Vast numbers are in the eye of the beholder too. Radio news this morning said loud and clear, no equivocating, 100,000 people at the anti-war rally in DC. Checking around the blogosphere 2,000 seems the consensus and even then, they were bussed in from as far as Des Moines according to an interview in an AP article (sorry lost link). No word on who paid for the buses or the amentities for the rally goers.

If they had 100,000 protesters, NYT would have said so. Since they resort to "vast numbers", you can bet the crowd was no more than 5,000. I caught glimpses on C-SPAN, who studiously avoided showing the crowd at all, and what they did show were really tight shots.

Another point: why do they call this "anti-war rally"? If by war they mean the Iraq war, there were very few references to the war anyway. Most of the speakers were typical anti-Israel, anti-US, pro-Palestinian, "anti-imperialism", "US out of Philippines" (go figure), pro-Castro, pro-Chavez moonbats.

The overhead shot taken by Reuters of the Elipise area south of the White House shows about 20,000 or so people in the area or on Constitution Ave. at best, unless they're all lined up on the street going east towards the Smithsonian buildings.

Meanwhile, it was interesting to hear Aaron Brown on CNN Saturday night, while showing print-outs of the front pages of Sunday's papers, basically go through an explanation of why the TV networks and newspapers chose to go with Hurricane Rita as their lead story, with limited coverage to the D.C. protest. Brown even went as far to say there was no conspiracy to keep the protest off of TV.

To me, that meant CNN actually had been getting phone calls from people who believed the press was in bed with George W. Bush to surpress coverage of the march to focus on Rita. While it's hard to believe anyone could be that self-centered and clueless about a hurricane -- especially after Katrina, when the left's mantra was "Bush doesn't care about hurricane victims" -- that's apparently the attitude of the Queen Bee of the protest movement herself to the choices of news coverage and story placement. Apparently, not only does she claim absolute moral authority over the Iraq war, but also over hurricane strength designations and damage estimates.

(It's also worth wondering if there had been some kind of major event organized in Washington by conservatives that had been pre-empted by hurricane coverage, leading to angry calls to CNN, if Aaron Brown would have been so obsequious in trying to explain the network's thought process in story selection, as opposed to deciding they're just a bunch of right-wing cranks and blowing off their complaints with no on-air mention.)

Free Mumia!

Raoul:

Well, it's only been, what - 24 years?

What's an anti-American? What's an anti-Israeli?I've never met one, read one, or even heard one inside of the U.S. I've heard only a few from outside the U.S. and many of them have pretty good reasons. You know, like their sister was killed by Israeli terrorism, which FAR surpasses that of Palestinian terror. Not even a comparison here. I usually spend my quality time reading quality folks like Chomsky, Said, Zinn, and the likes, in addition to conservatives like Kevin Phillips and a few others who are anything but "anti-American". I mostly read rightwing blogs, and often hear this charge, but as of yet I haven't been able to determine just what it is they think they're talking about. It seems to be that if you're not a cheerleader for the right, then you are anti-American. It seems to be that if you're critical of certain aspects of U.S. policy, which, living in a democracy you not only have the right to do, but the responsibility to do, then you're anti-American. I was asked a few threads ago what proof I had that the country was moving in a Nazi-like Facist direction. Well, these are some of the primary signs. Blind obedience uncritical examination of power. Accusing those critical of power of being "anti-whoever/whatever" when pointing out the problems. An inability to even think critically of the government due to pseudo-patriotic indoctrination. And there are plenty more if you want to find out about them. Problem is, is that most of the pseudo-patriots don't want to know. They even fight tooth and nail NOT to know, which is odd given that they like to rag on the government all the time as if it's some external force out there somewhere which simply exists to raise taxes, give welfare to lazy poor people, and clamp down on all of the freedoms they have, thanks primarily to the left anyway. They trust no politicians, which is probably not a bad idea, but these folks are still made up of, by, a for the people, supposedly. Then, when these vey same folks hold up a gram vile of baking powder and say that our country is threatened by a guy in a whole in the desert who has no WMD, as was known long ago, isn't a threat to anyone, anywhere, as none of Iraqs neighbors perceived any threat, etc...and are told to go to war based on this stuff, they start waving their little Chinese-made American flags and believe themselves to be patriots. Such basic facts as how the U.S. supported Saddam before and during his gassings of the Kurds, as he was being opposed by the left, of course they were being called anti-Americans at that time too, is flushed into the memory hole and the previously pro-Saddamites/Bushites were now anti-Saddam without even seeing a problem, contradiction, not to mention the usual hypocrisy. If Orwell were alive today he'd probably write a book called "2005: An Animal Farm in Texas" Of course, we know who would understand it, and who would just think it a book about farm animals. And, Raoul, there are these things called books. There are even some from the right who know how to write. You should perhaps read one or two.KB

