But, Mel, this is the "Fair and Balanced" era. We are expected to attribute equal weight to Chomsky and Coulter. Which ultimately causes mis/ill/un-informed bozos to drive off civil discourse. Ahem. Assume you're engaging in an otherwise serious dialogue on the relative effectiveness of US Presidents. After two hours of discussion, one guy blurts out that Bill Clinton was an ineffective leader simply because he said he "didn't inhale". Our culture is increasingly affording those viewpoints equal credibility. So many people are so ego-obsessed that they demonstrate ZERO regard for their own intellect by launching fear-driven attacks on those who've actually done their damned homework. And if Chomsky has done ANYTHING, it’s his damned homework. The most notable thing about his argumentation is its overwhelming dependence on prominent public leaders and mainstream news sources in making his case. The information is slapping us in the face and all he does is call attention to it. Of course, most of those who making Colossal Ass of themselves would never know this. If these folks want to attack this man's work, they've gotta bring it harder than what they've demonstrated. A good start would be actually reading his work. And those claiming good-faith disagreement with its content (you know who you are) - I'm interested in seeing that as well. Thing is, you don't need to go as far as an Ivy League egghead to see this in play. For all the pissing and moaning about the "disingenuous" nature of F-9/11, I have yet to see any substantive impeachment of the film's content. [Insert Religious Zealot Weekly/freeper blog movie review here] Of course people are free to form and express opinions. We are also perfectly free to refrain from forming and expressing those opinions. And the best place to start this process usually concern those subjects of which you have freaking clue.
I've actually read Chomsky. He's an extremely important and influential linguistic theorist, but I have to admit that much of his academic writing is extremely difficult for a lay person, like me, to understand. But like many other academics who venture a bit from their fields of specialization, he's often hit and miss. His philosophical meanderings about the nature of power and access & oppostion to it are fascinating, even when you disagree with what he has said. But I find some of his political positions unrealistic and sometimes, bizarre. For example, his championing of a one-state solution for Israel/Palestine is simply unworkable in the real world. And I still don't believe him when he tries to explain away his foreward to Robert Faurisson's holocaust-denying book as simply an ardent First Amendment defense. But, if you think he walks on water, c'est la vie.
Out of curiosity, why not? And since you don't believe his claim, do you have a different theory as to why he did it? Personally, I think his explanation is pretty banal, but only partly honest. I think it IS a 1st Amendment issue to him, but that he also enjoys doing/saying shocking things, and taking shocking positions. It's part of his schtick, in other words. I think it had EXACTLY the effect he hoped it would have.