Monday, April 9, 2007
There will be a protest outside Newton South High School to coincide with the appearance of Noam Chomsky there. Here is the email circulating:
Demonstrators needed to show a significant presence in opposition to Noam Chomsky speaking to students at Newton South High School. He is speaking during lunchtime. Details of the exact time and location will be sent as soon as information is received...
It is critical to us, to the students and to the school authorities that we stand up in opposition to the outrageous choice of a well known anti-Israel, anti-American basher that allows him to come into our neighborhood schools to present twisted information to our young people.
For further information e-mail CJUI-Mass@hotmail.com
Here is an article on the Chomsky appearance: Newton South stands by Noam Chomsky invitation
Here's an excellent Op-Ed by Newton TAB columnist Tom Mountain: Chomsky at Newton South
What goes on in Chomsky’s mind would baffle the psychiatrist, let alone the columnist. The volume of information indicting him is so acute it leaves one to gasp in astonishment that any intelligent responsible school administrator would invite him to address an auditorium of high school students. There is no viable excuse other than the underlying probability that a cabal of extremist Newton educators is so virulently anti-American, so viciously anti-Israel, they would gleefully invite one of the most notorious propagandists of the last 40 years to complement their dirty work...
Newton officials are already no-doubt already congratulating themselves for their bravery in standing up for Chomsky's right to appear (which he does not have). This of course takes no bravery at all. What would be brave is for some educator to state unequivocally not just that they take no position with regard to Chomsky's politics, but that they actually disassociate themselves from him, that in spite of the fact that he may speak, they believe his appearance holds no educational value other than in the negative. Did anyone speak out against the horrible piece of propagandistic trash the same student group showed, "Peace, Propaganda and the Holy Land?" Somehow I doubt it. That would mean someone actually taking a moral stand, and that doesn't seem to happen very much these days.
Chomsky may have a right to use his mouth, but those in charge of teaching kids have mouths and a right to use them as well. What use do they make of them other than in defense to the likes of Chomsky?
Update:
10:00--11:00AM Media, parents, and some pro-Israel activists arrive.
11:00 Am -12:15 Speaker addresses students in auditorium. Parents may listen from another area. No videos etc.
2:40 PM Students leave school. ( A good time from them to see a large group of anti-Chomsky demonstrators with signs. Activists should hand out literature for students to bring home.)
Directions: Going East toward Boston take right onto Parker St off Rt.9 About three blocks up see signs on left to Newton South High School. Brandeis Rd. is close to entrance to High School. Look for Melissa from Christians and Jews United for Israel with signs and literature.
"I might totally disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Education is to understand such disagreements, and to enable students to think for themselves - and clearly.
I totally disagree with what you say about Chomsky. The school has a right to invite him, and you have a right to disagree.
If your view prevails, that is tantamount to indoctrination and control of the learner - nothing whatever to do with their education.
I don't like anything about Noam Chomsky, but I don't think it's a good idea to try to stop him from speaking, especially in such as minor venue as a local high school.
Admittedly, it's hard to know where to draw the line. The case for blocking of Wheels for Justice, or at least for limiting their exposure, may have made some sense. But Chomsky is a recognized and respected name,even if his research methods and reasoning powers leave a lot to be desired (a whole lot!).
This protest really is a case of suppressing someone's right to speak. Should we still react with righteous indignation when Muslim students block Dershowitz or Netanyahu from speaking at universities? After all, these speakers are just as odious to that crowd as Chomsky is to us.
Moreover, I think it is a foolish idea to draw attention to such a minor event. You'll only add to Chomsky's exposure and make him look a bit like a martyr. His own supporters will play it up and present him as a brave man.
I usually hate the bromide that the cure for bad speech is "more speech," because it usually ignores situations in which the decks are stacked against one side. But I think that it does apply here. Just as at Brandeis, let Chomsky be balanced by a speaker who represents an opposing point of view. Or let a few speakers come at different dates to represent several points along a spectrum of opinions. The students won't have the factual background or intellectual sophistication to evaluate what they hear, but at least they'll be made aware that there are different opinions out there.
