Noam Chomsky's statement on killing of Osama bin Laden

[cfabel]

Well, of course, you're right.

C. F. Abel
Chair
Department of Government
Stephen F. Austin State University
Nacogdoches, Texas 75962
(936) 468-3903




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On Behalf
Of Joseph Tracy
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 10:08 PM
To: pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: Re: Noam Chomsky's statement on killing of Osama bin Laden


On May 16, 2011, at 5:14 PM, cfabel wrote:

> Regarding the "sketchyness" of "Liberalism, of course you're right,  
> people adapt the term to their purposes. But they would not be 
> understood unless the uses were similar sufficiently, had what 
> Wittgenstein termed sufficient "family resemblances." Right now the 
> literature identifies 5 coherent, consistent groups of uses; so 
> confusing enough, but manageable in conversation and certainly in 
> journals, etc. The thing about overloading the term is that 
> historically, politically at least, the trajectory of discourse on 
> liberalism was meant to develop, and was intended as, a philosophy.  
> But that aside, it's very difficult to judge behavior absent some 
> assumptions about human nature, the nature of "reality," the role of
society in human affairs, etc.; a philosophy, as minimal or tacit as it may
be.
> 
> Regarding "smithereening" villages, there are empirical reasons to 
> believe that "conservatives" are less concerned significantly with 
> human suffering and the harm caused by political decisions than are 
> "liberals." There is much speculation on the reasons in the 
> literature, but some conservative thinkers have confirmed as much.

Yes I think this is generally true with considerable human variation. But
consider that it was Democratic Party Liberals who escalated the Vietnam War
and expanded the current use of drones and the "surge" and night raids in
Afghanistan. Feeling bad about the collateral damage is a pathetic excuse
for not following the precepts of the Geneva Accords which stress the
protection of civilians in combat.  The people who are less concerned with
human suffering are usually people who avoid combat and suffering with
religious fervor while celebrating it for the nation as evidence of a
triumphal strength they wish to claim as their identity.  And the suffering
is not isolated to those we war against. About the same number of Vietnam
vets committed suicide as died there. The Gulf and Afghan vets are returning
with profound physical and psychological damage. For this reason it makes me
sick that Obama frequently talks of military heroism but fails to address
the terrible damage of war. I was recently arrested with Ve
> 
> Regarding prisons and compounds, only after we get the occupants out, 
> regardless of thei particular roles?
> 
> C. F. Abel
> Chair
> Department of Government
> Stephen F. Austin State University
> Nacogdoches, Texas 75962
> (936) 468-3903
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On 
> Behalf Of Richard Ryan
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:33 PM
> To: Joseph Tracy
> Cc: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Subject: Re: Noam Chomsky's statement on killing of Osama bin Laden
> 
> One shouldn't blow up villages; one should blow up prisons and 
> compounds - especially compounds with tyrants or terrorists lurking
inside.
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>> Also liberalism is a sketchy word, And what is progressive? It all 
>> gets
> vague fast.  Liberal has the long standing meaning of generous, 
> willing to share, kind. Adding ism and trying to make that an 
> elaborate political philosophy has seriously overloaded the carrying 
> capacity of a word. These terms get defined, redefined, watered down, 
> elaborated, and filled with a fair amount of shit to where the there is no
shared consensus of meaning.
>> One thing I s for damn sure. It is no better to have your village 
>> blown to
> smithereens by a Liberal, than by any other asshole.
>> On May 16, 2011, at 11:57 AM, Joseph Tracy wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> My question, as far as the isms issue is whether there is 
>>> substantial
> evidence that Chomsky ascribes to some grand ism. I have never gotten 
> that sense from reading him over the years. He seems to be a pragmatic 
> socialist with a strong commitment to basic freedoms and the equal
application of law.
> Is it "utopian" to think we can have a world without a dominant empire 
> that steals most of the resources?
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Richard Ryan
> New York and the World
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> Thanks to all who saw VTM's new production!
> "Brilliant!";"Superb!" - NYTheatre-wire.com www.kingstheplay.com
>