You cannot see me, but I shall visit your blog often from now on. It is very fun that I think it is the best I can accept.

Regards,
make extra money

The only aggravating thing is that his site doesn’t do RSS, so my aggragator won’t pick it up.

At any rate: Sometimes Kamm writings are a bit circumlocutory, but I forgive him for that on the basis that he’s thoughtful and principled. I also temper that criticism with the fact that Chomsky’s rhetoric is nothing but circumlocution, in both text and references, in combination with advanced selectivity in facts. He’s really a surgeon, I must admit, in how he manages to excise facts from context so cleanly; a plastic surgeon couldn’t hide extraction scars so well. Kamm’s writings on Chomsky’s various hatchet jobs on Senator Patrick Moynihan’s quotes (whew!) really illuminates the degree that Chomsky goes to in order to twist facts in his arguments (example link). In that, Kamm provides a valuable service.

Example (taken from link above):
…”note the trickery involved in Chomsky’s remark, “A sign of the success [Moynihan] adds, is that within a year, ‘the subject disappeared from the press.'” Moynihan says nothing at all about a disappearance of press coverage being “a sign of success”. Chomsky has taken a genuine quotation, wrenched it out of context, and provided a new context that clearly conveys to the reader that the words “a sign of success” are an accurate paraphrase of what is to be found in the book. They are not: Chomsky is lying.”

I don’t agree with everything that Kamm stands for — he’s very much a leftist, through and through — but I respect the hell out of him for sticking to the truth in the face of all the abuse the Chomsky followers heap on him. Even where we differ, I have respect for him. I say it again: His writings are a valuable service to correct the misapprehensions that Chomsky delivers.

The only charge of any real substance involves Charles Kennedy’s warning that an invasion would lead to a refugee crisis. This was disproven by the Iraqi people, according to Kamm, who, by ‘staying put’ demonstrated that they grasped that the attack was a ‘war on tyranny’ rather than a war on them.

The author then goes on at length to speculate on possible reasons, other than a lack of fear of Coalition forces, that the Iraqis did not go into a refugee mode during the war. But isn’t it clear now, especially to those who read the milblogs, that the ordinary Iraqi citizen had no fear & still has no fear of Coalition forces? It must upset the author that the Iraqis did not & do not fear Coalition soldiers because that perception tends to promote an image of Coalition & American benevolence, all the more potent because it was & is an assumption by the very citizens of the country of the despot being toppled. Besides, Kamm’s main point, that the predicted refugee crisis never materialized, is irrefutable.

It must be tough for some anti-warriors, the ones who are not totally emotionally invested in keeping the Iraq war from being successful. There was the capture of Saddam, just when they were ready to accord him legend status. There were the elections attended by overwhelming numbers & the constitution written by the Iraqis. There’s the low casualties. There’s the high morale of the American troops in Iraq. The Iraqi army steadily grows in strength & competence. There’s the fading hope of civil war that is taking too long to happen. And there’s the fact that most Americans, despite some impatience with the war, still seem reluctant to pull out of Iraq peremptorily. There also may be the slowly dawning realization that Bush has no intention of withdrawing no matter how low his poll numbers, that apparently Bush’s actions are not governed by the constraints of most politicians. There must be a small voice, if they are not too full of hatred of Bush, almost inaudible but definitely speaking in their mind’s ear, muttering, “You are wrong.”

And a review of Kamm’s “Anti-totalitarianism” appears here: http://www.newstatesman.com/Bookshop/300000108168

http://manyangrygerbils.typepad.com/many_angry_gerbils/2006/03/oliver_kamm_the.html

Maggs

Also, to elaborate on Chomsky: I’ve seen him speak twice in person in university lecture halls (2 different venues) that were filled, over filled, with closed circuit tv in the nearby hallways, as well as a couple times on CSPAN; I’ve also read 3 or 4 of his books. What makes his rhetoric so appealing to a 20-year-old mind is the appalling reductionism of his cant. I have to put up with ignorant department heads and deans on a daily basis, but at least they don’t publish their stupidity. Here is a link to an excellent analysis of one of his books:
http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/tburke1/Readings%20and%20Rereadings/readings1.html

Also, to elaborate on Chomsky: I’ve seen him speak twice in person in university lecture halls (2 different venues) that were filled, over filled, with closed circuit tv in the nearby hallways, as well as a couple times on CSPAN; I’ve also read 3 or 4 of his books. What makes his rhetoric so appealing to a 20-year-old mind is the appalling reductionism of his cant. I have to put up with ignorant department heads and deans on a daily basis, but at least they don’t publish their stupidity. Here is a link to an excellent analysis of one of his books:
http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/tburke1/Readings%20and%20Rereadings/readings1.html

On political issues he is basically Manichaen.