INDC Journal

« This | Main | Olbermann: Dishonest or Dumb? »

August 30, 2006
Apologies for (Even) Light(er) Posting

Posted by Bill

I'm working on a project that demands far more reading than it allows writing. Intermittent posts & updates to follow.

UPDATE: In the meantime, only "100?" (pdf file)

(Via Dean, who links a site with much more anti-Noam perspective)

Posted by Bill at August 30, 2006 09:37 AM | TrackBack (1)

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.indcjournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/dafrules/tapaz.cgi/2718

Comments

Lies?! See how the western patriarchial imperialist system tries to surpress "alternative truths."

Posted by: rbj at August 30, 2006 01:40 PM

Calling them "lies" seems more than a bit dishonest. It's not like Chomsky intends to deceive anyone. I've felt the same way about the "Bush lied" nonsense these past 5 years. There's a big difference between being incorrect or foolish and lying.

I know it's kind of nitpicking, but it just seems so lame to me that people can't even credit opponents with enough integrity to actually believe their beliefs. I mean 15 years ago it would have been considered partisan, but now being able to allow that so-and-so might merely be completely full of shit makes you a moderate.

Posted by: SeanH at August 30, 2006 07:57 PM

In general I agree with your philosophy, but a statement like ...

"in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise"

... is so far from the range of subjective truth as to be either insane or a lie. Other items (like repeating discredited stats) are certainly "untruths," though we'd have to establish Chomsky's knowledge of the inaccuracy and malice at the repetition to use the "l-word." Other items fulfill your point more ably, but something's awful messed up with Chomsky's POV. Some of this could qualify as dishonesty or at least willful dissonance. But I generally take your point.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at August 30, 2006 08:05 PM

something's awful messed up with Chomsky's POV

Willful dissonance is a great way to put it. Chomsky's just so consistently wrong that I can't imagine he believes he's telling untruths. I figure he's been too impressed with his own intellect and unable to imagine he could be wrong for so long that he wandered off the deep end. I'm sure having millions of deep-thinking lefty yes men kissing his ass all these years hasn't been a help with that either.

Posted by: SeanH at August 30, 2006 08:51 PM

Agreed. And analysis of complex human interactions is so daunting, so apt for narrow, exaggerated interpretation, and so subject to emotionalism, that it's fairly easy to see how one's subjectivity combined with hyperintellect can lead to such a haywire worldview.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at August 30, 2006 09:07 PM

Noam has been caught in plain old fashioned lying on many occasions, his lies about the Cambodian mass murders being the best example.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at August 30, 2006 10:32 PM

Posted by: karel at October 13, 2006 11:56 PM

ionolsen17 Great website! Bookmarked! I am impressed at your work!www_4_2
www_4_3
www_4_4
www_4_5
www_4_6
www_4_7
www_4_8
www_4_9
www_4_10
www_4_11

Posted by: thomson at October 13, 2006 11:58 PM

Posted by: tester at October 13, 2006 11:59 PM

Posted by: tester at October 13, 2006 11:59 PM