1. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #201933 by Shigawire on June 30, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Here we have a critic of Chomsky who hasn't read a single word or heard anything the man has said. Either that, or it's gone through one ear and out the other.

al-rawandi said:
"I must diverge with you over some of Chomsky's self flagellating liberalism. I am a very libertarian person, so I can concur that a reduction in state power is a good (nay, great) thing. It seems odd that such a liberal personality would decry the state apparatus and yet seek a genuine expansion of state power."

Where does Chomsky seek a "genuine expansion of state power"? Source?

al-rawandi said:
"Chomsky has admitted his strong communist leanings as a young man. I believe he was involved with the Kibbutzim, which were heavily socialist."

Admitted strong Communist leanings as a young man? Source? And, what kind of Socialism?
Chomsky has made the point a number of times, that the two ideologies of "State Capitalism" (USA) and "State Socialism" (Soviet Union) are intrinsically not that dissimilar. Both are based on Hegel's principles of state power. Chomsky dislikes both.
He does however lean towards "Libertarian Socialism," with elements of "Classic Liberalism."

al-rawandi said:
"He has, at times, exceeded the mandate granted by truth, with regards to America's actions. He attributes all activities of America to some negative or malicious intent."

Mandate of truth? Who mandates truth? The ministry of "Information"? ;)
Chomsky does indeed relate all US foreign policy adventures to alterior motivations. But he agrees that WW2 was a necessary and just war.

al-rawandi said:
"I can name many cases where this is true (Indonesia, Vietnam, Iraq 1 and 2, Seychelles, Nicaragua, Panama, etc...), however there are many instances America acted in as proper a fashion as such a large nation can."

Really? Let's see now.

al-rawandi said:
"For instance, Bosnia. The US blocked weapons shipments to Bosnians for some time, increasing the gulf in power between Serbs and Bosnians. This was wrong and stupid, however the US did intervene in an acceptable fashion."

And was it acceptable of the United States to fly Al-Qaeda terrorist operatives into Yugoslavia to add to the confusion?

Numbers of deaths on both sides of the Serb-Kosovo conflict were very similar.

The alterior motive, and problem, was Milosevic's inability to accept certain "free market" capitalist reforms. Milosevic refused to be a part of the economic framework of neo-liberalism. When such things happen, "credibility" is on the line.
Indeed Milosevic was no angel, but the Serb atrocities were not the real motive. They were incidental and helpful for propaganda purposes.
If atrocities were the powerful motivator, the U.S. would've intervened in the Turkish assault on Kurds during the same time-period. Since 1984, 5`000 villages have been destroyed, and 1.5 million Kurds are displaced. Far worse than anything Milosevic was even accused of. But Turkey is an ally. Or, if Human Rights was the issue, the Rwanda incident might have sparked a military adventure on its own.

al-rawandi said:
"There has also been some issue with Chomsky's potential denial of Khmer Rouge death camps."

Oh great. "Potential denial"? Care to be a little more vague? This is an old little tidbit of propaganda. Chomsky does not try to belittle Pol Pot's actions, what he does is put them in context with the genocidal (secret) U.S. bombing of Cambodia - a bombing campaign which propelled the Khmer Rouge into power due to the horrible conditions on the ground. Further, he compounds Khmer Rouge atrocities together with the foreseeable consequences of the U.S. bombings.
According to CIA's own estimates, the U.S. bombing cost 650`000 civilian lives in Cambodia.
Phase I of the Cambodian genocide was the U.S. secret bombing starting in 1969, helping organize the overthrow of Sihanouk in 1970. Phase II was the Khmer Rouge, a monstrous creation of State Socialism and horrible conditions caused by Phase I.

2. Chasers war on everything: Evangelicals

Comment #102494 by Shigawire on December 23, 2007 at 2:45 am

Maaan that was just too many levels of "awful."
More proof that religious leaders are con-artists.
Only difference is, regular con-artists get caught, these guys get away with it, because they're "Christian" con-artists or whatever.

Oh My Goodness...
:D

3. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57974 by Shigawire on July 22, 2007 at 5:55 pm

First of all, the premise of the post is easily assailable. It states that
Ali to anti-American Lewis: "You grew up in freedom and you can spit on Freedom."

