Noam Chomsky Sucks

[The Real McCoy]

This one's for you, Finn.

Noam Chomsky really sucks. To steal a page from the book of teacher, Noam Chomsky sucks hard. Websters should have two pictures next to it's definition of suck, one being a map of France and the other a picture of Noam Chomsky. Noam sucks more and harder than Jenna Jameson. If suck was measured in sand, Chomsky would be the Sahara. If they gave out awards for sucking, his trophy room would be bigger than a Wal Mart supercenter. If sucking was measured in strands of black hair, Noam would be the continent of Asia. He'd be a Boeing assembly plant if suckiness was measured in cubic footage. If Noam Chomsky were ever cloned, the universe would collapse in on itself under the sheer force of suckiness. I mean, I've seen people suck before but he's one of the suckiest sucks that ever sucked.

Why does Noam Chomsky suck so much and so hard? Where to begin...

• He's called capitalism a "grotesque catastrophe" and a system "crafted to induce hopelessness, resignation and despair." Charges $12,000 each to college campuses for his speeches on the evils of capitalism.

• He used to charge a mere $9,000 for his speeches but after 9/11 and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, he upped the price tag to $12,000 for his rants on war profiteering.

• Mr. Anti-capitalist who believes corporations are "private tyranies" and that they are just as totalitarian as Bolshevism and fascism" ironically is invested in the TIAA-CREF stock fund. He's got his money soundly banked in oil companies, military contractors, pharmaceuticals, et al.

• Uses terms like "us" versus "them" (them includes the top ten per cent while us is the other ninety per cent) He enjoies spending time with "unemployed, working class, activists of one kind or another" This self described admirer of the Black Panthers says intellectuals must combat all forms of racism and complains that America "excludes" blacks from large parts of the country This hasn't stopped him from moving into an $850,000 home in the affluent, lily-white suburb of Lexington, Massachusetts. Also owns a home valued at over $1.2 million in Wellfleet, Massachusetts (1% black population.)

• He regularly criticizes the "massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich", lashes out against trusts and is an advocate of the estate tax
  
  With the help of a tax attorney at the Palmer and Dodge law firm specializing in "income-tax planning", he set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets (the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust). Apparently he believes that this wonderful wealth redistribution idea shouldn't apply to him.

• Claims private property rights are a tool of the rich and of no benefit to ordinary people (the warning on his website says "Material on this site is copyrighted by Noam Chomsky and/or Noam Chomsky and his collaborators. No material on this site may be reprinted or posted on other web sites without written permission." Evidently his $2 million plus in real estate, his boat for sailing along Cape Cod and countless other luxuries don't fall under the category of private property in Noam's eyes.

• Chomsky declares America is a racist and sexist society... says women live in a condition of "slave labor" and there is a "system of oppression" against women. (straight from Chomsky's Class Warfare) At the linguistics department he created at MIT he personally hired the staff and faculty. A quick look at his tenure shows the hirees were almost exclusively white males while the support staff was almost entirely female. This even led to a "mini-uprising" among femenist grad students in the 1980s.

• Chomsky portrays himself as a champion of free speech and sees the United States as a totalitarian society. He believes there is no free press in a capitalist society.
  
  In 1970, Noam went to the Tanh Hoa province of North Vietnam which he later described as a workers paradise. Somehow, he missed the total lack of free speech in communist Vietnam, something he has absolutely no record of criticizing. Why would he? It's not the United States.
  
  In his book, At War with Asia, Chomsky in his typical knee-jerk anti-American way discredits everything the United States does and discounts both it's official statements and the statements of it's independent press as "propaganda" yet mentions not one word on the status of south east Asian dissidents, the lack of a free press, the fate of political prisoners or the policy of oppression.

• Chomsky went to Cuba in October 2003 where he gave a speech in front of an audience including Fidel Castro. He later made an appearance on the state run Radio Havana. Did the champion of free speech talk about the jailing of thousands anti-communist Cubans including poets and librarians? Of course not. Instead, he appeased the masses with some good old America bashing, Chomsky style.

