Re: community institutions, was interesting little tidbit ...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/9/03 10:12:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Sandanistas in Nicaragua had nearly

> created a self supporting system before it was stopped.

Sure, but they did it through tyranny and terrorism, which is hardly a good

example of good community institutions.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/10/03 7:12:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> This is not just my opinion, Chris. This is from Freedom of Information.

> Documented at www.understandingpower.com Noam Chomsky also went there,

> IIRC. Knew this would be a loaded statement.

Sure, and Noam Chomsky was horrified at the centralization of the regime, and

told them they should offer more control to the workers, at which the

Sandanista leader he was meeting with scoffed and said " Too anarchist for me. "

He told the story in a speech once. When he writes about the Sandanistas he

tells a ridiculously one-sided story that leaves out half the historical

facts.

This is because it is Chomsky's opinion, which he's expressed in personal

correspondence, that Leftists should only criticize Leftist regimes WITHIN the

Left, and should stick up for them when engaging in conversation with others.

Politics subjugated to truth, common in ideologues.

The Sandanistas were part of a coalition revolution which intended to install

a democratic government, but then they took power and wiped out/exiled all

the other coalition members. The other coalition members were reorganized by

the US as the Contras and fought to install a democratic government. Both sides

used terrorism, but the Sandanistas used it officially while the Contras

officially punished terrorism committed in their ranks.

The US initially chose not to back the Contras, under . 's

Secretary of State publicly stated that their decision was primarily influenced

by

at-the-time radical leftist Horowitz's " Free World Colossus " which was

one of the early or maybe first New Left critique's of US Foreign Policy, kind

of an early version of Chomsky's books. Then they backed them under Reagan,

and well, the rest is history.

Anyway, relying on Chomsky as a sole source of information is kind of silly,

considering he is openly ridiculously ideological.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> Sandanistas in Nicaragua had nearly

>> created a self supporting system before it was stopped.

>

>Sure, but they did it through tyranny and terrorism, which is hardly a good

>example of good community institutions.

>

This is not just my opinion, Chris. This is from Freedom of Information.

Documented at www.understandingpower.com Noam Chomsky also went there,

IIRC. Knew this would be a loaded statement.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/11/03 7:17:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> >Anyway, relying on Chomsky as a sole source of information is kind of

> silly,

> >considering he is openly ridiculously ideological.

>

> The world is divided because humans overly choose to assume and label.

Wanita,

I'm not " assuming " anything about Chomsky. I've read many of his books,

including the bigger denser ones that are not transcriptions of lectures (all

those books that come out at the rate of 10 a year are just transcriptions of

lectures, such as What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Profit Over People, etc), I've

owned and listened to many of his lectures on CD, have read many of his internet

commentaries, and have access to a private forum that Chomsky takes part in,

and have read much of what he has written there.

Actually, I took what Chomsky wrote about the Sandanistas in Necessary

Illusions, which I read some 6 years ago, at face value for several years. It

wasn't until a couple years ago when I read Horowitz's Radical Son, where

he

very briefly commented on the Sandanistas bringing up some very key points I

hadn't known about, that I decided to look into it further. There's a big side

of the story that Chomsky doesn't tell, or at least that I don't remember

Chomsky telling.

I'm not saying he isn't a valuable source of information. I think everyone

would benefit from reading Chomsky who doesn't, especially people who are

generally not exposed to critiques of US foreign policy. Certainly one would be

better off reading Chomsky than most newspapers.

But relying on ANYONE for one side of the story is NEVER a bright idea,

especially when the person has purposes in mind other than scholarship.

I wasn't labelling Chomsky. I could have said " Chomsky isn't worth listening

to because he's an anarchist. " But I didn't put the label on him, I just

said he was an ideologue. That's not really anything he wouldn't admit to; he's

openly a political activist. So I'm simply saying relying on one source of

information about a subject is always dangerous, and much more so if it is a

political source. The same goes for several sources with the same political

viewpoint.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Anyway, relying on Chomsky as a sole source of information is kind of silly,

>considering he is openly ridiculously ideological.

>

>Chris

The world is divided because humans overly choose to assume and label.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/11/03 8:39:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> The simple part is this could be taken, if l were taking it personally as

> " You're a leftist, who only reads Chomsky, and shouldn't because l think he

> and his readers are silly, ideological, not bright anarchists . "

I didn't say you were a leftist, nor did I call Chomsky or his readers silly

(an in fact revealed myself as a Chomsky reader) and certainly didn't call

Chomsky " not bright " which would be absurd, considering his superb analytical

skills, and his ability to be a prolific writer in a field that isn't even his

profession, while attaining the status of a revolutionary thinker within his

professional field.

Some of

> the adjectives could be considered harmless, others harmful if interrpreted

> and perceived as real.

I'm not sure what you're saying, but I meant every single thing I said.

However, judging by your paraphrase above, you seem to have misunderstood me.

Don't like to justify but feel a real need here to

> because of the volatility of the implications.

What implications? All I said was that in all cases in every subject one

should look for at least two points of view, and that the need for this is

increased when one is reading a politically motivated author. This isn't any

sort

of slur or insult. Chomsky is openly political, and in no way claims to be

apolitical.

Personally l see nothing

> subversive in any life's purpose, wish or hope for humanity that leaves no

> living thing behind. Know l'm not the only one. There are more than two

> also. Doesn't mean l'm going to do anything different, else or besides in

> life after reading Chomsky. Reminds me of an elderly lady l work for with

> Alzheimers. Everytime l'm there she says this famous line from an old radio

> show " Who knows the evil that lurks in the hearts of man? Only the shadow

> knows. " l smile with her.

Sorry, but I'm lost.

Chris

[Guest guest]

At 08:37 AM 12/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:

>In a message dated 12/11/03 7:17:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,

>wanitawa@... writes:

>

>> >Anyway, relying on Chomsky as a sole source of information is kind of

>> silly,

>> >considering he is openly ridiculously ideological.

>>

>> The world is divided because humans overly choose to assume and label.

>

>Wanita,

>

>I'm not " assuming " anything about Chomsky. I've read many of his books,

>including the bigger denser ones that are not transcriptions of lectures

(all

>those books that come out at the rate of 10 a year are just transcriptions

of

>lectures, such as What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Profit Over People, etc),

I've

>owned and listened to many of his lectures on CD, have read many of his

internet

>commentaries, and have access to a private forum that Chomsky takes part in,

>and have read much of what he has written there.

>

>Actually, I took what Chomsky wrote about the Sandanistas in Necessary

>Illusions, which I read some 6 years ago, at face value for several years.

It

>wasn't until a couple years ago when I read Horowitz's Radical Son,

where he

>very briefly commented on the Sandanistas bringing up some very key points I

>hadn't known about, that I decided to look into it further. There's a big

side

>of the story that Chomsky doesn't tell, or at least that I don't remember

>Chomsky telling.

>

>I'm not saying he isn't a valuable source of information. I think everyone

>would benefit from reading Chomsky who doesn't, especially people who are

>generally not exposed to critiques of US foreign policy. Certainly one

would be

>better off reading Chomsky than most newspapers.

>

>But relying on ANYONE for one side of the story is NEVER a bright idea,

>especially when the person has purposes in mind other than scholarship.

>

>I wasn't labelling Chomsky. I could have said " Chomsky isn't worth

listening

>to because he's an anarchist. " But I didn't put the label on him, I just

>said he was an ideologue. That's not really anything he wouldn't admit

to; he's

>openly a political activist. So I'm simply saying relying on one source of

>information about a subject is always dangerous, and much more so if it is a

>political source. The same goes for several sources with the same political

>viewpoint.

>

The simple part is this could be taken, if l were taking it personally as

" You're a leftist, who only reads Chomsky, and shouldn't because l think he

and his readers are silly, ideological, not bright anarchists . " Some of

the adjectives could be considered harmless, others harmful if interrpreted

and perceived as real. Don't like to justify but feel a real need here to

because of the volatility of the implications. Personally l see nothing

subversive in any life's purpose, wish or hope for humanity that leaves no

living thing behind. Know l'm not the only one. There are more than two

also. Doesn't mean l'm going to do anything different, else or besides in

life after reading Chomsky. Reminds me of an elderly lady l work for with

Alzheimers. Everytime l'm there she says this famous line from an old radio

show " Who knows the evil that lurks in the hearts of man? Only the shadow

knows. " l smile with her.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

" openly ridiculously ideological " ? Even he would admit that he is an

ideologue?

Please. Any author who writes on the subjects that Chomsky does is political

to an extent - such subjects cannot be covered without some kind of bias.

However, much of Chomsky writing is occupied with documentation of U.S.

hypocrisy, based on the premise that the United States should be viewed with

the same criteria as we view its enemies. I think that his writing is

actually far more objective than most writers on these subjects, who have

deep rooted assumptions about the goodness of United States motives.

You are labeling Chomsky ('ideologue') and you are quite dismissive of him.

Nice that you claim that you " could have " dismissed him as an anarchist.

That was cute.

From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

Reply-

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 08:37:45 EST

Subject: Re: community institutions, was interesting

little tidbit ...

In a message dated 12/11/03 7:17:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> >Anyway, relying on Chomsky as a sole source of information is kind of

> silly,

> >considering he is openly ridiculously ideological.

>

> The world is divided because humans overly choose to assume and label.

Wanita,

I'm not " assuming " anything about Chomsky. I've read many of his books,

including the bigger denser ones that are not transcriptions of lectures

(all

those books that come out at the rate of 10 a year are just transcriptions

of

lectures, such as What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Profit Over People, etc),

I've

owned and listened to many of his lectures on CD, have read many of his

internet

commentaries, and have access to a private forum that Chomsky takes part in,

and have read much of what he has written there.

Actually, I took what Chomsky wrote about the Sandanistas in Necessary

Illusions, which I read some 6 years ago, at face value for several years.

It

wasn't until a couple years ago when I read Horowitz's Radical Son,

where he

very briefly commented on the Sandanistas bringing up some very key points I

hadn't known about, that I decided to look into it further. There's a big

side

of the story that Chomsky doesn't tell, or at least that I don't remember

Chomsky telling.

I'm not saying he isn't a valuable source of information. I think everyone

would benefit from reading Chomsky who doesn't, especially people who are

generally not exposed to critiques of US foreign policy. Certainly one

would be

better off reading Chomsky than most newspapers.

But relying on ANYONE for one side of the story is NEVER a bright idea,

especially when the person has purposes in mind other than scholarship.

I wasn't labelling Chomsky. I could have said " Chomsky isn't worth

listening

to because he's an anarchist. " But I didn't put the label on him, I just

said he was an ideologue. That's not really anything he wouldn't admit to;

he's

openly a political activist. So I'm simply saying relying on one source of

information about a subject is always dangerous, and much more so if it is a

political source. The same goes for several sources with the same political

viewpoint.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/11/03 11:46:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> " openly ridiculously ideological " ? Even he would admit that he is an

> ideologue?

Assuming the definition of " ideologue " is one who subscribes to an ideology,

Chomsky would certainly admit that. I'm sure he'd never make the statement

" I'm ridiculously ideological, " and I don't think anyone would, and it may have

been a poor choice of words, but what I meant with the adverb is that Chomsky

has very strong idelogical streaks.

> Please. Any author who writes on the subjects that Chomsky does is

> political

> to an extent - such subjects cannot be covered without some kind of bias.

Of course.

> However, much of Chomsky writing is occupied with documentation of U.S.

> hypocrisy, based on the premise that the United States should be viewed with

> the same criteria as we view its enemies.

That's not really true. Chomsky's premise is that the United States should

be viewed uniquely by United States citizens as being the major factor in world

affairs that United States citizens an directly impact. That's not to say

Chomsky doesn't point out hypocricy, but his fundamental premise is what I wrote

above, and his general view is that US should be judged against a general

standard of morality and not compared to other countries. He makes comparisons

for purposes of demonstration often, of course.

I think that his writing is

actually far more objective than most writers on these subjects, who have

> deep rooted assumptions about the goodness of United States motives.

Probably, but that's not particularly relevant to the issue at hand, since we

were discussing the Sandanistas, which ruled in Nicaragua, not the United

States.

> You are labeling Chomsky ('ideologue') and you are quite dismissive of him.

> Nice that you claim that you " could have " dismissed him as an anarchist.

> That was cute.