Educators have a responsibility to educate, not dump a lot of crap in a box and hope the kids figure it all out on their own. That's not how it works. There's no way they have the tools to sort out someone like Chomsky. He's being brought in (to a place he has NO right to) by people who are clearly offering him under the pretense that he offers value.
I said he "may" have the right to be there since he's been invited by people apparently following the rules (although if you note the letter I printed in the earlier entry, you'll see the previous principal set up the rules to make it more difficult to have a controversial person like this -- in that case, no "pro-Israel" speaker without a "pro-Palestinian"). All I want to know is someone there going to live up to their educational and civic responsibility by speaking straight about what Chomsky is all about.
Grade schoolers are, indeed, being indoctrinated. That's what school is for -- building civic values and getting a good education. Teaching professionals who know something to be wrong right in front of their faces but say nothing aren't going their jobs.
The community, through this protest and their letting the mayor and the principal hear from them, is doing what they can as far as their responsibility allows them.
I agree, Joanne, that it's always a big question mark as to how much attention to give characters like Chomsky and events like this. I wrestle with that all the time when deciding what to bother making an issue of on this blog. If I posted every time the doofs at the Green Rainbow Party said something silly even I, with this little blog, would be giving them more attention than they deserve.
In this case the invitation has already wound so many people up that the issue is there, and the protest is going to happen. I'm not the organizer, I'm just passing the word. They have my blessing.
The New York Times described Chomsky as "the most important intellectual alive today".
If that is the case - and I think it is - then why can't students be given the opportunity to listen to "the most important intellectual alive today" - and to draw their own conclusions ?
As to the comment : "There's no way they (students) have the tools to sort out someone like Chomsky" - that is palpable nonsense.
If that is not nonsense, then the teachers are at fault for not providing their students with the critical "tools" strong enough to think clearly for themselves.
They're HIGH SCHOOL students. Of COURSE they don't have the tools to sort the lies from one of the most prolific dishonest narrators in academia. They're predisposed to respect an authority figure like Chomsky. He thrives on that.
This is good. We've come to something. I do not agree with the premise, and neither do the parents and taxpayers, who have a right to a say in their kids' educations, giving the school an earful.
Given this disparity in first principles is there anything else to discuss?
Would it be preferable to arrange a presentation in contrast or rebuttal to Chomsky's?
One of the joys of living in America is the vast amount of opinion we get to hear (for better or for worse!)
As a matter of bad and worse choices, I would think it would be necessary, in fact, to stage a rebuttal.
I can understand, however, that parents do not want a supporter of Hizballah being given a platform in the school to lecture their kids in the first place.
"Would it be preferable to arrange a presentation in contrast or rebuttal to Chomsky's?"
That was my point exactly in my original comment to this posting.
Hight school students would at least understand that someone like Chomsky is not the be all and end all. They'd understand that you can have charismatic and articulate people on both sides of the question. That alone would be enlightening for them.
There's such a thin line between guidance and censorship.
"One of the most prolific dishonest narrators in academia" - Solomon on Chomsky.
That comment betrays disgraceful prejudice - even a child can se that.
I sincerely hope you get no-where near my children as they try to learn tolerance and understanding.
Tolerance and understanding? In the same breath as Chomsky, a man who wields the most vicious rhetoric toward his "enemies," and travels abroad for the sole purpose of glad-handing with the terrorist murderers of Americans and Jews? Puh-lease.
Solomon, with all due respect, why are you arguing with Chomsky fanbois? You know that goes nowhere fast.
Eh, sometimes you just feel compelled to respond.
Yeah, I get you.
It's important to 'play the ball, not the man' - which means that it's important to attack the ideas of an individual, not the individual.
You appear to be 'playing the man'.
Faurisson Affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair
"The Faurisson affair is a term given to an academic controversy in the wake of a book by Robert Faurisson, a Holocaust denier. The scandal largely dealt with the inclusion of an essay by Noam Chomsky,"
"A number of French intellectuals criticized Chomsky's signing of the petition, describing the extent of Faurisson's Holocaust denial and his ties to neo-Nazi groups [3]. In particular, Pierre Vidal-Naquet criticized the wording of the petition as "scandalous", saying that it implied Faurisson was a serious researcher in search of truth and not a propagandist"
Would Chomsky sign a petition supporting the right of the KKK to defame black people?
