4 Comments:
• I have gone over there but not in a while. As you know, I have my reservations about the guy but I can't help but love his knack for turning a phrase.
• Relax, my friend (I can clearly picture you fuming over your keyboard and plotting to see that my brats are under-cooked tonight).
I don't think that we differ that much in regards to Chomsky. Now as much as we both fume at attempts on the right to ignore or distort facts, we must acknowledge that we will have people on the left that, for whatever reason (ego? over-zealousness?), will be willing to overlook facts that do not support their world view and refuse to acknowledge their own factual errors even when they are pointed out to them. This has been the rub on Chomsky (I've been cautious about counterpunch.org for the same reason).
I try to be skeptical of everything I read and would be even more skeptical of the bloggers you mentioned if I found examples of them doing this as I have with Chomsky. (I'm similarly skeptical of the critics of Chomsky because they obviously have their own agenda and are more likely to spend time looking for errors in Chomsky's work than they would, say, Kevin Drum)
I am not at all dismissive of Chomsky's work as a whole, he has been too important in bringing a strong voice to issues that are too often ignored. I don't think that my use of the word "hesitant" is particularly harsh or all that condemning.
• Is it unreasonable for me to have "reservations" about Micheal Moore because I have read convincing evidence the Moore has intentionally distorted facts in order to make his case seem more convincing? I do not dismiss him altogether because I do believe he has done some important work that nobody else has been able to do. This is very similar (perhaps even exactly the same) as my view on Chomsky. This is not unreasonable.
You seem to be trying to say that all of the bloggers and other sources that I use each are equal in their use or misuse of facts. This seems unreasonable. It seems obvious to me that some sources will be more reliable than others and more weight will often be given to those that have proved themselves to be consistantly reliable (especially those that are willing to concede their errors when they are pointed out to them).
I do not know of any instances where Kevin Drum, Sy Hersch, Josh Mitchell or others have intentially tried to distort facts for the purpose of furthering their beliefs. If I do, I will have "reservations" about them in the future. Now you could certainly try and make the point that the criticisms of Chomsky have been baseless. I am always willing to look at that and change my mind accordingly in light of better information. Instead, you seem to be making some argument that I should treat sources that I have little reason to doubt in the exact same manner as I treat sources that I do, based on the evidence that I have seen, have some reason to doubt. No reasonable person does that!. I have conceded that I could be wrong about Chomsky and even noted above the reasons why he may be more of a lightening rod for slander than other sources, but like every other person on Earth I make provisional judgements based on the best information I have at the time.
By the way, are you on Chomsky's payroll? Does he have something on you (pictures, video, old diary entries)? You seem quick to take offense at my very mild hesitancy towards him. Maybe you are just way too sensitive?
[poke, prod, pester, provoke]
• Oh, don't you start conceding points now. I've been doing some serious mental gymnastics coming up with a response that involves accusing you of war crimes, badgering you with logical fallacies and I've even found ways to combine some particularly pompous sophistry with "yo mama" jokes. Now I would just look like some kind of monster if I posted it.
Seriously though, if you ever want to do some posts where we really look at the criticisms of Chomsky it would be a useful excersize (maybe more so for me than for you).
I checked out his blog again yesterday. It is pretty tame lately compared to a lot of things I read.
