cbacon

Mike: Chomsky's response looks good to me. He didn't make a prediction, nor did he say a genocide was already happening (unless you're a fan of taking the literal meaning of words completely out of context); he described what was happening, and said that it may well be leading to a genocide. Nothing hard to grasp. Your weak allegations are getting quite tiresome though. True enough, but his history and reputation with discussing foriegn affairs are amongst the most respected and revered, regardless of whether you believe he literally thought the Khmer Rogue weren't committing genocide, he's anti-semitc, he supports terrorism, he sold poisoned milk to school children, etc., etc. I frequent it from time to time yes, usually to read guest articles by Chalmers Johnson, Robert Fisk, Seymour Hersh, and the like.

Again, I'd put money on you not fully reading anything he's written. Prove me wrong. Noam Chomsky is an uneducated dolt? The guy fucking teaches at one of the most revered technical institutions in the world. But I mean, if you say he knows nothing I guess you're right. Bush? edit: didn't notice the thread above, will look at now.

Not for the States. Uh-oh, SpaghettiOs!

Where did Saddam Hussein get chemical weapons from? If your answer is "The United States of America, while the first George Bush was president and several key members of the current Bush administration were in important positions" you win the grand prize. Otherwise you should refer to a dictionary and look up "hypocrisy". If you just wanted Saddam out, there were easier ways. Ease the sanctions, which strengthen Saddam's grip on his own people, to start, and he'd probably be tossed out by Iraqis within ten years. He probably would have been tossed out by now, if not for the sanctions. Also, it's very hard to swallow talk about the noble intentions, instilling democracy, etc, when the people talking haven't even publicly admitted that they kept Saddam in power for years, that by his worst crimes were committed when he was a friend of the US, that he remained a friend for years before he became an official enemy, that there was a chance to let the people of Iraq overthrow him after the first gulf war but the US chose not to do so because the devil you know is better than the devil you don't, etc. Given the lack of talk of all this (most of this wasn't even mentioned, or was barely mentioned, in the supposedly "left-wing" mainstream media), there was absolutely no reason to be optimistic about the true intentions of the administration, especially given that it's a lot of the same people. Finally, there's still no reason to be optimistic. Yes, there has been an election. The point is that the US comes in, obliterates the existing power structure, allows a new one to be built up, but there's an understanding that they'll be reaping the benefits, in control of oil, which they are. You can give Iraqis the pretense of elections as long as they don't get any silly ideas, like nationalizing oil. If that happens (already unlikely given the US military presence and influence), you can bet it won't be allowed to stand. Touchy subject, eh? I know I’d feel the same if my country were involved with such atrocities. Ignoring crimes of the past are so convenient, just as they are of the crimes today.

+ Wow. First, so what does being "anti-Canadian" mean, then? Were Germans who denounced Hitler "anti-German?" People who feel that United States foreign policy is morally wrong are morally right to denouce it. If you disagree with his assessment of, say, the morality of intervention in Indochina, let's stick to the issue itself rather than throwing words like anti-American out there. It's basically used to say "this guy would criticize no matter what, so don't listen to his criticism," - which raises the question, by that logic, what criticism of ourselves are we supposed to listen to, even if we don't agree with it? Oh, and the Anti-Semitic thing, that's because I support Chomsky and am just as guilty by proxy right? No, he did not, and all your basing that on is your signature which as I proved earlier is merely a bad case of juxtaposition. He underestimated (but did NOT deny) the crimes and later acknoweldged them. But I suppose if he's to fault for this, it totally discredits everything else he says right? No, it hasn't. If I were to say that human's don't need air to breathe, would that mean breathing air to live isn't a universal truth? Chomsky does not support the views of Faurisson, and i'd like to see any proof that he does. I've outlined their relationship, including quotes straight from Chomsky regarding the issue that do not prove the position your trying to purport. Since this contradicts everything Chomsky has said publicly, the only way it would hold any sort of water is if you believe anything Faurisson has to say. And who does? No one. The man's deeply disturbed, you can get that just from half a paragraph of his writings. Oh yeah, finally, the funniest thing is how people who disagree with Chomsky would rather do studies of Chomsky the man, slam him by associating him with types like Faurisson, instead of debating the issues. Motives are questioned, why he wrote about this thing more often than that thing, and it's all totally irrelevant. Funny that you don't see the left writing books like "the Anti-Dershowitz Reader", for example It would make no sense, it'd be a waste of time, and if anyone bothered I don't think many would read it

Mike: Invading a country, disposing of it's government and leaving the nation in dire straights with a dismal economy and increasingly volatile situation is not conducive to democracy. Germany, France and Japan are hardly comparable examples to what I'm speaking of. I was thinking more along the lines of Central America. Sorry if it was too general for you, but somehow I think you knew that in the back of your mind anyway.