Anti-American is a terminology you usually only find in totalitarian states. It's an incredibly dimwitted paradigm to be espousing. Have any of you hard about Anti-Italianism? Anti-Norwayism?
First, what is "Americanism"? Blindly devoted to support the US government in all its actions?
It is true that the Emperor does not wear any clothes, but he will not enjoy the experience if he is told so. Likewise, people who point out enormous flaws in a society such as this one, they will be labeled one way or another without any thought given to the actual facts. Not to mention the offensive nature in which the term applies ONLY to the United States, and none of the other American nations - Bolivia, Nicaragua, Canada, Columbia etc..

I knew I had to be skeptical when I heard she was in the American Enterprise Institute.
Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Project for the New American Century, etc.. all of which by their mere mention rings alarm-bells in my head.

She's certainly been groomed and brainwashed thoroughly enough to buy into the dichotomies predicted by the Propaganda Model in western democratic societies. And stating that it's the best democracy in the world is simply jingoistic. She doesn't have to go far to find more free and meaningful elections. If she goes to Bolivia, for example, she will find a far more democratic society.

I think Avi did lose some composure, but I can understand why when considering the vulgar propaganda she was espousing.

4. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest, part 2

Comment #50216 by Shigawire on June 15, 2007 at 6:48 pm

As an Atheist, I agree that the generic Republican structure has these kinds of people. I think there are far more important factors to take into consideration than religion, when you elect the next president.

Voting for ANY OTHER of the Republicans would be totally unacceptable to me. Mor(m)on Mitt Romney, political chameleon John McCaine, Rudy Ghouliani, etc etc.. All of them except Ron Paul. I don't discount them because they are religiously retarded, I discount them because they are militaristically insane. For this very same reason, I disqualify most of the Democrats as well. Obama wants to bomb Iran, Hilary Clinton and John Edwards competed for AIPAC's favor..
All crooks.

Only rational choice is Ron Paul. Dennis Kucinich would be a close second, but don't address the monetary issue.

5. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest, part 2

Comment #49367 by Shigawire on June 11, 2007 at 4:23 pm

Yes it's looking pretty good actually. Instead of thinking in terms of Ron Paul leaving because he's the "odd one out", why don't the Neo-Cons leave? After all, there is nothing Neo (greek for New) about machiavellian manipulation, nor anything "Conservative" about the Federalist Society's "Unitary Executive" - which Schmitt called "Der Führerprinzip" once upon a time.

In fact the Neo-Cons are more closely related to fascism/nazism via the father of the Neo-Con movement Leo Strauss.

Jeffrey Steinberg

A review of Leo Strauss' career reveals why the label "Straussian" carries some very filthy implications. Although nominally a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany (he actually left for a better position abroad, on the warm recommendation of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt), Strauss was an unabashed proponent of the three most notorious shapers of the Nazi philosophy: Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, and Carl Schmitt. Recent biographies have revealed the depth of Heidegger's enthusiasm for Hitler and Nazism, while he served as the Chancellor of Freiburg University, throughout the epoch of National Socialism, and was the leader of a Nietzschean revival. Carl Schmitt, the leading Nazi philosopher of law, was personally responsible, in 1934, for arranging a Rockefeller Foundation scholarship for Strauss, which enabled him to leave Germany, to study in England and France, before coming to the United States to teach at the New School for Social Research, and then, the University of Chicago. Strauss, in his long academic career, never abandoned his fealty to Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Schmitt.

6. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest, part 2

Comment #49289 by Shigawire on June 11, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Ghouliani is an obvious fascist fearmongerer, and should be tried for obstruction of justice for clearing the crimescene of the World Trade Center, and FEMA barring BPAT (Building Performance Assessment Team) access to the building's materials.
Also dumping the human remains on a garbage dump was a despicable offense. 70% of NYC firefighters hate Giuliani's guts. Anyone who believe him only believe in him due to the media cult around his faux-pas "911-hero" image.

Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Obama, Clinton would be horrible presidents for their tacit support for the continuance of the Neo-Con agenda. They consider Iran a threat. Always looking for the next monster to club into submission. If no monster can be found, create one!

Chances are that his own party would not endorse his candidacy should he pull closer to the lead nearing the primaries.

California Republicans Endorse Paul
Key California Republican Group Endorses Ron Paul

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Jesse Benton
May 22, 2007 202-246-6363

ARLINGTON, VA – The United Republicans of California (UROC) have unanimously endorsed Congressman Ron Paul for president of the United States. UROC, formed in 1963 to support Barry Goldwater, represents the traditional conservative wing of the California Republican Party.