The 'Faurisson Affair' has been addressed numerous times by Chomsky himself - and I'm sure he would address it again, if asked - for example - by the students of the 'Social Awareness Group' at Newton South.
That's what freedom of speech is all about - isn't it ?
There is an excellent essay that lays out the Chomsky/Faurisson history by Oliver Kamm, here:
http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/chomsky_and_hol.html
Personally, I am far more interested in what Noam Chomsky has to say in response to the 'Faurisson' affair, rather than Oliver Kamm - who seems to have an extremely unhealthy, pathological 'fixation' against him.
As I said before, 'play the ball, not the man'.
My own view concerning Oliver Kamm is : "Get a life, Ollie".
Yes, I've often found Chomsky's fans to be uninterested in serious criticism of the man and what he has said and done. "Chomsky speak, we nod..."
The "Farrisoun Affair" signaled to "the left", to "progressive mental illness" types (the type of mental illness that gets progressively worse over time), that it's OK to bash Israel and Jews in the must scurlious way since WW2.
Chomsky is tarnished in the worst way possible but Chomsky "fanbois" chose to ignore that black mark just as Stalinists chose to ignore the Molotov/Ribbentrop non-aggression pact.
Chomsky continues to perpetuate the myth of the "Palestinians". There were no people living in Israel before its creation. Do you know any? I say when 6 million of your people die, you have a right to do anything you damn well please and the world owes you everything. Chomsky criticized the prudent Israeli bombing of Lebanon. He fails to mention that Israel had and has a right to defend itself from hospitals that breed terrorists. If the babies live, they most likely grow up to be suicide bombers. I say get them before they grow up to blow up a bus. And its know that no babies are ever born in these hospitals. The terrorist put them there as human shield. I'd like to see the self-hating jew mention that sometime.
I'm sure the 'Social Awareness Group' at Newton South would be more than interested to also hear your opinions, Mr Rosenbloom.
"Would Chomsky sign a petition supporting the right of the KKK to defame black people?"
Sure. But you appear to be ignorant of French laws, denying the holocaust is a criminal offence there. They don't have freedom of speech. The KKK has freedom of speech in the US. So it's not the same thing.
Chomsky and his publisher have actually been prosecuted by the government of Turkey because in one of his books he talks about the horrible situation of the Kurds in Turkey. Whis is not allowed there, because they don't have freedom of speech. He actually went to the trial. But like Pamuk, they let them go ofcourse. So Chomsky is quite a principled man to actually bother to show up in a foreign country to go on trial.
Reminds me of the time when France wanted to make the denial of the Armenian genocide a criminal offence, Hrant Dink actually wanted to go to France and deny the Armenian genocide because he, like Chomsky, is in favor of freedom of speech. Dink has been prosecuted 3 times by Turkey because recognizing(!) the Armenian genocide is a crime there.
So yeah, luckily there are people who defend freedom of speech. Too bad there are so few of'm left.
"I'm saying if you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech you don't like...Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked...So was Stalin.
"If you're in favor of freedom of speeech, that means you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise, otherwise you're not in favor of freedom of speech."
(Noam Chomsky - University of Washington, Seattle 1993)
Chompsky is not a proponent of "freedom of speech" when he supports those who would DENY "freedom of speech" for Jews.
Has Chompsky criticised Cuba or the former Soviet Union for LACK of "freedom of speech" as often has he criticises Israel?
Has Chomsky signed any petitions that demand the freedom to print the "Mohammed" cartoons?
Has Chomsky signed any petitions or written on the LACK of "freedom of speech" in the Islamist world?
Does Chomsky support the right of Don Imus to say the dumb things he said about the Rutgers womens basketball team?
If so can you point the article penned by Chomsky?
Will Chomsky go to bat for Imus as Chomsky went to bat for Farisson - or in Chomskys world is defaming Jews OK but defaming black women NOT OK?