Thanks, I like to be cute. " Ideologue " is not a label per se, in that there

are a plethora of ideologies, and I never named the one that Chomsky

subscribes to. Notice I didn't say that we should " trust " what Oliver North

says about

US foreign policy, but rather that, once again, one should always read at

least two viewpoints on a given subject (that could go for low-carb versus

high-carb diets, for example), and that goes double for a political subject, and

quadruple for a political subject in which the authors are activists. Anyone

necessarily incorporates bias into their work, but US foreign policy could be

approached as an historical science in addition to a political subject, and

someone who is not an activist would tend to approach it in the former way. Of

course Chomsky does a fantastic job being objective, especially considering he

is

openly a political activist, but I pointed out that Chomsky has explicitly

stated his position that the Left should not publicly criticize leftist

revolutionary governments such as Cuba, but should only criticize them *within*

the

Left, which is relevant to the way he portrays the Sandanistan regime.

Also, in a limited fashion, I pointed out what the deficiencies in his

portrayal were, and so far no one has responded to them at all except to defend

Chomsky's character, which I never meant to attack.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/10/03 7:12:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> This is not just my opinion, Chris. This is from Freedom of Information.

> Documented at www.understandingpower.com Noam Chomsky also went there,

> IIRC. Knew this would be a loaded statement.

Wanita, I looked at the website above and it seemed to just be a collection

of footnotes from Chomky's book. Is there supposed to be an article on

Sandanistan institutions there?

Chris

[Guest guest]

All these words have appeared in your posts re: Chomsky, ZNet lefists, most

from the one I included with this response so you could see how the words

could be taken or detrimentally misinterpreted in the worst case

perception. There's no misunderstanding other than our differences on the

" result " of reading. You wrote: But relying on ANYONE for one side of the

story is NEVER a bright idea, especially when the person has purposes in

mind other than scholarship. How do you interpret this? Honestly, l don't

see anything anti-whatever that could rub off on uneducated?, evil

leaning?, (got me) minds from this scholarly and very common sensical

writer who writes with example and " result " of historical perspective. In

my book (who l am) that teaches what " not " to do.

Wanita

>In a message dated 12/11/03 8:39:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,

>wanitawa@... writes:

>

>> The simple part is this could be taken, if l were taking it personally as

>> " You're a leftist, who only reads Chomsky, and shouldn't because l think he

>> and his readers are silly, ideological, not bright anarchists . "

>

>I didn't say you were a leftist, nor did I call Chomsky or his readers silly

>(an in fact revealed myself as a Chomsky reader) and certainly didn't call

>Chomsky " not bright " which would be absurd, considering his superb

analytical

>skills, and his ability to be a prolific writer in a field that isn't even

his

>profession, while attaining the status of a revolutionary thinker within his

>professional field.

..

All these words have appeared in your posts re: Chomsky, ZNet, most from

the one I included with this response so you could see how the words

could be taken in the worst case scenario. Understand how the words could

be detrimentally misinterpreted. There's no misunderstanding other than our

differences in the purpose of his writing.

> Some of

>> the adjectives could be considered harmless, others harmful if interrpreted

>> and perceived as real.

>

>I'm not sure what you're saying, but I meant every single thing I said.

>However, judging by your paraphrase above, you seem to have misunderstood me.

Understand only that there is too much room for misinterpretation

>

> Don't like to justify but feel a real need here to

>> because of the volatility of the implications.

>

>What implications? All I said was that in all cases in every subject one

>should look for at least two points of view, and that the need for this is

>increased when one is reading a politically motivated author. This isn't

any sort

>of slur or insult. Chomsky is openly political, and in no way claims to be

>apolitical.

>

> Personally l see nothing

>> subversive in any life's purpose, wish or hope for humanity that leaves no

>> living thing behind. Know l'm not the only one. There are more than two

>> also. Doesn't mean l'm going to do anything different, else or besides in

>> life after reading Chomsky. Reminds me of an elderly lady l work for with

>> Alzheimers. Everytime l'm there she says this famous line from an old radio

>> show " Who knows the evil that lurks in the hearts of man? Only the shadow

>> knows. " l smile with her.

>

>Sorry, but I'm lost.

>

>Chris

[Guest guest]

At 01:47 PM 12/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:

>In a message dated 12/10/03 7:12:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,

>wanitawa@... writes:

>

>> This is not just my opinion, Chris. This is from Freedom of Information.

>> Documented at www.understandingpower.com Noam Chomsky also went there,

>> IIRC. Knew this would be a loaded statement.

>

>

>Wanita, I looked at the website above and it seemed to just be a collection

>of footnotes from Chomky's book. Is there supposed to be an article on

>Sandanistan institutions there?

>

>Chris

No, Chris. The website is the footnotes to the book. Book index has

Nicaragua referenced to at least a dozen pages not together in one chapter.

Footnotes are by chapter. Book is in question and answer forum from public

discussions so reference is scattered depending on question asked.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/12/03 2:45:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> All these words have appeared in your posts re: Chomsky, ZNet lefists, most

> from the one I included with this response so you could see how the words

> could be taken or detrimentally misinterpreted in the worst case

> perception. There's no misunderstanding other than our differences on the

> " result " of reading. You wrote: But relying on ANYONE for one side of the

> story is NEVER a bright idea, especially when the person has purposes in

> mind other than scholarship. How do you interpret this? Honestly, l don't

> see anything anti-whatever that could rub off on uneducated?, evil

> leaning?, (got me) minds from this scholarly and very common sensical

> writer who writes with example and " result " of historical perspective. In

> my book (who l am) that teaches what " not " to do.

Wanita,

I can see how you could interpret this as implying that you are " not bright, "

and I didn't realize I wrote it. To the extent you thought I was saying

this, I apologize.

It was in retrospect, now that I see how it was interpreted, a bad choice of

words. However, I used it because I often use the phrase " bright idea " as a

phrase in itself. Maybe it's a personal colloquialism, if that isn't a

contradiction, and I meant it in exactly the same way I would have said " a good

idea. "

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/12/03 9:24:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> As has been the case in several discussions we have had, you twist the

> meanings of words in their contexts to try to win your point.

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt.

Everyone has

> an ideology, so everyone is an ideologue, by your definition.

This isn't true, not in the sense I meant it. Everybody has ideas about

things, but lots of people don't have ideologies, in the sense that they look at

things on a case by case basis, rathe than under some overarching idea. Also,

many people don't have political opinions. I have some, but they aren't

strong, and they fluctuate quite often.

Comsky has a theory of US foreign policy that is based on systemic analysis,

which is, in my opinion, more ideological than other theories of US foreign

policy, because it frequently must ignore nuances in order to maintain its

consistency.

But your overall point I agree with, and I think I've stated it numerous

times-- everyone is biased in some way, and one should read more than one source

for anything.

In a context > where you are dismissive of someone's writings on a subject

> because they are

> an ideologue, the term means that their ideology is skewing their

> representation of the facts more than the usual.

Not necessarily more than the usual-- I've stated numerous times that reading

ANY one source on ANY subject and taking it at face value isn't good. If

someone is a political activist, especially on issues that relate to the subject

they're writing about, that's even more a reason to make sure one gets

multiple sources.

I'm not *dismissing* Chomsky, and in fact have stated in this thread

previously that I think most people would benefit from reading Chomsky. But I

don't

think people would benefit from reading Chomsky to the exclusion of other

sources.

In Chomsky's case, his

> methodolgy of holding the U.S. to the same standards as everyone else, and

> inspecting source documents that are not widely publicized in the U.S.

> strengthens his objectivity, rather than sacrificing it towards some

> ideology.

I don't think this makes much sense. It certainly strengthens the ability of

the reader to make an objective decision, providing they are exposed to the

widely publicized information as well, because they have more info than someone

with only the latter. But it doesn't strengthen *Chomsky's* objectivity,

because he still can pick and choose the documents that support his position,

and

disregard the others, regardless of how widely publicized the documents are

or what country they're from.

> How so is he more ideological than someone who cannot make the leap to

> acknowledging the great crimes committed by the U.S. internationally over

> the years. When he says something to the effect of every U.S. president

> since (? I forget the exact quote) should be considered a war criminal, he

> is basing this on generally acknowledged definitions of the term war

> criminal (when used against official U.S. enemies) weighted against the

> actual actions of U.S. presidents.

That's certainly debatable, and something I really don't want to debate,

especially since I don't have any solid opinion on it. But it's really

tangential

here. Why is it relevant how ideological other people are?

> >>However, much of Chomsky writing is occupied with documentation of U.S.

> >>hypocrisy, based on the premise that the United States should be viewed

> with

> >>the same criteria as we view its enemies.

> >

> >That's not really true. Chomsky's premise is that the United States should

> >be viewed uniquely by United States citizens as being the major factor in

> >world

> >affairs that United States citizens an directly impact.

>

> You absolutely do not know what you are talking about. It's really

> infuriating. You have read Chomsky, but you don't 'get' him at all. Yet you

> act like you know EVERYTHING. A little more humility would be very becoming.

I could debate this and show why I think this, but it is entirely tangential

and I really don't want to. I think I " get " Chomsky; you think I don't.

Chomsky has said what I paraphrased him saying above so many dozens of times

that

I've read, that it's become quite clear to me that that is his positions. And

it's an entirely sensible one. It's perfectly possible that I don't

understand what Chomsky writes, but I find it doubtful, since he has said this

literally dozens of times. I've read many of Chomsky's books (certainly not all

of

them), listened to many of his lecture's on CDs, read numerous essays, and read

dozens if not hundreds of forum posts by him from a private forum I have

access to which I've read for years.

It's my personal opinon that, were I too summarize Chomsky in some

fundamental statement, in regards to US foreign policy, it would be that US

citizens

should be concerend with the US foreign policy above all because they should

change it, moreso than with the crimes of other countries, whose policy they

cannot change. I don't think that invalidates your point, that Chomsky points

out

US hypocricy. He does that constantly. But that's just not how I would

summarize the fundamental view.

>

> >That's not to say

> >Chomsky doesn't point out hypocricy, but his fundamental premise is what I

> >wrote

> >above, and his general view is that US should be judged against a general

> >standard of morality and not compared to other countries. He makes

> >comparisons

> >for purposes of demonstration often, of course.

> NO - absolutely wrong. He emphasizes, when people ask why he singles out

> the

> U.S., that since we are citizens of this country it is our duty to try to

> change its behavior, but that we should apply the same standards

> universally. He states this basic premise repeatedly.

I don't know what we're debating here. We each agree with each other, but

you consider one of the points more fundamental than the one I consider more

fundamental. And yet we are calling each other " wrong. " Seems a matter of

interpretation to me. We've both called each other wrong, wrongly, and we

should

probably both stop doing so here.

>

> >I think that his writing is

> >actually far more objective than most writers on these subjects, who have

> >>deep rooted assumptions about the goodness of United States motives.

> >

> >Probably, but that's not particularly relevant to the issue at hand, since

> we

> >were discussing the Sandanistas, which ruled in Nicaragua, not the United

> >States.

> >

>

> Well, sorry if I didn't read every post in the thread. You were making broad

> generalizations about Chomsky, weren't you?

Not really, I was pointing out that one shouldn't use single sources of

information about politically loaded topics, especially if the author is taking

a

" side " on the issue, in which case its basically imperative to get the " other "

" side, " regardless of which side you read initially, in order to get an

objective view.

Given the care with which you

> have read him, I doubt that you 'got' him about the Sandanistas either.

I think we have a more or less similar understanding of Chomsky.

>

> >>You are labeling Chomsky ('ideologue') and you are quite dismissive of

> him.

> >>Nice that you claim that you " could have " dismissed him as an anarchist.

> >>That was cute.

> >

> >Thanks, I like to be cute. " Ideologue " is not a label per se, in that

> there

> >are a plethora of ideologies, and I never named the one that Chomsky

> >subscribes to.

>

> How, in God's name, is that not a 'label per se'? Do you just make this

> stuff up? Of course it's a label. Any label could be made more specific or

> less specific, no?

Sure I guess so. But you said " everyone " has ideologies above, so wouldn't a

" label " be something that differentiates one person from another, or one

thing from another?

> > Notice I didn't say that we should " trust " what Oliver North

> >says about

> >US foreign policy, but rather that, once again, one should always read at

> >least two viewpoints on a given subject (that could go for low-carb versus

> >high-carb diets, for example), and that goes double for a political

> subject,

> >and

> >quadruple for a political subject in which the authors are activists.

> Anyone

> >necessarily incorporates bias into their work, but US foreign policy could

> be

> >approached as an historical science in addition to a political subject, and

> >someone who is not an activist would tend to approach it in the former way.

>

> ??? Chomsky does'nt approach it historically? I mean, this isn't a science

> in the strict sense of the term, so I'm not sure what you're attempting to

> accomplish with that term.

What I was trying to say is one's purpose could be primarily historical, or

one's purpose could be primarily political, and Chomsky's is the latter, though

there is enormous overlap between the two and no author only does one or the

other.

