On Dec 7, 2006, at 12:17 PM, ravi wrote:
> What I do find troublesome is the criticism of say Chomsky on the
> grounds that his analysis is superficial, inadequate, incomplete,
> useless, etc in comparison to an alternative. In such a case,
> especially
> in human matters (e.g: politics), I think it is not disingenuous
> for me
> to claim a non-partisan role and look for knowledge and reasoning
> that I
> can use to understand the issues and act. It is (I claim) a matter of
> coincidence that Chomsky chooses the language of the non-expert
> non-partisan: common sense.
But almost everything Chomsky writes runs against the "common sense" of Americans. The USG is violently imperialist on behalf of capital - the common sense is that the government means well, sometimes fucks up, and is often misunderstood or irrationally hated. The NY Times is a tool of power - the common sense is that it's subversive and "far left." Etc. And you can't fight that ingrained common sense through repeated factchecking. It's great for the base, but beyond that, you might as well be speaking Frisian.
Doug