Free Leonard Peltier!

KB, ya ever hear of paragraphs?

KB -

If you mostly read right-wing blogs, what possesses you to think that Kevin Phillips is a conservative?

As for your sweeping anti-American and anti-Israeli assertions, do you think the slogan "We Support Our Troops When They Kill Their Officers" is anti-American? Do you believe statements which equate Israeli civilians (including children) as members of the IDF are anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic?

Finally, who knew "long ago" that Saddam had no WMD? Scott Ritter? Bill Clinton? John Kerry? Helmut Kohl? Madeline Albright? Hugh Shelton? Tony Blair? John Major? Ayatollah Khameini? King Fahd? Bandar al-Sultan? William Cohen?

Prior to 2004, they all said he did. What think?

OW! All this logic is giving me a headache!

We used to write random lexical generators that spewed stuff like that, only funnier.

Sweedish Chef: Yuoo knoo, leeke-a zeeur seester ves keelled by Isreelee terrureesm, vheech FER soorpesses thet ooff Pelesteeniun terrur. Bork Bork Bork!

Jive: You's know, likes deir sista' wuz wasted by Israeli terro'ism, which FAR surpasses dat uh Palestinian terro'.

Valley Girl: You know, man, like their sister was killed by Israeli terrorism, like, wow, which FAR surpasses that of Palestinian terror, like really.

KB, how many strawmen can you possibly fit into one rant?

erp - Yep. Having trouble reading without them? It's really not all that difficult. You just go from the beginning of a sentence until you see a small thing called a period. Then you do it again. Let me know if you need any more help, or if you wish to talk about something meaningless.KB

Ratbert - Uhhh...Because he is. And the "slogan" you've shared about the slaying the officers, no, I don't consider this "anti-American". I consider it patriotic folks trying to make a point in a country where freedom of speech still exists, thanks to the left. And besides, what would shooting one's officer have anything at all to do with being anti-American? Regarding the "anti-Israel" items, I consider it neither anti-Israel nor anti-Semitic. Why would you? What does one have anything to do with the other? Is this more of that "If you don't follow the party line you're anti-whatever/whoever" propaganda? You folks from the right REALLY need to study a little about propaganda for once in your lives so that you can see how you've been duped. Anyway, according the the ex-Israeli major/clinical psychologist specialist in political propaganda that I had in graduate school, he pretty much confirms Chomsky's works regarding propaganda. I doubt he'd appreciate you calling him "anti-Semitic" or any of the other nonsense.(ps. I got an A in the class, and he even asked to keep my final project to use for himself) And regarding your comments on Saddam, yes, Scott Ritter knew long ago. ANyone working in the area within a few years after the first terrorist sanctions were imposed knew there were none. And by the time we invaded there was no doubt whatsoever by anyone that I'm aware of. I mean, anyone serious. Pretty much no one in the government. Decided just to kind of let the prior support of Saddam slide by, huh? Yeah, well I would too. Publically exposing one's own hypocrisy IS a little too much for most folks. If you'd like to know who the real anti-Saddam patriot are you should just look around a little. Chomsky was supporting the anti-Saddam resistance when it was illegal to do so in the U.S. LONG before the pseudo-patriots flushed their prior support and overnight became converts to the anti-Saddam camp. Remember? Bush I okayed a billion dollars to Saddam the day before he invaded Kuwait if my memory holds. Remember? It must be nice for your ilk to just scream and cheer in your attempts to drown out facts.KB