Sure he does. Except you also have a problem understanding french laws, since Faurisson was legally prosecuted unlike Don Imus for instance. Freedom of speech doesn't actually exist outside the United States.
About the Mohammed cartoons:
[i]I’m sure you are aware of the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. What is your opinion on this debate?[/i]
I just take it from the Danish press. One of the main newspapers, Information, I think, published on 15 February a background of what had happened. They reported that the Minister of Culture in Denmark gave a speech at a conservative conference, where they quoted some abusive, vicious, racist speech attacking the Muslim minority for not being truly Danes, and not conforming to Danish culture, and virtually called for an attack on the Muslim minority, which I think is seven per cent. And a couple of days later Jyllandsposten printed the cartoons. They regarded it as a consequence; they said, yes, it was a consequence of the Minister of Culture’s decision to wage an ideological war on the Muslim minority. It was no issue of freedom of press; it was no issue of freedom of expression. [b] This is just ordinary racism under cover of freedom of expression. And, yes, they should have the right to. The New York Times should have the right to publish anti-Semitic Nazi caricatures on the front page. That should be a legal right. Are they going to exercise their right? No. So if you do it is another reason. In fact Jyllandsposten, as you probably know, a couple of years earlier had turned down cartoons caricaturing Jesus, on the grounds that it would create a public uproar. I mean, this is just pure hypocrisy, quite apart from that fact that in Europe freedom of speech and freedom of the press is barely protected, in fact barely understood[/b], including even in England which has terrible laws and practices regarding freedom of the press. [b]In fact this is one respect where the United States really stands out. It is the only country I know of which there is real judicial protection for freedom of speech.[/b] I don’t know Norway that well, but the main countries in Europe don’t have it. And even the concept is not understood, literally, it’s not understood. One example, which is far from the worst: the British passed a law, it hasn’t been implemented yet, there is some debate about how to formulate it. But the Blair government is going to push a law making it a crime to glorify terrorism. When a Muslim cleric was imprisoned recently on charges of having glorified terrorism, the London Guardian had a lead editorial praising the judicial decision because people shouldn’t be permitted to spew hatred and to glorify violent acts, they should be stopped. Under that law virtually all the British press and publishers should be closed down. Do they incite hatred and violence? Yes. Do they support invading Iraq? Yes. That is supporting hatred and violence. I mean everyone agrees that even how awful terrorism is, aggression is far more severe than terrorism. So therefore if glorifying terrorism is a crime and inciting popular support for terrorism is a crime, then glorifying aggression, and helping incite popular support for aggression is a far more severe crime. Why don’t we put them all in jail? Do you hear anybody talking about that? No, and the reason is that nobody cares about freedom of speech. What they care about is using state power to shut down the kind of speech they don’t like. Even Stalin would have agreed with that.
Perhaps we ought to discuss how and why the US has given Israel a nuclear capability in the Middle East - thus the term 'USrael'.
Perhaps we also ought to discuss how and why Israel sometimes acts independently from its 'master bankroller' - in other words, a dangerous 'loose cannon'.
Perhaps we also ought to discuss how and why 'USrael' and 'USK' ('The International Community') have been participating in 'State Terrorism' for many, many years - and who then started a 'War on Terror' after 9/11.
It's rather like a fox in a chicken run putting up a sign 'No Foxes Allowed'.
The US hasn't given Israel a nuclear capability, France helped build the Israeli reactor.
So Israel is derisively called "USrael," while simultaneously being derided for being independent...which is it? Please don't answer.
And here I was thinking it was the terrorists who had started the War on Terror ON 9/11...
The US started the "War on Terror" after 9/11.
Islamofascists started their "War Of Terror" BEFORE the 9/11 sneak attack.
Read the newspapers regarding the attacks on fellow Muslims in Iraq and Algeria?
Islamofascism is the latest threat threatening the entire world.
It all depends what you mean by "terrorist".
If we look at the dictionary definition, the US has been a major 'state terrorist', with its Full Spectrum Dominance (FSD) foreign policy, for any years.
Islamo-fascist terrorism is rife, just as JudaeoChristian-fascist terrorism is rife.