Hahaha, keep it up, Rob. re: Mike Here's something you seem to be missing all over again. CHOMSKY DEFENDED FAURISSON'S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF EXPRESSION. The very idea of what Voltaire said is clearly lost on you. Defending someone for the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression is a defence of the right, not of the person. It is most likely that Chomsky acted in signing the petition (which caused this whole mess in the first place) because Faurisson was almost beat to death for his writing. And I'm quite aware of the Khmer Rouge thing with Chomsky, and it's hardly to the extent of what you're making it out to be. Chomsky admitted that he had underestimated the atrocities at the time in later talks about it. In terms of Chomsky's position on misinformation in American media (which despite the Khmer Rouge mess, is really quite informative), it is natural to assume he would make the assertations that he did with the information he was presented at the time. The idea that you are harping on a subject matter that he admitted to being mistaken about is a seemingly desperate attempt to grasp at supposed inconsistencies in his work. As for the linguistics thing, I find it rather funny that you claim that they have been "disproved." A former student of his throwing out some writings about how Chomsky was wrong (which are undoubtedly interesting and worth more investigation admittedly) is not disproving anything. There has been no backlash on Chomsky's work for a reason. I'm sure if the assertations his student makes are in fact true, we could see a change in that, but that's not really what we're arguing here anyway. The correspondence between Chomsky and Faurisson is hardly what you make it out to be I might add. Chomsky's correspondence with Faurisson was on the subject matter I've been discussing, not some intense neo-Nazi conspiracy like you seem to be implying. i.e. I think neo-Nazis should be allowed to believe what they want, in that, races shouldn't mix, breed, or marry. Does that make me a Nazi?

Alright, i'm down for that.

I just love how you try to account for the number of Iraqi deaths as a result of 'terrorist operations' while completely ignoring the fact that tens of (maybe hundreds of) thousands of innocents were directly killed by another nation fucking bombing their country. But I guess it's more convenient to think of it the other way, however imaginary you go about anaylzing such things. Good to see Dubya's rhetoric has flourished nicely in the feeble minded. It's also amusing (in a twisted pseudo-masochist sorta way) the way you try to depict the insurgence rationale as thinking "grrr, we hate freedom!" when infact I can asure you the majority don't want their country occupied by another nation, especially when most who voted in the elections did so to get the troops out (which of course, will never happen, the bases are there to stay). You mean when the new ruling parties take over, vote on having a new dictator and getting revenge on the sunnis for years of torture? Or when all parties realize that democracy doesn't work, which leads to a serious civil war, which my ultimately be what the USA may have wanted all along as an exit strategy? I can't wait until democracy works in Iraq like it has worked in all the countries that the US has "liberated." But really, there's too much claptrap in your 'analysis' to go further (tonight at least), and it's scary that a large number of American's think this way.

Who's living in a fantasy world here? Robert Faurisson is not associated and has never been tied to any neo-Nazi organization. While his views on the Holocaust and the supposed falsities he purports in much of his work is pretty much just wrong (that's all there is to it), he has never denounced the Jews as a people, he has never released any material that is pro-Nazi or anti-Jew except perhaps in the context of presenting false information relating to Auschwitz and other death camps. In none of his work has he endorsed any hatred toward the Jewish people or attempted incite any pre-conceived notion toward them. The term neo-Nazi infact, means "New Nazi" in the context that the ideology of the Nationalist Socialist Party is being held by the individual in question in an attempt to establish that ideology again, which Faurisson has never done. The Faurisson Affair, as pertaining to the supposed writings by Chomsky in support of Faurisson are grossly misinformed and poorly presented by you. You claim that Chomsky stated that he "sees no Holocaust denial in Faurisson's work." Do you have a source for that wild accusation? In the essay that you are supposedly referring Chomsky actually says: "Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence." Also, you claim that Faurisson and Chomsky are "CLOSE." What? Since when? This is just a lie. The first thing Chomsky ever said about Faurisson, the very first sentence is: "Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East, where I describe the Holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history")." In fact, in the same essay he mentions that he does not even know his work very well, what is his description of Faurisson? "As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort." Does this wording indicate two very close people as you have indicated. The overarching view of the entire Faurisson affair, from the mainstream press as well, is that Chomsky was attacked simply for the fact that he was willing to defend Faurisson's freedom of speech and expression, despite the fact that Chomsky had views opposed to his. Chomsky never submitted the essay in the context that you have purported. In fact, he presented the essay to be used "for any purpose." Serge Thion then used the essay without Chomsky's knowledge, when Chomsky found out, he requested that the essay be removed, as it was being presented in a context he didn't intend for it to be, but the book had already gone through the publication process. What strikes me here, is that it's pretty goddamn clear you haven't even read the essay or that you read it and have pretty much the worst reading comprehension in the world. This isn't an essay that can be misinterpreted, he's a linguist for godsakes (and please, seeing ridicule of his linguistic work in here aside, he's the leading linguist in the world, that's a fucking fact), any supposed assertation you've made about the essay is either completely false or a gross misinterpretation of the work. *sigh* Um, well, there's this thing called "research," now since you've made it pretty clear you don't understand that concept - here's the gist of it. Okay, what you do is, you look for facts and things that happened and documentation to those facts. In some cases those facts can take a long time to find or legitimize, especially in the case of say, I don't know, some countries who held these records in confidentiality even past the Cold War. Sometimes, that time period can be 10 years! WOW! And then after you find the facts, you have to write the book, and then it has to go through a lengthy publication process. Is that a clear explanation? Regardless, that's not even what's important, why does it matter when he makes a condemnation of a nation that doesn't even exist anymore, when these atrocities aren't happening anymore? Cohn is a loon. And your right, it is pretty much everything Mike says in greater detail, which is why it can't be taken seriously as I outlined above. An accurate summary of the Cohn's claims regarding Chomsky:

Since you're the type who enjoys reading things in context, and following up, you'll find that while Chomsky has admitted to initially underestimating the Khmer Rouge atrocities, his main concern at the time was to point out the American involvement in laying the base for the Khmer Rouge takeover, and to contrast the intense media coverage of Khmer Rouge atrocities with the total lack of coverage of comparable atrocities in East Timor. The anti-semite bit is just stupid, he's a Jew who taught Hebrew school in his youth and was a member of several zionist organizations. He lived on a kibbutz and has described zionism as being the main interest of his youth. But, yeah, anti-semitic to the core, really. Find me any place where he denies the holocaust, I'd love to see that. This is perhaps the most ridiculous of arguments. It's like saying if I passionately despise my own representatives,and will criticize no matter who's in power, I must be anti-Canadian! Finally, though it's totally irrelevant, Chomsky regularly condemns both modern American "liberal" intellectual culture and communist atrocities. Mud-slinging - so much more fun than real arguments.

Yes, and it's laughable considering it's taken out of context. He says that Robert Moss' interpretation of the Khmer Rogue slaughter is a 'New York Times Creation', not the event in question. In the same paragraph (which i've posted before) he still acknowledges the atrocities being committed. But that's typical of someone criticizing Chomsky. The charges against him really don't hold up unless you've actually read what he writes, but that scares certain people because it's a conflict of interest with their ideals, thus he must not only 'shut up' but he has to die as well because of such blind hatred and obvious denail of truth. So what is it, are they are or they not to blame? If so, surely supposdely 'denying' a genocide is occuring is on par with knowing about it and not doing anything?

Wow, you just want to attack everybody, don't you? -=Mike Yet he makes a valid point. Especially considering Pakistan's dealings with Syria...

He sure is. For the record, he never has. Although it is arguable that he underestimated the genocide your referring to. It is ironic that you chastize Chomsky for this glaring omission though, and use it as a basis to descredit it him, yet at the same time you stand by your countries foriegn policy record when it downright IGNORED genocide that was occuring in Rwanda. (And where it may occur in Iraq with a Shiite majority) But that's just Chomsky, the anti-semtic Jew that's got it all backwards

Nah, they just have a similar family structure is all. I think we can all agree that the show was better then the abomination that was the post game Simpsons episode tonight.

The talking pets are two entirely different characters. Brian's thing for Lois was only for one episode. But he isn't dim-witted and fat like Chris. They convey different humour. Much like all sitcom family daughters. Besides that common trait, they're nothing alike. The wives seem to be the most similiar, but she wasn't really a focal point of the show and hasn't really developed a character yet. Peter and Stan are polar opposites. It's an entirely different cast of characters and a show that relies on topical/political humour rather than flashbacks. I think it'll do well and remain distinct from FG.

Give it time. If it's given a chance, it could rival Family Guy by it's 2nd or 3rd season.

The big difference though was at least Groening aimed for something totally different with Futurama. This seems to be Seth carbon copying FG. Like someone else said, I think the copying came from the fact that Seth intended for this to be FG2 before Fox actually decided to resurrect FG Save for the animation and similar humour, how is American Dad a carbon copy of Family Guy?

YNA, your being a Negative Nancy. Stop.

It was alright. I'm sure the episodes will pick up as the show progresses. I dig Stan's character and the political issues that surround the show, as well as Roger the Alien, whose voice is perfect and shouldn't be changed. LOL moments: "She'll be the future 'Mrs. Steve Smith'...yeah, i like the sound of that. "Steve Smith'." The chase scene in the Mall Bush talking to God "Henry Kissenger: More than a Jew"

Exactly. Hopefully they release one 'serious' commercial before the show, or at least during the opening package. If I were a casual fan i'd find the commercials amusing, but I wouldn't be hyped into buying the show.

Did Booker turn heel?

Are there brackets for this tournament?

Wal-Mart isn't our enemy. It's our neighbourhood friend.

How many of those PPV's were actually good? The Rumble, Mania and Vengeance are the only ones that seem to stick out. SummerSlam was so-so.