I was killing a few minutes before an interview with a high school student, and came across this short Noam Chomsky piece, thinking it was on torture. Well, it sort of is on it, and is it. It is also a good peek into Chomsky’s wretched and tedious
soul mind. I’m not dwelling in it, but if you haven’t read any of Chomsky’s deep political thinking--on his loves and hates--lately, this may be a good one to pass over lightly for it is both revealing and mercifully short.
I agree with him that the "city on a hill" stuff is annoying. All else he writes is either stupid or demented.
If the founding is viewed as something to strive for...a goal. It was not reached at signing, slavery. So moving forward would be going back and trying to get there, we are going farther and farther away as we move forward. I think the article was decent, basicly pointing out how idealism does not work when the leadership insists on the ability to be pragmatic. Why do we cling to the idealistic parts and then praise pragmatism in the next breath?
My little code for the prior remark was: Letts insane, best idea i have heard in while.
I see no evidence of a wretched and tedious soul or mind here. What I do see is an expression of the 'real' radical left, the one never invited on talk shows. The right tries to paint all those on the left with Chomskian brushes. If nothing else, his is a reminder that when it comes to Americans engaging in 'torture' the Bush-Cheney regime is nothing new. Torture apologists have already said as much. So it actually deflates the haughty moral pose of some on the left in saying that the Cheney-torture regime has violated some sacrosanct American principles or values against such practices - there never were any in place to have been violated. Chomsky's world-weary pessimism of any country's claim to clean hands is actually comparable to what many on this site have praised as a 'realistic' view of the possibilities given human nature.
What I do see is an expression of the 'real' radical left, the one never invited on talk shows.
Don't be silly. Matt assured me that there is no left in America.
If nothing else, his is a reminder that when it comes to Americans engaging in 'torture' the Bush-Cheney regime is nothing new.
Really? Because you goofballs on the left have spent the last several years insisting that what the Bush administration was doing was an unprecedented sullying of Americas moral character. But then, you people change your arguments as often as normal people change their socks.
Chomsky's world-weary pessimism of any country's claim to clean hands
.. is actually another expression of the endless moral naivete of the the left. (Although his moral scruples were somewhat lacking back when he was praising the Khemer Rouge.)
John M, you should change your socks. The moisture of your ignorance has led to the fungus of imperialism and the foot odor of U.S. exceptionalism.
That was as coherent and substantive as anything else you've said. Try dialing back on your relentless moralizing and see if you can actually say something for a change.
In comment 5 you appeal to moral naivete, in comment 7 to relentless moralizing.All Chomsky is saying is that the U.S. has tortured for decades, for centuries. Many conservatives on this site have admitted as such, and sought to defend it. Is it moral naivete to be opposed? How is that sullying america's moral character if it is the truth?
because the truth is never good enough. I think the conservative today is one part noble lie (from which pride in society comes from) and one part hard line pragmatist (who truly believes that knowing the truth about the noble lie and pretending it does not exist implies a sort of paternalism over the other elements of society that is necesary). We can't very well celebrate the truth when it is horrible and who wants a world full of depressed consumers?