>

> >Of

> >course Chomsky does a fantastic job being objective, especially considering

> he

> >is

> >openly a political activist,

>

> The fact that he has the courage to act upon his conclusions in no way

> diminishes his objectivity. You imply that he distorts his research to match

> his activism. I think that he forms conclusions based on his research and

> has the courage to act on his convictions.

I think he currently ingnores lots of nuances to fit his information into his

overarching theory, which is done by almost everyone and probably everyone

who has a theory about anything, even about natural sciences. So, does that

mean we shouldn't read someone with a theory? Of course not! But it does mean

that we should read different theories to get all the information, since

inevitably everyone leaves something out.

> but I pointed out that Chomsky has explicitly

> >stated his position that the Left should not publicly criticize leftist

> >revolutionary governments such as Cuba, but should only criticize them

> >*within* the

> >Left, which is relevant to the way he portrays the Sandanistan regime.

>

> At this point, I simply do not take anything you say as true unless you can

> provide me with a specific reference. Until then, I will assume that you are

> grossly distorting his point of view.

Fine. If I have time, which I don't at the moment (since I've used it all on

these posts! lol!), I'll see if I can search the archives of the forum he

wrote it in, if that's even ethical.

>

> And the notion that you are 'pointing this out' to us? What are you, are

> teacher?

Isn't there a difference between pointing something out and teaching

something?

> You're an arrogant, young, student who thinks he knows everything.

I'm glad you do such a great job distancing personal emotions from

intellectual debates.

>

> Please - provide exact references and quotes and I can work from there. But

> given the either intellectually dishonest or just simply incorrect reading

> of him in general, I won't comment on what you 'point out' until you provide

> a more exact reference.

>

I'm not going to bother, since you aren't even remotely discussing the actual

issue about Sandanistas, and no one has yet provided any citation for

anything in this thread.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/03 12:29:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> >This isn't true, not in the sense I meant it. Everybody has ideas about

> >things, but lots of people don't have ideologies, in the sense that they

> look

> >at

> >things on a case by case basis, rathe than under some overarching idea.

>

> That's really a lot of crap.

I'm not the only one who thinks so, it's pretty widely held in psychology, I

think, which is why there was the whole debate about whether it's sexist to

consider subscribing to overarching principles a stage of development, when

women supposedly are more likely to make decisions by what benefits people in a

given case than by some overarching principle.

I think that a lot of people are inconsistent,

> meaning that they don't realize that their set of assumptions and their set

> of conclusions are internally inconsistent. But I certainly don't think that

> Chomsky is more ideolological than the next person. You are confusing

> 'moderate' with objective, I think.

Moderate? Anyway, I'm not interested in comparing Chomsky to other people,

it was never a point I meant to stress, and it's really got nothing to do with

initial issue, which has been lost in this conversation about Chomsky himself.

>

> >Also,

> >many people don't have political opinions. I have some, but they aren't

> >strong, and they fluctuate quite often.

>

> Yeah, right.

Out of curiosity, are you a psychotherapist? If not, perhaps you should

consider it, since you seem to know my thoughts considerably better than I do.

> No, you certainly don't agree with my 'overall' point. You are such an

> arrogant, patronizing, twit.

I guess I should try to work on that.

> >In a context >where you are dismissive of someone's writings on a subject

> >>because they are

> >>an ideologue, the term means that their ideology is skewing their

> >>representation of the facts more than the usual.

> >

> >Not necessarily more than the usual-- I've stated numerous times that

> reading

> >ANY one source on ANY subject and taking it at face value isn't good.

>

> A total non sequitur. I did not imply at all that reading conflicting

> opinions was a bad idea. That has nothing at all to do with whether Chomsky

> is an ideologue, which is a meaningless term if you are not singling (sp?)

> him out.

If it's so meaningless why are we talking about it so much? Chomksy is a

political activist. I'd be extra skeptical about people's writing when it's

politically motivated. Does everyone let their political biases leak into their

writing? Yeah, sure. And we should be skeptical of EVERYTHING. But when

someone is openly political in purpose, clearly they are likely to introduce

biases to another degree than someone doing so unconsciously. Why is this so

complicated?

> >I'm not *dismissing* Chomsky, and in fact have stated in this thread

> >previously that I think most people would benefit from reading Chomsky.

>

> Oh, please. You are totally dismiss him. It's like you're recommending that

> people read him as an example of ideological excess.

You can see this is clearly false by reading the other posts I've made in

this thread to Wanita.

>

> >But I

> >don't

> >think people would benefit from reading Chomsky to the exclusion of other

> >sources.

> >

>

> Where in the world have I implied that? He doesn't differ from ANYONE else

> in that respect.

You implied that by getting us into these long posts in response to my

suggestion to Wanita that it wasn't a good idea to use Chomsky as a singular

source.

I've said probably a dozen times now that that goes for any other source,

but since Chomsky is the one she used, that's who came up in the discussion.

>

> >In Chomsky's case, his

> >>methodolgy of holding the U.S. to the same standards as everyone else, and

> >>inspecting source documents that are not widely publicized in the U.S.

> >>strengthens his objectivity, rather than sacrificing it towards some

> >>ideology.

> >

> >I don't think this makes much sense.

>

> Oh really? You mean it's incoherent?

No, I mean I think it's a non-sequitor. The following paragraph quoted from

me sufficiently clarifies that:

>

> >It certainly strengthens the ability of

> >the reader to make an objective decision, providing they are exposed to the

> >widely publicized information as well, because they have more info than

> >someone

> >with only the latter. But it doesn't strengthen *Chomsky's* objectivity,

> >because he still can pick and choose the documents that support his

> position,

> >and

> >disregard the others, regardless of how widely publicized the documents are

> >or what country they're from.

>

> ????? Any author picks and chooses his relevant documents, however most

> authors on U.S. foreign policy restrict themselves to somewhat 'official'

> sources. The fact that he has a much more expansive list of sources

> OBVIOUSLY is a factor in favor of his objectivity. In many cases, his

> evidence is quite damning, and I have never heard anyone accurately claim

> that he has faked any of his documentation.

Using a more expansive list has nothing to do with his objectivity, nor his

accuracy. His accuracy is related to the quality of the documents, not the

quantity, nor inversely related to the popularity of the documents. His

objectivity is related to his ability to analyze and interpret the data in a way

that

the data alone suggests without pre-conceived notions affecting that

interpretation. To fully do that is of course impossible, but one is objective

insofar

as they do it.

>

> >>>>However, much of Chomsky writing is occupied with documentation of U.S.

> >>>>hypocrisy, based on the premise that the United States should be viewed

> >>with

> >>>>the same criteria as we view its enemies.

> >>>

> >>>That's not really true. Chomsky's premise is that the United States

> should

> >>>be viewed uniquely by United States citizens as being the major factor in

> >>>world

> >>>affairs that United States citizens an directly impact.

> >>

> >>You absolutely do not know what you are talking about. It's really

> >>infuriating. You have read Chomsky, but you don't 'get' him at all. Yet

> you

> >>act like you know EVERYTHING. A little more humility would be very

> becoming.

> >

> >I could debate this and show why I think this, but it is entirely

> tangential

> >and I really don't want to. I think I " get " Chomsky; you think I don't.

> >Chomsky has said what I paraphrased him saying above so many dozens of

> times

> >that

> >I've read, that it's become quite clear to me that that is his positions.

> And

> >it's an entirely sensible one. It's perfectly possible that I don't

> >understand what Chomsky writes, but I find it doubtful, since he has said

> this

> >literally dozens of times. I've read many of Chomsky's books (certainly

> not

> >all of

> >them), listened to many of his lecture's on CDs, read numerous essays, and

> >read

> >dozens if not hundreds of forum posts by him from a private forum I have

> >access to which I've read for years.

> >

>

> But, and I say this respectfully, you are an idiot,

lol! that was a good one :-)

and totally full of

> yourself. You have no idea what you are talking about! Provide some

> documentation. You state all of this garbage, then you say that it isn't

> relevant when you are called on it.

It ubiquitous in his lectures at least, probably less so in books, but

really, I never meant to get into this discussion of Chomsky's merits, and this

above tangent really has nothing to do with the basic question of whether

someone

who is openly political and ideological deserves an extra dose of skepticism

or not, and has even less to do with the question that was initially raised,

whether the Sandanista regime can offer us a good example of community

institutions that can replace government bureacracy.

>

> >It's my personal opinon that, were I too summarize Chomsky in some

> >fundamental statement, in regards to US foreign policy, it would be that US

> >citizens

> >should be concerend with the US foreign policy above all because they

> should

> >change it, moreso than with the crimes of other countries, whose policy

> they

> >cannot change.

>

> Well - read what I wrote. He says repeatedly that we should be CONCERNED

> with U.S. policy more than that of other countries, because we live here and

> it is our responsibility, but he emphasizes over and over that we should

> judge all countries by the same standards. Why is that so bleeping (can I

> swear on this list, because you really piss me off!) hard to understand?

It isn't, and I don't disagree with it. Like I said in the last post, I

think we essentially are reading Chomsky the same and choosing to emphasize

different points. I admitted that *I* was *wrong* for claiming your opinion was

" wrong, " and I can understand why it's so " bleeping " hard for you to accept this

admission, realize we don't have any substantial disagreement, and move on.

(ok, fair question, why can't i move on either...)

>

> >I don't think that invalidates your point, that Chomsky points

> >out

> >US hypocricy. He does that constantly. But that's just not how I would

> >summarize the fundamental view.

>

> Well, you misread him on a fundamental level, and you have the audacity to

> represent yourself as knowledgeable.

Yeah, I do have a lot of chutzpah.

> >I don't know what we're debating here. We each agree with each other, but

> >you consider one of the points more fundamental than the one I consider

> more

> >fundamental. And yet we are calling each other " wrong. " Seems a matter of

> >interpretation to me. We've both called each other wrong, wrongly, and we

> >should

> >probably both stop doing so here.

>

> NO - you fundamentally misunderstand his argument. I don't know how to make

> this more clear.

I suspect I'm not doing a good job communicating, or you're just

misunderstanding me, because, like I said, I think we essentially agree, and

we've BOTH

agreed that each of the points we singled out as his " fundamental " point, ARE

major points. So it's really a matter of how one organizes one's interpretation

of Chomsky in our heads, which has a certain degree of subjectivity to it.

> ???? And you intended to differentiate Chomsky because you say he is an

> ideologue. What is so fuzzy about that?

Geez it was so long ago I don't remember my exact words. Yeah, I was saying

Chomsky is openly political and ideological. I'm quite sure I said that lots

of sources were ideological. Not every source is ideological, in my opinion,

and I would define that as a source that has some ideological purpose in their

writing.

>

> >>

> >>>Of

> >>>course Chomsky does a fantastic job being objective, especially

> considering

> >>he

> >>>is

> >>>openly a political activist,

> >>

> >>The fact that he has the courage to act upon his conclusions in no way

> >>diminishes his objectivity. You imply that he distorts his research to

> match

> >>his activism. I think that he forms conclusions based on his research and

> >>has the courage to act on his convictions.

> >

> >I think he currently ingnores lots of nuances to fit his information into

> his

> >overarching theory, which is done by almost everyone and probably everyone

> >who has a theory about anything, even about natural sciences. So, does

> that

> >mean we shouldn't read someone with a theory? Of course not! But it does

> >mean

> >that we should read different theories to get all the information, since

> >inevitably everyone leaves something out.

>

> I think that he makes every effort to explain nuances that seem to diverge

> from his 'theory'. Of course, he cannot cover every topic from every angle.

> You seem to want to have it both ways - you use language which is totally

> dismissive of him, making it clear that this is your objective - then when

> challenged, you try to say that you are not singling him out.

You claim I'm " dimissive " of Chomsky, and I claim I'm not. Why should I

believe you rather than my own thoughst? Isn't that getting silly?

My point was that in some of Chomsky's writings on the Sandanistas he leaves

out some parts of the story leaving the Sandanistas looking a little ideal

than they should. I don't know if the particular source Wanita cited does so,

since I haven't read it, but I suspect it does, especially since it is lecture

transcriptions. Whether Chomsky criticizes the Sandanistas elsewhere or not

doesn't really matter in this case.

> >Fine. If I have time, which I don't at the moment (since I've used it all

> on

> >these posts! lol!), I'll see if I can search the archives of the forum he

> >wrote it in, if that's even ethical.

> >

>

> How in the world could that be unethical!?

Because it's generally considered unethical to print private correspondence

publicly without the author's permission. Of course, I doubt Chomsky would

even care, actually, I'm almost sure Chomsky wouldn't care, but it's

nevertheless

violates traditional etiquette as I understand it.

