[mburbank]

I think you're looking at two seperate issues here. If you're keen to start a Chomsky pros and cons thread, ie. a real one, by all means lets. The New Yorker wrote a lengthy profile of him just a few issues ago and it's was pretty much a character sketch of Chomsky's life in poloitics and liguistics. It's great place to start, but don't expect me to chime in on it as rapidly as I do other threads. Chomsky is incredably complicated and his personality is so entangled with his views it's very hard to parse.

In short, while I often agree with the body of his arguments, I find his starting premises deliberately provacative and his conclusions extreme. I think he's an idealogue, something I've always disliked. On the other hand I have great admiration for his dogged commitment to his vision of justice. I don't think people appreciatte that this is a man who spends most of his time speaking on causes that are not his primary interest or calling (ligusitics is his primary field) because he feels he it is his duty as a human being to do so. Agree or disagree, this is a man sacraficing a great deal for his personal concept of Justice, and I think that's admirable.

Ronnies salvo has nothing to do with any of this and that's so obvious you don't need to have even heard of Chomsky before to adress it. Vinces puerile whinings that the field of Lingusitics is insignificant reveals far more about Vince than any argument about any idea at all. Dignifying their apelike chest thumping and bellowing with discussion would strike me as capitulation.

Think about it this way. If I select six articles from the Nation and the Progressive, cut and paste them here as six threads and offer no insite of my own, offer no hint that I've read or understood them, what have I done? If Ronnie can put together a full paragraph on his thoughts on Chomsky, I might be moved to respond seriously. But I don't think Ronnie HAS any thoughts on Chomsky. I think it's just a funny little name for a straw boogeyman.