"The unanimous endorsement from the United Republicans of California proves what the campaign has been saying all along," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Ron Paul is the only true conservative and real Republican in the race."

In their official statement endorsing Dr. Paul, UROC called him "the leading advocate for freedom in our nation's capital" and recognized that:

Ron Paul's voting record demonstrates that he has voted against:

* raising taxes;
* unbalanced budgets;
* a federal restriction on gun ownership;
* raising congressional pay; or
* increasing the power of the executive branch.



His voting record demonstrates further that he voted against:

* the USA Patriot Act;
* regulating the Internet; and
* the war in Iraq.



Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a record that matches the UROC's conservative platform.

"Whether the issue is life, the Second Amendment, foreign policy, spending or taxes, Ron Paul is the only traditional conservative candidate," continued Snyder. "Traditional conservatives across the country should support Ron Paul for president."

7. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #40185 by Shigawire on May 13, 2007 at 4:20 pm

Quite pathetic. Notice how easily they apply "Dr" titles to themselves. When he starts talking about the 3rd heaven, my eyes curl.

The lady IS a bit of a MILF though. But that's all she is. :-D

8. Noam Chomsky Interview on Faith

Comment #19943 by Shigawire on January 30, 2007 at 7:39 pm

I don't think Chomsky is ranting, he's just got a long list of international transgressions to go through. And there is nothing "crazy" about it.
If something is erroneous, go through each point and address them specifically. I have a hunch that the reason people call Chomsky "crazy", comes from the fact that what Chomsky says perturbs the heavily ingrained world view that insulated people have. I would know, as I was insulated myself just 3 years ago.

He NEVER defends the atrocities of the official enemies, he agrees that they are atrocities. He just makes the point that atrocities committed by USA or allies are swallowed in a black hole of media selfcensorship. He isn't a friend of Hamas or Hezbollah either, I don't know where that came up. He talks to everybody, including those he disagree with. Chomsky is not a man to go to a Yes-man meeting. He had a lecture at Westpoint Military Academy.

He focuses not on the widely acknowledged atrocities, because those are already being taught (indeed indoctrinated) from childhood. He is instead focused on atrocities hidden by the perpetrators - or hidden by friends of the perpetrators. That means he cares about anything from the Armenian genocide by Turkey, to East-Timor's genocide. He doesn't focus ONLY on USA sponsored terror, but since most of these hidden atrocities were omitted from the press by the USA media corporations, this is why Chomsky analyze US and Soviet atrocities, with a heavy bias on US. The Soviet were of course insulated from the Western media system, the same way the West was insulated from the Soviet media system.
Now there is only 1 superpower. There is only one country in the world with such a large list of media-omissions and censorship of atrocities. Not reporting or omitting such truths can be considered incredibly intellectually bankrupt.

9. Noam Chomsky Interview on Faith

Comment #18881 by Shigawire on January 23, 2007 at 12:16 pm

The man is obviously brilliant. Got all his written books, except the ones on linguistics.

Delusion: The United States wants free trade.
The US has never wanted this. In its own country it's clear that the US oligarchy prefers oligopoly. In 3rd world foreign markets, it's clear that it wants special treatment for its own corporations, and domination of its natural resources. If the people who live and work there happen to have shoddy social securities, so much the better, look at the people as a cheap and valuable "natural resource"! Argentina and Indonesia were both posterboys for what a country would look like with US-friendly capitalism. Argentina did not exactly improve during this period of economic strangulation, which is why they've thrown off their IMF masters. Indonesia is still a posterboy, as it were during the genocide of East-Timor in 1975 where 300`000 defenseless people were massacred (and tortured). This genocide was supported by US-British arms and vehicles, as well as tacit complicit assent from Kissinger and Gerald Ford. After all, Indonesia is a dear friend, why not let it go wild and "party" a little on some people nobody cares about in the first place? Perhaps it'll open up some new markets? If you care about censored genocides (censored by mass media), you should watch "The Death of a Nation" by John Pilger.
http://video.google.com/url?vidurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-9118496582943064758%26q%3Djohn%2Bpilger&docid=-9118496582943064758&ev=v&esrc=sr4&usg=AL29H22CmO-iic6VQQwFYXYBGIkb_z6MFg

