06 July 2011

Chomsky vs Chavez and/or Chomsky vs Guardian

Mastermind of the Century (the last one) decided to spice the current century. The story is simply delicious. It starts with an article by Rory Carroll where Chomsky criticizes Comical Hugo for his inhuman treatment of judge María Lourdes Afiuni, for his dictatorship, including hardly believable (for Chomsky) sentences like "Concentration of executive power, unless it's very temporary and for specific circumstances, such as fighting world war two, is an assault on democracy."

One might want to ask the Mastermind where has he been for the last twelve years, when Caudillo stripped Venezuela of its democratic institutions, building up his ersatz socialism. Weren't Chavez' intentions clear from the day one?

But let's go back to the story. Guardian, you see, was very excited for some reason about the rift opening between the hitherto best buddies: Noam and Hugo. So excited that the headline they've chosen says Noam Chomsky denounces old friend Hugo Chávez for 'assault' on democracy. Which is a bit of exaggeration indeed: whatever Mastermind said is not such a scalding denunciation of Comical Hugo, rather a liver-spotted finger shaken in his general direction. Of course, our Mastermind, hilariously egged on by a blogger, blames the hapless Guardian in "extreme dishonesty". A classic case of pot calling kettle.

Well, the next act of the drama follows: The Guardian, hurt to its bone marrow by the accusations of the Mastermind (but also mindful of their previous clash with the latter) produces a transcript of Rory Carroll's interview. It's quite a boring reading and, to be frank, still doesn't support the headline that so riled the Mastermind.

So, we have here not only a rift opening between Chaves and Chomsky but also one opening between two important disinformation sources of the free world. Two birds and no stone wasted. Cool.

And, of course, as a bonus, the priceless correspondence between the Mastermind and Alek Boyd - the blogger mentioned already. Here is the second part of it. There are quite a few interesting passages in both parts, but I shall quote only a sentence:

The world needs to understand just how unhinged you, those you admire, and those who admire you, are, and these exchanges are just the perfect way to do it.
Indeed. I would suggest adding " and those who admire those who admire you" for completeness, but it's excellent as it is.

P.S. Still, I tend to disagree with Alek on Manning. Whatever the rights and wrongs, the man took the POTUS' dime.


jams o donnell said...

Didn't really take any notice of the story. Chavez and Xhomsky are shit and shite. THat said I had to read him on psycholinguitics at uni. After that I vowed never to read a word the man had to say!

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Oh boy... I didn't know. By rights, Jams, you should demand compensation from the university!

Alek Boyd said...

HI there,

thanks for linking. I am not too sure about why you disagree with me on Manning. But just to clarify my position: where I agreed with Chomsky, to an extent, is in the way the US treated Manning initially. I am under the impression that the guy was mistreated at first, this happened without having a sentence. This is not to say that I think Manning should have been given a free pass. The US should have arrested him, put him on a trial and convict him appropriately. I do not whether due process was followed as it should have been.

But then Judge Afiuni, who is in prison simply because Hugo Chavez order it, for having followed the letter of the law, is an entirely different case. Now Chomsky can do all sort of intellectual contortions to justify his [a]moral relativism, but the fact remains: he's an avowed apologists of deranged communist dictators and Manning's and Afiuni's cases just couldn't be more dissimilar. 

Dick Stanley said...

Well, they say everyone comes around in the end. But Chomsky? Naw.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Thanks for the clarification, Alek. However, re the point of US (or, rather, the army) mistreating Manning: this is not a proven fact. Manning was kept for a while in a military brig indeed, which is the fact used by accusers to prove his mistreatment. But have you asked yourself why it constitutes mistreatment of Manning specifically? How was his fate different from that of any other soldier kept in the brig?

SnoopyTheGoon said...

That true. This bugger will not come around, just to the end.

Alek Boyd said...

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that what was done to Manning was different to what has been done to others. I can't possibly know for certain. Where I, yuck, may agree to an extent with Chomsky is on whether or not due process was followed. If it was, then fine. If not, then the US did wrong.

In Afiuni's case, due process doesn't even come into the picture.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Well, I know about two armies in this world and read about several more. One of the many uniform traits of all armies is that their legal processess are exceedingly slow and the second trait is that while the process continues, the soldier is treated as guilty.

The other trait is stonewalling, which armies raised to the level of art. Superhuman and wondrous.