Andrew Sullivan is a blatant liar-slanders Chomsky on air for no reason

[OrbitalPower]

Is this the new face of intellectual conservatism?

Andrew Sullivan, supposedly one of the intellectual conservatives, even writing for the Atlantic (what possibly does he have to say that is profound) continues to lie on nationalism television:

uCHBLt-w9wE[/youtube] First of a.../111004-Noam-Chomsky-on-Real-Time-Part-1-of-2

(After chomsky comes on at about 6:40.)

This frankly borders on libel:

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/cummings11102004

Chomsky, like the socialist that influenced so much, Orwell, was STAUNCHLY critical of the Soviet Union, so much so that his work was even officially banned in the USSR. So this is a lie of Sarah Palin proportions, it's just out and out false. [1]

So, is this the new face of "intellectual conservatism": Out and out lying? Even when Sullivan is right, he rarely backs up his points intelligently. For example, here he is on Palin:



He just keeps saying over and over again that it was a huge mistake and it shouldn't be taken seriously, insteading of pointing out her scary beliefs as Klein did (who's book, Shock Doctrine, is excellent by the way). Even Maher, who should have called Sullivan out on his BS, is in a higher class than Sullivan.

And here is his own explanation, available on Youtube, parts 1 through 5:

SgFlJjnULh0[/youtube] [url]Au2Ai...eatchomsky_63.htm]How free is the Free Market, Chomsky states, “the free market is 'socialism' for the rich: the public pays the costs and the rich get the benefit --markets for the poor and plenty of state protection for the rich.” His meaning is that the market claims to be free in order to gain the trust and tax funds of the working class, but in actuality, control of the market is enormously swayed in favor of the rich and privileged. Power is concentrated into unaccountable institutions that are highly subsidized and protected by the government in the interest of the rich elite.

Trade in the U.S. is another excellent example for the argument against the supposedly free market. Chomsky questions the true efficiency of trade. He argues that in practice, trade is “highly subsidized with huge market-distorting factors” that are not accounted for. Chomsky provides transportation as an example of a market-distorting factor. He writes, “Since trade naturally requires transport, the costs of transport enter into the calculation of the efficiency of trade.” He explains that since all forms of transportation are highly subsidized through energy-cost manipulation or other methods, the true costs of transport are greatly reduced.

And even high-ranking government officials have admitted that the market is less free than purportedly claimed. When GNP reached record heights in the first years of the Reagan administration, they boasted to the public that it was because of the free market. However, to the business community, they provided a different explanation. James Baker, Secretary of the Treasury, announced at a business convention “that the Reagan administration offered more protection to U.S. manufacturers than any of the preceding post-war administrations” (Chomsky). But he wasn’t entirely truthful. According to Chomsky, the administration offered more protection than all other administrations combined.

Chomsky cites the aeronautical industry as an example of just how much big businesses are subsidized by State funds. Fortune magazine explains how the industry could never survive in the market without public support. Companies such as Boeing are almost completely subsidized. The industry is largely supported and subsidized by NASA and the Pentagon. In practice, corporations run the free market. “The profits are privatized and that's what counts,” claims Chomsky. [/quote]

http://econc10.bu.edu/economic_systems/Theory//Famous/noam_chomsky_on_the_free_market.htm

So, for Sullivan to claim this situation doesn't support Chomsky, when it is an example of EXACTLY what Chomsky says happens, is an outright lie.

I think Sullivan is just a quack, and unfortunately I think conservatives have allowed themselves to be defined by these propagandists. Interestingly, Chomsky is on the left and also happens to be America's most cited living scholar. [2]

[1]Consider what Chomsky has said about apologists for the USSR, for example:

"People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name something without calling up mental pictures of it. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, 'I believe in killing off your opponents when you say you can get good results by doing so.' Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

'while freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.'

"When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns...instinctively to long words...like a cuttlefish squirting out ink."

[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arts_and_Humanities_Citation_Index

 

[Gokul43201]

Andrew Sullivan, supposedly one of the intellectual conservatives, even writing for the Atlantic (what possibly does he have to say that is profound) continues to lie on nationalism television:

Third, at about 6:11, he claims this current crisis supports Ron Paul, not Noam Chomsky.

What the heck? Noam Chomsky for YEARS has been saying that big corporations are subsidized from failure - that they eventually become too big to fail. This is simply an out and out lie.

Since he gives no explanation and simply stated a one-line opinion, there's no way you can call that a lie (I'm going by memory here - haven't yet watched the posted clip, but I do recall that bit from Friday night).

Anyway, I mostly like Sullivan and find myself much more in agreement with him than in disagreement.

Incidentally, WheelsRCool might be interested to note that this conservative libertarian referred to the Palin selection as an absurd joke.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Absolutely it is a lie. When you say with affirmation something to be true, it's assumed you have evidence to support it. If I say, "blue is beautiful color," THAT is an opinion.

Sullivan is stating nonsense as fact, and that's a lie.

This is the same excuse that Bush supporters use, that Bush was just giving his "opinion" when he said there were WMDs in Iraq. But when you say something with affirmation, it implies not that you're guessing, but that you're in possession of already existing knowledge.

Likewise, when he slanders Chomsky as an apologist for Russia, that is also a lie. If he were to say "I believe for such and such reason" this to be the case, than that is an opinion.

This is a lie even by his own standards. If you watch the video from videsift, Sullivan calls Chomsky a liar because Chomsky is "smart enough to know that he's wrong." Of course, in that interview Chomsky cited studies to back himself up, like the Lancet study, whereas Sullivan provides no facts (as usual per his apperance on real time).

Perhaps I'll email him and see if he can back up any of these claims.

 

[Gokul43201]

Absolutely it is a lie. When you say with affirmation something to be true, it's assumed you have evidence to support it. If I say, "blue is beautiful color," THAT is an opinion.

What he said was that the current crisis validates Ron Paul rather than Chomsky, wasn't it? And wasn't that the total extent of what he said on Friday on the matter of Chomsky, or did I miss something?

To me, that's very different from saying there were WMDs in Iraq.

I haven't watched any of the videos in the OP, but might find some time for them later.