Decision ‘08

Weekly Jackass Number Two - Noam Chomsky

This was a no-brainer. To not honor Chomsky in this forum would be a disservice to the Weekly Jackass concept. Noam Chomsky is a Professor of Linguistics at MIT and possibly the very personification of the America-Hating Radical Left. He has been accused of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, though he denies both charges, insisting that he is only a critic of Israeli and American policy. This is a famous trick of Chomsky’s - blanket criticism of an entity (America, Israel) while claiming he is not against the entity. I submit to you - if you describe yourself as a critic of Israeli policy and American policy without qualification, without regard to current or past administrations, without mentioning specific policies - then what prevents me from seeing you as an anti-Semite or America Hater? What if I threw in a little Holocaust Denial as well?

This quote by David Horowitz (frequent Chomsky critic and co-editor of the Anti-Chomsky Reader) sums up Chomsky’s following nicely:

…wherever young people manifest an otherwise incomprehensible rage against their country, the inspirer of their loathing and the instructor of their hate is most likely this man.

Too strong, you say? Consider this Chomsky quote from September 12, 2001 (and recall the nightmarish images in your mind of the day before):

The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton�s bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it).

Contrast what you were feeling on September 12th, 2001, with Chomsky’s words. In one very small sentence, he barely acknowledges what has occurred and immediately starts bashing America with a ridiculous assertion for which he offers no proof. This is another frequent Chomsky technique: he is the master of the big lie. (Here is a link to Chomsky’s September 12th comments and to Christopher Hitchen’s rejoinder.)

There is a wealth of material out there exposing Chomsky for his knee-jerk anti-American reaction regardless of the issue involved. I refer you to just three of the many that are worth your time: Oliver Kamm, Horowitz’s FrontPage Magazine, and Benjamin Kerstein’s Diary of an Anti-Chomskyite.

I’ve again only scratched the surface of this topic, but I have the feeling we will be revisiting our 2nd Weekly Jackass, Noam Chomsky.

(hat tip to bebere for leading me to Oliver Kamm)

24 Responses to “Weekly Jackass Number Two - Noam Chomsky”

1 John Says:
April 28th, 2005 at 7:51 pm
Hmm… calling a Jewish-American (Chomsky) anti-Semitic. Either way, Chomsky is a voice of dissent in a nation that does not approve of opinions other than that of the “main stream.” His pointing out of the cold reality that America has conducted greater campaigns of terror than what we witnessed on 9/11 (ie. selling weapons to Indonesia to massacre E. Timor, bombing Cambodia, etc.) Unfortunatly there were not more dissenting views immediatly after 9/11 as the President had unchecked ability to conduct whatever breech of individual rights, international law, etc. that he wanted.
2 Mark Coffey Says:
April 28th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
John, with all due respect, your comment is a true example of the kind of moral relativism that I despise. As for Chomsky being a Jewish-American, I’m well aware of that - are you making the assertion that he then can’t be anti-Semitic? It’s not one’s racial or religious background that determines one’s views on anti-Semitism; surely that is an axiom.

