A noxious form of argument (Noam Chomsky)

[T_i_B]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1799901,00.html

I will admit one thing from the start. When I read Noam Chomsky, the voice I hear is that of Chloe, the terrier-like computer geek in 24. This is not without reason. I met Chomsky once at a New Statesman lunch and that nagging, bullying, wheedling voice has stuck with me since. It is a voice that brooks no dissent from his dissident view. 'You'll know ... ' was his opening line on being introduced to two of us who covered the war in Kosovo, before launching into one of his favourite rants - that it really wasn't the poor Serbs what done it, but nasty Nato.

What is most troubling about all this is that there is much that Chomsky and I should agree on. Like him, I was opposed to what I believed was an illegal war in Iraq. In my travels in that country, I, too, have been troubled by the consequences of occupation. Where I differ from him, however, is that I reject Chomsky's view that American misdeeds are printed through history like the lettering in a stick of rock. Instead, the conclusions I have drawn from more than a decade of reporting wars on the ground is that motivations are complex, messy and contradictory, that the best intentions can spawn the worst outcomes and, occasionally, vice versa.

Reading Failed States, I had an epiphany: that by applying a Chomskian analysis to his own writing, you discover exactly the same subtle textual biases, evasions and elisions of meaning as used by those he calls 'the doctrinal managers' of the 'powerful elites'. The mighty Chomsky, the world's greatest public intellectual, is prone to playing fast and loose.

It is important to recognise this fact because the Chomskian analysis has become the defining dissident voice of the blogosphere and a certain kind of far-left academia. So a sense of its integrity is crucial. It is obsessively well-read, but rather famished in original research, except when it is counting how often the liberal media say this or that in their search for hidden, and sometimes not-so-hidden, bias. Crucially, it is not interested in debate, because balance is a ruse of the liberal media elites used to con the dumb masses. Chomsky is essential to save you, dear reader, from the lies we peddle.

[ixion]

1. ah... a little Chomsky smear piece

how contrite.

So this administration apologist is playing the 'frame the debate' game.

Noam Chomsky did not illegally invade two sovereign nations and kill thousands of innocent civilians.

Noam Chomsky has not led BlackOps and kills thousands of innocent Latin Americans over the past 50 years.

Noam Chomsky does not make US foreign policy.

And, most importantly, Noam Chomsky is not beating the war drums in an effort to attack Iran.

So why, then, is this person suddenly trying to equate Chomsky with the vicious, ruthless, heartless murderers in the current political establishment?

I wish this author would spend as much time analyzing the bogus proclamations of Britain and the US and their subsequent decent into fascism, rather than picking on someone who was probably writing novels before this author was born.


And just so I'm not accused of hyperbole, here is a quintessential paragraph:

"These are all serious matters, but Chomsky chooses to deal with America's growing democratic deficit not by putting it under a microscope, but by reaching for hyperbole. He suggests an America in the grip of a 'demonic messianism' comparable to that of Hitler's National Socialism. Except that it isn't. Conveniently missing from Chomsky's account is the fact that the failure and overreach of George W Bush's policies, both on the domestic and the international front, has had serious consequences for his brand of neo-conservatism: disastrously collapsing public-approval ratings."


Obviously this author hasn't spent much time watching TV these days. Low popularity ratings are not stopping the neocons in the slightest. In fact, they seem to get a sick sort of glee in knowing that a majority of US citizens are not impressed by their emotionally disturbed behavior over the past 5 years. And judging from the numbers of yellow ribbons and american flags I see plastered on the sides and backs of so many automobiles, I would really have to beg to differ.

Right now we've got a feckless frat brat with an ego the size of the Sahara surrounded by a group of psychos and sycophants who will stop at nothing to destroy the US republic, as they've proven time and time again. To accuse Chomsky of hyperbole is silly and suspect, in light of the subject matter, IMO.