> >>And the notion that you are 'pointing this out' to us? What are you, are

> >>teacher?

> >

> >Isn't there a difference between pointing something out and teaching

> >something?

> >

>

> Sure. But I think that my point was obvious.

I'm sure it was, but as you pointed out earlier in the post, I am an idiot,

so it kind of went past me.

> >>You're an arrogant, young, student who thinks he knows everything.

> >

> >I'm glad you do such a great job distancing personal emotions from

> >intellectual debates.

>

> Yeah sorry - I get angry at pretenders who really have no idea how to argue

> logically, and pretend to expertise far beyond their abilities.

I don't blame you.

> >I'm not going to bother, since you aren't even remotely discussing the

> actual

> >issue about Sandanistas, and no one has yet provided any citation for

> >anything in this thread.

>

> When I jumped in, you weren't talking about the Sandanistas, and I see no

> reason to research the earlier posts in the thread. I was commenting on what

> YOU said, which apparently you are only partially responsible for.

You're making an issue of Chomsky's credibility, but I never meant to deride

Chomsky. For whatever reason you think the " label " " ideological " is derisive

to his character or merit or competence, and I don't think it is.

I really don't want to talk about Chomsky's credibility anymore. If you

want, take this as a concession. After all, if I'm " responsible " for my words,

I

guess this is admitting defeat.

Chris

[Guest guest]

From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

Reply-

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:15:43 EST

Subject: Re: community institutions, was interesting

little tidbit ...

>

>

> In a message dated 12/11/03 11:46:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>

>> " openly ridiculously ideological " ? Even he would admit that he is an

>> ideologue?

>

> Assuming the definition of " ideologue " is one who subscribes to an ideology,

> Chomsky would certainly admit that.

As has been the case in several discussions we have had, you twist the

meanings of words in their contexts to try to win your point. Everyone has

an ideology, so everyone is an ideologue, by your definition. In a context

where you are dismissive of someone's writings on a subject because they are

an ideologue, the term means that their ideology is skewing their

representation of the facts more than the usual. In Chomsky's case, his

methodolgy of holding the U.S. to the same standards as everyone else, and

inspecting source documents that are not widely publicized in the U.S.

strengthens his objectivity, rather than sacrificing it towards some

ideology.

> I'm sure he'd never make the statement

> " I'm ridiculously ideological, " and I don't think anyone would, and it may

> have

> been a poor choice of words, but what I meant with the adverb is that Chomsky

> has very strong idelogical streaks.

>

>

How so is he more ideological than someone who cannot make the leap to

acknowledging the great crimes committed by the U.S. internationally over

the years. When he says something to the effect of every U.S. president

since (? I forget the exact quote) should be considered a war criminal, he

is basing this on generally acknowledged definitions of the term war

criminal (when used against official U.S. enemies) weighted against the

actual actions of U.S. presidents.

>> Please. Any author who writes on the subjects that Chomsky does is

>> political

>> to an extent - such subjects cannot be covered without some kind of bias.

>

> Of course.

>

>> However, much of Chomsky writing is occupied with documentation of U.S.

>> hypocrisy, based on the premise that the United States should be viewed with

>> the same criteria as we view its enemies.

>

> That's not really true. Chomsky's premise is that the United States should

> be viewed uniquely by United States citizens as being the major factor in

> world

> affairs that United States citizens an directly impact.

You absolutely do not know what you are talking about. It's really

infuriating. You have read Chomsky, but you don't 'get' him at all. Yet you

act like you know EVERYTHING. A little more humility would be very becoming.

> That's not to say

> Chomsky doesn't point out hypocricy, but his fundamental premise is what I

> wrote

> above, and his general view is that US should be judged against a general

> standard of morality and not compared to other countries. He makes

> comparisons

> for purposes of demonstration often, of course.

>

NO - absolutely wrong. He emphasizes, when people ask why he singles out the

U.S., that since we are citizens of this country it is our duty to try to

change its behavior, but that we should apply the same standards

universally. He states this basic premise repeatedly.

> I think that his writing is

> actually far more objective than most writers on these subjects, who have

>> deep rooted assumptions about the goodness of United States motives.

>

> Probably, but that's not particularly relevant to the issue at hand, since we

> were discussing the Sandanistas, which ruled in Nicaragua, not the United

> States.

>

Well, sorry if I didn't read every post in the thread. You were making broad

generalizations about Chomsky, weren't you? Given the care with which you

have read him, I doubt that you 'got' him about the Sandanistas either.

>> You are labeling Chomsky ('ideologue') and you are quite dismissive of him.

>> Nice that you claim that you " could have " dismissed him as an anarchist.

>> That was cute.

>

> Thanks, I like to be cute. " Ideologue " is not a label per se, in that there

> are a plethora of ideologies, and I never named the one that Chomsky

> subscribes to.

How, in God's name, is that not a 'label per se'? Do you just make this

stuff up? Of course it's a label. Any label could be made more specific or

less specific, no?

> Notice I didn't say that we should " trust " what Oliver North

> says about

> US foreign policy, but rather that, once again, one should always read at

> least two viewpoints on a given subject (that could go for low-carb versus

> high-carb diets, for example), and that goes double for a political subject,

> and

> quadruple for a political subject in which the authors are activists. Anyone

> necessarily incorporates bias into their work, but US foreign policy could be

> approached as an historical science in addition to a political subject, and

> someone who is not an activist would tend to approach it in the former way.

??? Chomsky does'nt approach it historically? I mean, this isn't a science

in the strict sense of the term, so I'm not sure what you're attempting to

accomplish with that term.

> Of

> course Chomsky does a fantastic job being objective, especially considering he

> is

> openly a political activist,

The fact that he has the courage to act upon his conclusions in no way

diminishes his objectivity. You imply that he distorts his research to match

his activism. I think that he forms conclusions based on his research and

has the courage to act on his convictions.

but I pointed out that Chomsky has explicitly

> stated his position that the Left should not publicly criticize leftist

> revolutionary governments such as Cuba, but should only criticize them

> *within* the

> Left, which is relevant to the way he portrays the Sandanistan regime.

At this point, I simply do not take anything you say as true unless you can

provide me with a specific reference. Until then, I will assume that you are

grossly distorting his point of view.

And the notion that you are 'pointing this out' to us? What are you, are

teacher? You're an arrogant, young, student who thinks he knows everything.

>

> Also, in a limited fashion, I pointed out what the deficiencies in his

> portrayal were, and so far no one has responded to them at all except to

> defend

> Chomsky's character, which I never meant to attack.

>

> Chris

Please - provide exact references and quotes and I can work from there. But

given the either intellectually dishonest or just simply incorrect reading

of him in general, I won't comment on what you 'point out' until you provide

a more exact reference.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

Reply-

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:38:41 EST

Subject: Re: community institutions, was interesting

little tidbit ...

>

>

> In a message dated 12/12/03 9:24:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>

>> As has been the case in several discussions we have had, you twist the

>> meanings of words in their contexts to try to win your point.

>

> Thanks for the benefit of the doubt.

>

No problem.

> Everyone has

>> an ideology, so everyone is an ideologue, by your definition.

>

> This isn't true, not in the sense I meant it. Everybody has ideas about

> things, but lots of people don't have ideologies, in the sense that they look

> at

> things on a case by case basis, rathe than under some overarching idea.

That's really a lot of crap. I think that a lot of people are inconsistent,

meaning that they don't realize that their set of assumptions and their set

of conclusions are internally inconsistent. But I certainly don't think that

Chomsky is more ideolological than the next person. You are confusing

'moderate' with objective, I think.

> Also,

> many people don't have political opinions. I have some, but they aren't

> strong, and they fluctuate quite often.

>

Yeah, right.

> Comsky has a theory of US foreign policy that is based on systemic analysis,

> which is, in my opinion, more ideological than other theories of US foreign

> policy, because it frequently must ignore nuances in order to maintain its

> consistency.

>

Totally an opinion, based on a totally flawed analysis of Chomsky (judging

by some of your fraudulently incorrect statements about his views).

> But your overall point I agree with, and I think I've stated it numerous

> times-- everyone is biased in some way, and one should read more than one

> source

> for anything.

No, you certainly don't agree with my 'overall' point. You are such an

arrogant, patronizing, twit.

>

>

> In a context > where you are dismissive of someone's writings on a subject

>> because they are

>> an ideologue, the term means that their ideology is skewing their

>> representation of the facts more than the usual.

>

> Not necessarily more than the usual-- I've stated numerous times that reading

> ANY one source on ANY subject and taking it at face value isn't good.

A total non sequitur. I did not imply at all that reading conflicting

opinions was a bad idea. That has nothing at all to do with whether Chomsky

is an ideologue, which is a meaningless term if you are not singling (sp?)

him out.

> If

> someone is a political activist, especially on issues that relate to the

> subject

> they're writing about, that's even more a reason to make sure one gets

> multiple sources.

>

No, I don't think so.

> I'm not *dismissing* Chomsky, and in fact have stated in this thread

> previously that I think most people would benefit from reading Chomsky.

Oh, please. You are totally dismiss him. It's like you're recommending that

people read him as an example of ideological excess.

> But I

> don't

> think people would benefit from reading Chomsky to the exclusion of other

> sources.

>

Where in the world have I implied that? He doesn't differ from ANYONE else

in that respect.

> In Chomsky's case, his

>> methodolgy of holding the U.S. to the same standards as everyone else, and

>> inspecting source documents that are not widely publicized in the U.S.

>> strengthens his objectivity, rather than sacrificing it towards some

>> ideology.

>

> I don't think this makes much sense.

Oh really? You mean it's incoherent?

> It certainly strengthens the ability of

> the reader to make an objective decision, providing they are exposed to the

> widely publicized information as well, because they have more info than

> someone

> with only the latter. But it doesn't strengthen *Chomsky's* objectivity,

> because he still can pick and choose the documents that support his position,

> and

> disregard the others, regardless of how widely publicized the documents are

> or what country they're from.

????? Any author picks and chooses his relevant documents, however most

authors on U.S. foreign policy restrict themselves to somewhat 'official'

sources. The fact that he has a much more expansive list of sources

OBVIOUSLY is a factor in favor of his objectivity. In many cases, his

evidence is quite damning, and I have never heard anyone accurately claim

that he has faked any of his documentation.

>

>> How so is he more ideological than someone who cannot make the leap to

>> acknowledging the great crimes committed by the U.S. internationally over

>> the years. When he says something to the effect of every U.S. president

>> since (? I forget the exact quote) should be considered a war criminal, he

>> is basing this on generally acknowledged definitions of the term war

>> criminal (when used against official U.S. enemies) weighted against the

>> actual actions of U.S. presidents.

>

> That's certainly debatable, and something I really don't want to debate,

> especially since I don't have any solid opinion on it. But it's really

> tangential

> here. Why is it relevant how ideological other people are?

>

I believe we've covered that several times.

>>>> However, much of Chomsky writing is occupied with documentation of U.S.

>>>> hypocrisy, based on the premise that the United States should be viewed

>> with

>>>> the same criteria as we view its enemies.

>>>

>>> That's not really true. Chomsky's premise is that the United States should

>>> be viewed uniquely by United States citizens as being the major factor in

>>> world

>>> affairs that United States citizens an directly impact.

>>

>> You absolutely do not know what you are talking about. It's really

>> infuriating. You have read Chomsky, but you don't 'get' him at all. Yet you

>> act like you know EVERYTHING. A little more humility would be very becoming.

>

> I could debate this and show why I think this, but it is entirely tangential

> and I really don't want to. I think I " get " Chomsky; you think I don't.

> Chomsky has said what I paraphrased him saying above so many dozens of times

> that

> I've read, that it's become quite clear to me that that is his positions. And

> it's an entirely sensible one. It's perfectly possible that I don't

> understand what Chomsky writes, but I find it doubtful, since he has said this

> literally dozens of times. I've read many of Chomsky's books (certainly not

> all of

> them), listened to many of his lecture's on CDs, read numerous essays, and

> read

> dozens if not hundreds of forum posts by him from a private forum I have

> access to which I've read for years.

>

But, and I say this respectfully, you are an idiot, and totally full of

yourself. You have no idea what you are talking about! Provide some

documentation. You state all of this garbage, then you say that it isn't

relevant when you are called on it.

> It's my personal opinon that, were I too summarize Chomsky in some

> fundamental statement, in regards to US foreign policy, it would be that US

> citizens

> should be concerend with the US foreign policy above all because they should

> change it, moreso than with the crimes of other countries, whose policy they

> cannot change.

