§ê¢rê†§ wrote:The fact that the nonsense he's spouted about 911 so far is so facile - from such a clearly brilliant individual - is almost evidence that there really is not much of a logical, cogent argument to make against 911 truth or conspiratorial perspectives on the events of September 11, for surely Chomsky of all people would be able to conjure it up.
Um, if you agree with that, Mac, then what do you think is going through Chomsky's head? Do you think he's incapable of making the connections or do you think he's made them and sticks to a calculated refusal to talk about it? That's what I think, contra
your verbose poser of a blogger, whose whole article I just finished reading. Yes, he makes a good point, and I want to read more by Nafeez Ahmed
now, but I think he calls it wrong by thinking that Chomsky really believes the things he's on record as saying.
I think I answered all this already, stefano, in two lines. He's a very old man, he's already achieved a lot by struggling for decades, and he's worried about being marginalised again just before his death. Genius or not, he's only human. And in any case, I think he has always made a false dichotomy between structures and individuals/groups, a weakness in his thought pointed out long ago by Parenti and others.
And I know it's no refutation of an argument, but I do think a guy with nothing more to show than two essays and a well-thumbed thesaurus could tone it down a bit when talking about Noam Chomsky. I mean if you object to my calling him a tit, how can you be cool with him calling Chomsky a neurotic, a schizophrenic, a Stalinist, a snob, a coward, conceited, and intellectually dissipated?
Well, I fully agree with you that Breidenbach is unnecessarily verbose and a bit full of himself, but he didn't just
scream nasty names at Chomsky. I wouldn't have used those words myself, and I wish he hadn't. But I'm not sure he doesn't justify most of them in the context of Chomsky's sustained [non-]response to this particular issue
People sometimes say nasty things when they're angry, and "the left's" [non-]response to 9/11 is worth getting angry about. Chomsky's peculiar, visibly miffed affectlessness
in that talk in Hungary is really not a pretty sight. ("Who cares?" "Lots of people die, every day." Etcetera.)
By the way, I say all this as someone who is proud to own a book signed by Noam Chomsky, and I don't normally give a damn about such things. I've said in the past that I "almost revere" him, and I don't say that about many people. But a bad argument is a bad argument, a weak response is a weak response, arrogance is arrogance, and nobody's perfect.
One of the worst things about 9/11 is how it has turned so many people into rival fans
. Far too many of Chomsky fans and inferiors [I don't mean you!] shelter behind his reputation, and he does bear a certain amount of responsibilty for that. In any case, he is certainly responsible for the quality and the consequences of his own thought. He set the bar very high for all of us, and he should be held to his own high standards.
PS - Here's a post in which I also call a Grand Old Man of the US Left both "arrogant" and "neurotic":
http://qlipoth.blogspot.com/2006/09/suf ... lefts.html
-- and not for no reason. I didn't learn from these people in order to bow down and worship their every word.
PPS - I absolutely agree with you (and have always said) that the "truth movement" should leave the 78-year-old Noam Chomsky in peace, especially if they can't be polite. I have little doubt that he's been subjected to some terrible crap about explosions and holograms and the Illuminati -- and that's not just shamefully disrespectful but positively counterproductive.