Here is a man who lives under the protection of the US constitution which provides for the freedom of speech to go to a foreign country and preach social revolution:
"I believe that in the United States there will be some day a social revolution that will be of great significance to us and to all of mankind, and if this hope is to be proven correct, it will be in large part because the people of Vietnam have shown us the way.
"While in Hanoi I have had the opportunity to read the recent and very important book by Le Duan on the problems and tasks of the Vietnamese revolution. In it, he says that the fundamental interests of the proletariat of the people of all the world consists in at the same time in safeguarding world peace and moving the revolution forward in all countries. This is our common goal. We only hope that we can build upon your historic achievements. Thank you."
If there is a revolution in this country Noam Chomsky and Jane Fonda are the two people who should be executed as traitors on the first day. They are not just dissidents, they are traitors. The definition of a traitor is in our constitution: Anyone who gives aid and comfort to our enemies. Intellectual and ideological support is even more comforting than supplying weapons with which to kill our soldiers.
I read the Solomon/Chomsky interview just now and though I pretty much agree with all that Chomsky said, the interview itself seemed highly contrived, as though, rather than actually interview Chomsky (who seemed rather bored and weary), she might have lifted quotes from other interviews and inserted questions of her own. Not good reporting or interviewing. But Chomsky is a champ(sky).
I think George Bush should be considered a traitor for giving aid and comfort to terrorists. Incompetence and hubris, leading to aid and comfort. (Except that, if I were a terrorist, I'd take a few years off after observing that George W. is doing so much more to ruin this country than O.b.L.)
Uh Oh----another name to add to the hall of shame.
Dart and Tart (I like the sound of that...perhaps a name for an english pub)
It's the Nim Chimpsky anecdote....just stuck in my noggin and pushes out all else.
craven
I really like words, and have never used any version of the smiley...I guess I consider it cheating. But though I love words, I don't do right by them too often, and I can write a post which means to be teasing or jocular and all fresh as springtime-smelling, yet it can come off my keyboard reeking like a poison-dipped arrow. If you took any negative intent or sentiment from my post, I assure you that was a consequence of lousy writing, and not anything other.
reading, not commenting because of lack of time
I don't think it's your fault, Blatham. I can't stand those little icons -- the crutches of the humorless. It's gotten to the point (have you noticed?) that many post-Boomers don't know you're supposed to laugh unless there's a laugh track -- or a smileyface. You have draw a picture of which emotion to have and when.
GROWL!
Re emoticons (if that's what they're still called): I admit to using them sometimes, but not too often. I agree with you both, Tartarin and blatham, re the use of them as crutches; the problem, I think, is more with this electronic medium. And I include email in this regard.
It's a flat means of expression--tone is hard to decipher sometimes. Hence the little symbols: "In case it's not obvious, I'm just kidding." But, for sure, a good writer should be able to express himself or herself with just words!
Irony is particularly tough, in that it is by it's nature of two faces. I'm terribly admiring of fellows like Trillin and Gary Trudeau for the lightness of touch.
The emoticon I really detest is the 'eyes rolling' one. Directed at self (almost never the case) it can be quite endearing, but when directed at a previous post, it communicates something on the order of "what planet of imbeciles are YOU from?" Now that may or may not be OK to communicate, but my preference is that if an insult is going to be tossed, then at least be creative about it...give the readers some artistry to temper the smug.
dys
For you, there ought to be that emoticon above, but with red-eye
(Laugh track -- 4 seconds.)
God! Won't it be awful when the technology advances to the point where it IS laugh tracks instead of emoticons?! There will likely be lots of creative options (along the lines of that hilarious Saturday Night Live bit on the James Brown Home Alert System...they'd taken out the shrill Brown scream from Papa's Got A Brand New Bag, and looped it really tight "OWW OWW OWW OWW OWW"...would have woken generations of dead people) but we know how many folks will just go with the easy cliched effects.
Incidentally, that was an actual e-mail from Noam Chomsky I posted. I think I see his point, and I opt to use the annoying rolling eye emoticon
