Just when I was shaking my head at Eric Hobsbawn and discussing his delusional utopianism, Noam Chomsky reminds me that he, perhaps he alone, deserves the title of most delusional academic. I'm curious as to who established a hierarchy of responsibilities for invading nations, and even more so as to which invading nations have actually followed this neat schema...

think that perhaps the Iranians, Kuwaitis and especially the Kurds could attest to being afraid of Sadaam at any number of points throughout history.

I think perhaps the most entertaining thing about Chomsky is how he appeals to (primarily) fascist dictators (see photo above) and disaffected, young upper class college students. Really, aren't both groups like shooting intellectual fish in the barrel?

The thing with academics like Chomsky, Zinn and the like (and I will say that I do think Howard Zinn is a vitally important historian), is that they offer fairly simplistic answers to really complicated questions. As academics, I think that is perhaps the greatest disservice, because so many people work with the understanding and frustration that perhaps (for inherent reasons of bias, memory or just available source work) full explanations are never truly possible. It is one of the major frustrations to be sure, but there is also something liberating about it in the sense that new opportunities and points of view will always be available.

struggling with Chomsky and his acolytes for years at www.antichomsky.blogspot.com and I'm afraid it doesn't get any easier with the passage of time.

I love it how the young bulls who hasn't done shit in their lives attack an old academic with so much achievement in science and politics. Like ants gnawing on a cliff.
You are "having fun" with Chomsky?? Now, we are having fun with you, young man. But I am sure, David Horowitz loves you and your internship with Fox News is a done deal. Congratulations.

Those with libarts education who never bothered to check who Chomsky is, do your homework before calling him "delusional".

You said somewhere that you would write on all things Russian but Russian Orthodox Church and V. Putin. While I do understand why you won't comment on the ROC, but why not on Putin? How come all other things Russian are so easy for you, but Vladimir is not?

Despite being called "progressive" in its "about" section, Jewcy is probably the most far right (in terms of foreign policy) publication I read. Michael and Josh being the furthest right.

Z and Counterpunch are rather light on the porn coverage, IWA, though glad to know you still dutifully tend the Jewcy flame.

"Saddam may have been despised almost everywhere, but it was only in the United States that a majority of the population were terrified of what he might do to them, tomorrow."

Easy for you guys to have sport with this comment of Chomsky's, but I recall reading a remark by an Iraqi in a NY Times story to the effect that under Saddam, as horrible as he was, one knew that if one kept his mouth shut, he'd likely be alright, whereas under the US occupation, one had no way of insuring one's safety.
Additionally, although the Kurds et al had good reason to fear Saddam, it was conspicuously odd that Americans did so.
Had Chomsky included the phrase "living far from Saddam's sphere of influence" between the words "population" and "were" in the above quote, would you be mollified?

As reflexively as Chomsky, like Finkelstein, is bashed here, none of the bashing takes the form of substantive rebuttal. Instead, we get the smug repetition of the same tired ad hominems. I suspect that many of Finkelstein's and Chomsky's critics haven't bothered to actually read their stuff.

And have any of you mewling punks revolutionized the study of syntax? Hmmmm?

If you do not drink the Chomsky/Finkelstein Kool-Aid, one somehow loses his/her leftist credentials. Hardly, I say.

This is one mewling punk who would never question Chomsky on the study of language, semantics, or linguistics...ever ever ever. Last I checked he isn't a historian, in any sense of the word. Neither has he studied Middle Eastern politics or history. Thus, I would dare say, his opinions are just as fair game as say, the Anonymous folk who on these message boards offer nothing but platitudinous statements about hegemonic systems without any nuanced understanding of any number of histories. Perhaps, if you had substance to your arguments (this is towards IWA and not the last Anon. who actually does offer an argument) then you would be able to engage in civilized discourse rather than pointless labeling and character judgements.

Well, its a time-honored tactics of grumpy wise men, when they hate what you say and have no arguments against you - to send a young, stupid, girlie calf to deliver some primitive, Pravda-style, giggly, adolescent attack. They cannot do it themselves because they value their reputations too much - so they encourage the political toddlers.
Jeez! One would think they teach them better at Dartmouth!

Why is it that people believe that a person who subscribes to any of these ideologies must necessarily be opposed to American foreign policy?

By the way, love the use of 'tenebrous'.

It isn't often I have to google a word.

