By way of imagining the real world, Southeast Asia Sounding: 1/18/2010:
I previously mentioned a review of the “Chomsky/Cambodia” debate. For those not familiar with this eternally recurring ideologically-driven nightmare, Noam Chomsky, internationally the most respected intellectual in the world (if one is to judge by citation, a common measure), is repeatedly accused of having been a Khmer Rouge apologist during the years 1975-1979. It is implied in most of these critiques that Chomsky’s immense influence with US architects of foreign policy somehow made the suffering of Cambodians under Pol Pot’s frankly evil regime worse. Horse-hockey. Here is the latest set of articles in this debate. If you read any of them, please do yourself a favor and read all of them, and to very carefully weigh the arguments made by each, and consider what position is more solid. I know my answer, but I’m convinced that the silly ad hominems and pseudo-moralism passing for serious discussion and debate is not worthwhile, and that careful, personal examination of the real facts is more persuasive.
* “Lost in Cambodia,” by Andrew Anthony. Times of London, January 10, 2010
* “Malcolm Caldwell: a carefully redesigned version of history,” by Noam Chomsky. The Guardian, January 17, 2010
* “Never apologize, never explain,” by Oliver Kamm. Times of London, January 17, 2010.
See also : Noam Chomsky on Cambodia, “West Midlands Anarchists”/Paul Bogdanor.
Note to self:
1) Chomsky is essentially soft on rightwing militia depending on where they come from;
2) Chomsky supports the increase of guns and armaments into a volatile region of the world, the Middle East;
3) Chomsky wouldn’t support the arming of rightwing militia in the United States, because that’s a bit too close to home, yet he’s happy for rightwing militia in Lebanon to be up to their eyeballs in guns rockets and other useless killing machinery;
4) that is not the stance of a consistent intellectual, and certainly not the world’s greatest intellectual.