Your comments also engage in the typical progressive ignorance of the current political climate when you assert that the President has ‘unchecked ability’ to basically do what he wants. Have you heard of the Bolton nomination or judicial confirmation dustups? If not, go buy a newspaper; if that’s unchecked power, well…you get the idea. Thanks for dropping by, and good luck on that worldview.
3 chuckr Says:
May 16th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
My biggest gripe about Chomsky is that he continues to collect a salary from MIT which was and still is the granddaddy of all Defense Contractors. If C. is so anti-American military why doesn’t he resign on priciple his position at MIT and go teach at some Quaker school like Swathmore?
4 Mark Coffey Says:
May 16th, 2005 at 6:58 pm
chuckr, I am shocked, SHOCKED I say that you don’t trust Chomsky to weave his way through the conflicts of interest and find that golden paycheck…
5 matt Says:
June 5th, 2005 at 12:20 am
On Moral Relativism:
Moral Relativism is simply applying the same moral standards to ourselves that we apply to others. Pure and simple. If we truly do hold moral beliefs, which are in and of themselves solid, why must they change form when applied to enemies? If you were at all serious about these morals of yours, they wouldn’t change form to suit the current political realities. THAT is the essence of Political Correctness; whether applied from the left or the right, it is racist to assume that a people can be deserving of an exemption from these morals because of some connection with the Almighty, real or imagined. Arrogance and self-assuredness that you are in the right ALWAYS, is a short sighted, and in my view, dangerous philosophy. Being a history major, I am familiar with what happens to peoples of the world when they think they have God on their side by default. But credentials don’t go very far these days, unless they serve the echo chamber of power. Anti-American? I wear my country’s uniform in defense of the Constitution. That doesn’t make me blind to realities which are right in front of me.
Moral Relativism…Jeanne Kirkpatrick was just looking for a way to dismiss any wrong the US may have done in the world. In her view, the US never did wrong in its life. Such thoughts are that of a 4 year old when it loves its mama. Mama is never wrong, anyone who doesn’t like all that mama does is bad. Black and White, no compromise, no discussion. Sounds almost tyrannical, these thoughts.
As to why Chomsky doesn’t resign over working for an old defense contractor, here is what I have gathered: he had a wife and 3 kids to support at the time he worked for MIT and spoke out. It would be economic suicide to do so. Our system is such that if you want to make a statement, you better have the security to back yourself up. Most of us working people do NOT have that means, and have to protest in other ways. Besides, if Chomsky is right, there really is no way you could gain security without serving the state he protests against. It’s so much a part of our lives, you can’t get away from it without living as a hermit. The discussion is moot in my opinion.
6 Mark Coffey Says:
June 5th, 2005 at 12:42 am
No, Matt, moral relativism is most decidedly NOT applying the same moral standards that we apply to others to ourselves. Please, quote me where you found that definition. Here’s the definition from Wikipedia, if you need some help with the concept. You’ll find it is the exact opposite of what you claim it to be…but that doesn’t surprise me coming from a defender of Chomsky, since he has made a small fortune convincing people like yourself that America is the source of all evil. Hogwash…
7 matt Says:
June 5th, 2005 at 7:04 am
Mark wrote,
but that doesn’t surprise me coming from a defender of Chomsky, since he has made a small fortune convincing people like yourself that America is the source of all evil. Hogwash…

Thank you for the enlightenment on the actual definition, I did not look it up before writing. I read about how Kirkpatrick in particular called some people ‘Moral Reletavists’ who would look at our actions in the same way as we look at enemy’s actions,’ and then judge us in those terms. I had not come across this term before, and did not research futher, so, you are right, I do need to do some more reading.
As to the fact that you believe that Chomsky and others who read him think America is the source of all evil, I can only respond with regret that you have been made to see us this way. I do not think that nations are moral agents; they are merely bodies of people within political boundaries drawn on a map by various governments across time. As to whether the acts of governments, even ours, are evil or good, I just can’t see them in those terms as a result of this thinking. I don’t believe we are the moral standard in the world, I don’t think anyone can be. Being a participant in a Democractic Republic means paying attention to and responding to what your government is doing at any given time. If I disagree with the War in Iraq, that doesn;t mean I am against the military or the soldiers. It means I am against policy that sent them there. There is a difference, as hard as it is, I know, to grasp. However, you will note that I love my country, I AM here, not in Canada or Europe, as I probably could have moved to if I had wanted after college. I believe in the ideals, and work toward them myself, not content to take the word of authority that they are doing this for me. I refuse to be a spectator. I am, to wit, an AMERICAN. And proud. Acknowledging and working toward ideals within our society is a thankless job, as history has shown. This isn’t going to change. I will not apologize for not going along with the crowd that thinks that the Right can do no wrong, or for that matter, that the Left can do no wrong.
Matt
8 Mark Coffey Says:
June 5th, 2005 at 3:08 pm
Matt, thanks for replying…I don’t mean to seem harsh, I just really despise the worldview of Chomsky. I appreciate that you are an American, and are not against the military and its soldiers, and I respect our differences of opinion. Believe me, I don’t believe the Right can do no wrong; I have just spent a couple of weeks bucking the prevailing conservative sentiment over the judicial deal.