What I mean by "terrorist" are your heroes who hijacked 4 commercial airliners on 9/11 and murdered close to 3,000 people.
Gee, you left out Socialist-fascist, as in naztional Socialist-fascist.
I won't dignify that dangerous nonsense with a response.
I guess you are offended with the historical links between Socialist-fascist and nazitional-Socialist-fascist - ala the Stalin/Hitler non-aggression pact of 1939.
Do you refer to 9/11 as "blowback" or "chickens coming home to roost" too?
Read my lips, Eddie :
The US has become a terrorist state - its foreign policy has promoted terror across the world for years - especially through its satellite state of Israel.
People who read the above and go into a temper tantrum, usually accuse the likes of me as being 'Anti-American' or 'Anti-Semite' or whatever the name-calling.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not Anti-American or Anti-Semite - I just don't like global bullies who use religion, democracy, or whatever, as a cover for their terrorist activities.
Eddie, go read Matthew Chapter 7 verses 1 to 5 - while at the same time looking in the mirror.
And, please, less of the stupid name-calling. It doesn't help your case. 'Play the ball not the man', or you will laughed out of court.
Gee, the last person I heard say "Read my lips" was George Herbert Walker Bush, something about no new taxes, and he lied.
Richard, which country meets your "high" standards of behavior?
Perhaps Cuba or Saudi Arabia or Iran or Egypt or Sudan or Pakistan or "Palestine" or Indonesia or
North Korea?
If I left out your favorite example, please let us know.
You ask me, Eddie : "Which countries meet my high standards of behaviour ?"
My answer is : States (countries) are individuals writ large. Individuals are fallible human beings - so therefore are states.
No one is perfect, therefore no country is perfect - it is an endless quest on the part of the individual and the state.
Systems of government are thus imperfect systems - whether they be Fascist, Communist, Capitalist or Socialist.
We are all part of an imperfect system - whatever type it is - but we should strive to improve such systems - not seek to destroy another's system by killing those within it.
Let me rephrase this for your delicate sensibilities,
How about which country comes CLOSEST to your standards of behavior - or which country would you feel most comfortable being a proud citizen of?
I'm guessing that the US and Israel won't be on your list, but please take a minute to consider the question.
I am English. I love England. I am proud of my country. It's the best - but I'm biased.
But that does NOT mean I love my government - the state.
If I am critical of Tony Blair and his government - which I am - that does not make me anti-British.
In the same way, if I am critical of George Bush and his government - which I am - that does not make me Anti-American.
In the same way, if I am critical of Israel - which I am - that does not make me an anti-Semite.
I don't like bullies who use terror tactics to get what they want - and I don't like liars and killers, whatever country, or system of government, they originate from.
You say you're British...
Which British political party best represents your views?
Which British politician would you want to see as Prime Minister because they uphold your values in domestic and foreign policy?
Eddie, I'm political - but not party-political.
In fact, I'm independent - so much so that I'm standing as an Independent in the local elections here on May 3 - and have done so for a number of years.
I see the old Left-Right conflicts (to which you allude) as obsolete 20th century party-politics - totally inadequate to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Your avoidance of answering a simple question is noted.
You're not British, you're Trollish. Bumped your pointy head again?
I read Mr Rosenbloom's comment, before it was advisedly deleted just now.
My response : Any decent human being with an ounce of humanity left in his soul - especially those who can read the American Declaration of Independence - would have discerned your last (deleted) contribution as lethally-dangerous nonsense.
Eddie - ask me a simple question, and I will provide you with a simple answer - as long as you can do the same in return.
And being British and Trollish might be quite fun...
For the record, I removed "Saul Rosenbloom"'s comment (two, actually, and something I almost never do), because he was quite clearly a troll intentionally posting outrageous things under a Jewish sounding name. I've left one of his as, I thought, it was a rather obvious nonsense but I don't want it distracting over and over. One's enough.
Actually, Solomon, the contributions of "Saul Rosenbloom" are quite mild when compared to some of the lunatics on FrontPage.com.
With that said, the Wisdom of Solomon has been properly exercised, by deleting his outrageous comments here - in my opinion.
My (measured) congratulation to you.