|
|
|
lpetrich
Skeptic Friend
USA
74 Posts |
 Posted - 11/03/2001 : 12:27:33 [Permalink]
|
First off, for those of you who didn't get the hint, the Japanese word usually translated as "divine wind" is "kamikaze". And we all know what sort of missions a kamikaze squadron would be flying...
rubysue:
3) To Ieptrich - Thank you for your comments. I disagree with most of them, as you might expect. ...
I will be examining Zinn's ideas next and his expositions are loaded with classic socialism. ...
LP:
Whatever "socialism" is supposed to be. I keep on seeing it used as a content-free dirty word that I'm compelled to ask what it's supposed to be.
rubysue:
... I believe that some of the most evil words ever written in the history of humanity are: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".
LP:
I don't see the connection.
Communists may have had that as an ideal, but in practice, Communism has worked like the ultimate in Big Business, complete with its own company town and company goons -- and worthless scrip for currency.
rubysue:
The "privileged brats" comment is entirely reasonable ...
LP:
What do you expect them to say -- that the rest of humanity ought to accept some American equivalent of Japan's "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere", whether they like it or not?
Many revolutionaries have had very un-proletarian class origins; the American ones, for example. Does the fact that some American revolutionaries were businessmen and plantation owners mean that King George III was right?
rubysue:
A "Fifth Column" is defined as follows [...]
LP:
Yes, I know what a "fifth column" is. That's why I ask whether Noam Chomsky is in the pay of Al Qaeda.
rubysue:
Chomsky is not necessarily in the employ of the Al Qaeda (although there is growing evidence of a possible clandestine link between neo-Nazi groups and Islamist terrorist organizations; see the link below for open evidence of such a link.)
LP:
I would not be one bit surprised by the existence of such links; both of them share common enemies and villains -- the existing Western Governments and the Jews.
rubysue:
Oh, and also by the way, among the most vicious arbiters of "power and wealth" in history were the elite in the Soviet Communist Party. ...
LP:
So what? They grossly violated their professed ideals.
rubysue:
Chomsky's defense of Faurisson is cleverly devious (what else is new for the master linguist?) and completely misleading. Faurisson is an ACTIVE Holocaust denier, as evidenced by this vile website and his partnership with the Radio Islam network. ...
LP:
I'm not going to defend Chomsky there; I'm sure that it's fun watching him squirm.
Edited by - lpetrich on 11/03/2001 12:28:54 |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 12:59:39 [Permalink]
|
Find something worth refuting and I'll do what I can.
quote:
Would hope those attempting to refute your position, will take the time to post their sources as well.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
lpetrich
Skeptic Friend
USA
74 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 13:47:11 [Permalink]
|
Reading Noam Chomsky on Pearl Harbor, I think I understand what his mindset is -- complete US-centeredness, and an unwillingness to really learn about what goes on elsewhere in the world. It's hard to tell what he really thinks about the attack; does he really believe that it was 100% provoked by US economic warfare?
That attack was a devious sneak attack; Japan never bothered to break relations or deliver some warning like "Get out of the western Pacific -- or else!!!" -- instead, Japan's leaders continued with some totally insincere negotiations, even as their Pearl Harbor task force was on the move to some spot north of Hawaii.
As to some eastern-Asian nationalists siding with Japan, it's a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"; something like why Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro became Communists. I wonder how many of them were to regret that, given the way that Japan's armed forces often behaved in eastern Asia.
It's like how the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union under the slogan "Liberation from Bolshevism" -- but quickly squandered whatever goodwill they may have earned as "liberators".
As to Japan not apologizing for Pearl Harbor, that's all in character with what Japan's leaders have done since the war; they've been unwilling to face up to their ugly recent past, as Germany's postwar leaders have done. Japanese right-wingers have been like their US counterparts here in their jingoistic nationalism and militarism, and their looking back to some imagined Good Old Days.
I've read Parenti on WWII, and while it's a very interesting conspiracy theory, I only partially agree with it. Parenti didn't say much about Pearl Harbor, however.
I agree that being opposed to the Soviet Union may have been a big reason for Neville Chamberlain to appease Adolf Hitler; that the SU was left out of that "peace in our time" deal may have been no coincidence. It is as if NC had hoped that any "war in our time" would be between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
Also, unwillingness to aid German generals who wanted to overthrow AH might have been for a good reason -- how credible were they?
