<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Ted, I too have read almost everything that Chomsky has ever written.
I'll find the quote. He said it in 1975 after the fall of Saigon.<br>
<br>
And yes, I detest his logic. He proclaims himself a anarchest, but he
is really a communist. He reconstructs both his history and others.
He's a fraud and I'll address this in full when I have some time.<br>
<br>
db<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tbertruss@aol.com">Tbertruss@aol.com</a> wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mide1.ce66a9d.2f3e7efc@aol.com"><font
face="arial,helvetica"><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></font></blockquote>
</body>
</html>