<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BR>
Dave Budge wrote:<BR>
<BR>
"Noam Chomsky (hey, anybody who ever endorsed Pol Pot qualifies as "really scary.") "<BR>
<BR>
I have followed Chomsky from the late 1960s till the present day, both his work in linguistics and its implications for theory of mind, and his political analysis and investigations. I read his extensive analysis comparing the media's reporting of the horrific human rights abuses that were committed in East Timor in the 1970s, abuses committed by Indonesia with military aid from the US government, compared to how the media reported Pol Pot's psychotic rampage in Southeast Asia, in "Manufacturing Consent." <BR>
<BR>
Chomsky is fairly regarded as one of the greatest thinkers of the last century, primarily due to his work in linguistics. But his political writing is rich in detail and documentation, his logical capabilities are superb, and he will take unpopular positions on principle, which has caused him significant grief. He defended the free speech rights of a writer who was arguing that the holocaust was a historical distortion, and for his "politically incorrect" defense of said free speech principle for a politically unpopular opinion, was publicly dragged through the mud.<BR>
<BR>
Chomsky never "endorsed Pol Pot."<BR>
<BR>
I can see why Chomsky's formidable political and economic arguments that contradict your approach would cause you grief. But asserting that he "endorsed" psychotic dictators like Pol Pot is simply unfair and false. <BR>
<BR>
Your aside about Chomsky strikes me as an expression of libertarian "group think." He is on a short list of the thinkers and writers that libertarians must delegitimize and denigrate to maintain the integrity of their own political ideology.<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
</FONT></HTML>