Easy for you guys to have sport with this comment of Chomsky's, but I recall reading a remark by an Iraqi in a NY Times story to the effect that under Saddam, as horrible as he was, one knew that if one kept his mouth shut, he'd likely be alright, whereas under the US occupation, one had no way of insuring one's safety.

Ah, well that settles the matter, doesn't it? One quote by an Iraqi in the New York Times and everyone from Kanan Makiya to Mahdi Obeidi to Barham Salih to, indeed, the leadership of the SCIRI and Dawa parties are unmanned.

Had Chomsky included the phrase "living far from Saddam's sphere of influence" between the words "population" and "were" in the above quote, would you be mollified?

No, because every major Western intelligence agency -- including the French and German and Russian ones -- had the same erroneous information about Saddam's WMD capability as did the United States. This is why Jacques Chirac ordered France's largest battleship into the Persian Gulf in the weeks leading up to the Security Council vote on war authorization. He was hedging his bets in case the U.N. decision went the other way, which it had ample evidence to do. Chomsky is having it too easy with the benefit of hindsight.

As for why the U.S. should have viewed Saddam as a threat -- imminent, latent or permanent -- will you at least concede that we bore more than enough guilt in propping him up and facilitating his slaughter of Kurds, Shia and Iranians over the course of two decades? If so, then we'd have been fools not to take him as serious menace -- to the Middle East and elsewhere.

By the way, Alexander, I'm honored you've taken the time to look up my profile (more than once, no doubt), and that in your intrepid pursuit of truth and justice you've let slip that "girlie" is a slight. But do get what I say correct, dear boy. I never once alluded to "writing more" about Russia, save the Orthodox Church or Vladimir Putin. I said my interests leaned in that direction. I also said I'd try everything once except incest and Morris dancing. I now happily count conversing with you a non-starter unworthy of repeat performance.

Dasvidanya.

Adam -

Chomsky need not to "study" the ME political history - he LIVED it. What for you is history, for him is his life. But yours is a valid point - why would someone take Chomsky seriously?
If you ever study his work in math and linguistics you will understand what a brain you are dealing with, what an intellectual giant. You want to take very seriously ANYTHING that is a product of this brain.
I am not a liberal - I am a long-time conservative with a record - I was the one and only person (besides Soviet Politburo :))) who congratulated Reagan in 1980 from Leningrad Main Post Office (and of course was arrested for that!). I also am one of the Charter Founders of Republican Reagan Center in Washington. So I disagree with Chomsky on many things, primary on his views on socialism.
But on the subject of war, Iraq, Israel, Middle east in general - he is as analytical and as intellectually honest as he is with his math. In my opinion he is also right...

However there is no need to agree with what you do not agree. God forbid!
But respectful tone, careful argumentation and normal gentlemanly courtesy for a man who, probably, taught the teachers of your teachers - is a must for anyone who cares about honor and civilized conduct.

Alexander...

Again, I do not question Chomsky's intellectual prowess at all (or certainly his influence and importance in modern academics). Or his contributions to the field of Linguistics. However, I do have a fundamental problem with his scholarship about the Middle East, (which many have pointed out vis-a-vis the Middle East and hegemonic systems) which has often been shoddy if not outright misleading. The mere fact that Chomsky was alive during the time period doesn't give him inherent insight or knowledge of a particular topic. Heck, often a little historical perspective goes a far way in being able to analyze.

You were the one who compared those of us on this board who criticize Chomsky and his followers as being akin to David Horowitz and Fox News...a charge that I can pretty safely say would be (not only erroneous) quite offensive to the writers on this website (and certainly for myself). Talk about honor and civilized discourse...

There mere fact that Chomsky cozies up to Hezbollah, in my mind, negates any possible contributions that he could have to a constructive dialogue on this topic. And in many ways makes his general political views seem entirely specious considering the actual nature of Hezbollah and their desire to spread Jihad and shaaria.

"Ah, well that settles the matter, doesn't it? One quote by an Iraqi...."

Well, I didn't think you'd be quite so concrete as to take my comment as an ironclad argument, so I'll explain a little more...simply. I quoted the Iraqi gentleman to illustrate a general point; there can be relative safety under a dictator as long as one knuckles under to his demands. Under the American occupation, terror is more random and can be quite unrelated to one's behavior. Some may find the former situation preferable. To anticipate any further....misapprehensions on your part, this is not a whitewash of Saddam, a filthy scumbag.

"As for why the U.S. should have viewed Saddam as a threat -- imminent, latent or permanent -- will you at least concede that we bore more than enough guilt in propping him up and facilitating his slaughter of Kurds, Shia and Iranians over the course of two decades? If so, then we'd have been fools not to take him as serious menace -- to the Middle East and elsewhere."