Now for that other NC stuff.
NC:
[Hiroshima vs. Nagasaki...]
LP:
I think that there is something to be said for that. Nuking Hiroshima could well have been the lesser of two evils, but I think that our side ought to have waited a bit longer before nuking Nagasaki.
NC:
... Then there was an utterly gratuitous bombing, a one thousand plane raid at the end of the war -- right in fact after Japan surrendered -- called the "finale," the grand finale.
LP:
That raid happened just *before* the surrender.
NC:
Then comes, for example, the support for the brutal counter-insurgency campaign in Greece, which killed about 150,000 people to basically restore Nazi collaborators and demolish the resistance. ...
LP:
However, the insurgents were also to blame for a lot. Even though I think that our leaders have had a disappointing fondness for dictators who just so happen to be on our side ("He's an SOB, but he's our SOB"). What happened is that the major route for dissent has been becoming Commies and other extremists; and more recently, in several Muslim countries, the main route for dissent has been Muslim fundamentalism.
However, Noam Chomsky has been reluctant to discuss the Marshall Plan and similar aid; rebuilding Germany and Japan and making them sort-of pacifist was a great achievement.
NC:
Eisenhower. ... but nevertheless the bombings in North Korea in 1951 and 1952 was just an outright war crime. [bombing dams...]
LP:
So what?
NC:
Kennedy is not even worth discussing. The invasion in South Vietnam -- Kennedy attacked South Vietnam, outright. ...
LP:
However, I doubt if the US was to blame for the crookedness of South Vietnam's government -- like so many other crooks, it got a free ride simply by being anti-Communist.
NC:
In the Nixon years, for example, the bombing of inner Cambodia in 1973 was a monstrous crime. ...
LP:
I agree that that secret bombing was uncalled for. Something like all of WWII's bombs dropped in secret.
NC:
In the Carter years there were major crimes, for example the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, which happened to start under Ford and led to the nearest thing to genocide since the holocaust, maybe 1/3 or 1/4 of the population has been slaughtered. ...
LP:
Is the US government supposed to be to blame for that? That's what NC is implying. Maybe just suckered by self-styled opponents of Communism.
NC:
... Carter was backing Somoza and his national guard, openly and with direct military and diplomatic support at a time when they had
killed about 40,000 people in the terror of the last days of their regime. Again, that's a sample.
LP:
However deplorable Somoza's regime had been, the Sandinists were little improvement. In fact, the Left has been silent about how the Sandinists treated the Miskito Indians.
Also, Jimmy Carter had had a commendable human-rights policy, which he failed to really follow through with. Whatever NC thinks about that.
NC also failed to mention the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, which was some *very* worthy diplomacy.
NC:
Going on to the Reagan years, ... In southern Africa about 1.5 million people were killed and over $60 billion of damage were done according to the UN commission which reviewed it later from 1980 to 1988. That's from South African atrocities that the US was directly supporting. ...
LP:
Supporting in what way?
NC:
[Bush and the invasion of Panama...]
LP:
Because a former friend turned around and started to bite us.
NC:
When we move on to the Clinton years, one of his first acts within a few months was to send missiles to bomb Baghdad. ...
LP:
So what?
I'd like to see what sort of policies NC would have preferred.
|
|
|
|
rubysue
Skeptic Friend
USA
199 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 15:24:22 [Permalink]
|
LP:
Whatever your point is in your long rebuttals, I'm must confess that I'm not sure that I'm smart enough to get into an endless refutation of your "so whats?"; you are obviously much more learned than I am about politics and foreign policy. I did go to the effort of finding a "quite official" definition of socialism for everyone to read:
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm
If this is a model of government that you and Gorgo find appealing, then so be it. I find it to be appalling. Here's a Zinn quote for you on his definition of socialism (veering off of Chomsky for a minute):
"To break the hold of corporations over our food, our rent, our work, our lives-to produce things people need, and give everyone useful work to do and distribute the wealth of the country with approximate equality-whether you call it socialism or not, isn't it common sense?"
Source: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Quotes_Zinn.html
And my gut-level, emotional response to Howard Zinn, if anyone cares?
