Comments on: Mailbag! (5/18/09)

By: Entropy

Entropy — Tue, 19 May 2009 05:31:09 +0000

I agree that it’s important to be exposed to the other side. The only problem is that guys like W. Appleman Williams and C. Wright Mills express Chomsky’s views 10x better and more fairly than he does, and they expressed it decades before him. Chomsky has received some sort of intellectual celebrity despite being a hack for god know’s why. I check out, “The Power Elite” if you’re interested in a fair intellectual liberal perspective.

By: Hollywood

Hollywood — Tue, 19 May 2009 03:29:35 +0000

I personally would like to see you shit rainbows out of your ass, that would be a sight to behold! He does emphasise the role of the “elites” more often than he should but when you examine the influence certain unelected groups have over the government and how they influence and shape policy at times it’s extremely disturbing. And as for you not seeing the “elites” as a malevolent and malicious force I doubt citizens of a certain number of 3rd World Countries would agree with you. But my main point of disagreement is your assertion that the emailer should stay away from Chomsky, he should read up on him and arrive at his own conclusion and if he dislikes Chomsky as much as you do then so be it!

By: Tntkid

Tntkid — Tue, 19 May 2009 01:19:07 +0000

I would recommend Chomsky. It is easy to be polarized on either side but to do so without understand the “other side” is to be involved in willful ignorance. Overlooking the atrocities does not give the full experience of a country.

(”I see them more as a systemic side-effect of the global political and economic lattice than any malevolent or malicious force. If you look at every dominant “empire” in history from the US to Britain to Rome to China, these same things keep happening — the little guy gets shoved around as a pawn in the global chess game for power. Should it be that way? Yeah, it’d be nice if it wasn’t. But it’d be nice if I shit out rainbows and bunny rabbits too. I think we’ll see this same shit happen when China becomes the leading power in 50 years too.”) I don’t think it should be so easily dismissed as you profess. Just because everyone does it or has done is a bit naive. As someone who is part of those groups that have been dominated, I think it’s important to learn from the past so as to not do it again. Especially if we consider ourselves (as americans) different than every other “empire” in the past. And I do think that this thing called humanity should lead to rainbows and bunnies. Now I am naive but I am hopeful. However I am open to being proven wrong.

Beyond this, I want to thank you for the reading list, the clips, the articles, and everything you have posted and the opportunity to debate and learn from one another.

By: Entropy

Entropy — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:54:32 +0000

Of course I’m not denying the existence of those “atrocities” and whatnot. But whereas Chomsky blames the American socio-political “elite,” I see them more as a systemic side-effect of the global political and economic lattice than any malevolent or malicious force. If you look at every dominant “empire” in history from the US to Britain to Rome to China, these same things keep happening — the little guy gets shoved around as a pawn in the global chess game for power. Should it be that way? Yeah, it’d be nice if it wasn’t. But it’d be nice if I shit out rainbows and bunny rabbits too. I think we’ll see this same shit happen when China becomes the leading power in 50 years too.

That’s the thing about Chomsky, he never gets very far past the “atrocities” part. And his anti-American hysterics borderline conspiracy theories at times. He gets annoying.

By: Hollywood

Hollywood — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:48:02 +0000

So your saying America doesn’t commit atrocities and America’s “geopolitical manoeuvrings” in South America, Africa and currently in the Middle East are all for benevolent purposes? I find his commentary valuable and poignant. A far cry from the usual media sychopahancy that reached vomit inducing proportions during Obama’s election. I don’t agree with everything he says obviously but more often than not I agree. And as for Rush Limbaugh how could you disapprove of someone that introduced the term “feminazi” into popular public lexicon??

By: Entropy

Entropy — Mon, 18 May 2009 22:11:56 +0000

Because he’s basically the Rush Limbaugh of the intellectual Left. He’s a polemicist in disguise and mentally stuck in 1968. He provides mountains of facts on “atrocities” and morally ambiguous geopolitical maneuvering done by America, yet provides absolutely no context, or assertions for what he would prescribe in the same scenario. He’s one of those people who is smart enough to tear everything down but not brave enough to put something up in its place.

By: Hollywood

Hollywood — Mon, 18 May 2009 22:07:53 +0000

Avoid Noam Chomsky at all costs??? Why? Explain yourself Manson!!