Thoughts on Chomsky's The Fate of an Honest Intellectual

thanks to Steve Hsu for the pointer
This was disheartening yet rang somewhat truthfully, the truth would set you free, but sometimes freedom means obscurity and a not so good life. I am somewhat reminded with “the Matrix” ‘s blue or red pill choice, I still don’t know what i would choose, I hope I choose well.
The Fate of an Honest Intellectual
Noam Chomsky
Excerpted from Understanding Power, The New Press, 2002, pp. 244-248
I’ll tell you another, last case—and there are many others like this. Here’s a story which is really tragic. How many of you know about Joan Peters, the book by Joan Peters? There was this best-seller a few years ago [in 1984], it went through about ten printings, by a woman named Joan Peters—or at least, signed by Joan Peters—called From Time Immemorial. It was a big scholarly-looking book with lots of footnotes, which purported to show that the Palestinians were all recent immigrants [i.e. to the Jewish-settled areas of the former Palestine, during the British mandate years of 1920 to 1948]. And it was very popular—it got literally hundreds of rave reviews, and no negative reviews: the Washington Post, the New York Times, everybody was just raving about it. Here was this book which proved that there were really no Palestinians! Of course, the implicit message was, if Israel kicks them all out there’s no moral issue, because they’re just recent immigrants who came in because the Jews had built up the country. And there was all kinds of demographic analysis in it, and a big professor of demography at the University of Chicago [Philip M. Hauser] authenticated it. That was the big intellectual hit for that year: Saul Bellow, Barbara Tuchman, everybody was talking about it as the greatest thing since chocolate cake.Well, one graduate student at Princeton, a guy named Norman Finkelstein, started reading through the book. He was interested in the history of Zionism, and as he read the book he was kind of surprised by some of the things it said. He’s a very careful student, and he started checking the references—and it turned out that the whole thing was a hoax, it was completely faked: probably it had been put together by some intelligence agency or something like that. Well, Finkelstein wrote up a short paper of just preliminary findings, it was about twenty-five pages or so, and he sent it around to I think thirty people who were interested in the topic, scholars in the field and so on, saying: “Here’s what I’ve found in this book, do you think it’s worth pursuing?”Well, he got back one answer, from me. I told him, yeah, I think it’s an interesting topic, but I warned him, if you follow this, you’re going to get in trouble—because you’re going to expose the American intellectual community as a gang of frauds, and they are not going to like it, and they’re going to destroy you. So I said: if you want to do it, go ahead, but be aware of what you’re getting into. It’s an important issue, it makes a big difference whether you eliminate the moral basis for driving out a population—it’s preparing the basis for some real horrors—so a lot of people’s lives could be at stake. But your life is at stake too, I told him, because if you pursue this, your career is going to be ruined.
Well, he didn’t believe me. We became very close friends after this, I didn’t know him before. He went ahead and wrote up an article, and he started submitting it to journals. Nothing: they didn’t even bother responding. I finally managed to place a piece of it in In These Times, a tiny left-wing journal published in Illinois, where some of you may have seen it. Otherwise nothing, no response. Meanwhile his professors—this is Princeton University, supposed to be a serious place—stopped talking to him: they wouldn’t make appointments with him, they wouldn’t read his papers, he basically had to quit the program.
By this time, he was getting kind of desperate, and he asked me what to do. I gave him what I thought was good advice, but what turned out to be bad advice: I suggested that he shift over to a different department, where I knew some people and figured he’d at least be treated decently. That turned out to be wrong. He switched over, and when he got to the point of writing his thesis he literally could not get the faculty to read it, he couldn’t get them to come to his thesis defense. Finally, out of embarrassment, they granted him a Ph.D.—he’s very smart, incidentally—but they will not even write a letter for him saying that he was a student at Princeton University. I mean, sometimes you have students for whom it’s hard to write good letters of recommendation, because you really didn’t think they were very good—but you can write something, there are ways of doing these things. This guy was good, but he literally cannot get a letter.
He’s now living in a little apartment somewhere in New York City, and he’s a part-time social worker working with teenage drop-outs. Very promising scholar—if he’d done what he was told, he would have gone on and right now he’d be a professor somewhere at some big university. Instead he’s working part-time with disturbed teenaged kids for a couple thousand dollars a year. That’s a lot better than a death squad, it’s true—it’s a whole lot better than a death squad. But those are the techniques of control that are around.