Well - read what I wrote. He says repeatedly that we should be CONCERNED

with U.S. policy more than that of other countries, because we live here and

it is our responsibility, but he emphasizes over and over that we should

judge all countries by the same standards. Why is that so bleeping (can I

swear on this list, because you really piss me off!) hard to understand?

> I don't think that invalidates your point, that Chomsky points

> out

> US hypocricy. He does that constantly. But that's just not how I would

> summarize the fundamental view.

Well, you misread him on a fundamental level, and you have the audacity to

represent yourself as knowledgeable.

>

>>

>>> That's not to say

>>> Chomsky doesn't point out hypocricy, but his fundamental premise is what I

>>> wrote

>>> above, and his general view is that US should be judged against a general

>>> standard of morality and not compared to other countries. He makes

>>> comparisons

>>> for purposes of demonstration often, of course.

>

>

>

>> NO - absolutely wrong. He emphasizes, when people ask why he singles out

>> the

>> U.S., that since we are citizens of this country it is our duty to try to

>> change its behavior, but that we should apply the same standards

>> universally. He states this basic premise repeatedly.

>

> I don't know what we're debating here. We each agree with each other, but

> you consider one of the points more fundamental than the one I consider more

> fundamental. And yet we are calling each other " wrong. " Seems a matter of

> interpretation to me. We've both called each other wrong, wrongly, and we

> should

> probably both stop doing so here.

NO - you fundamentally misunderstand his argument. I don't know how to make

this more clear.

>

>>

>>> I think that his writing is

>>> actually far more objective than most writers on these subjects, who have

>>>> deep rooted assumptions about the goodness of United States motives.

>>>

>>> Probably, but that's not particularly relevant to the issue at hand, since

>> we

>>> were discussing the Sandanistas, which ruled in Nicaragua, not the United

>>> States.

>>>

>>

>> Well, sorry if I didn't read every post in the thread. You were making broad

>> generalizations about Chomsky, weren't you?

>

> Not really, I was pointing out that one shouldn't use single sources of

> information about politically loaded topics, especially if the author is

> taking a

> " side " on the issue, in which case its basically imperative to get the " other "

> " side, " regardless of which side you read initially, in order to get an

> objective view.

>

???? LOL!

> Given the care with which you

>> have read him, I doubt that you 'got' him about the Sandanistas either.

>

> I think we have a more or less similar understanding of Chomsky.

It is about as different as you can get, in my opinion.

>

>>

>>>> You are labeling Chomsky ('ideologue') and you are quite dismissive of

>> him.

>>>> Nice that you claim that you " could have " dismissed him as an anarchist.

>>>> That was cute.

>>>

>>> Thanks, I like to be cute. " Ideologue " is not a label per se, in that

>> there

>>> are a plethora of ideologies, and I never named the one that Chomsky

>>> subscribes to.

>>

>> How, in God's name, is that not a 'label per se'? Do you just make this

>> stuff up? Of course it's a label. Any label could be made more specific or

>> less specific, no?

>

> Sure I guess so. But you said " everyone " has ideologies above, so wouldn't a

> " label " be something that differentiates one person from another, or one

> thing from another?

???? And you intended to differentiate Chomsky because you say he is an

ideologue. What is so fuzzy about that?

>>

>>> Of

>>> course Chomsky does a fantastic job being objective, especially considering

>> he

>>> is

>>> openly a political activist,

>>

>> The fact that he has the courage to act upon his conclusions in no way

>> diminishes his objectivity. You imply that he distorts his research to match

>> his activism. I think that he forms conclusions based on his research and

>> has the courage to act on his convictions.

>

> I think he currently ingnores lots of nuances to fit his information into his

> overarching theory, which is done by almost everyone and probably everyone

> who has a theory about anything, even about natural sciences. So, does that

> mean we shouldn't read someone with a theory? Of course not! But it does

> mean

> that we should read different theories to get all the information, since

> inevitably everyone leaves something out.

I think that he makes every effort to explain nuances that seem to diverge

from his 'theory'. Of course, he cannot cover every topic from every angle.

You seem to want to have it both ways - you use language which is totally

dismissive of him, making it clear that this is your objective - then when

challenged, you try to say that you are not singling him out.

>

>> but I pointed out that Chomsky has explicitly

>>> stated his position that the Left should not publicly criticize leftist

>>> revolutionary governments such as Cuba, but should only criticize them

>>> *within* the

>>> Left, which is relevant to the way he portrays the Sandanistan regime.

>>

>> At this point, I simply do not take anything you say as true unless you can

>> provide me with a specific reference. Until then, I will assume that you are

>> grossly distorting his point of view.

>

> Fine. If I have time, which I don't at the moment (since I've used it all on

> these posts! lol!), I'll see if I can search the archives of the forum he

> wrote it in, if that's even ethical.

>

How in the world could that be unethical!?

>>

>> And the notion that you are 'pointing this out' to us? What are you, are

>> teacher?

>

> Isn't there a difference between pointing something out and teaching

> something?

>

Sure. But I think that my point was obvious.

>> You're an arrogant, young, student who thinks he knows everything.

>

> I'm glad you do such a great job distancing personal emotions from

> intellectual debates.

Yeah sorry - I get angry at pretenders who really have no idea how to argue

logically, and pretend to expertise far beyond their abilities.

>

>>

>> Please - provide exact references and quotes and I can work from there. But

>> given the either intellectually dishonest or just simply incorrect reading

>> of him in general, I won't comment on what you 'point out' until you provide

>> a more exact reference.

>>

>

> I'm not going to bother, since you aren't even remotely discussing the actual

> issue about Sandanistas, and no one has yet provided any citation for

> anything in this thread.

>

When I jumped in, you weren't talking about the Sandanistas, and I see no

reason to research the earlier posts in the thread. I was commenting on what

YOU said, which apparently you are only partially responsible for.

[Guest guest]

Oh my goodness! Is there a full moon out, or is Gene

Schwartz, A.K.A. Ruby Krickett, just an alter ego of

Ring Around the Moon? :-D

>

> No, you certainly don't agree with my 'overall' point. You are

> such an arrogant, patronizing, twit.

and

> But, and I say this respectfully, you are an idiot, and totally

> full of yourself. You have no idea what you are talking about!

and

> Yeah sorry - I get angry at pretenders who really have no idea

> how to argue logically, and pretend to expertise far beyond their

> abilities.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/03 12:00:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> I haven't read the earlier part of the thread, but wouldn't making

> decisions

> by 'what benefits people in a given case' be working under an overarching

> principle?

Gene,

That's actually my opinion too, and I made this criticism to no avail way

back in the day in psych 101. I think it depends which way you look at it. In

one sense, you can make a valid differentiation. For example, the overarching

principle person might say that theft is wrong, period, so one who committs it

should have consequence x follow it. The case-by-case person might say theft

is wrong, but in some scenarios the person may have been on the verge of

starvation, and were justified in stealing the bread from the store, because the

store had extra, and it would be worse for someone to die than someone to

committ theft.

But on the other hand, as you point out, you could say the latter person

subscribed to the overarching principle that suffering should always be

minimized.

> >>>Also,

> >>>many people don't have political opinions. I have some, but they aren't

> >>>strong, and they fluctuate quite often.

> >>

> >>Yeah, right.

> >

> >Out of curiosity, are you a psychotherapist? If not, perhaps you should

> >consider it, since you seem to know my thoughts considerably better than I

> do.

>

>

> That's an interesting interpretation, and suggests not that I should be a

> psychotherapist, but that you should hire one.

I seem to be managing fine without one, and I really can't afford one right

now. I was simply suggesting that common decency would suggest one take

other's statments of their own thoughts at face value, rather than

second-guessing

them.

> But, of course, you did mean to single him out. You did mean to say that

> Chomsky is an ideologue (i.e. in this context allows his political ideals to

> influence his conclusions excessively), and you emphasized that by using the

> word 'ridiculously'. You essentially impugned his intellectual integrity,

> but you don't have the guts to just say it.

I don't remember whether it was in response to you or Wanita, but I did

clarify in past posts in this thread that the term " ridiculously, " perhaps a bad

choice, was meant as measure of magnitude, not a value judgment. I realize that

that is not the literal meaning of the word, which is I think " worthy of

ridicule, " but I think it's actually a common colloquialism to use

" ridiculously "

as a measure of magnitude.

How can someone spend much of their life researching in fields

> like politics and history and not be passionate enough about it to hold

> strong opinions?

Because not everyone comes to the conclusion that foreign policy issues are

primarily systemic. Actually, most foreign policy theories divide up the

executors of foreign policy into several camps, which leads them to primarily

analyze foreign policy as the result of the people executing it, rather than the

systemics. Chomsky is in a minority here (which doesn't make him wrong.) Its

an inherent pitfall in systemic analysis that one naturally tends to gloss over

nuances, because one deemphasizes the difference between different

policy-makers, while a non-systemic analysis naturally over-emphasizes the

differences

between different policy-makers, and naturally de-emphasizes their

commonalities.

Whether one pitfall is more or less severe than another really depends on

what you view as the primary purpose of the analysis, in my opinion. If you

want

readers to become part of a movement to change the system, clearly it is

counter-productive to engage in non-systemic analysis. If the systemic analysis

is correct, this is a perfectly valid motive, because it yields the conclusion

that the system *should* be changed for the sake of morality.

But if one's purpose is to simply gain a thorough descriptive understanding

of a particular event, the systemic analysis is probably less useful, because

it deemphasizes nuances unique to that event.

The discussion Wanita and I were having didn't deal with the US in any way

whatsoever. It dealt with how useful the Sandinista experience is in informing

how we can change our institutions at the community level. She cited Chomsky

as a sole source. I suggest that Chomsky's work in describing the Sandanista

experience is considerably deficient in regards to our purpose. In large

part, this is because Chomsky's purpose is systemic analysis of US foreign

policy,

not the particulars of the Sandanista regime.

> >But when

> >someone is openly political in purpose, clearly they are likely to

> introduce

> >biases to another degree than someone doing so unconsciously. Why is this

> so

> >complicated?

>

> LOL! When have I suggested that it is complicated? My objections to your

> reasoning are not so complicated either!

You're right. Actually, both lack complication to the point that we aren't

moving beyond a yes-it-is no-it-isn't argument in this particular issue, and I

think we have to agree to disagree. I personally think political activists

deserve an extra dose of skepticism; you don't. That's pretty subjective. What

we both agree on is that all sources deserve some dose of skepticism, and

it's generally counterproductive to read one source alone, especially on

politically loaded topics. I think we agree more than we disagree here, and

it's

fruitless to continue arguing the point.

> How can you possibly claim this. I never suggested that by using a more

> expansive list of sources he 'ensured' his objectivity, but, all things

> being equal, whose objectivity would you trust more on the subject ABOUT the

> U.S. role in the world, and the way that it is reported by official sources

> in America - one who restricted himself to those sources, or one who

> researched a wider range of international sources? Sure - it is only one

> variable, but in the context of Chomsky's subject matter it is ESPECIALLY

> relevant to considerations of his objectivity compared to U.S. government

> apologists.

For the record, I think that Chomsky is considerably more objective than any

other New Left author I've read. I think he's taken a lot of flack on the

Left for his objectivity, especially from anarchists in the anarchist mags.

I'm not interested in comparing Chomsky's objectivity to other authors in

regards to US foreign policy because I don't really have the time or the

familiarity with enough sources to assess the " typical " level of objectivity.

Some

authors tend to take the US's " side " in general, and that is certainly a

compromise in objectivity when they're rooting for the home team. But there are

a

lot of authors who approach their analysis as if each policy maker is an

individual with different ideas, and I think their analyses tend to reveal

nuances

better than those with systemic analysis. I think one could make a case that

Chomsky is less " objective " in that he disregards these nuances in favor of

commonalities between policy-makers in order to demonstrate systemics.

But in a way " objective " here is really a relative term that is tied into the

perceived purpose of the writing. For example, Chomsky never intended, to my

knowledge, to give a comprehensive history of the Sandanista revolution in

Nicaragua. So he naturally emphasizes the facts that are relevant to his

systemic analysis of US foreign policy. If you view the purpose of his writing

as

US foreign policy analysis, there isn't really a compromise in objectivity. If

you view the purpose of his writing as Nicaraguan history, there are

significant compromises for the sake of supporting his ideas. So perhaps it

would be

proper to say that Chomsky is objective, but that his own objective differs

from the one that is useful to our discussion, and therefore for our purposes it

isn't " objective. "

> But it's not as if the emphasis is not extremely important. It is clear in

> his writings, and in the speeches that I have heard. You stated initially

> (sorry if I don't have the energy to dig up the quote amongst all our

> verbiage) that Chomsky believed that we should hold the U.S. to a different

> standard. He doesn't. He believes that the activism of U.S. citizens should

> be focused on the behavior of the U.S. because that is what we are most

> responsible for.