Keep your goddamn hands off my money, my inheritances, and my success. It is not yours to have or "distribute equally". Nor is it your place to decide what "useful work" is and how I fit into that work. This is why Socialism (or Communism or other totalitarianisms) never succeed, because eventually a group will be formed who makes all of these decisions for others. Yes, yes I know, before it can be said, the US government also makes a lot of decisions for me, but, given the alternative, I'll take our version of republican capitalism any day.
I confess that I believe myself to be an unabashed capitalist, egoist and rationalist. I abhor the thought of a societal structure that forces me to subsume my needs to others at all times. On the contrary, because I am free to choose what to do with my income after I pay my taxes (and I do wish they were lower, but I also reluctantly acknowledge that cohesive societies have certain civic obligations), I can then feel free to give a portion of my income to those who are needier (and I give a LOT of my income to charities, both domestic and foreign, because my personal needs aren't that pressing). I can also choose to spend my income on trivialities, if I so desire, but I'm not forced to choose between living the life I want or involuntarily subsidizing others because I have been successful in my career. This attitude is, of course, called "selfish" by those who would rather decide for me what kind of success I should be "allowed" to have, through endless worker's committee decisions and "grassroots democracy" and penalizing tax structures that destroy that very success.
Gorgo -
From your post below:
quote:
On the contrary. I would love some reasonably presented information. I haven't seen it yet. It would be nice to find out that God is in his heaven that Jesus really does save and that George Bush is a hero, and that I no longer have to wonder why people like you seem to love lies. That would make my life so much easier. Please, please try to inform me as much as you can about the flaws of my "demigods." That is not sarcasm at all. Somehow because you need to worship nonsense, you think everyone else does. I don't.
Why are you attacking me? I didn't attack you, I attacked your role model Noam Chomsky. I presented more than ample evidence that he is not worth following because his life and philosophy is a lie. Your two links, once again, demonstrate the lie. There are no references, no scholarship, there is no objectivity. Rather, there is equivocation and deviousness and name-calling and fallacious reasoning (what a shock; I always thought Anthony Lewis and the NY Times were too liberal, but it appears that the radical left doesn't feel that way). After reading the second one, from the horse's mouth, where he tries to distance himself from Faurisson and downplay or deny Faurisson's vicious anti-semitism, I have become more and more disgusted. Here is my emotional, baldface, bottom-line assessment of Noam Chomsky: He is a moral degenerate of the finest order and I am appalled that he continues to teach at one of the most respected universities in this nation. He uses linguistics like a weapon in the most nihilistic way possible. He creates no positive alternatives (other than the same old tired garbage that I've already referred to), but rather serves to shock and destroy.
If this is "anger", so be it. I'm angry at this academic elitism and moral relativism that pervades the radical left.
rubysue
If your head is wax, don't walk in the sun.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 17:23:11 [Permalink]
|
I haven't said anything to attack you, just your ideas, or lack of them. You present unfounded ideas about Chomsky and then when he refutes them, you say he should have sources? To do what, to tell his side of the story? When you haven't given us anything with any foundation regarding the smear campaign about Faurisson and the Khmer Rouge?
Again, your emotional tirades are no substitute for reasonable discussion. Give me something reasonable to talk about, and I can disagree or agree.
I think it's wonderful that you think the U.S. is utopian, just don't accuse others of being utopian, when you're the only one using the word, and don't talk about demigods when you're the only one worshipping criminals like Bush and Clinton.
quote:
Why are you attacking me? I didn't attack you, I attacked your role model Noam Chomsky. I presented more than ample evidence that he is not worth following because his life and philosophy is a lie. Your two links, once again, demonstrate the lie. There are no references, no scholarship, there is no objectivity. Rather, there is equivocation and deviousness and name-calling and fallacious reasoning (what a shock; I always thought Anthony Lewis and the NY Times were too liberal, but it appears that the radical left doesn't feel that way). After reading the second one, from the horse's mouth, where he tries to distance himself from Faurisson and downplay or deny Faurisson's vicious anti-semitism, I have become more and more disgusted. Here is my emotional, baldface, bottom-line assessment of Noam Chomsky: He is a moral degenerate of the finest order and I am appalled that he continues to teach at one of the most respected universities in this nation. He uses linguistics like a weapon in the most nihilistic way possible. He creates no positive alternatives (other than the same old tired garbage that I've already referred to), but rather serves to shock and destroy.