But let me just go on with the Joan Peters story. Finkelstein’s very persistent: he took a summer off and sat in the New York Public Library, where he went through every single reference in the book—and he found a record of fraud that you cannot believe. Well, the New York intellectual community is a pretty small place, and pretty soon everybody knew about this, everybody knew the book was a fraud and it was going to be exposed sooner or later. The one journal that was smart enough to react intelligently was the New York Review of Books—they knew that the thing was a sham, but the editor didn’t want to offend his friends, so he just didn’t run a review at all. That was the one journal that didn’t run a review.
Meanwhile, Finkelstein was being called in by big professors in the field who were telling him, “Look, call off your crusade; you drop this and we’ll take care of you, we’ll make sure you get a job,” all this kind of stuff. But he kept doing it—he kept on and on. Every time there was a favorable review, he’d write a letter to the editor which wouldn’t get printed; he was doing whatever he could do. We approached the publishers and asked them if they were going to respond to any of this, and they said no—and they were right. Why should they respond? They had the whole system buttoned up, there was never going to be a critical word about this in the United States. But then they made a technical error: they allowed the book to appear in England, where you can’t control the intellectual community quite as easily.
Well, as soon as I heard that the book was going to come out in England, I immediately sent copies of Finkelstein’s work to a number of British scholars and journalists who are interested in the Middle East—and they were ready. As soon as the book appeared, it was just demolished, it was blown out of the water. Every major journal, the Times Literary Supplement, the London Review, the Observer, everybody had a review saying, this doesn’t even reach the level of nonsense, of idiocy. A lot of the criticism used Finkelstein’s work without any acknowledgment, I should say—but about the kindest word anybody said about the book was “ludicrous,” or “preposterous.”
Well, people here read British reviews—if you’re in the American intellectual community, you read the Times Literary Supplement and the London Review, so it began to get a little embarrassing. You started getting back-tracking: people started saying, “Well, look, I didn’t really say the book was good, I just said it’s an interesting topic,” things like that. At that point, the New York Review swung into action, and they did what they always do in these circumstances. See, there’s like a routine that you go through—if a book gets blown out of the water in England in places people here will see, or if a book gets praised in England, you have to react. And if it’s a book on Israel, there’s a standard way of doing it: you get an Israeli scholar to review it. That’s called covering your ass—because whatever an Israeli scholar says, you’re pretty safe: no one can accuse the journal of anti-Semitism, none of the usual stuff works.
So after the Peters book got blown out of the water in England, the New York Review assigned it to a good person actually, in fact Israel’s leading specialist on Palestinian nationalism [Yehoshua Porath], someone who knows a lot about the subject. And he wrote a review, which they then didn’t publish—it went on for almost a year without the thing being published; nobody knows exactly what was going on, but you can guess that there must have been a lot of pressure not to publish it. Eventually it was even written up in the New York Times that this review wasn’t getting published, so finally some version of it did appear. It was critical, it said the book is nonsense and so on, but it cut corners, the guy didn’t say what he knew.
Actually, the Israeli reviews in general were extremely critical: the reaction of the Israeli press was that they hoped the book would not be widely read, because ultimately it would be harmful to the Jews—sooner or later it would get exposed, and then it would just look like a fraud and a hoax, and it would reflect badly on Israel. They underestimated the American intellectual community, I should say.
Anyhow, by that point the American intellectual community realized that the Peters book was an embarrassment, and it sort of disappeared—nobody talks about it anymore. I mean, you still find it at newsstands in the airport and so on, but the best and the brightest know that they are not supposed to talk about it anymore: because it was exposed and they were exposed.
Well, the point is, what happened to Finkelstein is the kind of thing that can happen when you’re an honest critic—and we could go on and on with other cases like that. [Editors’ Note: Finkelstein has since published several books with independent presses.]
Still, in the universities or in any other institution, you can often find some dissidents hanging around in the woodwork—and they can survive in one fashion or another, particularly if they get community support. But if they become too disruptive or too obstreperous—or you know, too effective—they’re likely to be kicked out. The standard thing, though, is that they won’t make it within the institutions in the first place, particularly if they were that way when they were young—they’ll simply be weeded out somewhere along the line. So in most cases, the people who make it through the institutions and are able to remain in them have already internalized the right kinds of beliefs: it’s not a problem for them to be obedient, they already are obedient, that’s how they got there. And that’s pretty much how the ideological control system perpetuates itself in the schools—that’s the basic story of how it operates, I think.chomsky.info