Did I say that? If I did, I see why you think I'm an idiot, and that was

essentially a typo. I don't mean that, and I will check to see my wording in a

moment. What I meant is that he believes the US should be judged against a

solid standard of morality, not against other countries.

You can find Chomsky exposing hypocricy by comparing US to other countries,

but I don't believe this is his take-away point. You can also find Chomsky

resisting comparisons to other countries. For example, comparisons to the

Soviet

Union, where Chomsky would say that the brutality of USSR is irrelevant to

how we should conduct our policy.

What I'm trying to say is that I believe if Chomsky wanted there to be a

fundamental take-home point of his work, it wouldn't be that the US should be

judged by the same standard as we judge other countries (though that is a point

he

makes a lot, in terms of opposing a unique standard), but that US citizens

should influence US policy based on what is moral versus what is immoral,

regardless of what any other country does. Does that clear anything up?

> Well - you have convinced yourself apparently that you were not dismissive

> of Chomsky. I suggest you objectively look back on what you have said, and

> evaluate whether it was dismissive.

If I say one thing, and then clarify it, I may have spoken poorly the first

time. Some of the posts in this thread I wrote way past my bed time, and I'm

sort of tired of the dicussion, so I haven't been speaking my clearest. And

sometimes I just don't communicate what I'm saying well.

But in any case, if you were interested in just having a discussion rather

than competing with me, wouldn't you regard these clarifications as the natural

process of trying to move toward an agreement, rather than twisting my own

words to " win " the argument?

> Well, I don't have strong recollections of the particulars of what Chomsky

> has said about the Sandanistas, but what I do recall is that he was both

> complimentary of them (in the context of U.S. allies) but highly critical of

> them (in the context of ideal behavior). i.e. rather objective, in my view.

>

My very first post on this subject was to point out that Chomsky has been

critical of the Sandanistas. Since Wanita recommended their model as ideal

community institutions, I suspect that the particular source she read on the

subject did not have this balance.

> hmmm - I have never understood a 'forum' to be 'private'.

It is if the public don't have access to it.

> >I'm sure it was, but as you pointed out earlier in the post, I am an

> idiot,

> >so it kind of went past me.

>

> Thank you for pointing that out.

You're welcome. I'm always happy to teacher-- er, point something out.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/03 12:29:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> >>>That's not really true. Chomsky's premise is that the United States

> should

> >>>be viewed uniquely by United States citizens as being the major factor in

> >>>world

> >>>affairs that United States citizens an directly impact.

Aha, I see the confusion. I did not mean by a unique standard, I meant

unique, which was probably not the best choice, in regard to the relationship US

citizens have to US foreign policy, how they should view it, and the impact they

can have.

That's why I used the word " as " to use the phrase immediately following it to

modify the adverb in question. IOW, what is unique about the US is not the

moral standard applied to it, but the fact that it is a factor in world affairs

that US citizens can impact in ways they cannot impact other countries'

policies.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:25:59 EST

>

> Subject: Re: community institutions, was interesting little

> tidbit ...

>

>

> In a message dated 12/13/03 12:29:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>

>>> This isn't true, not in the sense I meant it. Everybody has ideas about

>>> things, but lots of people don't have ideologies, in the sense that they

>> look

>>> at

>>> things on a case by case basis, rathe than under some overarching idea.

>>

>> That's really a lot of crap.

>

> I'm not the only one who thinks so, it's pretty widely held in psychology, I

> think, which is why there was the whole debate about whether it's sexist to

> consider subscribing to overarching principles a stage of development, when

> women supposedly are more likely to make decisions by what benefits people in

> a

> given case than by some overarching principle.

Well, sorry, but I was evaluating this issue on a case by case basis, rather

than 'under some overarching idea.'

I haven't read the earlier part of the thread, but wouldn't making decisions

by 'what benefits people in a given case' be working under an overarching

principle?

You know, I did not mean to imply that you are the only person who holds

each of your views. It is more the way that you state them with such

certainty that I object to, and that you seem to state so many, many things

with such certainty, when I know for a fact that you are actually not

certain (i.e. have the knowledge that you pretend to have).

>

> I think that a lot of people are inconsistent,

>> meaning that they don't realize that their set of assumptions and their set

>> of conclusions are internally inconsistent. But I certainly don't think that

>> Chomsky is more ideolological than the next person. You are confusing

>> 'moderate' with objective, I think.

>

> Moderate? Anyway, I'm not interested in comparing Chomsky to other people,

> it was never a point I meant to stress, and it's really got nothing to do with

> initial issue, which has been lost in this conversation about Chomsky himself.

>

But, I responded to what you said about Chomsky. Whether the original

issue has been lost in our thread is really not important. Perhaps the

subject line should have been changed, but that IS what heppens with

conversations all the time.

It is true that we are both getting tired of this...it's a question of who

fatigues first, I guess...

>>

>>> Also,

>>> many people don't have political opinions. I have some, but they aren't

>>> strong, and they fluctuate quite often.

>>

>> Yeah, right.

>

> Out of curiosity, are you a psychotherapist? If not, perhaps you should

> consider it, since you seem to know my thoughts considerably better than I do.

>

That's an interesting interpretation, and suggests not that I should be a

psychotherapist, but that you should hire one.

>> No, you certainly don't agree with my 'overall' point. You are such an

>> arrogant, patronizing, twit.

>

> I guess I should try to work on that.

>

Well, you really should. The twit part dissolves magically when you work on

the rest of it.

>>> In a context >where you are dismissive of someone's writings on a subject

>>>> because they are

>>>> an ideologue, the term means that their ideology is skewing their

>>>> representation of the facts more than the usual.

>>>

>>> Not necessarily more than the usual-- I've stated numerous times that

>> reading

>>> ANY one source on ANY subject and taking it at face value isn't good.

>>

>> A total non sequitur. I did not imply at all that reading conflicting

>> opinions was a bad idea. That has nothing at all to do with whether Chomsky

>> is an ideologue, which is a meaningless term if you are not singling (sp?)

>> him out.

>

> If it's so meaningless why are we talking about it so much?

Again - I think that what I've said is clear on this subject. You are not

reading carefully. I'll try one more time. You used 'ideologue' to dismiss

Chomsky's objectivity and accuracy. If by 'ideologue' you mean something

that applies to the great majority of authors, then IN THIS CONTEXT, it is

really quite meaningless. Kind of like saying that Chomsky's objectivity (as

opposed to other authors) is in question because he is human...you can't

have it both ways, i.e. singlling him out because he is an ideologue, then

claim that you weren't singling him out because the term applies to

everyone, hah hah hah...

But, of course, you did mean to single him out. You did mean to say that

Chomsky is an ideologue (i.e. in this context allows his political ideals to

influence his conclusions excessively), and you emphasized that by using the

word 'ridiculously'. You essentially impugned his intellectual integrity,

but you don't have the guts to just say it.

> Chomksy is a

> political activist. I'd be extra skeptical about people's writing when it's

> politically motivated.

hmmmm. Your logic is - if someone is an activist AND writes, then their

research and conclusions are greatly colored by their preconceived political

views. Certainly that does sometimes occur. I would claim that it is also

true that someone who is a 'pure' academic, who writes on political issues

without acting on them, is simply someone without the courage of their

convictions, who has assimilated the 'official views' as their 'overarching

principles' How can someone spend much of their life researching in fields

like politics and history and not be passionate enough about it to hold

strong opinions? One type of person is the type of academic who has learned

well the received wisdom about the U.S. role in the world, and doesn't

really question it. It doesn't really help you get ahead to question certain

things...the same sort of corruption takes place in academia as takes place

in politics. There is a filtering process.

So their are activists who let their ideologies skew their research, and

their are so-called 'objective' academics who have been so corrupted by the

process that they appear on Nightline on a regular basis. But to state that

it is those who act on beliefs that are hostile to the current order are

less objective than those who are acceptable to the power structure shows

that either you haven't read Chomsky well, or you just haven't assimilated

what he's said. I think his views are quite relevant to what you are saying

about him!

> Does everyone let their political biases leak into

> their

> writing? Yeah, sure. And we should be skeptical of EVERYTHING.

Sure - as much as is possible.

>But when

> someone is openly political in purpose, clearly they are likely to introduce

> biases to another degree than someone doing so unconsciously. Why is this so

> complicated?

LOL! When have I suggested that it is complicated? My objections to your

reasoning are not so complicated either!

>

>>> I'm not *dismissing* Chomsky, and in fact have stated in this thread

>>> previously that I think most people would benefit from reading Chomsky.

>>

>> Oh, please. You are totally dismiss him. It's like you're recommending that

>> people read him as an example of ideological excess.

>

> You can see this is clearly false by reading the other posts I've made in

> this thread to Wanita.

>

All I've seen (and clearly I haven't read all the posts) is you dismissing

Chomsky, then declaring that you haven't dismissed him...over and over

again.

>>

>>> But I

>>> don't

>>> think people would benefit from reading Chomsky to the exclusion of other

>>> sources.

>

>>>

>>

>> Where in the world have I implied that? He doesn't differ from ANYONE else

>> in that respect.

>

> You implied that by getting us into these long posts in response to my

> suggestion to Wanita that it wasn't a good idea to use Chomsky as a singular

> source.

" IMPLIED " ? No, I certainly don't think so. You stated things about Chomsky

that were much stronger than anything one should use in an argument that NO

particular source should be used to the exclusion of other sources. I

objected to the blanket statements that you made about Chomsky, which, I

think is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

> I've said probably a dozen times now that that goes for any other source,

> but since Chomsky is the one she used, that's who came up in the discussion.

>

That is really irrelevant. I called into question the things that you said

about him.

>>

>>> In Chomsky's case, his

>>>> methodolgy of holding the U.S. to the same standards as everyone else, and

>>>> inspecting source documents that are not widely publicized in the U.S.

>>>> strengthens his objectivity, rather than sacrificing it towards some

>>>> ideology.

>>>

>>> I don't think this makes much sense.

>>

>> Oh really? You mean it's incoherent?

>

> No, I mean I think it's a non-sequitor. The following paragraph quoted from

> me sufficiently clarifies that:

>

Well, then, prehaps you should speak more precisely. But, I still see the

above as quite relevant.

>>

>>> It certainly strengthens the ability of

>>> the reader to make an objective decision, providing they are exposed to the

>>> widely publicized information as well, because they have more info than

>>> someone

>>> with only the latter. But it doesn't strengthen *Chomsky's* objectivity,

>>> because he still can pick and choose the documents that support his

>> position,

>>> and

>>> disregard the others, regardless of how widely publicized the documents are

>>> or what country they're from.

>>

>> ????? Any author picks and chooses his relevant documents, however most

>> authors on U.S. foreign policy restrict themselves to somewhat 'official'

>> sources. The fact that he has a much more expansive list of sources

>> OBVIOUSLY is a factor in favor of his objectivity. In many cases, his

>> evidence is quite damning, and I have never heard anyone accurately claim

>> that he has faked any of his documentation.

>

> Using a more expansive list has nothing to do with his objectivity, nor his

> accuracy.

How can you possibly claim this. I never suggested that by using a more

expansive list of sources he 'ensured' his objectivity, but, all things

being equal, whose objectivity would you trust more on the subject ABOUT the

U.S. role in the world, and the way that it is reported by official sources

in America - one who restricted himself to those sources, or one who

researched a wider range of international sources? Sure - it is only one

variable, but in the context of Chomsky's subject matter it is ESPECIALLY

relevant to considerations of his objectivity compared to U.S. government

apologists.

> His accuracy is related to the quality of the documents, not the

> quantity, nor inversely related to the popularity of the documents.

Well, sure...but I never implied that sheer quantity was the issue here.

Another gross distortion. So, now, you have evidence that the " quality " of

his documents are in question? And it's interesting that you use the word

" popularity " , apparently to subtly change the nuance from 'official'.

Curious...

> His

> objectivity is related to his ability to analyze and interpret the data in a

> way that

> the data alone suggests without pre-conceived notions affecting that

> interpretation. To fully do that is of course impossible, but one is

> objective insofar

> as they do it.

Well, right. And I've argued why I think that he is MORE objective than most

other writers on these subjects, and how he is LESS influenced by

pre-conceived notions.

....

>>

>>> It's my personal opinon that, were I too summarize Chomsky in some

>>> fundamental statement, in regards to US foreign policy, it would be that US

>>> citizens

>>> should be concerend with the US foreign policy above all because they

>> should

>>> change it, moreso than with the crimes of other countries, whose policy

>> they

>>> cannot change.