Gideon: Did you actually want to challenge something, or do you think your attempt at wit excuses you? People who are unaware of basics such as the vast differences between Israeli state sponsored terror and that of the rock throwing Palestinians really has no business discussing these topics at all. I think there are probably some knitting blogs where you can knitwit all you want.(snore)KB

? - Well, it would help to know what you perceive as straw. But given the usual precise nothingness that only a rightwinger could conjure up, I'm really not sure what to say other than shut up and challenge something.KB

Looks like it's parallel universe time, once again, at the Brothers Judd.

Entertainment for the masses.

Students who traveled from Staunton, Va., to show their support for the troops, show off the banner they signed that will be sent to troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Gold Star Families Lead Rally to Support Troops, Their Mission

Faced with the overwhelming intellectual might of KB's "ex-Israeli major/clinical psychologist specialist in political propaganda" who gave him an A, I must yield. Chomsky's right, all of us are wrong, as the great man himself has said:

"If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." (Wow! Even Jimmy Carter!)

"Sports plays a societal role in engendering jingoist and chauvinist attitudes. They're designed to organize a community to be committed to their gladiators." (Damn you, Major League Baseball!)

"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

KB:

Orwell was a socialist before he became anti-socialist. People learn, as we did with Saddam.

KB:
Just out of curiosity - what would you consider to be an anti-American viewpoint? See, I consider Howard Zinn to be anti-American because he hates the Founding Fathers, he hates every president we've ever had and he hates everything the country has ever done. That's pretty much an thumbnail sketch of The People's History. But you don't consider that to be anti-American. So what is?
Thanks
PS: Congrats on your A. When do you graduate?

Just like Chomsky isn't an anti-semite, he's just an anti-zionist who writes forewords for holocaust-denial books and appears at rallies where Protocols of the Elders of Zion is sold and he never criticizes lefty Jew haters.

Does anyone else think debating the merits of Noam Chomsky in late 2005 is surreal?

KB:

Getting an A from a Chomsky clone must be a rare achievement. I know I wouldn't do it.

Barry said:

"Looks like it's parallel universe time, once again, at the Brothers Judd."

Yep. I agree. Unfortunately, one of the universes is real, and the other is just a bad reflection.(See oj, Michael, Raoul, etc...)KB

"Entertainment for the masses."

Entertainment for the left anyway.KB
=================================================
Mike said:

"Faced with the overwhelming intellectual might of KB's "ex-Israeli major/clinical psychologist specialist in political propaganda" who gave him an A, I must yield."

Yes, that would be a good idea.KB

"Chomsky's right"

Yes, I know. That's pretty much the case. I mean, unless you have the balls to try and challenge him and prove his theses wrong. Einstein was correct to about many things, too, regarding physics. Want to try a challenge him? Be my guest. You'll have to know his works first though. There are quite a few people out there who have been correct about many things. You should perhaps study some of them for a change. Let me know if you're interested and I can recommend a few hundred books.KB

"all of us are wrong"

Not ALL of you. I mean, the ones who are wrong are wrong. Or perhaps you have some proof that he's wrong and you're right. It's always possible. You'll have to prove it though. You simply telling me means nothing. Did you have something of his you dare to challenge? Have you read him?KB

"as the great man himself has said:"

There are many great things, I mean, assuming you believe facts to be great.KB

"If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." (Wow! Even Jimmy Carter!)"

Yes, so? Is this statement supposed to be somehow controversial or radical? What's the big deal? It's nothing but a factual statement, which is easily verifiable. Have you read him? Do you have a clue as to why he would have made such a statement? I mean, something serious. NOT because he's "anti-American" or any of that nonsense. What is he basing his assertion on? If you don't know, then you have no business talking about it until you do. Check back when you have.KB

"Sports plays a societal role in engendering jingoist and chauvinist attitudes...."

