I guess you and I have been exposed to different Chomsky articles. The stuff I've read isn't about condoning murder, thats for sure. I'll have to look for that.

And as for America being responsible for all evil in the world, I certainly wouldn't go that far. But we've certainly caused our share of pain and terror. To get caught up in this nationalist state of denial we're currently in, where America can do no and has never done any wrong, is not patriotic, its irresponsable.

Well, Chomsky's written and spoken so much it's pretty near impossible to keep up with everything he puts out, and some of it is good stuff in a learned but unrealistic way. I mean..I don't think that if he could call the shots, things would actually work out the way he thinks they would. There seem to be some assumptions there that I can't buy. But that's all entirely theoretical stuff.

I don't think we're entirely in a national state of denial. I think a lot of it is just a natural reaction to being attacked. You're just gonna get defensive when that happens. And it's pretty natural to feel more identified with your country, when every citizen has been declared fair game by fanatics. If the Chomskys in this country had shut up long enough for people to assimilate the event, which took weeks and weeks, not days or hours, there might not ever have been quite such widespread antagonism toward some of their input and less defensive "America right or wrong" stuff.

Hitchens, who is currently at odds with Chomsky over his attitude toward the attacks of 9/11, has never been shy about his criticsm of the US and our foreign policy and is an outspoken leftist writer, but he doesn't necessarily think that any enemy of the US and/or Israel is automatically one of the good guys, which Chomsky seems to do to the point of defending the indefensible more than once. Todd Gitlin's article in the current issue of Mother Jones is not aimed at Chomsky alone, although he's mentioned in passing, but it addresses the attitude in general much more eloquently than I ever could.
http://www.motherjones.com/magazine/JF02/blaming.html

Pat, as always, thanks for the link! You always point the way to clear thinkers, and I can use all the help I can find.

Thanks for the link Pat. I agree that, in a perfect world, everyone could have waited longer to express viewpoints. But ya know what, in a way it couldn't wait. Why? Because legislation was being passed quickly, and it was based on emotion. Yes it was necessary to do some things immediately. But legislation based on emotion can sometimes be very bad legislation.

Perhaps the critics felt they needed to begin presenting the arguments based on rational thought unhindered by emotion, however justified. Since our politicians weren't about to pass the opportunities of the moment, I'd say the academics were justified to begin debating policy. Agree or disagree with people like Chomsky, I'm glad to have them there watching over the Shrub.

IN "9-11" to me, Chompsky beats on the "the US
is the leading terrorist nation" drum, kinda loud...IN terms of $$$ expended, & sheer numbers of "combatants" yes, but, bad as that is, it isn't random,
US covert operations are in the interest groups that support the US & companies, OR, national security. ...now!
NOt all US citizens are responsible for the course of their govts policies, and until THAT isssue gets sorted out, we, as a Nation need defense from attack. Assigning of responsibilities for the State of the world, will come, as a natural cousre, of creating new geo-political realities

"The End of the Absolute No" is a related story on that Mother Jones page (thanks again, Pat!). It was also by Todd Gitlin, in 1999, about reaction to the NATO war against Kosovo. In more eloquent language than mine, he's saying it's not good to have a conditioned reflexive response to every situation, based on experiences long past. I agree with Bumper that Chomsky's analyses, if you can stick with them, are enlightening. But some of Chomsky's leaps and conclusions are based on assumptions from the past, and that can be hard to dig those out of the verbiage. I think he's a brilliant man, but old thought patterns just don't always fit the situation.

I suspect that some of the people who stick to the Absolute No are afraid that having a different response to the current situation might negate the validity of positions they've taken on issues in the past. As a Blunderite, I reject that notion entirely and reserve the right to think (when I have the braincell) what I think, NOW.

On another rambling of this thread, it's Saturday, anyone got a Blunderland Radio setlist? If not, I'll just listen to my wonderful water music (thanks again, Bumper!).

I'll still cast my vote for Elie Wiesel. The man practically converted me to Judaism, he's so compelling.

Hi guys. I'm back from my self-imposed exile, now. I was so embarrased about letting Arnie get a rise out of me, I decided it was time to chill.

Which doesn't really have anything to do with this topic, except peripherally -- because of course, I believe it is part of the responsibility of leaders to be able to keep their emotions in check and to maintain a sense of perspective. Thinking and gathering hard facts before opening their mouths and/or passing judgment (let alone laws) is part of the deal as well. It's why they get paid the big bucks, and if they can't do their job professionally, they should stay in school where they belong, until they learn how. By leaders I don't just mean politicians and aristocrats, either.