• Guess who "picked up where the Nazis left off" after World War 2 according to Noam Chomsky. The Soviet Union? Bzzzz. The correct answer is the United States (from page 18 of his book What Uncle Sam Really Wants)

• Pol Pot wasn't such a bad guy either in Noam-land. "The 'slaughter' by the Khmer Rouge is a [Robert] Moss-New York Times creation." quoted from a June 25, 1977 article in The Nation by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman. He later retracted this claim but maintained that most of the Cambodian genocide resulted from U.S. aggression

• According to Chomsky, the 9/11 attacks were nothing compared with Clinton's 1998 bombing in Sudan which resulted in "tens of thousands of immediate Sudanese victims" (p.54 of Noam Chomsky's book: 9-11) He cites an analysis suggesting that, in proportion to the U.S. and Sudanese populations, the attack on Sudan would be as if bin Laden had killed more than 100,000 Americans (from page 50 of 9-11)
  
  No humanitarian organization reported any such thing after the air raid. There is no proof whatsoever of even ten deaths, let alone tens of thousands. In a 2002 interview with salon.com, he bases his claim on "estimates made by the German Embassy in Sudan and Human Rights Watch." Not only does Human Rights Watch deny it made any such claim, it never even investigated the matter. His other source, the German Embassy turns out to only be Wener Daum, the German ambassador to Sudan at the time. Daum never actually conducted an investigation into the matter and merely gave (what he calimed to be a "reasonable guess") the totally unsubstantiated number of "tens of thousands."

• Chomsky repeatedly referred to a "silent genocide" with regards to the American campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan. He's right, it sure was silent. So silent that nobody even told the victims (girls finally permitted to attend school, homosexuals no longer facing execution and women allowed to freely walk the streets sans facial masking.) According to Chomsky, the US and it's allies were "trying to murder 3 or 4 million people." He's also repeatedly forecasted "millions" of deaths in Afghanistan as a result of U.S. policies. While the actual death toll is uncertain, the low end estimate put forth by the Associated Press counted 500 to 600 civilian deaths and the high end estimate made by a University of New Hampshire economist put the number between 3,100 and 3,800. Chomsky's prediction was slightly off.
  
  Does Noam even care about the Afghanis. He sure didn't when the U.S. wasn't involved. Nary a word was peeped by Chomsky regarding the five years of fighting the resulted in the Taliban's rise to power which resulted in 50,000 deaths in the capital city of Kabul (as opposed to the 70 civilian deaths in Kabul during the Taliban's ousting) but as soon as the U.S. stepped in, the wrath of Noam Chomsky came, sure as the sunrise.

I could go on (and on and on) about the hypocracy and outrageous double standards of Noam Chomsky but I'm too damn tired.

What bothers me is how pervasive and influential he still is. His books are read at college campuses accross the nation. According to Humanities, Noam Chomsky ranks among the top ten most cited sources (along with Shakespeare and the Holy Bible) and is the number one most cited living source. One of the greatest leftist thinkers of our time? If so, I want absolutely no association with whatever the left wing is these days.

 

[Felicity]

You forgot to say anything about his "transformational grammar!" TG was an excuse for teachers of the seventies to "let the kid's figure out" the basic structure of language development leading to this detestable phenomenon of functional illiterates when it comes to grammar and punctuation.



Now don't start editing my posts....I'm a product of those teachers!

 

[Gardener]

Chomskyites are the perfect example of the parable of the emperor's new clothes. Having run into far too many on various boards the last several years, I cannot help but notice the one unifying theme in people's adoration of the man is that he has been preapproved for them as the "greatest living intellectual" or the "Doyen of the left" or whathaveyou, and so his ramblings are treated as inviolate. Understanding what he says is unimportant, since repeating what he says is all that counts, and whole legions now walk in lockstep with the man.

For a such an imagined intellectual, his political ramblings are certainly simple minded. Sure, the verbage is dressed up nicely with all that purple prose of his (which appeals to the emotions rather than the intellect), but the basic premise is so hackneyed and derivitive that any real intellectual should laugh at it. Yes, yes, yes, by all means, our understanding of the world is complete if we only realize that all we and ours are the oppressing imperialists, and they and theirs are the oppressed indiginies. All the problems in the world are a result of this relationship between imperialist and oppressed, and once we categorize people accordingly (and double or triple that in the case of Israel), then all actions undertaken by the "imperialist" are to be condemned and all actions undertaken by the "oppressed" are supported through the application of apologia.

I'm not really an old man yet, but I found this idealoguery to be pretty stale even before anybody had ever heard of Noam Chomsky. Entirely unoriginal stuff, and it is based upon rationalization rather than rationality as it is so bass ackwards. As with idealogues of various other stripes, it is his ideology that determines his observations rather than his observations determing his ideology, and his relentless apologia is the byproduct of such an outlook.