My biggest beef with Chomsky, and why he irritates me no end is this; when the subject is America, he is the king of the ‘Yes, but’ crowd; i.e., 9/11 is horrible, BUT we’ve done worse, etc. How about just 9/11 is horrible? Why does he have such a hard time showing sympathy for his own nation in such a time of tragedy? Why must his next sentence be a condemnation of America the very day after that horrible September tragedy?

I alwsys welcome other voices here. On Chomsky, though, there is a huge gulf between our views.
9 matt Says:
June 5th, 2005 at 7:50 pm
Mark,
Thanks for replying, I appreciate it. I respect that we will probably not agree on Chomsky in particular, but I wanted to try to answer your “yes, but” arguement, as best I can. I do want to ask you though, how much have you read Chomsky? He is not a speaker/author who you can soundbite very well, more like a lecturer who is very thorough and LONG WINDED. As a consequence I beleive it is easy, too easy to take him out of context, as I believe Horowitz, to a certain degree, does. He has written books declaiming this or that, but if you don’t follow his overall logic, which you only really start to get if you read him on a variety of subjects, the picture gets skewed a little. I don’t mean to suggest that that is how he sells all his books, I think selling books is beside the point. Its simply MY feeling I get as I have read him. His ‘Yes buts’ are really meant to be constructive, not disparaging. In his view, and he has spoken of this at length in places, it is not enough to say ‘yes, this was a terrible tragedy’, but ‘what can we do about it?’ He is an analyst, and as such he looks to the past for causes of problems, because he believes that understanding background of an event can only lead to a preventing such things from happening in the future. In many places, he personifies trying to work throught the old axiom of learning from history so that we do not repeat it. His point, is that no matter who is in power politically, the same people, ie business capitalists, don’t care about learning from history or heading off disasters. Stock brokers made riches after the Gulf War when the price of oil went up to $40 a barrel. After 9/11, gold doubled its market value. That’s only part of the picture though, only an example. Chomsky’s main point though, is that WE can be constructive. Its not enough to have solidarity with the victims of 911, we have to ask why and how, and all the other uncomfortable questions to ensure we don’t have a repeat. Yes, people get fired, yes malfeasance is uncovered. Its messy, but if it’s needed I say let heads roll.
I have to admit, I have not read Chomsky’s 911 yet, haven’t found a copy. My feeling is that he does love America, and complains when wrongs he sees being commited in his country’s name are being done. THAT is more constructive, since he has a responsibility, and moreover, some contol over what his country does. When the Russians invaded Afghanistant in the 80’s, people were told to condemn the Russians. Not very constructive, as the audience that were told this, Americans, really couldn’t do much to stop the Russians from doing that. More of a job for the Russian media to tell it’s people to condemn Russian acts. In the same way, Chomsky flexes his muscle when he sees his country going the wrong way. Isn’t THAT patriotic? Its his country, and he cares! If he didn’t, if he was appathetic or just said ‘ah whatever, horrible tragedy, but what do
10 matt Says:
June 5th, 2005 at 7:52 pm
Isn’t THAT patriotic? Its his country, and he cares! If he didn’t, if he was appathetic or just said ‘ah whatever, horrible tragedy, but what do I have to do with it, I did nothing’, I would say he was detached from caring about his country. As far as his trying to put 9/11 in context with other tragedies, I don’t think he was out of line. It doesn’t diminish the suffering of those who died, to point out that America herself has visited tragedy on others as well. Hiding behind a ‘we are only ever on the defensive, never offensive’ arguement really gets old. Chomsky debunks this old saw with internal government documents, most of them declassified discussion and policy papers. The ones that were ACTUALLY USED at the time to set policy, not just ‘wouldn’t it be nice if’ stuff. Over 3/4 of Chomsky’s work is quotes from primary sources, NOT his opinion on it. He in fact is reluctant to give his opinion on such, and you have to drag it out of him kicking and screaming at talks he gives. He is an analyst, not a talking head or a pundit. He is decidedly NOT in the political conversation at this point, AT ALL, except where he goes to speak or the books he puts out. NPR itself barely allowed for him to speak on his book. In contrast with this, at least FOX news allowed Ralph Nader to come on during the elections, something that would have been ridgidly structured at NPR to avoid stepping on toes, as they did with Chomsky.
Sorry rambling on so long, just trying to get across to you some thoughts I had, after reading and listening to this guy for a while now. Thank you again,
Matt
11 matt Says:
June 5th, 2005 at 7:53 pm
by ‘this guy’ I meant Chomsky
Matt
12 Mark Coffey Says:
June 6th, 2005 at 5:03 am
Well, Matt, you’re right, we’ll have to agree to disagree. The ‘business capitalists’ you disparage are my ideal citizens. Different strokes for different folks, I guess…
