By the way, I just found this: Chomsky Is Citation Champ Now I don't feel as bad after your admonition for having read his essay, about which incidentally, you still didn't provide any specific argument from his essay where you think he is wrong (and no, "King of the Anarchy Fucktards" isn't a convincing argument to any of his specific points in his essay, anyone worth reading would find better argument.)
Why waterboard them? Take away their towels, shave their heads (lice prevention), and replace their Korans with Bibles. They'll be babbling useful intelligence.
What Not to Learn from bin Laden’s Killing http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/what-not-to-learn-from-bin-laden’s-killing/
If I recall correctly, AW's BFF thar played a wannabe hitman in Warhol's "Bad". If you can find a torrent, it's definitely worth the download.
If there's no dox, then it's just a Cool Story. As I recall, a lot of experts feel that the information obtained by torture is usually so unreliable that it's worse than useless.
Hmmm... I certainly wasn't trying to make you feel bad. As I said, read whoever you want. But if you're interested in international relations, Chomsky's not yer dood. International relations is neither an Art nor a Humanity. Funny, I've gotten most of the way through a doctorate and haven't cited him once. His views on anarchy are a little like your podiatrist's views on the union mess in Wisconsion. Interesting, maybe, but irrelevant. You are absolutely correct that I have not provided any arguments rebutting anything Noam Chomsky has to say in his article. The combination of it being written by him and it originally being hosted on Tomdispatch lets me know that it's not worth any serious intellectual pursuit. Put another way, it's a little like asking me why I haven't bothered refuting the article written by Michael Moore in Cracked magazine about losing weight. It's an article written by a well-known leftie apologist who doesn't know what they are talking about "published" in an admittedly entertaining, but completely irrelevant, forum. As I said before; it's entertainment. No more, no less.
Could you name some authors and political essays that are in your opinion worth of intellectual pursuit?
Heh. Translation: "I have no arguments, so I will continue to impugn on his intellect." I am not surprised, I thought what he said made sense, it was well supported by the observed contemporary U.S. foreign policy.
Greenwald has a good answer to that: What proof waterboarding supporters have that the same information could not have been obtained in any other (legal) ways?
That was a very well reasoned article from the Cato Institute. I would ask how often someone from my end of the political spectrum agrees with Cato, but the answer is "any time they're not discussing money and the proper scope of government." That still leaves a pretty good amount of overlap.
The picture however was removed by Imageshack.us And by the way, it isn't fake. Osama himself confirmed it as an official statement in this video: click Warning: Funny disturbing image! Click here for a mirror.
Lorelei, he had countless paintings of psychedelic Campbell's tomato soup cans. It's pretty hard to get more fucked up than that.
Or maybe his recreational drug use stopped being for fun and became a way of life. I get his point that anything can be art, and I even agree with it to some degree, but just because anything can be art doesn't mean it should be celebrated. I would have laughed, however, had he done his series about Massengill instead.
FIFY I didn't impugn his intellect. Reading comprehension, FTW. The essence of my argument is that Noam Chomsky has no more business commenting on international relations than I have commenting on his linguistic work. The essence of your argument seems to be "I liek Noam Chomsky's article, therefore you don't know what you're talking about." I really enjoy reading Scott Sagan. That doesn't change the fact that his arguments in The Spread of Nuclear Weapons are poorly supported and stretch the meaning of qualitative argument to include "feelings". By the way, if Sagan, or Waltz, or Wendt, or Bueno de Mesquita wrote an article about philosophy or linguistics, I wouldn't have any problem with someone pointing out that they are out of their league. By the way, that is a great article by Ben Friedman. Incidentally, Ben Friedman has the bona fides to discuss this subject with a fair level of expertise and knowledge.
I said I thought the points he made in his essay made sense (granted, I like when people make sense.) It's a pattern now, you keep deflecting providing sound arguments of why (at least some) his specific arguments are wrong (i.e., you don't make sense.) Essentially you want me to accept he is a "Fucktard" (contraction of "fucking retard", and that would be the "impugn on his intellect" which you hilariously denied you did), without specifically highlighting at specific "Fucktardness" in the essay I referred to in order to convince me that his essay (or at least part of) does not actually make sense.