Yes, in general, that's pretty much the case. The extent of it's influence is probably not too much, but the idea of cheering for teams, if carried too far, as can be seen in the comments of the pseudo-patriots here, can turn into a problem. Anyway, Chomsky goes to baseball games with his grandchildren every year on opening day. You should perhaps be a little more careful before making statements without knowing the facts.KB

"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

Yes, and I'm sure you don't know what this even refers to, right? He made this statement when proving some of his thesis on linguistics. Once again, perhaps you should do 3 minutes research to see what this means.KB
=================================================
KB:
"Orwell was a socialist before he became anti-socialist. People learn, as we did with Saddam."

Orwell supposedly being anti-Socialist is debateable. He was anti-totalitarian, but as far as I know never anti-Socialist and was a socialist to the end. Of course, some people think that socialism IS totalitarian, but that's also a mistake. I mean, there are even a few folks still around who believe that the U.S.S.R. was socialist. Anyway, even in his writing of Animal Farm he admitted that propaganda in the democracies wasn't that much different than in the totalitarian societies. They have a lot of the same structure.(See the unpublished preface to Animal Farm) And no matter what he called himself, he was in no way, shape, or form was ever of the right. Anyway, Chomsky has many lectures about Orwell, and MANY, MANY, MANY of their ideas are quite similar, though Orwell was a latecomer in the propaganda game. Here are a few good articles regarding Orwell:
http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/1993----.htm
http://www.zpub.com/un/chomsky.html
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/9708-UD-relativity.html
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Chomsky/chomsky-con0.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MainstreamMedia_Chom.html

Anyway, there's much more. Let me know what you think.KB
=================================================
GB said:

"KB:
Just out of curiosity - what would you consider to be an anti-American viewpoint?"

Well, first of all I consider the concept itself to be totalitarian. Most cultures which have anything resembling a culture, especially any form of democratic culture, would look at such a notion with contempt. The idea that folks in a democratic society could in any, way, shape, or form, be considered "anti-American" simply because they don't feel that whatever the party line happens to be at any given moment is absurd. Criticism of the state has nothing to do with hating the state. As a matter of fact, it's quite the opposite. Here a simple but accurate analogy. If you're a guitar teacher, and you have a really great student, do you think your time is better spent cheering his great aspects, or do you think if you focus on his shortcomings, pointing them out as often as possible, trying to assist him in weeding out the mistakes, and possibly even offering some good advice and suggestions, that he would become a much better player? Personally, I say the latter is better. And it in no way discounts those positive things which he's already doing. The anti-whatever notion doesn't distinguish between criticism and hate. Following the approach of the second teacher would be considered anti-student by the pseudo-patriot types. When your parents whipped your butt for doing things wrong did you deduce that they therefore hated you? Were your parents anti-You? Know, I know that it may feel that way sometimes, but, in general, it's usual because they care. It's possible that there could be anti-Americans such as many folks where the U.S. has not really been great models of democracy, human rights, etc...But withing the U.S. I believe the concept to be absurd. I've never met an anti-American in my life. I know communists, socialists, anarchists, etc...and none of them consider themselves anti-American. None.KB

"See, I consider Howard Zinn to be anti-American because he hates the Founding Fathers, he hates every president we've ever had and he hates everything the country has ever done."

Well, your premise and assertion are completely wrong. As a matter of fact, I consider him to be one of the most patriotic Americans I've ever read. I know many people who were very digusted with many aspects of the U.S. and were becoming increasingly depressed, or were at least to some extent losing sight of the very many redeeming aspects, until they read Zinn, as well as Chomsky, and then they began to believe in their country more than ever before. Just because someone points out some of the depraved acts of some people, makes criticisms regarding some aspects of policy which they support, at some point in time, etc...in no way makes them anti-anything. I think Bush in an imbecile, isn't the least bit intelligent, has a background which is quite questionable, think he's quite dangerous, etc...but my speaking out against him has absolutely zero to do with my liking America or not. And given that I think the sector which he represents do not reflect the interests of the vast majority of the population, and this is hardly a secret or controversial, it's my duty as an American citizen to say something about it, and try and do something about it. That's called democracy. That this sort of participation could be perceived and construed to as meaning anti-American is nothing BUT totalitarian-mindedness jingoism.KB

"That's pretty much an thumbnail sketch of The People's History. But you don't consider that to be anti-American."