Excuse me if I repeat something that's already been said. I've been in self-exile for too long to catch up on all that I've missed -- but about the recent reference to the Taliban ... I was under the impression that the reason the Taliban had the support it did was precisely because of its emphasis on traditional morality. The previous government was totally corrupt from what I gather, and the fundamentalism of the Taliban was to be something of an antidote. Of course, they did get a little bit carried away in the process (the teensiest bit) -- and naturally, those who had the power continued to be corrupt, by and large.

It's good to be back. I missed you.

Yeah, what do you think of the worlds newest antidote.....that's 9/10. Very 9/10ish, don't you think!? West coast started it.

*True. There's 9/10. Then there's 9/11. The philosophy isn't that bad. Better tolerance in 9/11. Where-ever it's coming from, we'll take the bad, and make something good...Human nature, I suppose..

Many years ago I went to a Red Hat Tibetan Buddhist ceremony called the Vajra (or in English, the Diamond) Crown ceremony. Being a Westerner, I doubt I really understod much of what it's about. However, somewhere along the line I got the impression that it's done to commemorate and encourage the transformation of even the worst sin into acts of goodness, compassion, and beauty. It's a ceremony that goes back hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

Yeah, so I'd have to agree with you there, RB: We do indeed have the ability to redeem ourselves. We have the option of taking even the most horrific acts and, through our own actions, bringing good out of it. We also have the option of letting evil take over, through simple inaction or acceptance. The latter may be just as much a part of our nature as the former, I'm afraid.

What I can't figure out is, how long is it going to take for everybody -- be they terrorists, or whomever -- to finally get the idea that people don't just knuckle under to shows of force?

Muffy, welcome back; I've been wondering where you were. I missed you.

The Buddhist ceremony sounds somewhat, but not exactly, like the Navajo Enemy Way ceremony, and some others of theirs, in intent. To restore harmony and beauty when evil has been encountered and/or committed.

More than their having stopped and caught the guy, it was so heartening when the planeload of people jumped the shoe bomber. They followed the example of the brave people on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. Both times, all the skyjackings and the awful cruise ship incident in the 1980s came to mind. Back then, we all would have followed the official recommendation which was also the "common wisdom," and kept our heads down and tried not to be noticed, letting the hijackers do whatever they wanted. It's a small start and may not grow into more, but it's a start at least for Americans. It needs to be more, and worldwide, but it's a start.

--Edited to add this, from this morning's news. Maybe it's a movement!!:
------------
BELFAST, Northern Ireland -- Angered by the slaying of a postman and other violence, tens of thousands of Catholics and Protestants united in protests in Northern Ireland on Friday against sectarian violence. Despite rain, the demonstration in Belfast was one of the biggest ever seen.
------------

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by Ceashel on Jan 20, 2002 ---</FONT></center>

That news from Belfast sounds like the best news in a long, long time. It's very good to hear.

Muffy, glad you're back. I don't think that anyone really noticed if Arnie got a rise out of you. That's what Arnie does - he's a self described PITA. We love him and everything and he's a great person and a very smart guy, but since he's also a smartass we have to smack him sometimes. Right, Arnie?

LOL guys. Thanks.

And yeah, that news from Belfast is good news indeed. Thanks for passing that along, too.

I remember hearing something on TV recently about how it's been the prevalent trend to let the craziest person around run the show, as it were. Thank goodness people are starting to stand up for themselves again. Next thing you know, people will start insisting that their children behave themselves again, instead of being intimidated by four year olds. Y'think?

I don't know, Muffy, that might be taking it too far, too soon. Perhaps after Northern Ireland and the Middle East have achieved lasting peace and harmony. Perhaps, but I'm not holding my breath.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by muffy:

Next thing you know, people will start insisting that their children behave themselves again, instead of being intimidated by four year olds. Y'think?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not as long as "parent" is used as a verb. Free the nouns, now!!

Yes, Pat, YES!!!! <img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/biggrin.gif" width=15 height=15> You are absolutely right! It's enslavement of the nouns and forcing them to labor as verbs that has caused it all. You're the candidate for me. Shall we add to the free noun platform, "We will eliminate noun strings!"? If we had to, we could fall back to allowing some noun strings on a case-by-case basis, if they have their punctuation with them. For our ad visuals--we find a parent or two who has had to do "parenting" and show the dismal result of said activity. THAT should be easy to find.