Flip Pride: Manny Pacman Pacquiao Edition

from the freakonomics blog:

Pacquiao vs. De La Hoya Bratton
By Steven D. Levitt
INSERT DESCRIPTIONPhoto: regelzam0ra
I’m pretty sure Manny Pacquiao is a better fighter than Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton. But who is the better crime fighter? At least for one day, it appears that Pacquiao wins that title as well.
Pacquiao squared off against Oscar De La Hoya in a highly anticipated boxing match last Saturday. Pacquiao won the match, but he accomplished something else that night.
According to this newspaper report, the criminals in the Philippines where Pacquiao is from were expected to suspend their activities in order to watch the boxing match. Not a single crime was reported in Metro Manila during Pacquiao’s last bout.
It is not just the criminals who put down their guns; an unofficial ceasefire took place between Philippine military forces and their rebel foes during the fight.
Hat tip: Tim Groseclose
Pacquiao vs. De La Hoya Bratton – Freakonomics Blog – NYTimes.com.

Flip Pride: Manny Pacman Pacquiao Edition

Image by sjsharktank via Flickr

from the freakonomics blog:

Pacquiao vs. De La Hoya Bratton
By Steven D. Levitt
INSERT DESCRIPTIONPhoto: regelzam0ra
I’m pretty sure Manny Pacquiao is a better fighter than Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton. But who is the better crime fighter? At least for one day, it appears that Pacquiao wins that title as well.
Pacquiao squared off against Oscar De La Hoya in a highly anticipated boxing match last Saturday. Pacquiao won the match, but he accomplished something else that night.
According to this newspaper report, the criminals in the Philippines where Pacquiao is from were expected to suspend their activities in order to watch the boxing match. Not a single crime was reported in Metro Manila during Pacquiao’s last bout.
It is not just the criminals who put down their guns; an unofficial ceasefire took place between Philippine military forces and their rebel foes during the fight.
Hat tip: Tim Groseclose
Pacquiao vs. De La Hoya Bratton – Freakonomics Blog – NYTimes.com.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Words To Feel!

It is never too late to learn a new habit; never to early to shed the old like dead, useless skin. Bad habits are formed by the slow and steady accumulation of mindless minutes. As a million years of rainfall will smooth the slope of a mountain summit, so do a million misplaced moments warp our good intentions.
We all are capable of reverse engineering our own bad behavior, but we cannot unlock the door without looking for the key.
Breaking a Bad Habit Shatters the Rung Beneath You | Zen Habits.

Typealyzer : on My (Angol) Writing

thanks to Tyler of Marginal Revolutions for the link:
do I email them that the typo???

INTPThe Thinkers
[INTP]
The logical and analytical type. They are especialy attuned to difficult creative and intellectual challenges and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications.
They enjoy working with complex things using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality. Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about.
Typealyzer.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Typealyzer: on Chuck's Writings

INTJ – The Scientists
[INTJ]
The long-range thinking and individualistic type. They are especially good at looking at almost anything and figuring out a way of improving it – often with a highly creative and imaginative touch. They are intellectually curious and daring, but might be pshysically hesitant to try new things.
The Scientists enjoy theoretical work that allows them to use their strong minds and bold creativity. Since they tend to be so abstract and theoretical in their communication they often have a problem communcating their visions to other people and need to learn patience and use conrete examples. Since they are extremly good at concentrating they often have no trouble working alone.
Typealyzer.

