A great piece by Horowitz!

Among the particularly good ones....

Take a current example like Cuba, which has not been bombed and has not suffered a war, but is poorer today than it was more than forty years ago when Castro took power. In 1959, Cuba was the second richest country in Latin America. Now it is the second poorest just before Haiti. Naturally, Chomskyites will claim that the U.S. economic boycott is responsible. (The devil made them do it.) But the whole rest of the world trades with Cuba. Cuba not only trades with all of Latin America and Europe, but receives aid from the latter. Moreover, in the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviet Union gave Cuba the equivalent of three Marshall Plans in economic subsidies and assistance -- tens of billions of dollars. Cuba is a fertile island with a tropical climate. It is poor because it has followed Chomsky’s examples, and not America’s. It is poor because it is socialist, Marxist and Communist. It is poor because it is run by a lunatic and sadist. It is poor because in Cuba, America lost the Cold War. The poverty of Cuba is what Chomsky’s vision and political commitments would create for the entire world.

Horowitz keeps nailing these leftist idiots! Bravo!

Bump, FYI!!

This guy is camera shy. Best I could find.

Goofball.

are you saying it would reach a comparable living standard to that in Europe or the US within an acceptable period of time?

Yes. In fact, it would probably reach it sooner.

Castro and his communist cronies have run the economy of Cuba straight into the ground. Chomsky and his Stalinist pals have aided and abetted the atrocity in Cuba for the last 40 years.

If you and Chomsky like the People's Paradise so much, why not go and help advance the cause of the revolution? I'm sure that they would welcome such distinguished intellectuals with open arms!

One thing though. If you end up the Gulag, call somebody else for help.

I do not know what version of Chomsky you are reading, but "impeccably sourced" he is not.

And what if Cuba did open its doors of the free market, are you saying it would reach a comparable living standard to that in Europe or the US within an acceptable period of time? Say 15 years? Not likely, even though its people are well educated and skilled I bet they'd end up working in sweatshops for the likes of Nike and GAP earning about 70 US cents a day. Who in their right mind would want to trade their freedom and liberty for that?

What freedom and liberty are you talking about? Cuba suffers under one of the most repressive regimes on earth.

I don't like Horowitz. All he's done is gone and jumped on the back of another bandwagon which is presently in the public eye and I cannot but suspect that this is the depth of his political belief, a severe case of egocentrism springs to mind. I don't know how many of you people have bothered to read Chomsky but I can assure you that every allegation he makes is impecably sourced, I'd also stop short of describing him as a Marxist/Socialist/Commie, rather he is an exceptionally informed individual with an genuine concern for some of the issues which encroach upon our lives today. Of course, many here won't like what he says but that does not mean he is wrong.

You might want to look up the meaning of the term ad hominen. Rather than respond to the substance of Horowitz's article, you attack his character and motives. I take that to mean you are unable to attack his argument.

Chomsky is undoubtedly a brilliant linguist. But brilliance in one field does not ensure brilliance in any other. (Tiger Woods is a great golfer; no one expects him to be equally great as a nuclear physicist or opera singer.) Chomsky's political writings are so marred by reflexive anti-Americanism and distortion of fact that it is hard to take them seriously.

Noam is as full of SH*T as you sir!! Do you like standing up for the anti-american--"Blame America First" crowd? Or are you just a longtime member of that dreadful ilk?

Like almost all Leftists, your writing style is pretentious and boring.

Of course, many here won't like what he says but that does not mean he is wrong.

This sentence was my personal favorite. In a simple, throwaway line, you managed to beautifully demonstrate the very highest of Leftist Orwellian doublethink. Hello, McFly. Chomsky isn't wrong because "we" (meaning the majority of Freepers) don't like him him. We don't like him because he is wrong.

I don't much like Horowitz either, and Noam Chomsky is probably a nice, caring fellow.

That said, Horowitz is right and Chomsky is wrong. Personality has nothing to do with it.

Thanks for the flag.

Chomsky doesn't gloss over the evils of the Left.

Ah, the Baader-Meinhof School of Philosophy again. A left-brained, passive aggressive sophist nerd with low self-esteem and, assuredly, numerous other unresolved adolescent issues, who launches his Marxist jihad from the maniacal fever swamps and corridors of doom of the People's Republic of Mass. I really haven't studied psychology or psychiatry in enough sordid depth to do justice to the ills of such a perverted modern Leftist mind, hell-bent on pseudo-intellectual self-immolation. Shouldn't he be deported to, say, Albania or China? And made to attend one of their re-education camps, experiencing the joys of Communist plumbing and toiletry?

Horowitz devastates Chomsky, obliterates him. Chomsky's twisted lies are exposed for all to see. Marvelous article. Horowitz is one of our best and most effective Culture Warriors. Send him your check!

...I can assure you that every allegation [Chomsky] makes is impecably sourced, I'd also stop short of describing him as a Marxist/Socialist/Commie, rather he is an exceptionally informed individual with an genuine concern...

Utter nonsense and absolutely false as Horowitz so clearly shows. But you must read Horowitz to know this.

To put it plainly, Chomsky is a scurrilous, outrageous liar.