If this is "anger", so be it. I'm angry at this academic elitism and moral relativism that pervades the radical left.
rubysue
If your head is wax, don't walk in the sun.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
lpetrich
Skeptic Friend
USA
74 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 17:58:29 [Permalink]
|
rubysue quoting Zinn:
"To break the hold of corporations over our food, our rent, our work, our lives-to produce things people need, and give everyone useful work to do and distribute the wealth of the country with approximate equality-whether you call it socialism or not, isn't it common sense?"
LP:
I think that what he's saying is that corporate leaders have become a de facto ruling class, though it is disappointing that most anti-corporatists, as they might be called, are not more explicit about this.
rubysue:
And my gut-level, emotional response to Howard Zinn, if anyone cares?
Keep your goddamn hands off my money, my inheritances, and my success. ...
LP:
As if rubysue lives in the middle of the Amazon jungle. We are all interdependent on each other; like it or not.
rubysue:
It is not yours to have or "distribute equally". Nor is it your place to decide what "useful work" is and how I fit into that work.
LP:
Replace "me" with "rubysue's boss" and see what happens with rubysue.
rubysue:
This is why Socialism (or Communism or other totalitarianisms) never succeed, because eventually a group will be formed who makes all of these decisions for others.
LP:
Like rubysue's superiors at work?
rubysue:
Yes, yes I know, before it can be said, the US government also makes a lot of decisions for me, but, given the alternative, I'll take our version of republican capitalism any day.
LP:
Ignoring, of course, the decisions that rubysue's boss makes for rubysue.
rubysue:
(what a shock; I always thought Anthony Lewis and the NY Times were too liberal, but it appears that the radical left doesn't feel that way).
LP:
How is Anthony Lewis "too liberal"?
[rubysue on Noam Chomsky and Faurisson...]
I agree that Noam Chomsky has a strange taste in friends.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 19:54:05 [Permalink]
|
rubysue quoting Zinn:
"To break the hold of corporations over our food, our rent, our work, our lives-to produce things people need, and give everyone useful work to do and distribute the wealth of the country with approximate equality-whether you call it socialism or not, isn't it common sense?"
LP:
I think that what he's saying is that corporate leaders have become a de facto ruling class, though it is disappointing that most anti-corporatists, as they might be called, are not more explicit about this.
Trish:
However, the purchasing public does have some say in the amount and ability of the corporations to stay in business.
rubysue:
And my gut-level, emotional response to Howard Zinn, if anyone cares?
Keep your goddamn hands off my money, my inheritances, and my success. ...
LP:
As if rubysue lives in the middle of the Amazon jungle. We are all interdependent on each other; like it or not.
Trish:
They want to take your money and give it to the bum on the corner without so much as a by your leave. You work to build a corporation or your own business - so you and your family can live in a life style you choose. They would take that away and redistribute it to others - not so that others can have a roof over their heads and food on the table (taxes and welfare) - rather so that they will live in concert at the same level with you (socialism to some extent and communism in whole) - yet they need not work, as long as you are supplying them with money. This was the major problem with the former Soviet Union. One of many reasons lines were so long for necessities - like bread. (And according to Gaspadeen [Russian for Mr.] Bartow it was also a form of oppression thought up by the Stalinist Government.)
rubysue:
It is not yours to have or "distribute equally". Nor is it your place to decide what "useful work" is and how I fit into that work.
LP:
Replace "me" with "rubysue's boss" and see what happens with rubysue.
Trish:
Rubysue can quit, anyone can quit any job they want anytime they want and hang up their own shingle and be their own boss. You can not quit a totalitarian regime. That my friend is a strawman - poof.
rubysue:
This is why Socialism (or Communism or other totalitarianisms) never succeed, because eventually a group will be formed who makes all of these decisions for others.
LP:
Like rubysue's superiors at work?
Trish:
Again refer to the above.
rubysue:d
Yes, yes I know, before it can be said, the US government also makes a lot of decisions for me, but, given the alternative, I'll take our version of republican capitalism any day.
LP:
Ignoring, of course, the decisions that rubysue's boss makes for rubysue.
Trish:
Again refer above: strawman.
rubysue:
(what a shock; I always thought Anthony Lewis and the NY Times were too liberal, but it appears that the radical left doesn't feel that way).
LP:
How is Anthony Lewis "too liberal"?
Trish:
Perspecitive?