Not at all. If anything, it's pro-American. All he does in that book is to point out those aspects which the supposed historians have left out. There's nothing he writes about which is very controversial at all. The question folks should be asking when reading someone like Zinn isn't "How can he deride the U.S. and say all those bad things, etc..." The questions they, and you, should be asking is "Why wasn't I taught these things in the first place?" There are many books, by many folks, who write such things which we're never taught in school. Why? They're not lying. If you start down the more inquisitive path you'll start finding out all sorts of things which you never knew about. How about the many scholars, journalists, etc...who were on the C.I.A.'s payroll to write the "correct" histories? But, most don't even need to do this. They simply internalize the beliefs of those who they're taught to, regurgitate those ideas, and are accepted quite readily if they tow the politically correct line. often whitewashing their own history. Most countries do this, in fact. Shouldn't be the least bit surprising.KB

"So what is?"

Well, it's definitely NOT Zinn, Chomsky, or any of the other pro-democracy advocates. As I said before, I know of NO anti-Americans within the U.S., have never read one, heard one, or anything else. I'm sure there are some angry Arabs who are anti-U.S., though the percentage is probably quite small, depending on the country. There are probably many Europeans who don't appreciate the U.S.'s arrogance and unconcern for what others think. But, for the most part, I believe there are very few anti-Americans around. To even hear this reminds me of the paranoid fanatics that thought they saw communists around every corner a few decades back. Doesn't exist, but is good for stirring up a jingoistic fervor among enough voters to support a war for reasons that they haven't a clue about. This isn't really new either.KB

"Thanks"

You're welcome.KB

"PS: Congrats on your A. When do you graduate?"

I graduated from grad school about 15 years ago.KB
=================================================
erp said:

"Just like Chomsky isn't an anti-semite"

No, he isn't at all. Never has been. Never has even inferred anything which would make a literate person even have such a notion. Once again, had you bothered to actually study him instead of referring to idiots like David Horowitz for your disinformation perhaps you'd be aware of how ignorant this comment sounds. Guess what? Why don't you just say that he's a black Catholic crossdresser while you're at it? It has about as much legitimacy.KB

"he's just an anti-zionist"

That's odd given that he was part of th Zionist youth groups when he was young. He may be critical of the totalitarian, anti-democratic, fanatical Zionists, as any good Jew should be. So what? I "was" raised a Baptist, but I know many Baptists whose idea of Christianity don't come anywhere close to mine. Does this make me anti-Baptist? Does it make them anti-Baptist? The entire notion of anti-? is absurd and is only used by totalitarian-minded folks. Folks like Stalin, Hitler, etc...used such notions to inculcate obedience and loyalty to their depraved causes. Anytime you hear ANYONE start using such terms is cause for alarm. This is just another sign of creeping fascism.KB

"who writes forewords for holocaust-denial books"

This is an ignorant-ass lie and doesn't even deserve a response. Until you study the subject it's probably a good and conservative idea to shut the hell up. Yeah, I heard he wrote books about UFOs with Elvis and Big Foot flying them as well. Geez! I'm not going to have to take on another flock of anti-Chomskyites(absurd) who have never read one of his books again, am I? Anyway, if I do it's fine. I write satires about this breed and can always use new material, though it's about 97% the same. Anyway, I've read ALL of his books, some several times, and have never read a line coming close to inferring this absurd notion. Where are you getting your information, The Enquirer? The National Review? Or more reliably, the bathroom wall at some truck stop near Battle Mountain, Nevada? Please read a book. Please.KB

"and appears at rallies where Protocols of the Elders of Zion is sold and he never criticizes lefty Jew haters."

