The quote is an excerpt from a transcript of a talk that Chomsky delivered, possibly at St. Michael's College, "around 1990." Chomsky is perfectly clear what he means by "the Nuremberg laws" — viz., the international law precedents on war crimes coming out of the Nuremberg and Tokyo international military tribunals. Here's a fuller selection: "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged. By violation of the Nuremberg laws I mean the same kind of crimes for which people were hanged in Nuremberg. And Nuremberg means Nuremberg and Tokyo. So first of all you've got to think back as to what people were hanged for at Nuremberg and Tokyo."

Of course, "Nuremberg laws" is often used in English to refer to the Nürnberger Gesetze of 1935, and "Nuremberg principles" or similar locutions are often used to refer to the legal precedents on war crimes and crimes against humanity. But while it's obviously important to distinguish one from the other, successfully distinguishing them is a matter of context and understanding, not a matter of linguistic fiat. It's not as if the phrase "Nuremberg laws" were the actual name of the German racial segregation bills, and which one somebody is referring to is probably something best determined by context, not by arbitrary fiat. And from context it is perfectly clear that Chomsky does know which of the two sets of legal acts he is referring to.

My recent post Election Results

"Because Marxist-Leninist and anarchist–no leftist, in general–revolutionaries are well known for giving out fair trials, right?"

Of course this is a tu quoque, not an argument.

Professed revolutionaries do all kinds of heinous shit when they have the guns pointed at their enemies. This is admittedly a serious problem with any form of social organization that depends heavily on violence and the exercise of armed might. Perhaps it's a serious problem for having revolutions; or perhaps it's a reason for acknowledging that even the most justifiable revolutions will often be accompanied by evil deeds, — deeds which deserve to be condemned as evil, whatever cause they may have been committed in the name of. In any case, it is certainly not a reason for accepting such deeds as justifiable, let alone accepting or signing off on the institutionalized violence of the national security state.

My recent post Election Results

"Granting that there are limitations on the positive impact that Obama will have in American society"

Who is talking about "limitations on the positive impact Obama will have"? Hultner listed four specific "impacts" of Obama's government which have been unrelentingly negative, not a "limited positive impact" but actually actively making things worse — and (1) his repeated bailouts of failed financial corporations and the incestuous relationship between his cabinet and major Wall Street firms; (2) Obama's constant lethal "impacts" on several different Muslim countries with drone missile strikes; (3) his ongoing imprisonment and torture of a whistleblower (who happens to be gay) for exposing the full extent of (1); (4) his deportation of over 1,000,000 undocumented immigrants during his first term, making him numerically the single most destructive President in American history for undocumented families. If this is not an example of people's rights being well and completely trampled, I don't know what in the world would be. By any standard of justice, compassion or simple decency his record has been appalling.
My recent post Election Results

"YOUR ability to create change is completely meaningless beside the actual changed caused by this election …."

The recent vote resulted in the re-election of the incumbent President of the United States. Now maybe you think narrowly maintaining the same status-quo composition of the governing party in Washington is a good thing. Maybe the alternative would have been far worse. But for better or for worse, very narrowly managing to keep the same people in power for the next 4 years who have been in power for the last 4 years is hardly an example of making social "change," unless the word "change" has simlpy been revised to mean "Whatever outcome seems most preferable to voting Progressives," whether this actually involves moving one way, or moving another, or staying in exactly the same place as you've been for the last 4 years.

My recent post Election Results

Here you go, I wrote a song for you. All together now.

o/~ o/~ o/~

Oh I cheered when Obama was chosen,

My faith in the system restored!

But then I wept when obstructionists made him

Deport millions, make kill lists and fight wars

And well I know these years haven't been perfect

But just think what he can do with four more!

Oh

Love me, love me, love me

I'm a liberal.

o/~ o/~ o/~

#WithApologiesToPhilOchs

My recent post Election Results