I will guarantee that in the 2008 election, if the democratic party's candidate has a website involving discussion, the Chomskyites will be there en masse. They will be there to tear down the democratic candidate.

You heard me right.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Personally, I've found the man to be brilliant, especially when I look at his posistions on global affairs. I found that a lot of the things he said were exactly the way I saw them except, unlike me, he was able to put them into words where I couldn't.

My only criticism of Chomsky is his stance on media affairs. I think that he overanalyzes everything in that respect.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

And Washington and Jefferson both owned slaves. Marx never did a day of hard physical labor in his life.

I am not comparing Chomsky to them, but they are an adequate illustration of the point I am making.

People with great ideas, especially great ideas about liberty and equality, do not typically live up to those ideas. And, it is a good thing that they do not; it is their embrace of elitism and the power associated with it that allows them to spread their great ideas. Simply, if they lived up to their noble words about how every human is equal and everyone should get their fair share... their ideas would die.

This may or may not say something about the validity of those great ideas of liberty and equality-- but I think it certainly destroys any grounds for moral condemnation of their proponents not living up to them.

 

[Captain America]

I guess I better read up on this Chomsky guy. He sure ruffles a lot of feathers. Sounds to me like he's just another Coulter, O'Reilly, or Moore. Another bag of hot air making a lot of money on controversy and division. Birds of a feather.:?:

Funny thing is, most folks on the internet that know all about him are the conservatives. He must really **** those guys off.

I think I'll go Google him and see what his message is all about. Thanks to the forum for bringing him to my attention. I'm sure he appreciates you helping him spread his message.

 

[Gardener]

Personally, I've found the man to be brilliant, especially when I look at his posistions on global affairs. I found that a lot of the things he said were exactly the way I saw them except, unlike me, he was able to put them into words where I couldn't.

My only criticism of Chomsky is his stance on media affairs. I think that he overanalyzes everything in that respect.

If your only criticism of him is his stance on media affairs, I would suggest you replace that avatar of yours with something more appropriate -- perhaps a swastica held aloft proudly rather than one being dumped into the trash. His holocaust denial and support for various neonazis is well established.

 

[Gardener]

Funny thing is, most folks on the internet that know all about him are the conservatives. He must really **** those guys off.

I would hardly call myself conservative. I believe in progressive taxation, strong environmental regulation, workers rights, gay marriage, decrimininalization of pot and any number of issues that place me in the "liberal" category. The fact of the matter is -- I can't stand the man *because* of my liberal values.

Chomsky is much quoted by right wing Neonazis. He is much quoted by authoritarian leftists. To object to the man doesn't indicate one is a conservative so much as it indicates one is not an extremist.

 

[Captain America]

I would hardly call myself conservative. I believe in progressive taxation, strong environmental regulation, workers rights, gay marriage, decrimininalization of pot and any number of issues that place me in the "liberal" category. The fact of the matter is -- I can't stand the man *because* of my liberal values.

Chomsky is much quoted by right wing Neonazis. He is much quoted by authoritarian leftists. To object to the man doesn't indicate one is a conservative so much as it indicates one is not an extremist.

Good morning Gardner. Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. I have to agree with you. I am liberal in very many ways. Many you mentioned above. Although, I am fiscally conservative, I am socially liberal. My personal beliefs that align with the right are pro-gun, pro-life, less government (a trait that seems to escape them lately) and that's about it. I do not feel, however, that it is my place to shove my beliefs down the throats of other Americans. I also do not feel it is our national obligation to police the globe and force what we call "democracy" upon other soverign nations simply because we have the means to do so. Neither can I turn a blind eye to Mr. Bush and his minions. :spin: That is where me and the right part company.

A point I was trying to make is, that as a liberal, I know hardly anything about that Chomsky fellow. It seems our collegues on the right know him too well. But I can understand that. In fact, I watch Bill O'Reilly just to see who his sponsers are so as to not patronize them. It's wise to know one's enemies.

Again, thanks for your reply. I'm new here. I was hoping somebody would talk to me eventually.:2wave:

 

[danarhea]

Personally, I've found the man to be brilliant, especially when I look at his posistions on global affairs. I found that a lot of the things he said were exactly the way I saw them except, unlike me, he was able to put them into words where I couldn't.