Because we bear guilt for facilitating his disgusting acts, we should take him seriously as a threat? Sorry, there is no logical relationship between those two propositions. Of course I agree that he acted according to our political requirements for decades and so we indulged the odd genocidal gesture with little more than a slightly raised eyebrow. But this is the norm for US foreign policy since WWll at least-there is no transcendent US affection for liberty despite the sickening palaver that counts as political discourse in this country. (In this regard, I recall reading somewhere recently-was it on Jewcy?-that neither truly tough guys nor truly good husbands need to describe themselves as such. Guys who do may as well be telling you outright that they're lying. Similarly, the nauseating self-congratulation in which so many Americans indulge, the constant proclamation of greatness, benevolence, exceptionalism, these are markers of their opposites).
In the struggle for human liberty, we have been on the wrong side too often for these affiliations to have been mistakes.

Adam, I agree that Chomsky's magisterial linguistic insights provide no pedigree for his political beliefs-I was being snarky with the last sentence in my 7/19 6:16PM post. But to claim, as you did, that he hasn't studied Middle Eastern politics or history is not just wrong, it's bafflingly, stupendously unintelligible. Unless you have a very idiosyncratic notion of "studied", what could you have been thinking? The guy's an omnivorous reader, he's massively informed, he studies the Israeli press, both English and Hebrew, he's written numerous scrupulously footnoted books on the region ....fer chrissake, disagree with the guy, but don't say he hasn't studied the Middle East. Just because Dershowitz says that Chomsky's not to be trusted (pot calling the snowbank black) doesn't make it so. I repeat, have you read Chomsky? Do you know of specific errors or lies he's committed? Or are you simply exhaling the general disapproval of his work that so many otherwise sensible people breathe in from the current political atmosphere?

As far as Chomsky "cozying up" to Hezbollah, even if this were to be understood in the worst possible way it would hardly justify writing off the totality of his work. As it happens, Chomsky claimed that Hezbollah had a right to remain armed since it was the only credible counterbalance to Israel's hegemonic designs on Lebanon. He also denounced the capture of the Israeli soldier by Hezbollah. Both these positions seem sound to me, but even if you disagree, do you really think they are so far beyond the pale that they disqualify their utterer from serious consideration?

Rational people seem to go a little nuts when Chomsky comes up in conversation. Witness the fact that he's still pilloried for writing the foreword to Faurisson's book. He claims that he was making a point about the absoluteness of free expression, sort of like Nat Hentoff, I'd say. His critics say he was coddling a holocaust denier, as if it were even remotely credible that Chomsky believed the substance of Faurisson's ravings. Dershowitz, Horowitz and other pygmies who traffic in these calumnies are either abysmally stupid or morally bankrupt, and I've seen no evidence of their stupidity. Don't believe them.

Adam:

1. In my opinion the only thing historical perspective adds is smoke. Take an example from American history. During Civil War all sides knew that North did not give a shit about slavery and the fight was about the economic grip over South that North was about to lose. Today even well-educated Americans believe the fairy-tales about moral stance of the North as a causus belli in Civil War.
That is precisely why Leo Tolstoy called history to be a winners' whore.

2. You did not "criticize" Chomsky, you sneered at him. And that is what puts you on the same lever with Horowitz, Dershovitz and Fox. If it is offensive for you to be seen in that company, stop emulating their Trotskyite methods or argumentation.

3. Anyone who demonizes Hezbollah or any other radical group that has vast support in its native region makes a huge strategic mistake. And anyone who believes that his/her position based on tribal interests or religious convictions is exclusively moral needs to visit Salem, MA and listen to the guide real careful.

Chomsky is a giant because, as a true mathematician, he is capable of pure abstraction from tribalism, ideology and propaganda and see things in their boiled-down version - which is - absolute majority of people see things through the angle of their birth and upbringing circumstance. What is mine is moral.
A truly wise man always asks himself - is my views - MINE or I just mainly repeat what I was conditioned to repeat?

