29 June 2003
March of the wooden intellects
Steven Chapman: pundit or psychologist? You make the call:
Possibly, in the wake of 9/11, the [Naomi] Kleins, the Vidals, the Pinters and the Chomskys sensed their time had come as fully-fledged dissidents, just like their heroes in eastern Europe. Surely now, in Ashcroft's America and Blair's Britain, they could stand tall with the likes of Havel, Michnik, Walesa and Sakharov. Alas, now it all seems to be slipping away, and this paranoid squeal of student political drama queenery is about as good as it gets these days. For shame.
I think he's called this one spot-on; it would certainly explain why Janeane Garofalo seems to be positioning herself somewhere between Betsy Ross and Ida Tarbell. Posted at 9:55 PM to Political Science Fiction
oh please....give me a break.
... that was my patience for people that try to declare x,y or z irrelavent or unimportant. Saying so, does not make it so. I may think that Jerry Falwell is a nutcase and any person with a full two-lobed brain would be stupid to listen to him but it would be pointless for me to try to state that he is irrelavent. Whether he is or not have little to do with my opinion of him.
Uh, Bruce? Jerry Falwell is irrelevant. His exalted public stature is entirely the result of the tendency of media types to see conservative Christians as one monolithic bloc that takes its marching orders directly from Jerry and/or Pat Robertson.
Harold Pinter is a playwright, Noam Chomsky a linguist. Both have well-deserved reputations in their respective fields. But their expertise does not necessarily extend to foreign policy, which is why I pay no attention to their pronouncements thereupon.
A perusal of Bruce's blog's (Called "This is Class Warfare" -- heh) brings up this latest entry, wherein he regards the fact that there aren't (apparently) any "Buddhists, Hindus or Muslims" in the US Congress to mean "No Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus Allowed!" Then he writes that Nixon's Quaker religious affiliation was a "little know (sic) fact," though I was under the impression it was common knowledge -- and in any case it's easy enough to find out, just pick up any bio of the man.
I would not say that this gives me any insight into Bruce's reasons for becoming so irritated at the idea that Chomsky et al were "irrelevant," because that would be jumping to conclusions, right?
Whereas Bruce seems to enjoy jumping to confusions.