<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV>In the midst of the Guardian article is a serviceable summary of Chomsky's views, with really nothing more to discredit them than that they are "cripplingly bleak." The only argument mustered is that American global hegemony is superior than both (1) Chinese global hegemony or (2) Chomsky moving to Iran. By the way, Chomsky doesn't hesitate to admit that he "owes his considerable success to the system he despises." He just doesn't value his own success over his conscience as an American citizen vis a vis innocent lives sacrificed for global hegemony.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As far as the Telegraph, this paragraph sticks out:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"Although I should perhaps add that the debate about language has moved on since Chomsky’s theories in the Sixties. And Chomsky has moved on, too. In fact he is better known these days as a political activist."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Of course, since the 60s, he always was.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The (linguistics) "debate" (actual scientific research) has moved on, and Chomsky with it. His work still shapes the debate, by and large, and he continues to respond to those who both challenge his theory and those who try to build on it--which in some cases is probably more discouraging for the latter than the former. In no (or at least no major) sense has the field passed him by, although in certain views he has been a minority, even a minority of one--but always in the context of a general acceptance of his basic approach. Those who continue to promote a substantively different approach are actually studying something very different (generally, sociolinguistics as opposed to psycholinguistics), and some of those do so for implicitly political reasons (and perhaps moral) reasons.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In contrast to his "bleak" view of politics, his linguistic theories provide the basis for positive view of human nature, albeit one that would not make capitalists happy, because it values freedom over material productivity and behavioral management.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But again:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"Surely, I say, it is a credit to the very American way of life he so often criticises that he is still seen as being part of the liberal establishment (sic). He is still, after all, a professor at one of the leading science universities in the world."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Seemingly, the only way to criticize Chomsky is to accuse him of being a privileged man who cares about others. <STRONG>How dare he? </STRONG>To use a typical Chomsky analogy, would Soviet or Polish dissidents have been criticized (by people like this author) for not choosing to bask in their privileges? Or are they morally superior to Chomsky for being willing to accept dire personal consequences for their actions? Chomsky would probably agree, but what is his option? To have silenced himself by going to prison (which he was prepared to do regarding his non-payment of taxes)? Perhaps Chomsky's critics expressing a thinly concealed desire that he once and for all be sent to the Gulag? So what is the point of freedom is one cannot exercise it to promote moral behavior?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Again, the interviewer has no response to Chomsky's substance other than <EM>ad hominem</EM> and <EM>non sequitur </EM>attacks, and condescension; to compare Chomsky to the Rolling Stones, because articles have been collected in a book. Irony can't begin to characterize this.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>DG</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px"><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> C. G. Estabrook <galliher@illinois.edu><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> peace discuss <Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Tue, July 6, 2010 12:11:49 PM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> [Peace-discuss] As bad as ours<BR></FONT><BR>Two immensely stupid - not just hostile but uninformed - articles about Chomsky in the British press:<BR><BR><A href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jul/04/hopes-and-prospects-chomsky-review" target=_blank>http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jul/04/hopes-and-prospects-chomsky-review</A><BR><BR><A href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/7865508/Noam-Chomsky-interview.html" target=_blank>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/7865508/Noam-Chomsky-interview.html</A><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Peace-discuss mailing list<BR><A
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A><BR><A href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target=_blank>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</A><BR></DIV></DIV></div><br>
</body></html>