I became a Zionist in Russia in 1970-ies much more because of Soviet state anti-Semitism than because I was Jewish. I spent 10 years fighting KGB for the right to emigrate (1977-1987) and remained Zionist or another almost 10 years here in the US, until my trip to Israel in 1996 (V International Virology Congress in Jerusalem) when I saw things with my own eyes and which changed my views completely. My only excuse for being a Zionist was that I was conditioned by my Jewishness and by USSR State anti-Semitism. Being Zionist in USSR was a moral and honorable choice. Being a Zionist today is an immoral and shameful choice.
I believe that Israel is an abomination, aparteid and borderline fascist state and should be a subject to vigorous international pressure to end the occupation and pay reparations immediately. I believe that Iraq war will get only worse (I predicted that before we invaded and have witnesses to my predictions) and that the spilled blood of young Americans will wipe away all the lies and smoke screens and that the desperate American mothers and wives will very soon point their finger at us and will say - "The Jews did that to us!". And you know what? With all the neocon war-party warmongers - all these Perls, Wolfovitzes, Adamses, Libbies, Wurmsers, Kagans, Kristols, etc, who took us to this war, it would be pretty hard to dismiss.

That is why I support Chomsky and believe that he, like the anti-Bolshevik Jews of the times of the Russian Revolution is more "Jewcy" than all the AIPAC and AEI "livery Jews" taken together. And if we ignore and sneer at him, both the USA and we will pay humongous price for this self-illusion of righteousness.

Apologies, I only have a minute to respond; will provide a longer response when I have a chance. I do want to just say this though; it is foolish (bordering on blindness) to think that Chomsky is some sort of super-scholar, beyond reproach for his own biases. That he is somehow uber-rational, and devoid of all of the inherent flaws that each and every single scholar in the world possesses.  And to think that anyone who disagrees with him (and you) is somehow behind a smokescreen and being warped is just silly. Sure, you and I disagree about any number of issues; but I do respect your opinion as long as it is explained and reasoned out (as you did above). I may think it is false logic, but that doesn't make you "wrong" per se. Yet you assume much about my own politics and/or ability to make my own rational and reasoned conclusions.
More later, just had to get that off my chest...

Hasn't there been any number  of "native movements" that were oppressive and fascistic around the world that has deserved our scorn and isolation? Beyond the mere fact that they are murderous Islamists (homophobes, mysoginists, anti-Semites...all that fun stuff), I would say this too...just because Hezbollah exists does not make it at all reflective of Lebanese national opinion at all. In fact, quite the opposite, they are a reflection of an oppressive foreign government that has not allowed the Lebanese independence and free governance for decades.

You made three points:

I answer one-by-one:
I do not know what is a "superscholar" and I never called Chomsky that.
One thing I do know - among thousands of "academics" who would slavishly agree with the powers that be on anything, kiss ass and suck you-know-what to get ahead, three today stay firm against the neocon Politburo: - Ward Churchill, Chomsky and Finkelstein.
You tried several times to present my argument as if I said that one shouldn't disagree with Chomsky. Read my post carefully. What I said that it is wrong for a young puppy like Weiss, who has no academic or any other public achievement under his belt to sneer at someone like Chomsky. I think its safe to say that Chonsky will still be quoted hundreds years from now. Weiss? You tell me.
Disagreement is fine and normal. Disrespectful treatment of scientific giant is stupid.
So, please, in your next post do not repeat that thing again - that I am against disagree-ing. I understand that it is convenient for you, but as anyone who can read can see - this is not what I said.

Israel . I give you the short version. Yes, there are many fascist regimes in the world. But it is only Israel who does that using tonnes of OUR tax money to do so. Also, as a Jew, I am more concerned about young Jews that instead of becoming engineers, scientists, musicians are more and more becoming prison guards and interrogation specialists.

Hezbullah and Hamas are grass-root organizations. Only grass-root organizations can win against all odds. And they do. Shia, as a more militant and radical wing of Islam is winning all over the Moslem world because of us - because in every human association, radicals thrive under pressure, while moderates wane.

"What I said that it is wrong for a young puppy like Weiss, who has no academic or any other public achievement under his belt to sneer at someone like Chomsky."

Chomsky is a self-described anarchist with an almost spiritual contempt for the various expressions of power and authority, and he constantly cites public acclaim as a sign that an intellectual is vacuous and insubstantial. If he read what you wrote above, he would tell you to go drown yourself. It never ceases to amaze me that, by trumpeting the virtues of iconoclasm and independent thought, people like Chomsky and Churchill manage to attract such slavering hero-worshippers.

1. Again, it looks like you, guys, never read anything carefully. I said that I, myself disagree with Chomsky on his socialist views. So, calling me a "Chomsky-worshiper" just shows how little attention you pay to details. Also - "slavering"?? Try to find a more pleasant way to get rid of your testosterone. Here is precisely how you show the world that you are just a puppy.