My only criticism of Chomsky is his stance on media affairs. I think that he overanalyzes everything in that respect.

Chomsky is a pretty bright guy. I dont believe in a lot of what he says, but he is an excellent debater. Today on Democracy now, they were playing a debate between him and Dershowitz, and sparks were really flying between those two. It was a pretty stimulating discussion. You might catch it if you can tune in during the rerun of the show.

 

[Deegan]

And Washington and Jefferson both owned slaves. Marx never did a day of hard physical labor in his life.

I am not comparing Chomsky to them, but they are an adequate illustration of the point I am making.

People with great ideas, especially great ideas about liberty and equality, do not typically live up to those ideas. And, it is a good thing that they do not; it is their embrace of elitism and the power associated with it that allows them to spread their great ideas. Simply, if they lived up to their noble words about how every human is equal and everyone should get their fair share... their ideas would die.

This may or may not say something about the validity of those great ideas of liberty and equality-- but I think it certainly destroys any grounds for moral condemnation of their proponents not living up to them.

:spin:

Well that was a very nice attempt at an apology for the mans decisions, but I would remind you that there are many stock options out there, and he chose to invest in the "war machine" There are also many places he could have built a home, he decided to build one right next door to the "white elite" He could also continue to spread his message just fine for 3,000 a pop, but chose to charge 12,000, I really feel sorry for those schools that can't afford his pearls of wisdom, really, I do.:roll:

 

[FinnMacCool]

If your only criticism of him is his stance on media affairs, I would suggest you replace that avatar of yours with something more appropriate -- perhaps a swastica held aloft proudly rather than one being dumped into the trash. His holocaust denial and support for various neonazis is well established.

This is a common line of thinking for many of those who criticize him. Why don't you, please, show me where you found this information?

For those of you who actually like to think for yourself, you would know that Chomsky was supporting his right to say that the holocaust didn't happen rather then what he actually believed.

 

[Gardener]

Ah, yes, just what I need -- a 17 year old boy who tries on political ideologies like a fickle schoolgirl tries on clothes lecturing the forum about thinking for onesself.

Child, the reason I reject him is because I do think for myself rather than because I don't, since it is quite obviously those who allow him to do the thinking for them who show the lack of independence of thought.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Ah, yes, just what I need -- a 17 year old boy who tries on political ideologies like a fickle schoolgirl tries on clothes lecturing the forum about thinking for onesself.

Child, the reason I reject him is because I do think for myself rather than because I don't, since it is quite obviously those who allow him to do the thinking for them who show the lack of independence of thought.

Heh so I guess you don't really have anything to offer then do you? Other then attacks?

If your attempting to prove that you are somehow smarter then me because your older, your not doing a great job so far.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

 

[Gardener]

Good morning Gardner. Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. I have to agree with you. I am liberal in very many ways. Many you mentioned above. Although, I am fiscally conservative, I am socially liberal. My personal beliefs that align with the right are pro-gun, pro-life, less government (a trait that seems to escape them lately) and that's about it. I do not feel, however, that it is my place to shove my beliefs down the throats of other Americans. I also do not feel it is our national obligation to police the globe and force what we call "democracy" upon other soverign nations simply because we have the means to do so. Neither can I turn a blind eye to Mr. Bush and his minions. :spin: That is where me and the right part company.

A point I was trying to make is, that as a liberal, I know hardly anything about that Chomsky fellow. It seems our collegues on the right know him too well. But I can understand that. In fact, I watch Bill O'Reilly just to see who his sponsers are so as to not patronize them. It's wise to know one's enemies.

Again, thanks for your reply. I'm new here. I was hoping somebody would talk to me eventually.:2wave:

Hey -- CA, if you aren't receiving lots of responses, perhaps that is because you are balanced and fair rather than confrontational and inflamitory. People who talk trash always get lots of replies, and especially if they manage to insult one group or another. I think it says well of you that you aren't getting people jumping down your throat!


As to why the response comes mostly from the right, my response would be to point out that the response to Fred Phelps comes mostly from the left. In a world where people get so caught up in the labels rather than the ideas, there is a tendency to defend the label rather than the idea, and so those who identify themselves as left are loathe to criticize Chomsky -- especially when they risk a certain degree of confrontation from the hard core leftists if they do.

