The argument of the Marxisant left conspiracy theorists, like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, is counter-rational. Their whole premise implies that there isn't a cadre of enemies ready to die and kill innocents for the sake of destroying liberal Democracy. Or if such people exist, it's because of something we did. So if we just become more indulgent, better comrades those seemingly bad folks, who are really just teddy bears under the surface, will go home and play checkers, or backgammon.
But it would seem that someone who deliberately and proudly murders 3,000 innocent people, and who threatens to murder 30,000 or 300,000 or 3,000,000 without limit (the more the better) isn't quite the sort of fellow one ought to use as the first test case for this optimistic theory of human nature and stealthily concealed goodwill. And the real reason why the individual who directed and produced Bowling for Columbine must insist that real threats are merely contrived subterfuges... the reason why he has virtually no choice but to make that preposterously false claim, is that he has absolutely no philosophical or pragmatic response to calamity. None whatsoever. The good times can't be over, because he wouldn't know what the heck to do if they were.
And that little flaw in the philosophy of denial is as big as the New York skyline.
Posted by Demosophist at September 14, 2003 04:37 PMMoore and Chomsky both make a lot of money out of false claims. They have found their market. There are plenty of people who would rather embrace denial rather than face ugly facts.
Posted by: chas at September 16, 2003 02:38 AMChas:
The market dictates a lot of it, I'm sure. Were we truly blessed with a population of unflinching wisdom there'd be little room for the likes of Chomsky, Moore or Franken. Well, I'm sure they'd find something else to do. Chomsky and Franken have other gigs, at least. Moore might have to get a job.
--Scott
Posted by: Scott at September 22, 2003 09:06 PMVapid oversimplifications of intellectual giants like Chomskyy are facile, but no substitute for evidence. It would behoove those who disagree with Chomsky's points to present specific evidence and make a case. Anything else is not to be taken seriously.
Posted by: Bruce Boccardy at October 16, 2003 02:54 PMBruce:
"Vapid oversimplifications of intellectual giants like Chomskyy are facile, but no substitute for evidence. It would behoove those who disagree with Chomsky's points to present specific evidence and make a case. Anything else is not to be taken seriously."
He *may* be a giant when it comes to the theory of language, but he's a midget when it comes to political theory, and it's not a "vast oversimplification" to say he's simply a neo-Stalinist, because most of his conspiracy theories about the post-WW2 era came directly from Stalinist publications. As for "evidence," what sort of evidence did Chomsky utilize to make his case that the "killing fields" of Cambodia were just collective farms? You have to be kidding to bring up the topic of "evidence."
The kindest thing one can say about Chomsky is that he has naively lofted his conceptions about language over to the social science field, for which he has zero aptitude. If you want to talk about giants in that arena, I suggest you read S.M. Lipset.
Posted by: Scott (to Bruce) at October 16, 2003 07:27 PMScott. You have presented an statement about Chomsky's political theory without any evidence to support it. "Neo-Stalinist" is an ad hominem attack;you fail to provide evidence for such a misrepresentation. As for the alleged "Killing Field"s" comment, you cite no source material. In the interest of full disclosure, I am an aquaintance of Professor Chomsky. He is constantly subjected to this type of shabby criticisms without credible evidence. Chomsky adheres to the highest standards of historiography. He presents detailed evidence and cites the sources. Chomsky has proven the lies of Alan Dershowitz and others. His alleged stance as an apologist for the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge was another gross misrepresentation. Sophal Ear of UC Berkeley wrote a piece in the early 1970's alleging Chomsky and Ed Herman were guilty of this. The charge was pure nonsense as evidenced by misquotes and fabrications which I can send to you if you wish. The level of absurdity that critics of Chomsky's political views reflects the deficient level of scholarship used to critique his views. One may disagree with his views, but there is no justification for lies about what he has written. It reveals the paucity of one's argument. I suggest you read "Rogue State" by former State Department Official Willima Blum which demolishes the myths of US foreign policy that is being continued today by the immoral and dangerous occupation of Iraq.
Posted by: Bruce T. Boccardy at January 28, 2004 09:52 AMTo be honest I have better things to do than to treat Chomsky as an Alpha case. The fact that there's pretty much a 1 to 1 correspondence between Chomsky's version of events in Eastern Europe during the cold war and the Soviet version, and more importantly the dedication with which he simply overlooks the enslavement of 100,000,000 people there, and the murders of 100,000,000 more in his calculations about the "lesser of evils" in a battle againt totalitarianism puts him beyond the point of serious consideration.
I could care less what happens to "professor" Chomsky, and I'd venture to say that the next thing to fall in his littany of error will be his theories about language. A pretty vile fellow with a soft spoken way, is my assessment.
And quite apart from all of that horse manure he peddles, the theories about economy and society are incoherent and unworkable. He's just another totalitarian with an Ur-myth in his craw.
Posted by: Scott at January 28, 2004 10:57 AM