Regulation Framing

I think this can be framed more effectively as , thinking of outcomes. S regulation is closer/more correlated (I think) to the outcome compared with that of L regulation, and that is why I think it is better!

I tend to agree with Tyler Cowen that individual moral propensities are less important than overall social context. To borrow from a different branch of social psychology, I would say that Packer is committing the Fundamental Attribution Error.

In my view, the problem comes from trying to use what I call letter-of-the-law regulation in finance. Call it L regulation. With L regulation, the regulator lays down specific, quantitative boundaries (think of risk-based capital requirements, with fixed numerical weights for various types of assets). The managers of financial institutions are told to stay within those boundaries.
In contrast, think of something I might call S regulation, for spirit of the law. With S regulation, the manager of a financial institution that enjoys some government protection would take an oath to maintain the safety and soundness of the institution. With S regulation, it is wrong to just tiptoe along the edge of the quantitative boundaries, without considering the potential risk to the firm.
Suppose we take it as given that government is going to protect some of the liabilities of some institutions, because of deposit insurance, implicit guarantees, “too big to fail,” or other reasons. I would like to see such institutions be covered by S regulation even more than by L regulation.
I would like to see managers of government-protected institutions take an oath to safeguard the soundness of their companies. I would like to see them subjected to prison terms for violating that oath. The oath is a general promise, not satisfied simply by staying within the boundaries of L regulation.
I believe that S regulation would change the motives of bank managers. They would be looking for ways to avoid failure, rather than for ways to stay within the letter of the law.
There can be plenty of risk-taking institutions in our society. But they should not at the same time be institutions that enjoy government protection when they fail.
Economist’s View: “The Moral Stage of Wall Street”.

Story Of Courage!

The account of Sjida’s life is inspiring, Do read the whole thing! My prayers are for the people still in bondage, any form of bondage.

Sajida is a 29-year-old college-educated woman from a Christian family here (and a reminder that oppressive values in Pakistan are not rooted just in Islam). She scandalized her family by marrying a man she chose herself — and then becoming pregnant.
The next step was brutal: Several women held Sajida down as a midwife conducted an abortion, while she struggled and wept.
Then her brothers weighed what to do next. Sajida’s eldest brother wanted to sell her to a trafficker who offered $1,200, presumably intending to imprison her inside a brothel. Two other brothers just wanted to kill her.
Op-Ed Columnist – Giving Thanks to Heroes – NYTimes.com.

Thanksgiving!

We don’t have thanksgiving here in the Philippines but that is no reason to snatch a holiday and thank the people who have made my life great!
Thanks to my Mom and Dad, my brother and sister for supporting me during the times when life makes me want to give up.
To my friends who always has a ready ear to hear my next crazy idea or to be my devils advocate or even bully me when either pride or self-doubt , fear or craziness is enveloping me.
To the people in the internet who have brought countless joys to my used to be boring life.
To the people who continue to show kindness without expecting anything in return, you renew my faith in people.
To God who is my pillar and happiness!
Happy Thanksgiving!

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Money Advice from Bruce Bowen

Bowen On Matt Bonner:

Pointer From TrueHoop:
Despite making $2.978 million this year and $3.256 next year, Bonner remains frugal. Former Spurs guard Brent Barry, who is now with the Houston Rockets, remembers a time in Sacramento when Bonner was getting a snack at his favorite spot: Subway.
“Matt had a coupon for half off a sandwich, which said: ‘Valid at participating stores only,’” Barry said. “The owner said we’re not ‘participating stores’ and Matt was like ‘Well aren’t you a Subway? I walk outside and I see the name ‘Subway.’” After 10 minutes, he talked his way to half off a turkey sandwich. He saved like $2.16.”
Added Bowen: “It’s not about what you make, it’s about what you keep. He understands that motto perfectly.”
Bonner sees himself as ‘boring guy’.