanding its stake in the place.
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » CA Post Updates
December 3, 2006
7:20 am