In the case of Chomsky, though, he supports Pol Pot, has been actively involved in a French hate group publishing through a vehicle called "La Veille Taupe", and has written enthusiastic endorsements for the Israeli crackpot Israel Shahak (who recreates every traditional antisemitic blood libel). In the case of La Veille Temp, Chomsky's association with Pierre Guillaume and Robert Faurisson resulted in his ringing support for the latter's claims that the holocaust was made up by Jews in order to elicit symapathy. In a petition with his name as the leading signature, he endorsed Faurisson as a "respected professor" who was being harrassed because of his "findings" (ie -- holocaust denial). Not only does this statement act to legitimize the point of view, itself, but the word Holocaust was listed in parentheses as "Holocaust", a clear nod to the hate that runs so deep as to bring into question its very existance. Chomsky has tried to spin his endorsement into a case of his supporting free speech -- a ruse that works on those who lack the ability to distinguish between supporting the right to free speech and supporting the speech, itself, but the petition was drawn up by a neonazi rather than a person with a libertarian point of view and at no point was there any distancing from his points of view as in "we disagree vehemently with his point of view, but support his right to voice it". The petition did quite the opposite, in fact, as it only tacked on the issue of free speech after endorseing the point of view.


In any case, Chomsky's view are so extreme and relentlssly dogmatic, and his support for some really atrocious people and ideas so striking that I wonder why such views do not give pause to those who support him so enthusiatically and without reservation. The fact that so many do certainly gives creedence to the notion that dittoheads are by no means limited to the right.

 

[Captain America]

Thanks for the Chomsky info Gardener. I truly know little or nothing about the man. How come folks on the right demonize liberals and associate them to Chomsky? He does not sound like somebody me and my liberal friends would cozy up too. To me, he just sounds like another O'reilly, Limbaugh, Moore, Coulter, (the list goes on) blowhard. Albeit, his feathers may be a different color, it sounds to me like he's just another cuckoo like the rest of 'em.:roll:

Yeah, I get along pretty much with anybody who will get along with me. I am not so smart or so cool that I can afford to judge others. I usually do pretty good until I debate a moderator and win. That's usually when they kick me out of the house.

Hasn't happened here yet though. Perhaps there's hope for me yet!:smile:

 

[The Real McCoy]

For those of you who actually like to think for yourself, you would know that Chomsky was supporting his right to say that the holocaust didn't happen rather then what he actually believed.

You're right about that. He's never denied the holocasut. The man's a jew. Why you admire him, however, baffles me

 

[The Real McCoy]

Thanks for the Chomsky info Gardener. I truly know little or nothing about the man.

How old are you? He's a god on college campuses. Most cited living person according to Humanities. Ranks among the top ten most cited along with Shakespeare and the Holy Bible.

How come folks on the right demonize liberals and associate them to Chomsky?

I don't demonize liberals, I just think they're misdirected when it comes to non-social issues. Nor do I associate most of them with Chomsky. He represents the far to extreme left wing.

He does not sound like somebody me and my liberal friends would cozy up too.

I should hope not.

To me, he just sounds like another O'reilly, Limbaugh, Moore, Coulter, (the list goes on) blowhard.

Basically.... except this guy dates back to the 1960s.

Albeit, his feathers may be a different color, it sounds to me like he's just another cuckoo like the rest of 'em.:roll:

I think so. The scary thing is that Chomsky's an MIT professor and apparently that automatically makes him credible. His words are taken as scripture by millions of Americans.

Yeah, I get along pretty much with anybody who will get along with me. I am not so smart or so cool that I can afford to judge others. I usually do pretty good until I debate a moderator and win. That's usually when they kick me out of the house.

You won't be getting kicked out by the mods here for beating them in a debate (although that presents a formidable challenge)... they're all pretty leniant.

 

[Captain America]

How old are you? He's a god on college campuses. Most cited living person according to Humanities. Ranks among the top ten most cited along with Shakespeare and the Holy Bible.

I must admit, it's been a long time since I set foot on a campus. I still use a cassette tape player.:3oops: But I have heard of Shakespere and the Bible.

I don't demonize liberals, I just think they're misdirected when it comes to non-social issues. Nor do I associate most of them with Chomsky. He represents the far to extreme left wing.

Oh, I see. And I agree that liberals seem to excel on social issues over others. That is where the right drops the ball. I hear what you're saying. I'm not an extreme lefty. Maybe that's why he got past me. In other words, he is to the extreme left what O'Reilly and Limbaugh is to the extreme right. Only with an education. I'm catchin' on.