[Demeter]

6. Hyperbole Can't Be Stretched Far Enough To Cover BushCo's Crimes

We are going to have a whole new vocabulary, if we survive the Regime, the War Crimes and the Reconstruction (especially after the Revolution, if God forbid, one becomes necessary to right a few terrible wrongs around here).

[BlueEyedSon]

2. the best intentions can spawn the worst outcomes and, occasionally,

vice versa.

=

This writer is high on drugs!

[rooboy]

3. "...balance is a ruse of the liberal media elites..."

god, I wish I could get the five minutes of my life back that I wasted reading THAT article...

[teryang]

4. Chomsky decimated the "just war theory" at a West Point...

...invitation to speak on philosophy recently. I guess they are another kind of far left academia.

I never heard Chomsky begin a presentation with an ad hominen attack. Calling him a geek with a nagging, wheedling voice, is the old Goebbels, Hitler attack on effeminate intellectuals who fear the virtue of war.

The charge that Chomsky is famished in original research is laughable and harkens back to early Nazi racist propaganda techniques.

[zeemike]

5. But no one can save us from the lies they tell

But Chomsky exposes them which is so inconvenient to them.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

7. "The mighty Chomsky,

...the world's greatest public intellectual, is prone to playing fast and loose."

Is there a companion piece or some kind of addendum to this article that I missed where Peter Beaumont actually offers something of substance with which to back up this claim? Or is his article exactly what it appears to be: lame smear rhetoric by someone who doesn't handle hard truths especially well?

[Laughing Mirror]

8. "that nagging, bullying, wheedling voice ..."

I have been listening to Noam Chomsky, hearing him in debates on TV and radio, since the 1960's. I've never heard any such voice coming from him.

Who the hell is Peter Beaumont?

[yurbud]

9. very persuasive unless you have read or heard Chomsky

I think the mainstream press is so afraid of him because he is NOT an extremist in his analysis, he is simply remembering the history that those in power want us to forget.

[Vidar]

10. Utter garbage!

[rastafan]

11. Chomsky trivializes the issue of 9-11 and attacks 9-11 activists

Noam Chomsky trivializes the effects of 9-11 and slanders the 911 truth movement.

That thousands have been murdered as a result of a calculated 9-11 public propaganda campaign seems of little concern to Chomsky. Chomsky is either ignorant (doubtful) or completely corrupted. Due to his (suspiciously wrong) stance on this bellweather issue, he has lost all credibility with this former Chomsky fan.

http://www.indybay.org/olduploads/noam_chomsky_9-11.mp3

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

12. I don't see his remarks as...

...an effort to diminish the 9-11 truth movement so much as to simply provide himself a basis for not wading into it. You have to pick your battles as you go through life and Chomsky's clearly not interested in being drawn into the 9-11 debate. I suspect he's been around long enough to know where his energies are best spent and can do the most good.

That said, I understand, and to a degree, share in your disappointment. I think the 9-11 Commission's report was utter bullshit and the truth movement IS important. I also think 9-11 was an inside job.

[Terran1212]

13. Because he doesn't join conspiracy theory he is

Corrupt? When asked about this, all he said was that the Bush-version of what happened is the most likely version so it will be the one he believes.

[T_i_B]

16. Since when were 9/11 conspiracy theories a "bellweather issue"?

Even the Socialist Workers would laugh you out of their meetings for coming out with that gibberish! :rofl:

We've come to a pretty pass when even Chomsky is not left wing enough for DU!

[applegrove]

14. As a Canadian.. I find what Chomsky says and writes to be pretty

normal for the discourse. I think he is so rare because he flies against American Creation myths and is American. I don't agree with every single last word he says... but outside of the USA.. there is a whole bunch of people saying and writing the same stuff. Read John Raulston Saul's latest.

[Jim__]

15. I saw Chomsky speak on TV, on CSpan.

He was speaking at West Point. The thing that came through to me was the precise logic of his presentation. His voice definitely did not come across as wheedling.

The article lost me when it brought up Chomsky's "nagging, bullying, wheedling voice." I know right there it was just bullshit.