13 matt Says:
June 6th, 2005 at 6:21 am
Mark,
I hope I didn’t come across as stifling discussion here, that’s the last thing I want personally. I have many friends who think it is a waste of time to discuss things with me beyond weather and work because they don’t ever see themselves changing their minds. It’s not about changing minds, its about exchange of ideas. As far as ‘business capitalists’ go, I see fewer of them than the vast majority of the population. Capitalism by it’s practical definition relies on paying people less than what they’re worth, and passing on those savings to the customer. Ideal citizens or not, they rob our environment and keep the profits for themselves. They have more influence on our politicians than we do. According to the Supreme Court, they are ‘people’, with all the rights but none of the responsibility. It is illegal for them to do anything other than make money for their shareholders, unless it is for Public Relations. They brand their products with notions of charity and equality, then fire 1/3 of their workforce when the economy turns sour. I know these generalities mean nothing without examples, but I have come to realize that most people faced with examples of this don’t accept it, even gift wrapped and polished. You have to discover it for yourself.
Thank you for the chance to talk,
Matt
14 matt Says:
June 6th, 2005 at 7:07 am
Mark,
On a side note, I notice your article on Gore Vidal, where he talks about this and that about the corporations. I have to ask the question of someone who seems to believe that corporate capitalists are ideal citizens, yet is still open to debate. Here is my question: Why do I find it more the case than not that you or others like you accept on faith that corporations are NOT doing harm to us? They are unaccountable, unelected. They don;t have to answer to you. THey answer to the shareholders. If they step on you, especially if you live in a less fortunate community, they don’t have to even acknowledge it. They ARE the privitization that happens to our water and electricity in this country. Why, when someone complains of corporate disregard of people, the knee-jerk reaction in conservative sectors is to disregard the complaints? So, thats my question, how can you trust a private tyranny (corporation) when you barely trust your public democracy (the government?)
I’d appreciate your thoughts, again, many thanks,
Matt
15 Mark Coffey Says:
June 6th, 2005 at 12:43 pm
Matt, I’ll try to answer more at length later, but the short answer: the invisible hand of Adam Smith…
16 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Weekly Jackass Number Thirty-Nine: Cindy Sheehan Says:
August 15th, 2005 at 6:22 pm
[…] Many times, I take great pleasure in awarding a Weekly Jackass; after all, the intellectual shennanigans of a Noam Chomsky or a Gore Vidal just scream out for ridicule. I take no pleasure at all in awarding this one…after all, there’s nothing funny about a grieving mother. Ask yourself this, though: if Cindy Sheehan had not lost her son, would you even hesitate to condemn her actions? […]
17 Chris Crouch Says:
August 15th, 2005 at 8:37 pm
Like many Chomsky critics you can’t attack what he writes and instead attack him personally (by saying he is anti-semetic). You act as if we should just accept what he writes is wrong because he ‘bashes’ America, but you can’t prove his writings are factually wrong with data or actual facts of your own. I nominate you for jackass of the year.
18 Mark Says:
August 15th, 2005 at 9:02 pm
Hey, thanks, it’s nice to get some recognition. However, you are incorrect that I just made some wild accusations…I gave citations that are easily followed to back up my points - and unlike Chomsky’s, they aren’t citations to my own work or some obscure leftwing journal. Thanks for the belly laugh, though - Chomsky and facts! Whooo - that’s a hoot!…
19 Armand Says:
December 16th, 2005 at 9:36 am
Chomsky is a dog - cut from the same cloth as the Rosenbergs, Klaus Fuchs, Kim Philby - except he doesn’t have the stones for outright treason. Dissent is a beautiful thing - done best by Americans but Chomsky is like afrat party gone bad they can’t have fun with the beer bongs until someone dies from alcohol poisoning
20 Jon Peterson Says:
April 29th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Noam Chomsky is merely an example of a sinister politik who does not have the capacity to realize his own contradictions. I will use the example of the situation in Cambodia, he denies or muffles the crimes of Pol Pot but misrepresents American policy in Latin American most specifically Nicauragua and El Salvador. I must agree with my Rightist compatriots that Dr. Chomsky has no credibility in terms of logic and factually consistency and the aformentioned example is merely the preverbial icing on the cake in terms of Chomsky’s irrational political philosophy. For further fun, Chomsky is noted to have called himself an Anarcho-Socialist which in my estimation is a contradictiion in terms however, such use of nomenclature is not necessary for a leftist psuedo-intellectual hack.
21 Mark Says:
June 7th, 2006 at 6:29 am
Garbage - no Muslims were rounded up after 9/11 - rather, Bush went out of his way to stress we were fighting extremists, not Islam.

