Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (133472)	8/20/2005 7:40:19 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793771

Bill, I don't see where we have to go in this conversation about Pipes. I noticed you bolded the quotes from Foner and Gilmore. Foner is one of our more eminent American historians. I would have to see the quote in context, but would not be surprised that arguments justifying imperialism are essentially the same across a great many imperial powers. And I think you've endorsed the now Harvard economist and former NYU economist and former either Cambridge or Oxford economist views (Niall Fergusson) that the US is certainly an imperial power. That's a fairly straightforward analytical position, one that can be argued for or against, but the holding of which hardly qualifies as unpatriotic. Even if it were held as a political position to oppose, that's a patriotic position in the interests of a broader conception of patriotism than what I called the crabbed chauvinistic one of Pipes. As for Gilmore, I don't know her work. I would have to see those comments in context. Pipes is not to be trusted with quotes. As for Chomsky, I fail to see any evidence for your claim that his views are "prevalent" in the academy. It's simply not so. Not even close. Nor if you take your claim that Chomsky's attitude is that "America is the root of all evil" and disengage it from Chomsky, just ask is that attitude prevalent, you would have to offer far more evidence than I've seen here for that assertion. Certainly the notion that someone posted here, that 90% of all academics are Dems cannot possibly count. Those numbers require some examination. But even if true, I know you wouldn't claim that is evidence of the prevalence. That's a strong word, "prevalence". I repeat. I don't see where this conversation is going.