I'll give you a list of periodicals as well as some authors: International Security (This journal especially...) Security Studies Contemporary Security Policy Security Dialogue International Studies Quarterly Foreign Affairs World Politics International Studies Perspectives Review of International Studies International Organization Authors: Kenneth Waltz Bruce Hoffman Scott Sagan Robert Gilpin Hans Morgenthau Stephen Walt Michael Brown Tom Schelling Steven Miller Samuel Huntington Richard Betts Robert Jervis Zeev Maoz Robert Keohane Amartya Sen Bruce Russett John O'Neal Greta Van Susteren (ha ha, just kidding) Alex Wendt Ted Gurr Bruce Bueno de Mesquita Ethan Bueno de Mesquita (BDM's son) Mark Lichbach Karen Rasler Christian Davenport Barbara Harff Barbara Walter Victor Asal Karl Rethemeyer Claude Berribi Mark Juergensmeyer Efraim Benmelech Claude Berrebi Jessica Stern Honestly, some of the above authors have some pretty impenetrable stuff that makes my head hurt. And, some of them have the balls to be wrong. But, I think you'll find a good mix of academics that know their way around international relations, security studies and foreign policy.
My calling him King of the Fucktards is in response to his beliefs concerning anarchy which, in my opinion, are laughable. There, now I've told you why I don't think his thoughts on IR are worth reading and I've explained why I feel that way. By the way, I don't want you to accept that he's a fucktard. Believe whatever you want. I believe that he has neither the education nor experience to make a legitimate academic contribution to this discussion. If you think his essay made sense, good on ya. Tell you what, I even did the intellectually honest thing and researched what I believe to be your perspective: Noam Chomsky knows what he's talking about when it comes to international relations. To that end, I found an article from Mark Laffey (with whom I am, honestly, not familiar) called, Discerning the patterns of world order: Noam Chomsky and international theory after the Cold War. You can find it here. To be fair, I learned a few things. One of the things I learned (or had confirmed) is that I am hardly alone in my feelings within my field. Here is a sample from the paper: Which I will balance with: I will reiterate that I think that Noam Chomsky has a lot to contribute and is doubtlessly brilliant. But, between his devotion to anarchy and his myopic view of American foreign policy, his "contributions" to international relations are hardly first rate and, while there is danger in group think, I think that when most of an intellectual/academic community rejects someone's work, there is generally a pretty good reason.
Heh. Still not a single counter-arguments to anything specific in the essay he wrote which I thought made sense. Puzzling: It should be quite easy if he is so wrong, isn't?
If you dig back a little bit, you'll note that I didn't read it and I'm not going to read it. I'm sure you can set yourself to "Maximum Gloat" at that but if you could pull Chomsky's cock out of your mouth for just a second, you'll hear me saying that the guy isn't an IR scholar, treats what I do for a living as an avocation and, frankly, his inability to take a neutral stance on any IR issue is intellectually offensive to me. I'll put it another way. If Qaddadfi wrote an article about human rights, free democratic election and understated uniform selection... would you read it just because someone said that they think he makes some really good points? I'm going to guess no. To put the shoe on the other foot, maybe you should use your obvious mastery of the subject to provide a critique of Chomsky's coffee coaster article? For shits and giggles, maybe you can weave in selected works from IR professionals concerning the more salient points in the article. Shit, find one author published in the last ten years of IS that has a favourable review of Chomsky's article and I'll sit down and read it. In short, you have yet to give me a reason why I should read the article and I've given you plenty of reasons why I have no desire to read any more of his blatantly and unapologetically leftist pap.
Because you said it was not worth reading. (After all the funny attempts at rationalizing why you won't read it, I get that he is sort of your own personal "entheta," amirite?)
That's a reasonably fair thing to say. I've read enough of the guy to think that his views on IR are pretty far off the mark and that his pet rock (all the world's woes are a result of American capitalism) is both tiresome and inaccurate. I will say this, if he writes an article called "I was waaaaay off", I'll give a perusal. Until then, I am pretty sure that UBL is still dead and it appears that his Casio is as interesting as our discussion about Mr. Chomsky.