2. I wouldn't recommend to put words in Chomsky's mouth, you may eat crow on that one.

And finally - are you, guys, have an agreement that when anyone is criticizing you, Weiss comes to the rescue and vise versa? That's kindergarten, my dear "editors".

"And finally - are you, guys, have an agreement that when anyone is criticizing you, Weiss comes to the rescue and vise versa?"

No, if any such agreement existed, Weiss would have stepped forth and issued a clarion call heard throughout the land that Joey Kurtzman, despite appearances and much suggestive evidence, is not (so far as can be ascertained, and of course not excluding the possibility that future evidence will point in a different direction) a chick-with-a-dick. But such calumnies regularly go unrebutted here, such is our tenderness, our receptiveness to all points of view. So no, actually, I piped up because I, personally, disagreed with what you wrote.

But I confess that I was reading your previous comment in isolation, so if I mischaracterized your feelings about Noam Chomsky, mea culpa. However, I genuinely find it difficult not to pee on the idea that Chomsky's accomplishment as a linguist should preclude disrespectful treatment of his political views. That's not because I particularly despise Chomsky, but because history is rotten with scientific geniuses who produce the most moronic drivel when they suppose their brilliance is easily transferable to other realms. And yet the authority they accumulated in their other realm, they swing it around like an amazing giant penis, and then use it to clobber audiences into giddy compliant submission so that they'll be like baby birds and eagerly gobble up whatever stinky slop the Great Mind happens to vomit out. Chomsky's a little like that, sometimes. So it's important that people be able to say, "Hey, did you notice what the Great Mind just said? If I'm not mistaken, it was bunch of maggoty horseshit."

In any case, I don't expect you'll agree, and you're welcome to Jewcy regardless.

<p>Alexander, I will demonstrate why you are guilty of the same sort of intellectually false double standards that Chomsky is.

"Yes, there are many fascist regimes in the world. But it is only Israel who does that using tonnes of OUR tax money to do so."

False-- on so many counts.  For one thing, Egypt-- which is woefully short of democracy, essentially a police state with a cult of personality, far more fascist than Israel with a far higher body count by any measure-- receives over two billion dollars a year in primarily military aid from the US, about two-thirds as much as Israel. 

For another thing, Israel has an incredibly vibrant free press and democracy-- it may be dysfunctional and corrupt at times, but there are regular free elections with high participation, frequent and non-violent changes of power between very opposed points of view, and a range of parties who get freely elected ranging from arab and communist parties to labor and liberal to ultra-religious and settler right-wing parties.  Israel may be many things but it fails any standard definition of fascist. 

Where Chomsky fails intellectual rigor, as was pointed out in detail above (NOT with ad hominem attacks, as was claimed) is his one-sided condemnation of the US and Israel without holding any alleged victim states or movements (Hezbollah, Venezuela, Iran, etc.) to similar moral standards.  Excusing their far, far, worse violations of human rights puts Chomsky beyond the pale, and removes him from any serious consideration of his 'scholarship' (his work on linguistics, of course, excepted.)</p>

Israel's total income from US largesse far outweighs that provided to Egypt, taking into account the tax advantages that private donations to Israel enjoy, the revolving "loans" that by statute are renewed in at least the same amount as the original loan when they come due, the fact that we've been sending dollars to Israel for decades longer than we have to Egypt, etc. That said, I would welcome an end to US aid to the gangsters in Cairo as well; aid to Egypt is functionally equivalent to aid to Israel, since the same internal elements that Egyptian elites fear are enemies of Israel as well. The US sees this as money well spent, and Israel agrees.

Second, even if this were not so, we may draw a useful distinction between countries that mistreat their citizens, like Egypt, and countries that have made it a matter of domestic and foreign policy to ethnically cleanse the territory they take, to continue taking it, and to regularly embark on military adventures against their neighbors. Subsidizing this sort of aggression is what lots of us (i.e., those with a functioning moral instrument) oppose.

Regarding Israeli democracy, you are of course correct that. e.g., the Israeli press is quite free, elections are a regular feature of political life, etc. But is is more than a small matter that the state defines itself as Jewish when 20% of its pre-1967 population is not and virtually all of the folks under its jurisdiction in the West Bank are not. Israel functionally runs the entire region and it is not run as a democracy.