>>

>> Well - read what I wrote. He says repeatedly that we should be CONCERNED

>> with U.S. policy more than that of other countries, because we live here and

>> it is our responsibility, but he emphasizes over and over that we should

>> judge all countries by the same standards. Why is that so bleeping (can I

>> swear on this list, because you really piss me off!) hard to understand?

>

> It isn't, and I don't disagree with it. Like I said in the last post, I

> think we essentially are reading Chomsky the same and choosing to emphasize

> different points.

But it's not as if the emphasis is not extremely important. It is clear in

his writings, and in the speeches that I have heard. You stated initially

(sorry if I don't have the energy to dig up the quote amongst all our

verbiage) that Chomsky believed that we should hold the U.S. to a different

standard. He doesn't. He believes that the activism of U.S. citizens should

be focused on the behavior of the U.S. because that is what we are most

responsible for.

>I admitted that *I* was *wrong* for claiming your opinion

> was

> " wrong, " and I can understand why it's so " bleeping " hard for you to accept

> this

> admission, realize we don't have any substantial disagreement, and move on.

> (ok, fair question, why can't i move on either...)

>

Well - I see us as having very fundamental disagreements.

>>

>>> I don't think that invalidates your point, that Chomsky points

>>> out

>>> US hypocricy. He does that constantly. But that's just not how I would

>>> summarize the fundamental view.

>>

>> Well, you misread him on a fundamental level, and you have the audacity to

>> represent yourself as knowledgeable.

>

> Yeah, I do have a lot of chutzpah.

>

Well, at least you're pronouncing it correctly...

>>> I don't know what we're debating here. We each agree with each other, but

>>> you consider one of the points more fundamental than the one I consider

>> more

>>> fundamental. And yet we are calling each other " wrong. " Seems a matter of

>>> interpretation to me. We've both called each other wrong, wrongly, and we

>>> should

>>> probably both stop doing so here.

>>

>> NO - you fundamentally misunderstand his argument. I don't know how to make

>> this more clear.

>

> I suspect I'm not doing a good job communicating, or you're just

> misunderstanding me, because, like I said, I think we essentially agree, and

> we've BOTH

> agreed that each of the points we singled out as his " fundamental " point, ARE

> major points. So it's really a matter of how one organizes one's

> interpretation

> of Chomsky in our heads, which has a certain degree of subjectivity to it.

>

hmmm - again, I see us as disagreeing strongly about what Chomsky says, and

his relative objectivity. I also see you as being quite inconsistent in your

statements about him. I don't think that if we 'played back' your statements

in this thread we would see a fundamental agreement.

>

> You claim I'm " dimissive " of Chomsky, and I claim I'm not. Why should I

> believe you rather than my own thoughst? Isn't that getting silly?

Well - you have convinced yourself apparently that you were not dismissive

of Chomsky. I suggest you objectively look back on what you have said, and

evaluate whether it was dismissive. To claim that someone who writes

seriously about something is a 'ridiculously ideological', or however you

put it, certainly reveals an intent to dismiss which you later retracted

somewhat. But that's what you do repeatedly. You state something strongly,

then claim that you don't believe it. You claim that you don't " believe "

that you were dismissive, but the evidence belies that. To claim that

someone who writes on political matters is more ideological than others who

write on the same subject BECAUSE he is an activist and has strong beliefs

IS being dismissive of him. OBVIOUSLY.

Can you really be this disingenuous? Or do you simply not understand?

>

> My point was that in some of Chomsky's writings on the Sandanistas he leaves

> out some parts of the story leaving the Sandanistas looking a little ideal

> than they should. I don't know if the particular source Wanita cited does

> so,

> since I haven't read it, but I suspect it does, especially since it is lecture

> transcriptions. Whether Chomsky criticizes the Sandanistas elsewhere or not

> doesn't really matter in this case.

Well, I don't have strong recollections of the particulars of what Chomsky

has said about the Sandanistas, but what I do recall is that he was both

complimentary of them (in the context of U.S. allies) but highly critical of

them (in the context of ideal behavior). i.e. rather objective, in my view.

>

>>> Fine. If I have time, which I don't at the moment (since I've used it all

>> on

>>> these posts! lol!), I'll see if I can search the archives of the forum he

>>> wrote it in, if that's even ethical.

>>>

>>

>> How in the world could that be unethical!?

>

> Because it's generally considered unethical to print private correspondence

> publicly without the author's permission.

hmmm - I have never understood a 'forum' to be 'private'.

>>>> And the notion that you are 'pointing this out' to us? What are you, are

>>>> teacher?

>>>

>>> Isn't there a difference between pointing something out and teaching

>>> something?

>>>

>>

>> Sure. But I think that my point was obvious.

>

> I'm sure it was, but as you pointed out earlier in the post, I am an idiot,

> so it kind of went past me.

>

Thank you for pointing that out.

>>>> You're an arrogant, young, student who thinks he knows everything.

>>>

>>> I'm glad you do such a great job distancing personal emotions from

>>> intellectual debates.

>>

>> Yeah sorry - I get angry at pretenders who really have no idea how to argue

>> logically, and pretend to expertise far beyond their abilities.

>

> I don't blame you.

>

You would if you understood what I was saying.

>>> I'm not going to bother, since you aren't even remotely discussing the

>> actual

>>> issue about Sandanistas, and no one has yet provided any citation for

>>> anything in this thread.

>>

>> When I jumped in, you weren't talking about the Sandanistas, and I see no

>> reason to research the earlier posts in the thread. I was commenting on what

>> YOU said, which apparently you are only partially responsible for.

>

> You're making an issue of Chomsky's credibility, but I never meant to deride

> Chomsky. For whatever reason you think the " label " " ideological " is derisive

> to his character or merit or competence, and I don't think it is.

>

> I really don't want to talk about Chomsky's credibility anymore. If you

> want, take this as a concession. After all, if I'm " responsible " for my

> words, I

> guess this is admitting defeat.

>

You are " admitting defeat " in the same way that you claim that you never

were dismissive of Chomsky...

[Guest guest]

Well, if you haven't noticed, 'Gene Schwartz' is just an anagram of 'Ring

Around the Moon'...

From: " wtsdv " <liberty@...>

Reply-

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 06:43:18 -0000

Subject: Re: community institutions, was interesting

little tidbit ...

Oh my goodness! Is there a full moon out, or is Gene

Schwartz, A.K.A. Ruby Krickett, just an alter ego of

Ring Around the Moon? :-D

>

> No, you certainly don't agree with my 'overall' point. You are

> such an arrogant, patronizing, twit.

and

> But, and I say this respectfully, you are an idiot, and totally

> full of yourself. You have no idea what you are talking about!

and

> Yeah sorry - I get angry at pretenders who really have no idea

> how to argue logically, and pretend to expertise far beyond their

> abilities.

[Guest guest]

>The discussion Wanita and I were having didn't deal with the US in any way

>whatsoever. It dealt with how useful the Sandinista experience is in

informing

>how we can change our institutions at the community level. She cited

Chomsky

>as a sole source. I suggest that Chomsky's work in describing the

Sandanista

>experience is considerably deficient in regards to our purpose. In large

>part, this is because Chomsky's purpose is systemic analysis of US foreign

policy,

>not the particulars of the Sandanista regime.

Whoa, Chris.! IIRC, this came up in reference to Hispanics donating to

Hispanic non profits here. Never meant the Sandinistas to be any model to

community here. Their model of community working to support themselves was

a threat to their government. The result, U.S. involvement and more

Nicaraguans dead than all our wars since the Civil War put together.

Community is a natural extension of culture as long as theres a smidgen

left that hasn't been lost to living an economy. There's communities of all

nationalities all over this country. We're a community here of common

interest.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/03 3:26:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Whoa, Chris.! IIRC, this came up in reference to Hispanics donating to

> Hispanic non profits here. Never meant the Sandinistas to be any model to

> community here.

Guess I misunderstood you. I did say when I posted the link that I was

posting it for the material they printed about the different community-level

institutions and community roles they played.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/03 6:20:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> >>I haven't read the earlier part of the thread, but wouldn't making

> >>decisions

> >>by 'what benefits people in a given case' be working under an overarching

> >>principle?

> >

> >Gene,

> >

> >That's actually my opinion too, and I made this criticism to no avail way

> >back in the day in psych 101.

>

> Nice attempt at a little dig, but I see no reason to take your failure to

> convince your professor (a grad student?) as any kind of validation of your

> point.

I wouldn't either, but I'd think you'd take *your* statement of that exact

point, quoted above, as validation, since my only " point " was to agree with the

one you made. My professor was actually head of the department. I honestly

can't remember what his response was, as it was over five years ago, some 25%

of my life, I do remember no one seemed to agree with me. But like I said, I

can see it both ways now.

>

> >I think it depends which way you look at it.

> >In

> >one sense, you can make a valid differentiation. For example, the

> overarching

> >principle person might say that theft is wrong, period, so one who committs

> it

> >should have consequence x follow it. The case-by-case person might say

> theft

> >is wrong, but in some scenarios the person may have been on the verge of

> >starvation, and were justified in stealing the bread from the store,

> because

> >the

> >store had extra, and it would be worse for someone to die than someone to

> >committ theft.

>

> But this has nothing at all to do with 'overarching principles'. In the

> latter case, the person you label as a 'case by case' person simply has a

> more nuanced and humane overarching principle guiding his analysis. In BOTH

> cases, the person uses the overarching principle to help analyze the

> situation. I see NO relevant difference.

>

> >

> >But on the other hand, as you point out, you could say the latter person

> >subscribed to the overarching principle that suffering should always be

> >minimized.

>

> And that is indeed the correct answer. Of course, it 'depends which way you

> look at it'. One can neglect the obvious, which is that both people are

> using their ideals to analyze your hypothetical case. There is a distinction

> between the two people, however, this distinction is NOT 'overarching

> principle vs case by case'. Even the anti-theft person analyzes by a

> case-by-case methodology - in each case he must analyze whether theft has

> actually occurred. The other person analyzes whether a violation of his rule

> (more complex) has occurred.

> >

> >>>>>Also,

> >>>>>many people don't have political opinions. I have some, but they

> aren't

> >>>>>strong, and they fluctuate quite often.

> >>>>

> >>>>Yeah, right.

> >>>

> >>>Out of curiosity, are you a psychotherapist? If not, perhaps you should

> >>>consider it, since you seem to know my thoughts considerably better than

> I

> >>do.

> >>

> >>

> >>That's an interesting interpretation, and suggests not that I should be a

> >>psychotherapist, but that you should hire one.

> >

> >I seem to be managing fine without one, and I really can't afford one right

> >now. I was simply suggesting that common decency would suggest one take

> >other's statments of their own thoughts at face value, rather than

> >second-guessing

> >them.

>

> Well, I was joking. However if one's assessment of one's own thoughts

> contradicts one's actions, then further analysis is called for. You

> repeatedly claim this and that (I never was dismissive of Chomsky, you and I

> agree, etc), but your actual statements contradict this claim. Imagine, for

> example, if someone hits you and you get angry at them for hitting you, then

> they respond that they never hit you....you would certainly challenge their

> assessment of their behavior. An extreme example, but logically the same.

>

> >

> >>But, of course, you did mean to single him out. You did mean to say that

> >>Chomsky is an ideologue (i.e. in this context allows his political ideals

> to

> >>influence his conclusions excessively), and you emphasized that by using

> the

> >>word 'ridiculously'. You essentially impugned his intellectual integrity,

> >>but you don't have the guts to just say it.

> >

> >I don't remember whether it was in response to you or Wanita, but I did

> >clarify in past posts in this thread that the term " ridiculously, " perhaps

> a

> >bad

> >choice, was meant as measure of magnitude, not a value judgment.

>

> But OF COURSE this is a value judgement in the context in which it

> was made, which was the credibility of Chomsky's writings on political

> subjects! Your argument, essentially, was that Chomsky's writings have less

> VALUE, because his examples, his reasoning, and his conclusions are skewed

> by his ridiculously strong ideology! I just don't see how you can spout this

> stuff, then say you weren't dismissing him and that you weren't making value

> judgements, then say that people should take your assessments at face value!

>

> (I need some coffee - be back in a few...)

>

> >I realize

> >that

> >that is not the literal meaning of the word, which is I think " worthy of

> >ridicule, " but I think it's actually a common colloquialism to use

> > " ridiculously "

> >as a measure of magnitude.

>

> And that is how I took it. You used it in the context that someone who was

> politically ideological had less credibility than one who wasn't, and that

> someone who was ridiculously ideological had even less.

>

> >

> >

> >How can someone spend much of their life researching in fields

> >>like politics and history and not be passionate enough about it to hold

> >>strong opinions?

