CrAZytown, United States
January 01
The Guard Dog of Grammar
Not really that fixated on grammar, but it's fun pretending. Find the errors in this sentence: I texed him last night to advice him, "Its time to reign in the cat, its to full of it's self.'

SnippytheGrammarDog's Links
DECEMBER 10, 2011 12:25AM

Chomsky-bashing, Israel, and Rapture Ready Crazies

Rate: 12 Flag

I'm disappointed to see brainy people at OS bashing Noam Chomsky.  (See comments at a recent Jane Whatever Her Current Middle Name Is Smithie post about Noam Chomsky and Andy Borowitz.)  Since this is my blog, I want to post a brief rebuttal.  I'll leave comments open, though I may not feel like engaging all that much.  I brought home two days' worth of work to do over the weekend (yeah! teachers and their 30-hour weeks!) and may not have the energy to refute those who disagree with me, especially any under-researched and over-biased replies. But if anyone reads this, feel free to bloody up the comments.  Hopefully someone whose views are similar to mine and has more time to explain them will show up to champion me, if necessary.

Some people feel intellectual outrage for factoids masquerading as truth.  I suspect Chomsky's one of those people.  As a rational thinker, Chomsky has never hesitated to say what makes sense to him though it may be politically incorrect.  He's ventured to say that the US has exaggerated Pol Pot's evil in order to whitewash our military's own evil deeds in Cambodia--that is all.  His point was that the estimate of Cambodians dead at the hands of Pol Pot was a propaganda ploy by the US to dodge responsibility for the blood on our own hands.  He's not questioning a Cambodian holocaust--just questioning how many murderers were culpable.

[What?  My country tells whoppers to hide its misdeeds? Nawwww.  Can't be.  Why, if you believe that, you'd have to believe that Julian Assange is merely a disastrously effective whistleblower on the most corrupt and lying political power in history, rather than the seedy traitorous non-journalist the virtuous corporate media and the President of These United States have already deemed him.] 

As for Chomsky's views on anything to do with the Jews, I've noticed that many Jewish people feel knee-jerk rage for what they see as betrayal by their own--which includes not only Chomsky, but my Salon hero Glenn Greenwald, as well.  Both Chomsky and Greenwald have ostracized themselves from Zionists by refusing to declare Israel holy and blameless in all its doings with its neighbors.  Um, hello?  All you have to do is recall that everything Israel does is backed by the biggest big-stick-wielding military empire the world has ever known.  If I had Godzilla at my side, ready to smash my enemies' heads together, it might just make me a little less humble, a little less ready to "give peace a chance," too. 

We have vilified the entire rest of the Mideast by our unceasing and unquestioning championship of Israel, and the rest of the Mideast has vilified us in return.  And the rapture-ready Christians are delighted!  We are playing right into their tribulation fantasies.  What a tiny god to believe in, one that would allow himself to be so manipulated.  And the sad thing is, among those who forge our foreign policy are some of these crazies.  If you're Jewish and expect US foreign policy to continue to support Israel, don't count on it once Jesus shows up on his big white horse and starts killing nonbelievers.  That's when your Holy Roller friends will show their not-so-friendly-after-all faces.

I become more and more attracted to atheism with each passing day...Quick!  I need a copy of Sojourners Magazine!  Where's Jim Wallis when I need him?

Hahaha! In looking for the picture above, I found yet another crazies' site: .  This guy believes we will all worship God on his "thrown."  Yikes.

Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
Chomsky is well-informed, super intelligent, sees very clearly, and writes a lot of things which are absolutely true. However, he has a blind spot, namely that he seems to think the U.S. is the primary source of evil in the world. I'm sorry, but on that point I disagree; the United States behaves not much differently than any other great power throughout history, and considerably better than many. Am I mistaken to express this view? I get holding the nation of one's birth and the nation with more power than any others to a higher standard, that is as it should be, but there comes a point at which one has to say "Hey, find a little outrage about something else for a change."
chomp on wikiquote ystday. do not feel sorry for such a man.
he said linguistics only in yer head.
ha . we know is in yer brain.

chomp knew bipolar b4 it was current.

geez us died a good death gotta live tho.
have vilified the entire rest of the Mideast by our unceasing and unquestioning championship of Israel, and the rest of the Mideast has vilified us in return. And the rapture-ready Christians are delighted! We are playing right into their tribulation fantasies.
Very true, James, but despite how it may look, the rapture-ready Christians don't set U.S. foreign policy. People with money (money = power) do that. As David Byrne once said, "Same as it ever was."
The people with REAL power and command of most of the wealth are internationalists; if you prefer non-nationalists or one-worlders. They manipulate nations like you play with toy building blocks. We fight who they say to fight and support who they say to support. Independent national "governments" are a mockery. They are but puppets dancing to the money masters' tune.

Israel and the (dis)United States also.

I agree with Drew-Silla's first comment. I lean a tad toward Skypixie0's argument, altho I don't believe the internationalists - Rockefeller Cabal? Club of Rome? - are in complete control. Policies are baked in messier kitchens. Voters and subjects in large part are bought or intimidated, I don't disagree, but, as with Arab Springers and juries in judicial proceedings, they can be fickle and potent as hell.

Thanks for opening this up again, Snip. I wait with bated breath for Greg to weigh in.
I bet the comments you write in the margins of your students's papers are dyn-o-mite!

We loves us our Noam in Beantown. Nobody disses him here. Think about moving. We can grade papers together. You do mine and I'll do yours, it will go faster that way.
He was right as to SEAsia and mistaken as to the NearEast. That he can support states and movements that care abt democracy as much as I care to have tooth decay is beyond me. Oh well. He's a good linguist.
I don't see the "considerably better" part, Drew. Can you give some examples from within the last 40-50 years?

I hold my country to two very high standards:

1. those to which our leaders pay lip service, and
2. those to which our leaders hold other countries.

In both respects, our leaders make me cringe with shame.
Sky, I agree with you wholeheartedly. The US is so closely locked with the financier overlords, that I have difficulty distinguishing them.
Jonathan, you said: "That he can support states and movements that care abt democracy as much as I care to have tooth decay is beyond me." I must point out that the same can easily be said about US foreign policy. We pick and choose what countries we support, and topple democratically-elected leaders who are not in our thrall, with breathtaking hypocrisy. Glenn Greenwald discusses this frequently.
Can someone tell me if that comment below Jonathan's is appropriate? Is this a legit poster, or a troll? Don't delete often, but am wondering about this one.
Without prejudice, I'm with Sky, too.

Chomsky does a lot of very well sourced work which many people don't like so the propagandists come out in force. If you Google "Chomsky lies" you'll find an enormous amount of this. a lot of it is very simple propaganda that provides quick and easy lists of his lies and the truth along with sources. I didn't take the time to check the sources but am skeptical after reading Chomsky; if there is a problem with him this isn't the most effective way of addressing it in an honest manner. This search also turned up a Chomsky reply which was relatively brief considering the long length of alleged lies but I suspect he's right at one point when he says "it's just a joke," not that I think that is the most appropriate way to dismiss this but he goes on with more details that probably cover it.

I remember what Sam Harris said in "The End of Faith" about Chomsky; the first time I read it I was less familiar with Chomsky and didn't catch on but after reading it again years later after reading what Chomsky wrote in 9/11 I realized that he addressed Harris' concerns before they were even written and that Harris had to take Chomsky out of context to discredit him or to try for the impact on those that don't know better.

Drew Silla's comments are close however I suspect that it is a matter of emphasis. Chomsky has a tendency to focus mainly on the problems of the US, perhaps because the US is the most powerful and therefore should be scrutinized the most; however he does acknowledge the faults of others at times. I think a close look would clarify this.

As for Jane Smithie's blog after reading it I get the impression that she didn't have any bad intentions and sorted through the distortions on her own so I don't see a major problems with it. She apparently hear bad information but followed up which is similar to what I did when I read Harris the first time around.