Noam Chomsky's statement on killing of Osama bin Laden

Michael F mff8785 at gmail.com
Mon May 16 00:38:52 CDT 2011


Dave,

Liberalism is a tad more safe than Progressivism.  Liberalism:
functioning as a cohesive community unit without the influence of
nobility or religion; Progressivism: moving forward toward something
that is unknown, and the "unknown" can be either good or bad, but more
than likely bad(because it is unknown and without previous judgement).
 Somehow I see this all coming back toward Pynchon's writings...
Pynchon's major writings take place during boom's of Progressivism:
birth of the nation, fine de sicle, and baby boomer, Viet Nam-era
California.  Lebowksi-era Southern California?

Mike

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 2:07 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> Amen.
> Progressives like Chomsky & Nadar are the liberals that makes liberals
> ashamed to admit they're liberals. They give limbaugh an easy "Blame
> Amerca First" target.
>
> On Saturday, May 14, 2011, Richard Ryan <himself at richardryan.com> wrote:
>> Chomsky is, like Nader, a giant figure in the American progressive movement who has managed to systematically self-destruct in the
>> twilight of his career.
>>
>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Chomsky argues as if HIS language for things is just like his 'discovery' that
>>> language is inherent in the mind. Once you've named Imperialism, it's always
>>> there,
>>> even when we pull away (from some countries, from some policies, from a lying
>>> hidden
>>> country-conquering foreign policy)
>>>
>>> His linguistics is being challenged as being far more subtle and nurture-related
>>> than
>>>
>>> Chomsky's hard Platonism seems to allow.
>>>
>>> Chomsky writes:
>>> ..."to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we
>>> soon learned, Washington didn’t have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said,
>>> in his White House statement, that “we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks
>>> were carried out by al Qaeda."
>>>
>>> Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden’s
>>> “confession,” but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston
>>> Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This, to me, is detestable. Grunt workers who had been tracking Bin Laden for
>>> years KNEW he had done it as soon as it happened. (One young writer I know, had
>>> requested thru State to interview him in 1997. Disallowed) CHOMSKY thinks that
>>> the US should have turned over EVIDENCE---what would count as evidence for the
>>> Taliban? Even IF you think we should never have challenged the Taliban with a
>>> war, why, how, could we have believed their words? Look what they did, rulingly,
>>> as policy within their own country? Give them the EVIDENCE we have? when people
>>> with eyes in both--all--- parties, even Libertarian, thought there was more than
>>> the usual reasons for distrust, for believing that if (since?) they were
>>> harboring OBL, he would get that info?  From Orwell, thru Pynchon, thru Buckley,
>>> Mailer or Vidal, I cannot believe ANY of them would but laugh at Chomsky's
>>> notion of turning over such evidence?
>>>
>>> (A...and, I will bet you we did show them something....Did the Taliban demand a
>>> trial at the Hague?---say they would turn him over for THAT?)
>>>
>>> And, goes his brain-damaged, lingusitics-challenged logic, because we WOULD NOT
>>> do that, we, the US, had no evidence.????  Think about THAT a moment.
>>>
>>> Let's see: No, you cannot search my home without a warrant, therefore I MUST be
>>> guilty....
>>>
>>> To call Obama a liar for the truths---not for any policies----that ALL know.
>>> Simply Awful To suggest OBL 'just bragged" about all the evil --that no one
>>> knows who caused it,--, all Al--Queda's own words and self-praised deeds, to all
>>> who have given bits of evidence--even thousands of innocents like the part of
>>> bin Laden's family which knew and disowned him---- in that tangled evil web
>>> Al--Queda wove.....means Chomsky is BLIND to reality but not his own ideas.
>>>
>>>
>>> Chomsky is a Beckian, Limbaugh mirror of fantasy world 'crazy' here....I say
>>> Chomsky is in AGAINST THE DAY, if not in The Recognitions (but we are coming to
>>> some stuff related, maybe)
>>>
>>>
>>> O yes, and Tomahawk is NOT like naming our missiles after our victims, such
>>> as in that stupid Nazis' analogy...Tomahawk was a weapon of those Native
>>> Americans,
>>> many tribes of which fought bloody wars against each other with...........
>>>
>>> Noam, learn how logic is a human 'form of life'....and learn how to think like a
>>> human being............
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: Michael F <mff8785 at gmail.com>
>>> To: David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: cfabel <cfabel at sfasu.edu>; Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net>;
>>> "pynchon-l at waste.org" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>> Sent: Fri, May 13, 2011 1:55:34 PM
>>> Subject: RE: Noam Chomsky's statem--
>> Richard Ryan
>> New York and the World
>> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
>> Thanks to all who saw VTM's new production!
>> "Brilliant!";"Superb!" - NYTheatre-wire.com
>> www.kingstheplay.com
>>
>



More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list