There are no lefty Jew-haters. Are you on the payroll of the ADL's propaganda unit, or something. The only people who could fall for propaganda this gross are Rush fans and Coulter groupies.KB

"Does anyone else think debating the merits of Noam Chomsky in late 2005 is surreal?"

Does anyone believe it's surreal for a person who has never read one of his books to make such a statement regarding debate? I was always under the impression that in order to debate something you first had to know something about the subject. You've already proven within a few sentences that you know nothing about the subject. What debate? If you want to make something resembling a debate about Chomsky, the very first thing you're going to have to do, and I really hate to tell you this, is to read ALL of his books, as many articles as possible, listen to as many lectures as possible, and THEN you can take the first step in having a debate. You may actually know a little about the topic if you take this first basic step. Until then we really have nothing to discuss. All it will be is my informed statements and your mis-informed fantasies. You learn a little about the topic first, and then we'll have a debate. Oh, and if you're even thinking of trying to get out of actually reading him firsthand, and simply relying on folks like Horowitz, Kamm, DeLong, Carnell, etc...for your mis-information I'll know immediately because I've studied all of their works as well. If you go to Amazon book reviews for your data, I'll know as well, as I read all of them, too. YOU must read him for yourself. Nothing else will qualify. Who wants to bet me now that this elementary first step will never happen? It's up to you erp.KB
=================================================
Jim said:

"KB:
Getting an A from a Chomsky clone must be a rare achievement. I know I wouldn't do it."

What would an intelligent professor who has been studying propaganda for years, has been in the Israeli army, is a clinical psychologist, have to do with being a Chomsky clone? Oh, you mean because his years of research shows similar results then he must be a clone? Wow! That's an intelligent deduction. And I'm sure you wouldn't do it. And I'm sure you have studied it in as much detail as both of these professors, too, huh? Gee, I want to be your clone. I won't even have to read a book either. ANyway, if you have something of relevance to offer next time I may respond. I'll be waiting.KB

Now KB, read the following sentences from Robert Faurrison's "Testimony in Defence: Against those who Accuse me of Falsifying History. The Question of the Gas Chambers:"

“The alleged gassing and the alleged genocide of Jews are part of the same historical lie which has been the basis of a huge political and financial swindle of which the principle beneficiaries are the State of Israel and principal victims the German people, not its leaders, and the Palestinian people,”

Chomsky wrote a forward for this book that says (in addition to the usual nonsense dressed up in academic language):

“I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson’s work...”

I'm sorry, but your hero is either evil or a moron. Maybe both.

"Now KB, read the following sentences from Robert Faurrison's..."

“The alleged gassing and the alleged genocide of Jews..."

"Chomsky wrote a forward for this book that says (in addition to the usual nonsense dressed up in academic language):"

Well, as usual, the typical anti-scolarship of the right comes shining through is all of it's brilliant blackness. First of all, just to bring you up to date, as this was dealt with 20-30 years ago, Chomsky was asked by Faruisson publishers to write some sort of statement regarding free speech, which is exactly what he did. They used it as a forward for Faurissons book. So what? What does one have to do with the other? Chomsky's statement on freedom of was correct, assuming you're not a totalitarian-minded dictator. And only an illiterate imbecile could possible conclude that the statement on free speech somehow condones the ideas in the book. Chomsky is very well aware that this guy is a wacko and that makes not one ounce of difference in his making a statement on free speech. Perhaps you don't understand what free speech means. Unless you believe that you're worst enemy has a right to say whatever he/she believes, no matter how depraved it is, then you DON'T believe in free speech. It's quit simple. And anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Chomsky's work knows that he has never been anti-Semitic, never been "anti-Israel", and has never even inferred anything resembling such nonsense. Quite the contrary. Where does this statement fit in:

"In the introduction to my first collection of political essays, 20 years ago, I add that we have lost our humanity if we are even willing to enter into debate over the Nazi crimes with those who deny or defend them."N. Chomsky