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those threeunspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudencenever to practice either of them. -Mark Twain
Edited by - Trish on 11/03/2001 19:57:18 |
|
|
|
rubysue
Skeptic Friend
USA
199 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 21:56:07 [Permalink]
|
Oh, Lordy, I feel a mini-rant coming on. Stop me before I go completely beserk! Oops, too late...
Lp:
Yada, yada, yada......
Rubysue:
So what?
LP: Blah, blah, blah, pontificate, question, hammer, annoy, pester, devil's advocate, etc., et. al., e.g., ad infinitum....
rubysue:
So what?
LP: As if rubysue lives in the middle of the Amazon jungle. We are all interdependent on each other; like it or not.
rubysue: No we're not! I don't know you from Adam or Eve and I wouldn't care to know you. I am not dependent on the opinions of lpterich to survive or thrive. You are not the special agent of Gaia and you also cannot have my money or any more of my time.
Gee, I guess I can play this game, too. I can literally be the most childish and peevish person on this board, if you ask Gorgo and Greg and Atomic (and a few others). I REALLY have no intention of trying and answering all of the little questions in all of your little running dialogues,LP. I quite frankly find your approach to discussion to be amazingly infantile and quite typical of someone who hangs out on the infidels.org site (a sanctuary for some of the most appallingly nasty people that I've ever run across as a board lurker).
Trish - thanks for jumping in; I appreciate your help. I feel like I'm all by myself sometimes in this war of the words. This forum is no longer a place for skeptics, but has turned into a bastion of the "earnest progressive". As you can see, trying to have any kind of opinion (or even a sense of humor) against those indoctrinated by the finest academic brainwashers of this or any generation is a lost cause. They might as well name this board the Noam Chomsky Co-Dependent Society.
Gorgo -
I'm beyond commenting...I have made a prima facie case backed by plenty of facts and excellent links; it's not my fault that you can't see that the emperor wears no clothes.
I bid you adieu as I prepare the cases against Zinn and Clark...
rubysue
If your head is wax, don't walk in the sun.
|
|
|
|
lpetrich
Skeptic Friend
USA
74 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 22:29:23 [Permalink]
|
[Trish:
However, the purchasing public does have some say in the amount and ability of the corporations to stay in business.
LP:
However, boycotts are evil and must be outlawed as economic sabotage, right?
Trish:
They want to take your money and give it to the bum on the corner without so much as a by your leave. ...
LP:
This objection to supporting parasites reminds me of the Marxist view of capitalism: that capitalists are parasites who live off the labors of the working class, and that it's best if we could get rid of them.
Trish:
Rubysue can quit, anyone can quit any job they want anytime they want and hang up their own shingle and be their own boss. You can not quit a totalitarian regime. That my friend is a strawman - poof.
LP:
Just like you are free to move to another country if you don't like paying taxes to the government of the country you are currently living in. As if "love it or leave it" is all the freedom one will ever need, or ever have a right to have.
One has the complete right to create a floating city for oneself and one's friends (if one has any) in international waters and to attempt to declare it a sovereign nation, so one can move there and live tax-free and otherwise government-free lives.
I think that rubysue, Trish, and other disciples of Ayn Rand ought to look at how well chest-thumping ultracapitalism had worked for anyone who wasn't a white male for most of the US's history. Did a superabundance of black and/or female CEO's result back then? Especially since the first century and a half (rough guess) is sometimes hailed as a capitalist-utopia Good Old Days.
Also, claiming that one has the freedom to either love it or leave it does not make most businesses, especially big ones, any less collectivist -- consider what one is being asked to either love or leave.
Finally, were the opponents of slavery a century and a half ago nothing but a bunch of "privileged brats" who were more than happy to steal from plantation owners some of the fruits of their labor -- the ownership of their slaves?
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 23:08:06 [Permalink]
|
[Trish:
However, the purchasing public does have some say in the amount and ability of the corporations to stay in business.
LP:
However, boycotts are evil and must be outlawed as economic sabotage, right?
Trish:
Huh? Where do you get the impression that I don't support or personally boycott companies that I don't like their policies. That completely misses the entire point of the ethos of researching the background of a company from whom you may purchase a product. One of the points behind this statements in the wealth supported by the buying public is the fact that many consumers are ill-informed regarding the products they purchase and just who owns what. Don't like big tobacco - better not purchase Kraft Mac n' Cheese either - since it's all the same as Phillip Morris. The general person in the public is unwilling to shop based on research into the company. The only time they do boycott a company for a particular reason is if something sensational makes the news, i.e., the satanic tendancies of Proctor Gamble - courtesy their competitor Amway. Hmm, seems that I may actually participate in boycotts because I've researched the issue - not because someone told me I have too.
