From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Wed Jul 06 2005 - 23:21:13 BST
PART 1 OF 2
On 4 Jul 2005 at 2:19, hampday@earthlink.net wrote:
msh says:
> I expect you to have done (or be willing to do) the
> research necessary to defend the opinions you post to this forum.
I have already done more research on Chomsky than is warranted for a
personal opinion. If you agree with nothing I've said but that
Chomsky hates America...
msh:
This depends on what you mean by "America." If your idea of America
is restricted to the actions of the USG in expanding its military
presence around the world, or to domestic actions of the federal and
state governments that contribute to widening the wealth gap, then I
agree that Chomsky hates America.
On the other hand, if one sees America as the sum of its people's
hopes and aspirations, a place where people deserve but seldom
receive the full promise of this country's ideals as found in it's
principle documents, then "hate" is the last word to come to mind.
Certainly few if any of the many thousands of Americans who hear him
speak every year come away with the notion that Chomsky "hates
America." In fact, I'd say that his love for America and its people,
as well as all the people of the world, can be seen in his
unrelenting pursuit of the truth behind the myth of American
"patriotism."
ham:
[Chomsky] considers it [America] in need of "de-nazification" (his
term),
msh:
I'll ask again, since you failed to respond before: What is your
objection to identifying, challenging, and hopefully ameliorating if
not extinguishing fascist tendencies within the American population
and government?
ham:
and [that the USG is the] greatest threat to peace, national self-
determination, and international cooperation
msh:
These remarks where made at the time the USG was bombing the shit out
of Southeast Asia. The war in Vietnam was all about the USG's
intention to prevent Vietnamese self-determination, as recently
admitted even by the Secretary of Defense at the time, Robert
Mcnamara. I think this qualifies as a threat to peace, national self-
determination, and international cooperation, don't you?
Given that the same thing is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan at this
very moment, I see nothing to disagree with in this remark, even
today. In fact, just prior to this most recent invasion and
occupation, international opinion considered the United States to be
far more threatening to world peace than was Saddam's Iraq. This is
why millions and millions of people around the globe turned out to
protest the invasion even before it began.
ham:
-- that much alone would be enough to convince any patriotic American
of Chomsky's treacherous agenda.
msh:
Similar to above, the truth of this statement depends on what you
mean by "patriotic American." If your notion of patriotism means
uncritical support of everything your government does at home and
abroad, then maybe you're right. If your idea of patriotism is the
sames as that expressed in the American Declaration of Independence
and Constitution, then critical scrutiny of every action taken by
your government is not only honorable but REQUIRED to satisfy the
conditions of patriotic citizenship. This is a good place to paste
Scott Ritter, again:
"If you call yourself an American that means that you have embraced
the constitution, because that is what an American is. A citizen of
the United States of America is someone who has sworn an oath of
allegiance to that document, to the words, to the ideals of that
document. Right now we have citizens who don't even understand what
that document is."
msh before:
> As for your charge of leftism and anarchy, I believe you are
> correct.
msh now:
This is a cute bit of editing on your part. You keep the sentence
where I agree with you, but completely ignore the rest of the
paragraph which contains the substance to which I expected a
response. For the record, here's the full paragraph:
"As for your charge of leftism and anarchy, I believe you are
correct. But your implied negative interpretation of these positions
derives from simplistic, even comic book understanding of the terms.
Leftism doesn't mean Stalin any more than anarchism means a bunch of
unkempt people in long black coats, with scraggly black beards and
frizzled hair, running around with little round bombs looking for
trouble. If you want to know about anarchism, read Bakunin, Tolstoy,
Kropotkin, Rocker, Guérin. It's a mistake to rely on the ignorance
of your audience to carry the message of your remarks: you're in the
wrong place for that. You might want to try the Limbaugh or O'Reilly
web sites."
Care to respond?
ham before:
If your support for an anarchist movement is shared by your
compatriots in the UK, I dread to think of the future that awaits the
Free World. Is Capitalism to be the next victim of a latter-day
Trotskyite revolution, complete with activists carrying "Workers
Unite" signs? Can any "enlightened rational" person who knows
anything about history and has enjoyed the benefits of free
enterprise really endorse, let alone admire, the babble of this
insurrectionist?
msh:
This is a lot of hysterical and unsupported bullshit, and a very
clear example of what I mean by political dogma, see below. BTW, I'm
an American citizen, so I have no idea what you mean by my
"compatriots in the UK."
> I expect you to stop using this forum to publicize your political
> and/or religious dogma, only to retreat from engagement when
> challenged. ...
ham:
That charge is entirely unfounded, Mark. I am not using this forum
to publicize political or religious dogma, but you certainly are.
msh:
As I've never failed to provide argument and evidence in support of
my opinions, nor to respond to any question asked by my critics (at
least not intentionally; things slip through the cracks sometimes),
my postings don't qualify as dogma, which is defined as doctrine that
will tolerate no criticism and is proclaimed to be true without
argument or evidence.
ham:
What does the trashing of America have to do with philosophical
dialectics?
msh:
See above about America and patriotism, re your accusation of my
"trashing of America."
ham:
How do you construe Pirsig's Quality theory as a call for socio-
political revolution?
msh:
I don't. I see it as a way of establishing the groundwork for
evolution toward a more moral society, which might indeed involve the
dismantling of obstructive elements of the existing society, or even
the society itself. Pirsig says it is better for an idea to destroy
a society than for a society to destroy an idea.
ham:
I don't know what leftist teachings you're being subjected to in the
UK, but Chomsky's rhetoric is not my idea of enlightened thinking.
(And he's a product of my adopted city!)
msh:
I've never set foot in the UK, though I wish I had the opportunity to
be in Liverpool, right now, to see Ant McWatt and Mark Maxwell
receive their degrees.
BREAK HERE FOR LENGTH
PART 2 TO FOLLOW
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 07 2005 - 00:03:59 BST