links for 2007-02-27
-
Noam Chomsky explains what he thinks the U.S. will do to Iran, what is really at stake for America in Iraq, and why Palestinians are more likely to uphold their peace agreements than Israelis.
-
I am an atheist, but when Bill Donohue called the John Edwards bloggers "anti-Catholic, vulgar, trash-talking bigots," my first thought was, "There but for the grace of God go I." I am an atheist, but when Bill Donohue called the John Edwards bloggers "a
-
Charlie Hebdo editor Val said the "limits of liberty must be verified daily," and then quoted John Paul II: "Be not afraid!"
-
Why won't the U.S. admit Maher Arar's innocence? It may be fear of precedent. Tales of other suspects seized and sent abroad to face torture are beginning to come to light in Europe. This week, those stories helped bring down the Italian government. And a
Comments
re: chomsky
this man is insane. the fact that many of his arguments support positions that i agree with is worse than irrelevant, its harmful. with friends like these...
i couldn't even get through the whole article, it was such trash. i know i'll be accused of ad hominum, but he's talking so much bullshit i wouldn't know where to start refuting him. and worse, i wouldn't want to because, as i said, his "heart is in the right place". but his brain... oh, man! please, if there's someone out there who thinks this man is sane, i beg you,quote me a line, or a paragraph, that you think makes sense, and let me have at it.
noam chomsky is doing more, by talking this kind of trash to hurt the liberal cause than 100 bill oriellys.
I wouldn't accuse you of ad hominems, I say that you conveniently blew off the argument without refuting a single thing he said. That's pretty easy. Voilà:
This man is insane. The fact that many of his arguments support positions that I agree with is worse than irrelevant, it's harmful. with friends like these... I couldn't even get through the whole comment, it was such trash. I know I'll be accused of an ad hominem, but Jonathan Becker is talking so much bullshit I conveniently wouldn't know where to start refuting him. And worse, I wouldn't want to because, as I said, his "heart is in the right place". But his brain... oh, man! please, if there's someone out there who thinks this man is sane, i beg you,quote me a line, or a paragraph, that you think makes sense, and let me have at it.
As for the liberal cause, anarchists aren't much interested in it. Given the choice between the two, I'd have to side with the anarchists.
jonathan, I challenge you to show that one thing from the article that is bullshit. The man makes a well reasoned arguement, you on the other hand, just call him insane, as if that were a convincing arguement. Could your thinking be coloured by Chomsky's stance on Israel?
well, just took a look at my last post there. pretty huffily self-righteous, and a huge pile of ad hominum. i was having a minor emotional crisis, fueled by a not inconsiderable quantity of cheap vodka when i wrote it, and i apologize to the readers of 1gm, who deserve better in the reason dept., or at least something FROM the reason dept. or failing that, at least something funny. i failed on all counts.
yes, any regular reader here would be justified in assuming my "thinking" on chomsky in general to be colored by his stance on israel. that doesen't mean i'm incapable of recognizing a well-reasoned argument by him. whatever i may feel about him as a person (and as a jew), he's a recognized genius. even some of his more hateful positions on israel are well-reasoned. what bothered me about this particular article was that he was making many points i actually agree with, but so sloppily and with such casual, egotistical use of less than solid premises that he makes people who might agree with his conclusions look bad. while i was reading it i started making a list of points that i could refute on a post here, but quickly lost count, there were so many. i found this frustrating, and this is why i just blew off steam in my post rather than try to refute any particular point. if anyone still wants me to pick one at random and refute it, i'm willing to do so, but i've probably bored you enough by now.
Noam Chomsky's view that "Palestinians are more likely to uphold their peace agreements than Israelis." are supported by Jimmy Carter as well as NGO groups.
Some relevant references.
"In the Oslo Agreements, Israel and the West put Palestinian leadership to a test: In exchange for an Israeli promise to gradually dismantle the mechanisms of the occupation in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian leadership promised to stop every act of violence and terror immediately. For that purpose, all the apparatus for security coordination was created, more and more Palestinian jails were built, and demonstrators were barred from approaching the [Jewish] settlements.
"The two sides agreed on a period of five years for completion of the new deployment and the negotiations on a final agreement. The Palestinian leadership agreed again and again to extend its trial period...From their perspective, Israel was also put to a test: Was Israel really giving up its attitude of superiority and domination, built up in order to keep the Palestinian people under its control?
"More than seven years have gone by and Israel has security and administrative control of 61.2% of the West Bank and about 20% of the Gaza Strip and security control over another 26.8% of the West Bank. This control is what has enabled Israel to double the number of settlers in 10 years..and to seal an entire nation into restricted areas, imprisoned in a network of bypass roads meant for Jews only...
"Israel has failed the test. Palestinians control of 12% of the West Bank does not mean that Israel has given up its attitude of superiority and domination...The bloodbath that has been going on for three weeks is the natural outcome of seven years of [Israeli] lying and deception."