Trish:
They want to take your money and give it to the bum on the corner without so much as a by your leave. ...
LP:
This objection to supporting parasites reminds me of the Marxist view of capitalism: that capitalists are parasites who live off the labors of the working class, and that it's best if we could get rid of them.
Trish:
But gee, I somehow don't think a strike would work against the government giving your money to someone else. Employees who strike do hurt the company ownership where it counts - right in the pocket. That's a great motivator for working with the people under you. There is also something called the work ethic - generally refering to how employees should act at work - but the flip side of the coin is how the employer should act in return. There are ways around this - I've never said that unions/strikes are bad - just that there are occassions when the union leadership is as corrupt or more corrupt than the ownership of the company. Go figure - I'm willing to base my judgement of this issue on the individual case without giving whole support to one or the other.
Trish:
Rubysue can quit, anyone can quit any job they want anytime they want and hang up their own shingle and be their own boss. You can not quit a totalitarian regime. That my friend is a strawman - poof.
LP:
Just like you are free to move to another country if you don't like paying taxes to the government of the country you are currently living in. As if "love it or leave it" is all the freedom one will ever need, or ever have a right to have.
Trish:
You are still blowing smoke. I have left jobs because I could not agree with decisions made by management. I've always left with a nice referal from my employer, there has never been an adverse contention between my employer and I. There is a framework in which everyone must work - however - that does not equate with totalitarianism. That is the connection that you are attempting to make - it's a jump in logic that is at best - erroneous.
LP:
One has the complete right to create a floating city for oneself and one's friends (if one has any) in international waters and to attempt to declare it a sovereign nation, so one can move there and live tax-free and otherwise government-free lives.
Trish:
You're attempting to put more into the context of the commentary than is there. Taxes are not necessarily a bad thing - I may not agree with them, then again I may agree with others. One also has the right to choose to work within the system as it exists or attempt to change it without inflicting injury to another. Leaving a totalitarian regime is often time difficult and dangerous. Let's look at many defectors from other countries seeking asylum here in the US. How many had to attempt to flee while traveling for some reason outside their own country because any other attempt might cost them their lives. How many died attempting to leave Vietnam after the VC spilled across the borders in to SV? How many lives are lost every year by those attempting to leave Cuba? Will we ever have an answer to the question of these numbers?
LP:
I think that rubysue, Trish, and other disciples of Ayn Rand ought to look at how well chest-thumping ultracapitalism had worked for anyone who wasn't a white male for most of the US's history. Did a superabundance of black and/or female CEO's result back then? Especially since the first century and a half (rough guess) is sometimes hailed as a capitalist-utopia Good Old Days.
Trish:
Um, Ayn Rand!? Look I attempted to read Fountainhead and found I couldn't get through it. So, forgive me for this - but where the fuck did you come up with the concept that I would prostrate myself before something that was written as FICTION!? I happen to have read *An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations* by Adam Smith and *Das Kapital* by Karl Marx. The US operates on a socialist basis with more capitalistic leanings than can be considered as a socialist country. If we were a purely capitalist country then welfare would not exist at all and neither would the New Deal. But they do! Government support of those who are unable to fend for themselves. According to Smith these people should be cared for by private parties/funds/donations and not the government. He had an idea of people actually believing in their duty to their fellow man. Guess what - it's a great ideal.
LP:
Also, claiming that one has the freedom to either love it or leave it does not make most businesses, especially big ones, any less collectivist -- consider what one is being asked to either love or leave.
Trish:
If you do not/can not agree with the fundamental practices of a company and it's management staff then it is time to start looking for another position - why? Well to start with I happen to like my mental health. I also dislike making myself sick because I absolutely dread going to work because of the bull that goes on. As long as I have that choice - I will exercise it! How is the government deciding what I will do with my life better for me than being allowed to screw my own life up?
LP:
Finally, were the opponents of slavery a century and a half ago nothing but a bunch of "privileged brats" who were more than happy to steal from plantation owners some of the fruits of their labor -- the ownership of their slaves?
And in from left field we have....WTF!? Slaves?! 150 years ago. And I tend to think that most would agree that slavery was a little more than academia - try what most things revolve around - money!