Basically.... except this guy dates back to the 1960s.

So do I. But the 60's and 70's were pretty hard on me. They say if you remember, you weren't there.:smile:

I think so. The scary thing is that Chomsky's an MIT professor and apparently that automatically makes him credible. His words are taken as scripture by millions of Americans.

Hmmmm....that reminds me of a particular Harvard graduate currently sitting in the oval office.

You won't be getting kicked out by the mods here for beating them in a debate (although that presents a formidable challenge)... they're all pretty leniant.

Yeah, I'm really starting to enjoy this site. I feel at home here pretty much. I waana thank my ol' buddy Missouri Mule for turning me on to this forum (I don't know his name at this website though. But I'm sure he's out there watchin' over me.

 

[FinnMacCool]

You're right about that. He's never denied the holocasut. The man's a jew. Why you admire him, however, baffles me

What do you mean by admire? Do I think he has a lot of sense? Yes. Do I think I see eye to eye with him on many issues? Yes. Do I obsessivly worship him? No. Thats the problem with this forum. Everytime you reveal even the hint of admiration of someone in the intellectual community who is controversial, everyone now assumes you obsess over their everyword like its gospel. Well your wrong.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Another thing Captain America, if you really want to know more about Chomsky why don't you read his work instead of reading what these people are telling you? Already, your developing these ideas about something which you know nothing about.

And Gardener, what have you got in your head that makes you think you somehow are so intellectually superior then me? What have you to offer other then insults and bullshit you pick up from other websites? This isn't even Chomsky I'm talking about but just the fact that you can insult me in such a manner. What the **** do you know about me and my political beliefs? You have absolutely no idea what you talk about when you call me a child. Me? Who the **** are you anyways?

I am not at all like who you say I am. ON the contrary to what you say, I'm not a sheep who follows every word of Chomsky. I do not trust anything at face value.

Also I do not change idealogies like I change my underpants. It's true my beliefs have developed overtime but it's not at all like the way you say it is.

Overall, I'm just really pissed that after all my time posting here people still act like I'm some ****ing asshole teenager with absolutely no ****ing idea what I'm talking about.

 

[Captain America]

Another thing Captain America, if you really want to know more about Chomsky why don't you read his work instead of reading what these people are telling you?

That's probably a good idea. Strange thing about me, I actually enjoy hearing what other people have to say. I'm cursed that way.

I'll Google up the ol' boy as soon as I get some time. Right now though, I'm too busy watching the paint dry. Maybe tomorrow.:roll:

 

[The Real McCoy]

What do you mean by admire? Do I think he has a lot of sense? Yes. Do I think I see eye to eye with him on many issues? Yes. Do I obsessivly worship him? No. Thats the problem with this forum. Everytime you reveal even the hint of admiration of someone in the intellectual community who is controversial, everyone now assumes you obsess over their everyword like its gospel. Well your wrong.

The hyperbole was unnecessary. You started off your post asking what I meant by admire and by the end you equated it with worshipping and obsessing and telling me I was wrong.

Perhaps you took my comment as blasphemy against your idol?

 

[The Real McCoy]

Yeah, I'm really starting to enjoy this site. I feel at home here pretty much. I waana thank my ol' buddy Missouri Mule for turning me on to this forum (I don't know his name at this website though. But I'm sure he's out there watchin' over me.

There's a Missouri Mule here at DP, I assume they're one in the same. Anyway, hope your experience here is both educational and enjoyable. :2wave:

 

[Gardener]

I don't demonize liberals, I just think they're misdirected when it comes to non-social issues. Nor do I associate most of them with Chomsky. He represents the far to extreme left wing.

I agree with you up to a point, and if you were to just put the word "many" before the word liberals, I would agree a lot more. My frustration with fellow liberals is that too many create double standards when it comes to viewing other countries and use the notion of moral relativism to explain away their lack of consistancy. There are liberals who don't pull this intellectually dishonest maneuver, though, and who do deal with the world in terms of principles. I think this is especially noteworthy in terms of forign policy because this is the realm in which many of the double standards exist.

Basically.... except this guy dates back to the 1960s.

Technically, yes, but as his first published collections of political writings did not appear until 1969, his influence was really not felt to any degree until the 1970s.