If you want to see a documentary about the CURRENT state of affairs in Indonesia with regards to the economy, "The New Rulers of the World" is a very fascinating documentary. In my opinion the definition of a functioning economy is one where the primary needs of the entire population are provided for. Not just the needs of a tiny segment.
http://video.google.com/url?vidurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-7932485454526581006%26q%3Djohn%2Bpilger&docid=-7932485454526581006&ev=v&esrc=sr5&usg=AL29H23hdMHmFkKR-uRZV7qm1J3YzglFxg

Delusion: The United States wants to spread democracy around the world. :D
This one is very easy to dispel. Most interventions after WW2 have been about DISMANTLING democracies, not supporting them. They have in fact preferred fascist dictatorships, since they are easier to direct as client- and puppet-states. Iran, Guatemala, Haiti, El-Salvador, Chile, Indonesia, etc.

The long term consequences of any of these endeavours? Anything but nice.
Iran is the classic example of a "Blowback", where a vile yet naive policy is set in motion to overthrow the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Mossedegh, to implement a US-corporate-friendly puppet dictator - the Shah - with all the bells and whistles that come with a fascist state. Secret police that torture etc. The SAVAK terrorized the population. This resulted in a popular movement, a revolution of the people against the state. Unfortunately this organized revolution was based on a highly religious platform - thus they established a theocracy. One could say that the situation became worse after the first coup, and much worse after the second coup. But it's also fair to assume that were it not for the first coup, there would never have been a second coup, as the second coup was to a great extent caused by the government set up in the first coup. These are long term consequences one cannot ignore, blowback. Iraq will most certainly in time join Iran and the rest of the growing gallery of Blowbacks. But let's hope not.

The plan to overthrow Iran's government was actually first drafted by British Petroleum (who were thrown out of Iran), later adopted by Kermit Roosevelt who headed Operation Ajax (TP-AJAX) in the CIA. So corporations most certainly play major roles in these coups. Same happened in Hawaii way back. Same in Guatemala..

Chomsky never say the alternative is better, he's saying that a great deal of the current state of affairs is in large part due to US actions.
Nicaragua's economy was utterly devastated after Reagan's and Schulz's actions in the 80s. If the same percent of people had been killed in the USA, 2 million people would have died.

[quote]Wealth now is information, intelligence, speed, enterpreneurship and knowledge. It's no longer "things".[/quote]

In the developed 1st world countries, there is much that suggests that is the definition of wealth, but tell that to a peasant in Paraguay for example, he will eye you with a suspicious look. I know Thomas Friedman. I used to like him, but I've recognized that his take on the situation in Palestine is completely off base. I've also noticed he is purist and myopic on the topic of economics. The definition of wealth is different depending on who you ask.

Ask a businessman, you will find that commodities such as food and hygiene-items are so readily available to him that they can certainly not be considered valuable by him, while a powerful idea he has can be considered very valuable to him.

This same idea is utterly worthless to a poor man, he has no way to take advantage of this great idea, because of the situation he is in. On the other hand, the commodities which are so worthless to the rich businessman are very valuable to this poor man.

Take a simpler example. Water vs Oil. Water is more valuable than oil in some countries, while in other countries oil is more valuable than water.

Everything is relative.. and Thomas Friedman's world may sound good on paper, but it just doesn't exist yet. It may exist for 10% of the world population. And it's not going to happen any time soon if these elites keep strangling vying economies.

10. Lil' Markie live, part 2

Comment #17879 by Shigawire on January 17, 2007 at 7:44 am

Gawd this was horrible. I couldnt watch more than halfway thru... and I already had a headache.

"I like and admire the US, and try hard not to be anti-American."

First, I would say "anti-American" is a meaningless dogmatic word, as is "Americanism" - because there is no such thing. It's a necessary illusion used to discourage criticism of the state. If you criticize the state, you are smeared for hating the entire nation. You have to appreciate that the US (or any other nation) is such a hugely amorphuous and faceted thing. If you're "anti-American", you have to specify which part you are against. I for example love US culture/music/science (though not their Top-20 music - the best music is still from there in my opinion, best movies too), while in the same sentence I have no qualms stating that the US government is an elitist Polyarchy which has behaved reprehensibly for the last 60 years to all 3rd world countries it has had contact with - almost without exception.