Today, if all goes well, I will finish the first draft of
Tied to the Tracks. Then it goes to my beta readers. My head feels slightly swollen and distinctly mushy. Once I'm really done, I'll take a day to get my head back into its normal shape, and then I'll probably be back here regularly.
As I am still officially on blog hiatus, I am going to take a little space here to vent. Not about the election. I don't have the heart to vent about that. But it is political in nature, so you can go now, if you're not interested.
Last night we watched (as we always do) Bill Maher's show on HBO. I often don't agree with Bill Maher, and sometimes his guests (chosen for their potential to add interest, color and controversy to the discussion) are idiots. Ann Coulter is an example (last week she was on and another guest called her Nazi Barbi, which is really mean, and pretty much on target).
Last night Bill did a remote interview with Noam Chomsky. Chomsky is certainly controversial, but he is also a number of other things: absolutely, reliably, unrefutably rational; a master of logic; someone who doesn't mince words; one of the greatest minds of our time. In last night's remote interview, Chomsky made some statements about the invasion of Iraq which were (in my opinion) true, and explosive. This is Chomsky, he says things that most people would be afraid to say. He says them calmly, he lays out his evidence and reasoning, he goes away. He is a thoughtful, thorough, unflinching critic of US government policies and actions. This (again, in my opinion) makes him an invaluable resource to us as a nation.
After Chomsky, last night's panel (three people plus Bill) began to talk. For some reason Bill included Andrew Sullivan of andrewsullivan.com, a conservative political discussion weblog which is very popular. I am not linking to Andrew Sullivan; you can go find him, if you like. I have no interest in contributing to his hit count.
Andrew Sullivan went off the deep end. He dislikes Chomsky in a way that seems almost personal. Chomsky, according to Andrew Sullivan, lies. "He's smart enough, I hope he knows he's lying" is an exact quote.
Here's the thing. I'm sure Chomsky does lie; on occasion I'll bet he has told his wife he didn't have time to take the trash out because he had a meeting, or said he had a prior engagement to get out of an invitation he didn't want to accept. But last night, on HBO? Nope. Chomsky was not lying. You might disagree with him on his definitions of 'war crime' or 'freedom', but you can't call him a liar.
If Andrew Sullivan had actually been listening, he would know that Chomsky does not love Sadam Hussein and hate the U.S., but he was too busy frothing at the mouth and jerking knees. So here's the bottom line: if Chomsky had actually been on the panel (which really, he should have been) Andrew Sullivan, whose mind is a tiny, shapless thing compared to Chomsky's, would have found out how outclassed he is in such company. As it was, he was free to rant (as I am doing now, here in my own little space), interrupt, and howl at the moon. But he was still wrong, about almost everything.
Edited to add: Geoff Arnold has gone into this Andrew Sullivan stuff in thoughtful detail, for example:
(2) Why does Sullivan (and many others) froth at the mouth when anyone mentions "America" and "war crimes" in the same sentence? And why do they always argue how much better America's actions are than those of Saddam? Is that the standard by which America should judge itself? From someone like Sullivan who argued so eloquently just a few days ago about the collective amnesia concerning Abu Ghraib, such jingoism seems inapposite.
(3) It is possible that Sullivan's excitability was occasioned by the appearance on the program of Noam Chomsky, whom Sullivan accused of "making millions running around the world denigrating the United States". (I may have got the exact words wrong: he certainly said "millions", which caused a few eyebrows to be raised.) But why the outrage? Numerous legal bodies, including the International Commission of Jurists, have declared that the invasion of Iraq and many of the consequent actions of the USA and its allies violate international law. Logically Sullivan would seem to have only three options: refute the charges, accept them and agree that the USA should take responsibility for its actions, or declare that the USA is somehow above the law. Lashing out at an academic for exercising his freedom of speech, and saying that his views don't deserve to be heard, does Sullivan no credit. (Whatever happened to Evelyn Beatrice Hall's immortal dictum "I disapprove of what you
say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?)