Anyway, if you want to educate yourself as to Chomsky's positions a real good place of doing so is by reading what he's written, NOT what other illiterates have written about him in a quite humorous smear campaign. Here, I'll get you started with just a few links regarding this issue(It's quit old and was proved to be a farce immediately, but some rumors are hard to break, kind of like Big Foot sightings):

http://www.chomsky.info/letters/1989----.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/letters/19890601.htm
http://cognet.mit.edu/library/books/chomsky/chomsky/5/5.html
There are many more, but the bottom line is that the charge is unfounded, and just plain factually incorrect. You may as well say Chomsky is a black Catholic cross-dresser as I mentioned before. Both charges have as much to do with reality as the other, nothing. Is there some rule which says anti-Chomskyites aren't allowed to read his work, or something? I debated these folks for several years on a comic blog entitled 'Diary of an Anti-Chomskyite' or some such nonsense. Never met one critic who had ever read one of his books. Never. No one. Is this a rule for you guys, or does it just come natural, like Eboli?KB

“I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust."

I would. Unfortunately, your entire premise is false, so there's nothing really to discuss. Chomsky has never implied denial of anything. However, being the compassionate person I am, I'll give you a chance to prove me wrong. You show me exactly where he says this, or even infers it, and I won't call you Bush. Deal? And, you are not allowed to quote him second-hand from anyone such as Horowitz, Cohen, DeLong, etc...or any of the other illiterates out there in fantasy land. I'll be waiting.(Forever I'm afraid)KB

"Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence."

You're right, there wouldn't. There's no implication there whatsoever. I didn't know folks on the right were into channeling. I mean, I thought that only a few leftwingers were into this stuff. The thought that I rightwinger would make an attempt is quite interesting given their frequencies are usually quite obscured, if not completely out of service. However, that a few of the more totalitarian Israelis actually use the Holocaust to justify their own Nazi-like behavior really is profane, and is viewed as such by most Israelis, not the Stalinists who you've referred to.KB

"I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson’s work...”"

Really? Then you haven't read it. It's ALL anti-Semitic. What does this have to do with Chomsky? Nothing. Zero. Actually, less than zero, as Chomsky has supported Israeli democracy movements for 50+ years. Once again, I find myself talking to someone trying to discuss a topic without having even an elementary grasp of the facts. Please read a book and check back when you have. You and all the other anti-scholars here can then attempt to challenge me regarding this topic. As of now you have nothing to discuss. I don't like talking about big foot and UFOs. Your assertions are in this realm. Nowhere else.KB

"I'm sorry, but your hero"

My hero? Why would you conclude that he's my hero simply because you have no idea what you're talking about regarding his ideas and I do? That's another interesting leap. Not unusual though for the typical anti-Chomskyite. See, if you actually KNOW his works then he's your "hero". You become a "Chomsky-worshipper" by simple virtue that you know his work and can easily recognize when someone else doesn't. THIS, is yet another sign of totalitarian-mindedness and fascist inclination. Guess what, I happen to know a lot about basketball, too, but I'm not a basketball worshipper. I know a lot about Voltaire, too, but I'm not a Voltaire worshipper. Shall I continue? It's quite simple. You study the subject and know, or you don't. The choice is yours.KB

"is either evil"

One of the most moral folks I've ever heard speak.KB

"or a moron"

Yes, that must be it. HE'S a moron because you assign him positions which he's never had, you've never read him, and you know nothing about him. I see. That makes HIM the moron. Hmmm Do all folks of the right use this anti-logic? Did you actually have to study to figure out this logic, or is this also natural?(More proof that God has done a botched job).KB

"Maybe both."

Straw. Are you a farmer, by the way. With the way you've cultivated straw I'd say your getting quite a few subsidies from the government.KB

"I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson’s work...”"

Really? Then you haven't read it. It's ALL anti-Semitic. What does this have to do with Chomsky?

The Chomsky Paradigm

To understand Chomsky's critique, you must begin with his methodology and the assumptions interlaced with his volatile claims. Here is an attempt to mention a few of those assumptions, though this is hardly an exhaustive list:

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3754.html