Finally, for the ten-billionth time, accusing Chomsky or other critics of Israel of paying insufficient regard to other monsters is not an argument-it's a way to avoid engaging with your interlocutor's points. This is so obvious that my jaw drops every time I hear a variant of this dumbass rejoinder. I should know better, but I'll try to cleanse the Augean stables one more time.

Briefly, I can support equal pay for women in the US without being accused of ignoring the far worse plight of, e.g., Afghani women. I can militate for the release of Gilad Shalit without being scolded for not mentioning Aung San Suu Kyi. But this sort of senseless charge-"Aha! You're picking on Israel when (your dictator here) is worse!"- is made regularly by apologists for Israel.

Sure, my political stance could be, "End All Injustice Now". That's a laudable sentiment, and it fits well on a t-shirt, but it bears no resemblance to the actual behavior of actual political actors, who choose specific issues to focus on. No one makes a list of infamy and works against the resulting issues in sequence.

Stop making this foolish argument and stick to the details of the situation in Palestine/Israel.

Oh, and Joey.....I'm a little concerned with this talk of being beaten with enormous dicks and eating regurgitated maternal chyme. We're all pulling for you. Please contact your therapist soon. You deserve to be happy. (You're creeping me out, man)

Joey:

1. Your fascination with other people's penises, virtual or otherwise, "peeing on ideas", using over-vocabulared language where clearly there is no need, just reinforce that puppy image.
Both of you (Weiss and yourself) so much over-show your literary skills, it reminds me of puppies who just learned how to lift their hind legs and are having so much fun doing it again and again, regardless of the need. That would also explain your words about "peeing on Chomsky's ideas". My advice again - get rid of your extra hormones by chasing whatever that is you're chasing, rather than peeing on world-renown mathematicians. You'll look less funny that way.

You are absolutely right - history knew many a scientific genius who were hopefully naive or disgustingly self-serving about politics, but you cannot even compare their number with hordes of young writers and journalists who would sell their souls together with their Moms and Dads by supporting a powerful political side just to get through the coveted doors. So, although Chomsky's scientific genius is not a guarantee of him being right, his still far better than your credentials. And all I said was - if you do not agree with him, criticize with ARGUMENTS, not with sneers.

Mmausner:

Egypt:
I agree with your wholeheartedly. I am all for cutting off Egypt off our public teat, at the same moment we cut off Israel. Both 9-12 billion dollars of our tax money that go to Israel as foreign aid, military assistance and loan guarantees (that are ALWAYS forgiven when the time to pay back comes) and 2 billion that goes to Egypt are a waste.

Israeli democracy:
Here I disagree. So what if an occupier is democratic on its own land? Its the occupation and its illegality that we oppose - how is democracy inside the Wall makes the occupation less illegal?
Fascism and democracy FOR YOUR OWN are not theoretically opposed, as we could see on the South African example.

Now about Hizbullah, Venezuela, Iran. Tell me who Iran occupies? Venezuela? Hizbullah? When will you start to see that human right violations are quantitative - almost EVERYBODY violates human rights, inlcuding EU and USA, - read yearly report by Amnesty International and find out about Israeli human rights violations - but occupation is QUALITATIVE? If a country is an illegal occupier, it can only be compared with another illegal occupier, like a country who commits genocide can only be compared to another one committing genocide.
Also, comparing Hizbullah, which is a military organization and Israel which is a country and a UN member - is just silly.

On a more personal level - as I said before - I am a Jew and concerned about Jewish crimes above all. Your argument mirrors the famous childish argument - "Other boys did it too!" And I will give you the same answer any sane parent gives back - I do not give a shit what everybody else does. It is the future of Jewish boys and girls that I am mostly concerned about. And I won't look the other way because there is another crazy idiot in teh world that does the same.

A mentor once told me that the worse statement to a philosopher was to call them vague.  I became a dedicated Noam fan in the YouTube Chomsky/Andy"the Red" Marr interview of 1996 where Noam describes the historical experiement showing Media Bias vis a vie "CoIntelPro" and Watergate.  Of course Noam dismantling of Skinner is classic I read these above posts with an open mind in the continual search for clarity and thank you all for your input but clarity shines over vagueness like a beacon.  I highly recommend the recent audio called "What we Say Goes"  where you may learn not only clarity but also truth in why you rationalize what to us outsiders is so much comedy in opposition to not the man but to the truth he represents, now and forevermore.      Thank you for the chance to change my mind.

Historicus2

PS.....  Any idea about what it means to be "Salvoradized" ?   Don't worry, you will look back on this time as BC is to AD as you chuckle at the Bernayian structures you represented.             h. et NZ