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain
Edited by - Trish on 11/03/2001 23:09:58 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2001 : 23:55:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This forum is no longer a place for skeptics, but has turned into a bastion of the "earnest progressive".
How come anytime anyone disagrees with you you resort to something like this? Are you that far to the right to become a radical yourself and normal folks become hysterical liberal whatevers? I had to say thus because you are in effect slamming almost everyone here and seem to do it just because others dare to think differently than you.
I really don't care what you think just as you keep saying you don't care what others think yet time and again demonstrate that you do indeed care by going off the way you do, but I would prefer you not to make such outrageous accusations. Anyone can post any point of view here and we get many different views from all across the politcal spectrum. One person says something you don't like and BAM, we're all liberals bleeding hearts. Perhps some are but so what? You said you don't care. You said it a few times.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 09:32:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Gorgo -
I'm beyond commenting...I have made a prima facie case backed by plenty of facts and excellent links; it's not my fault that you can't see that the emperor wears no clothes.
I bid you adieu as I prepare the cases against Zinn and Clark...
rubysue
If your head is wax, don't walk in the sun.
From what I can tell you've said nothing. You've brought some quotes in that have a great deal of evidence behind them (again, good or bad evidence maybe but evidence) and said basically but not literally, "This guy is stupid, I don't like this guy." Well, so what? Have you refuted any of his evidence? Have you made any kind of case against what he actually stands for? No.
I've brought you material which shows that the Faurisson and Khmer Rouge smears are bullshit, and you've brought nothing to the table to substantiate them. You take up a lot of time and space doing nothing.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens
Edited by - Gorgo on 11/04/2001 09:43:31 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 09:41:38 [Permalink]
|
http://www.skeptic.com/02.4.siano-holocaust.html
"In 1979 Robert Faurisson, a professor at the University of Lyons, was condemned by a French court for the "falsification of
history." One of the signatories to a petition defending Faurisson's right to free speech was linguist Noam Chomsky who, when
asked to clarify his reasons, explained that the court's decision set a precedent where the state could define what history was.
As reprehensible as Faurisson's views were, it was in cases such as his that free speech should be most urgently defended.
Chomsky, needless to say, has never endorsed Faurisson's views.
On the other hand, Patrick Buchanan, former Presidential candidate, has claimed that the gas chambers at Treblinka could not
have worked--a standard claim of Holocaust Revisionists. Buchanan also made note of what he called "Holocaust Survivor
Syndrome," involving "group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics," and has argued against the prosecution of Nazi war
criminals. "
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 10:04:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Reading Noam Chomsky on Pearl Harbor, I think I understand what his mindset is -- complete US-centeredness, and an unwillingness to really learn about what goes on elsewhere in the world.
Well, I don't really understand that comment, but let me say two things. You wanted to know what Chomsky said on a subject, so I pointed you to the largest Chomsky archive I know of and let you find what he said on the subject. He may not have been addressing the questions that you present at all in that archive. Like I said, he is out of the country for a couple of months, so specific questions probably can't be directed to him for a while unless you happen to catch him in a lecture somewhere in Asia.
Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by U.S.-centeredness, but Chomsky (like me) is a U.S. citizen and is trying to get the U.S. to at least act like it says that it acts. If they're going to be the largest terrorist nation on earth, then they should say so, rather than try to sell themselves as the champions of democracy and all that is good in the world.
quote:
It's hard to tell what he really thinks about the attack; does he really believe that it was 100% provoked by US economic warfare?
Chomsky is not a pacifist and is one of those that think that WWII is a "good war." He may not like that I put it that way, but basically he has stated that the war had to be fought. I'm sure that he is in disagreement with the U.S. policies toward China and Japan, and has worked to restore some of the missing pieces in U.S. history - see especially the book "Year 501" which I think is in the archives at least partially. Forgive me if I don't hunt down specific citations on every issue or if my memory fails me and gives you the wrong place to hunt. I figure if you're interested you'll look.
quote:
That attack was a devious sneak attack; Japan never bothered to break relations or deliver some warning like "Get out of the western Pacific -- or else!!!" -- instead, Japan's leaders continued with some totally insincere negotiations, even as their Pearl Harbor task force was on the move to some spot north of Hawaii.