Peddle your crap elsewhere…
22 Mark Says:
June 7th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Put up, then, or shut up - show me the proof of these “mass Muslim” roundups - oh, I suppose all the evidence has been suppressed, right?…
23 Steven Says:
June 7th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
I’m sorry I thought this was the “peddle crap” website.

Excerpts of some of the many report links listed below on the racial profiling etc. post 911.

“immediately following 9/11, over 1200 persons were detained without charges or direct links to
the terrorist attacks. Moreover, federal authorities invoked secrecy, both to conceal and to
confirm detainees’ criminalization.”

“When a powerful bomb destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on
April 19, 1995, news organizations were quick to identify Middle Easterners as suspects and
reported that the FBI was specifically looking for two men with dark hair and beards. Within hours,
Arab and Muslim Americans became the targets of physical and verbal assaults. As it turned out,
an American with European ancestors, Timothy McVeigh, committed what was said at the time to
be the most deadly terrorist deed on American soil.”

“According to the Justice Department, 752 of the more than 1,200 people detained since Sept. 11 were held on immigration charges. Officials said recently that 81 remained in detention. Court papers indicate there were about two dozen material witnesses, while most of the other detainees were held on various state and federal criminal charges.”

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/M.%20Chishti%20Civil%20Liberties%20Senate%2011-18-03%20.pdf

http://connecticutlawreview.org/archive/vol34/summer/Ashar.pdf

http://www.amnestyusa.org/racial_profiling/report/rp_report.pdf

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0306/index.htm

http://www.apsanet.org/~polcomm/apsa%20papers/Nacos.pdf

http://www.ssrc.org/programs/gsc/publications/quarterly13/cainkar.pdf

http://rac.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/47/3/31

I got tired after a while there were so many.
And here a report by The Christian Science Monitor that is somewhat related.

http://www.bard.edu/hrp/resource_pdfs/knickerbocker.security.pdf

“There’s a historical pattern here. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln
suspended writs of habeas corpus, part of the due process for criminal
defendants. After World War I, suspected anarchists were arrested without
warrant, and immigrants were deported. During World War II, 77,000
American citizens of Japanese ancestry were imprisoned for the duration of
the war solely because of their race. During the cold war, it was illegal to
teach communism. And after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, new
legislation allowed the use of secret evidence to deport people.”
24 Mark Says:
June 7th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
752 were held on immigration charges, eh? So we decided to go after ILLEGAL immigrants of questionable provenance in the wake of the biggest attack ever on American soil? And I didn’t note the word ‘Muslim’ anywhere in there…

So Franklin Roosevelt interns 77,000 Japanese strictly on the basis of their race, and that’s equivalent to going after several hundred people on our shores illegally?…

In any event, I can tell you’re a Chomsky acolyte - you’re well-skilled in throwing up a smokescreen that obscures the impact of the murder of 3,000 Americans on their way to work…