> >

> >Because not everyone comes to the conclusion that foreign policy issues are

> >primarily systemic.

>

> ????? So, only people who conclude that the problems are systemic are

> susceptible (sp?) to idealism?

>

> >Actually, most foreign policy theories divide up the

> >executors of foreign policy into several camps, which leads them to

> primarily

> >analyze foreign policy as the result of the people executing it, rather

> than

> >the

> >systemics. Chomsky is in a minority here (which doesn't make him wrong.)

> Its

> >an inherent pitfall in systemic analysis that one naturally tends to gloss

> >over

> >nuances, because one deemphasizes the difference between different

> >policy-makers, while a non-systemic analysis naturally over-emphasizes the

> >differences

> >between different policy-makers, and naturally de-emphasizes their

> >commonalities.

>

> That is such a crock of shit. There are pitfalls in any type of analysis,

> however, it seems to me that Chomsky differentiates quite well between

> different policy makers. You need to show that he doesn't, rather than just

> say that it is " inherent " in his style of analysis! If there is truth in the

> fact that much of the problem is systemic then an objective and serious

> researcher will OF COURSE analyze, at least some of the time, systemically.

> >

> >Whether one pitfall is more or less severe than another really depends on

> >what you view as the primary purpose of the analysis, in my opinion. If

> you

> >want

> >readers to become part of a movement to change the system, clearly it is

> >counter-productive to engage in non-systemic analysis. If the systemic

> >analysis

> >is correct, this is a perfectly valid motive, because it yields the

> conclusion

> >that the system *should* be changed for the sake of morality.

>

> ? Well, then obviously one could critique Chomsky by showing successfully

> that his systemic analysis is incorrect. But I don't see see you doing that.

> I see you simply declaring (as if reciting the words of some old professor)

> that this is a danger inherent in systemic analysis.

>

> >

> >But if one's purpose is to simply gain a thorough descriptive understanding

> >of a particular event, the systemic analysis is probably less useful,

> because

> >it deemphasizes nuances unique to that event.

>

> ok - what you are perhaps saying is that if one's main purpose is more

> towards entertainment, the kind you might find on some TV special,

> emphasizing the personalities that 'made it all happen', then sure -

> Chomsky's analysis is deficient. He does address this issue of the type of

> analysis, and he believes that an understanding of what is really going on

> is much more successful if one looks at it systemically...and I think that

> his assessment rings more true to me in explaining various tools of the

> establishment, whether in the media, academia, or in the government, than by

> talking about their individual personalities. The systemic analysis isn't

> more successful simply because it may lead to more successful activism, it

> is more successful because it has greater explanatory value of the way

> things work.

> >

> >The discussion Wanita and I were having didn't deal with the US in any way

> >whatsoever. It dealt with how useful the Sandinista experience is in

> >informing

> >how we can change our institutions at the community level. She cited

> Chomsky

> >as a sole source. I suggest that Chomsky's work in describing the

> Sandanista

> >experience is considerably deficient in regards to our purpose.

>

> Of course, by 'deficient', you are being complimentary of Chomsky.

>

> >In large

> >part, this is because Chomsky's purpose is systemic analysis of US foreign

> >policy,

> >not the particulars of the Sandanista regime.

> >

>

> You really sound like you are reciting old sound bites from stuff you were

> taught, or read from someone critiquing Chomsky. I need more.

>

> >>>But when

> >>>someone is openly political in purpose, clearly they are likely to

> >>introduce

> >>>biases to another degree than someone doing so unconsciously. Why is

> this

> >>so

> >>>complicated?

> >>

> >>LOL! When have I suggested that it is complicated? My objections to your

> >>reasoning are not so complicated either!

> >

> >You're right. Actually, both lack complication to the point that we aren't

> >moving beyond a yes-it-is no-it-isn't argument in this particular issue,

> and I

> >think we have to agree to disagree. I personally think political activists

> >deserve an extra dose of skepticism; you don't. That's pretty subjective.

>

> Well, I am trying to point out the fallacies in your arguments, and, no, I

> don't believe that this is all subjective.

>

> >What

> >we both agree on is that all sources deserve some dose of skepticism, and

> >it's generally counterproductive to read one source alone, especially on

> >politically loaded topics. I think we agree more than we disagree here,

> and

> >it's

> >fruitless to continue arguing the point.

> >

>

> That is true. However, we both keep on answering the other in a way that

> incites us to respond.

>

> >>How can you possibly claim this. I never suggested that by using a more

> >>expansive list of sources he 'ensured' his objectivity, but, all things

> >>being equal, whose objectivity would you trust more on the subject ABOUT

> the

> >>U.S. role in the world, and the way that it is reported by official

> sources

> >>in America - one who restricted himself to those sources, or one who

> >>researched a wider range of international sources? Sure - it is only one

> >>variable, but in the context of Chomsky's subject matter it is ESPECIALLY

> >>relevant to considerations of his objectivity compared to U.S. government

> >>apologists.

> >

> >For the record, I think that Chomsky is considerably more objective than

> any

> >other New Left author I've read. I think he's taken a lot of flack on the

> >Left for his objectivity, especially from anarchists in the anarchist mags.

>

> ah - so leftists are less objective than moderates or conservatives? LOL!

> >

> >I'm not interested in comparing Chomsky's objectivity to other authors in

> >regards to US foreign policy because I don't really have the time or the

> >familiarity with enough sources to assess the " typical " level of

> objectivity.

> >Some

> >authors tend to take the US's " side " in general, and that is certainly a

> >compromise in objectivity when they're rooting for the home team. But

> there

> >are a

> >lot of authors who approach their analysis as if each policy maker is an

> >individual with different ideas, and I think their analyses tend to reveal

> >nuances

> >better than those with systemic analysis.

>

> And it's precisely the strength of Chomsky that he understands the

> similarities. The question really becomes which has more explanatory value.

> I do believe that your way has more entertainment value.

>

> >I think one could make a case that

> >Chomsky is less " objective " in that he disregards these nuances in favor of

> >commonalities between policy-makers in order to demonstrate systemics.

>

> You can make a case for practically anything. However, I don't see you as

> having done so. I don't think Chomsky, or anyone, could possibly deny that

> personalities play a role in world events. But, of course, there is strong

> motivation for government apologists to dismiss systemic analyses, so I

> don't quite see these " subtle " little personality tales as objective either.

> It can make a fine movie though, if you're a bit drunk. Costner,

> maybe.

>

> >

> >But in a way " objective " here is really a relative term that is tied into

> the

> >perceived purpose of the writing. For example, Chomsky never intended, to

> my

> >knowledge, to give a comprehensive history of the Sandanista revolution in

> >Nicaragua.

>

> Well, of course...

>

> >So he naturally emphasizes the facts that are relevant to his

> >systemic analysis of US foreign policy.

>

> ok ... everyone emphasizes what is relevant, do they not? If not, we tend to

> say that they are 'rambling'.

>

> >If you view the purpose of his

> >writing as

> >US foreign policy analysis, there isn't really a compromise in objectivity.

>

> well, there isn't one inherent in that choice...

>

> >If

> >you view the purpose of his writing as Nicaraguan history, there are

> >significant compromises for the sake of supporting his ideas.

>

> Well, i'm not quite sure what you're saying exactly. One doesn't read

> Chomsky to get a history of the Sandanistas. that certainly doesn't mean, or

> imply, that anything that he says is incorrect. If what he says is

> incorrect, it is not inherent in the fact that he is doing (primarily) a

> systemic analysis of U.S. foreign policy.

>

> > So perhaps it

> >would be

> >proper to say that Chomsky is objective, but that his own objective differs

> >from the one that is useful to our discussion, and therefore for our

> purposes

> >it

> >isn't " objective. "

>

> But that simply isn't correct use of the language. His analysis may not

> address a particular issue, either in depth, or at all...but that says

> nothing about his objectivity. And if he is wrong on an issue then he is

> responsible for it, regardless of his method of analysis.

>

> >

> >>But it's not as if the emphasis is not extremely important. It is clear in

> >>his writings, and in the speeches that I have heard. You stated initially

> >>(sorry if I don't have the energy to dig up the quote amongst all our

> >>verbiage) that Chomsky believed that we should hold the U.S. to a

> different

> >>standard. He doesn't. He believes that the activism of U.S. citizens

> should

> >>be focused on the behavior of the U.S. because that is what we are most

> >>responsible for.

> >

> >Did I say that? If I did, I see why you think I'm an idiot, and that was

> >essentially a typo. I don't mean that, and I will check to see my wording

> in

> >a

> >moment. What I meant is that he believes the US should be judged against a

> >solid standard of morality, not against other countries.

> >

>

> Well, that doesn't seem like what you said initially, but I would still

> differ. He spends much time comparing U.S. behavior against the behavior of

> countries that we call enemies, as well as comparing the behavior of those

> we call friends with those we call enemies. Of course, the backdrop is a

> standard of ethical behavior, but he emphasizes that one mistake that people

> make in analysis is that they regard countries as 'ethical agents'.

>

> >You can find Chomsky exposing hypocricy by comparing US to other countries,

> >but I don't believe this is his take-away point.

>

> It is a central theme of his writing. I don't think that he has one

> " take-away " point, unless it is how propaganda works systemically.

>

>

> > You can also find Chomsky

> >resisting comparisons to other countries. For example, comparisons to the

> >Soviet

> >Union, where Chomsky would say that the brutality of USSR is irrelevant to

> >how we should conduct our policy.

>

> ??? I don't understand your point. To say that a particular case is

> irrelevant doesn't mean that it compares when relevant...

>

> >

> >What I'm trying to say is that I believe if Chomsky wanted there to be a

> >fundamental take-home point of his work, it wouldn't be that the US should

> be

> >judged by the same standard as we judge other countries (though that is a

> >point he

> >makes a lot, in terms of opposing a unique standard), but that US citizens

> >should influence US policy based on what is moral versus what is immoral,

> >regardless of what any other country does. Does that clear anything up?

>

> Well, sure - he says that - and it is rather silly to say that it is or

> isn't his " take-away " point because it is certainly a motivation for his own

> activism, but it is certainly not the point he emphasizes the most in his

> ANALYSIS. He uses this rationality for activism to explain why he seems to

> single out U.S. behavior, when other countries act so badly. So, it is

> definitely not the central theme in his analysis.

>

> What you say doesn't clear anything up because it again shows that you

> misread Chomsky.

>

> >

> >>Well - you have convinced yourself apparently that you were not dismissive

> >>of Chomsky. I suggest you objectively look back on what you have said, and

> >>evaluate whether it was dismissive.

> >

> >If I say one thing, and then clarify it, I may have spoken poorly the first

> >time. Some of the posts in this thread I wrote way past my bed time, and

> I'm

> >sort of tired of the dicussion, so I haven't been speaking my clearest.

> And

> >sometimes I just don't communicate what I'm saying well.

> >

>

> Well, I can only react to what you say. And it seems like your assessments

> of what you've said often disagree with what you've said. And then, just

> when I think you're coming around, you regress...I'd get a lot less annoyed

> if you didn't write this stuff with such self assuredness.

>

>

> >But in any case, if you were interested in just having a discussion rather

> >than competing with me, wouldn't you regard these clarifications as the

> >natural

> >process of trying to move toward an agreement, rather than twisting my own

> >words to " win " the argument?

> >

>

> I'm not interested in coming to an agreement! And I don't think I've been

> twisting your words. I'm simply interested in finding the truth. There's no

> point in you and I hugging in agreement if we fundamentally disagree, and I

> think that we do.

>

>

> >>Well, I don't have strong recollections of the particulars of what Chomsky

> >>has said about the Sandanistas, but what I do recall is that he was both

> >>complimentary of them (in the context of U.S. allies) but highly critical

> of

> >>them (in the context of ideal behavior). i.e. rather objective, in my

> view.

> >>

> >

> >My very first post on this subject was to point out that Chomsky has been

> >critical of the Sandanistas. Since Wanita recommended their model as ideal

> >community institutions, I suspect that the particular source she read on

> the

> >subject did not have this balance.

> >

>

> Well, maybe I'll go back and read this thread from the beginning. One reason

> I didn't was that there were so many posts in it...but from my recollection

> of how Chomsky wrote about the Sandanistas, he would NEVER recommend their

> model as 'ideal'. Perhaps better than many others, however.

>

> >>hmmm - I have never understood a 'forum' to be 'private'.

> >

> >It is if the public don't have access to it.

>

> I'm curious - is it just a forum that anyone can sign up for...I wouldn't

> view that as private, unless it is part of the user agreement that stuff not

> be repeated.

>

>

>

>