No question, and I think Chomsky and Zinn - who is a pacifist - would agree.
quote:
NC:
[Hiroshima vs. Nagasaki...]
LP:
I think that there is something to be said for that. Nuking Hiroshima could well have been the lesser of two evils, but I think that our side ought to have waited a bit longer before nuking Nagasaki.
NC:
... Then there was an utterly gratuitous bombing, a one thousand plane raid at the end of the war -- right in fact after Japan surrendered -- called the "finale," the grand finale.
All totally murderous actions. Never a reason for any of it. Including Hiroshima, in my opinion. People are quick to call some monsters, and completely ignore the crimes of others because they are "on our side." Crapola.
quote:
LP:
That raid happened just *before* the surrender.
Criminal action.
quote:
NC:
Then comes, for example, the support for the brutal counter-insurgency campaign in Greece, which killed about 150,000 people to basically restore Nazi collaborators and demolish the resistance. ...
LP:
However, the insurgents were also to blame for a lot. Even though I think that our leaders have had a disappointing fondness for dictators who just so happen to be on our side ("He's an SOB, but he's our SOB"). What happened is that the major route for dissent has been becoming Commies and other extremists; and more recently, in several Muslim countries, the main route for dissent has been Muslim fundamentalism.
However, Noam Chomsky has been reluctant to discuss the Marshall Plan and similar aid; rebuilding Germany and Japan and making them sort-of pacifist was a great achievement.
I don't know Chomsky's views on the Marshall Plan. He also didn't mention what a wonderful invention the light bulb was. Such things are important for all of us to remember, but when you're on a specific subject, it's best to stick to that subject.
quote:
NC:
Kennedy is not even worth discussing. The invasion in South Vietnam -- Kennedy attacked South Vietnam, outright. ...
LP:
However, I doubt if the US was to blame for the crookedness of South Vietnam's government -- like so many other crooks, it got a free ride simply by being anti-Communist.
Again, the actions of the U.S. don't mean that there is no one else involved. When the subject is U.S. criminal actions, then that will be what the subject is.
quote:
NC:
In the Nixon years, for example, the bombing of inner Cambodia in 1973 was a monstrous crime. ...
LP:
I agree that that secret bombing was uncalled for. Something like all of WWII's bombs dropped in secret.
NC:
In the Carter years there were major crimes, for example the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, which happened to start under Ford and led to the nearest thing to genocide since the holocaust, maybe 1/3 or 1/4 of the population has been slaughtered. ...
LP:
Is the US government supposed to be to blame for that? That's what NC is implying. Maybe just suckered by self-styled opponents of Communism.
It would not have happened without the U.S.
quote:
NC:
... Carter was backing Somoza and his national guard, openly and with direct military and diplomatic support at a time when they had
killed about 40,000 people in the terror of the last days of their regime. Again, that's a sample.
LP:
However deplorable Somoza's regime had been, the Sandinists were little improvement. In fact, the Left has been silent about how the Sandinists treated the Miskito Indians.
Also, Jimmy Carter had had a commendable human-rights policy, which he failed to really follow through with. Whatever NC thinks about that.
NC also failed to mention the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, which was some *ver |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 10:28:15 [Permalink]
|
I questioned the quote about avarice, etc. and got the reply below. I don't have the Chomsky Reader, so I can't confirm. Don't do as I originally did and read it backwards and think that what Chomsky is saying that all rich people are avaricious, etc. What he is saying is that there is a certain tendency for wealth and power to go to people with certain tendencies.
I hear in the discussion here that "some bum" will get our money if we become more socialist because their utopian ideas of capitalism bring them to believe that merit is rewarded in the "free market" and laziness is punished. That of course is ridiculous. There is also much duplication of effort in the present system. Let me also say before you read the following, that what most people who call themselves "socialist" today mean by socialism is not what the U.S.S.R. called socialism, anymore than what the U.S.S.R. called democracy is what I would call democracy.
=======
I'm not sure of the original context, but the quote is found in The Chomsky Reader, page x (in the introduction written by the editor, James Peck). The sentence containing the quote is:
=======
Instead of the comforting rationale that merit breeds success and that the successful have merit, Chomsky suggests, a more rational approach would be to speculate that in our society "wealth and power tend to accrue to those who are ruthless, cunning, avaricious,
self-seeking, lacking in sympathy and compassion, subservient to authority and willing to abandon principle for material gain, and so on."
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
