1 I am hopeful that I did not offend you with my raccous laughter.

2 What template parm did you change that modified your gender? I wanna stay away from that one.

3 If you can get Noam Chomsky's name right (the only thing right about him), you really must get your own star name right: Daucus carota, Mother of All Carrots.

4 Ha, Noam. He's actually made some good points in my psychology textbook, though you have to weed them out through the oceans and oceans of steaming, gooey, bull crap

5 Man, Chomsky is SO lame! I mean, I can barely comprehend what he is saying and stuff, and I'm WAAAAAY to jingoistic and intellectually dishonest to ever comprehend his brutally nuetral worldview... but he sucks! Oh, and did I mention he's an anti-semite? Yea, and he's fat, too.

6 Yawn, you're an idiot. Just thought you might need someone to point that out for you, what with you being an idiot and all.

7 Geeze, Pixy, and I was just gonna ask you out on a date...

8 I'm not your type. Trust me on this.

9 Yawn: re: "Man, Chomsky is SO lame! "I mean, I can barely comprehend what he is saying and stuff, and I'm WAAAAAY to jingoistic and intellectually dishonest to ever comprehend his brutally nuetral worldview... but he sucks!" Uh... actually, there are an awful lot of brilliant people who think Chomsky's lame. All he does is go through other people's research, pull out everything that looks negative to capitalism, and strings the results together, leaving out ALL of the "ifs", "buts", and "howevers" that mitigate his points. Does everyone do that? To some degree; after all, the point an essay is to make a point. But Chomsky is an extremist at it, who NEVER allows anything that conflicts with his "cup half full" worldview. He's famous only because EUROPE loves his anti-US garbage, which makes US pseudo-intellectuals fawn over him. He was an idiot in 1969, and he's still an idiot.

10 Errata: The "cup half full" worldview for Chomsky is actually the "cup half empty" worldview. The man's a ranting pessimist.

11 mamapjs- I've read a quite a bit of his work, and have NO idea what you're talking about. Can you give me a single example? Just one. Actually, I think in US pseudo-intellectual circles (even amongst liberals) it's far more fashionable to trash Chomsky, although nobody ever seems capable of debating his specific ideas. I'm no Chomsky worshiper, but I find it hilarious how pathetically childish the discourse amongst brilliant people becomes when his name is mentioned. It's because they hate what he's saying, but CAN'T actually debate him! They just have too much invested in America being "right". The alternative is not on the table. Personally, I think he's WAY too close to "the truth", and nobody wants to hear it...

12 Actually, I think in US pseudo-intellectual circles (even amongst liberals) it's far more fashionable to trash Chomsky Hardly. Chomsky is worshipped by the pseudos. although nobody ever seems capable of debating his specific ideas. What ideas? Personally, I think he's WAY too close to "the truth", and nobody wants to hear it... Chomsky wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and bit him on the bum. The whole point of Chomsky's work has always been to deny any objective truth, and that includes his early work on linguistics. Linguist Dr Marc Miyake of Amaravati: Abode of Amritas has written a number of times on the damage Chomsky has done to that field. Chomsky is a one-trick pony: Never say anything that can be tied down to a single meaning, never admit to being wrong about anything, never admit to America being right about anything. For years he was an apologist for the Khmer Rouge for God's sake! He refused to admit what was obvious to anyone, that they were a bunch of crazed murderers intent on destroying Cambodia, and instead held them aloft as example par excellance of the New Civilisation that would replace the West. Chomsky is all about, always has been about, denying the very existence of the truth. As such, he doesn't even bother to lie consistently; he just makes up whatever story seems appropriate for whoever he wants to attack today. Noam Chomsky may not himself be responsible for huge numbers of deaths, unlike his heroes Yasser Arafat, Josef Stalin and Pol Pot, but his never-ending attacks on the foundations of Education and Science and indeed of Civilisation nonetheless place him among the ranks of the most evil men of the past century. Go read Diary of an Anti-Chomskyite. Read, and be educated. For a change.

13 Oliver Kamm is another good writer if you are interested in getting your head on straight vis-a-vis Chomsky.

14 Read, and be educated. For a change. Seriously, if you think reading ultra right-wing screeds like the ones you just mentioned is education, then yikes. Lemme guess, grad school at the Free Republic? Marc Miyake is a linguist publishing himself on RightWingNews.com... what's wrong with this picture? There are some valid criticisms of Chomsky's work, but Marc ain't even in the ballpark, as this guy points out. Anytime you have an intellectual critic of someone who can't make it two sentences without slandering the person, you know the person clearly has an axe to grind and is probably pretty clueless. Ditto for the "Anti-Chomsyite"... give me a break. And then there's Oliver Kamm, who on his front page drags out Anti-Chomsky Canard Alpha, Chomsky's support of Holocaust-denier Robert Faurisson. I'll spell it out slowly for Oliver and our audience: 1) Faurisson wrote a load of crap in France denying the Holocaust. 2) He was given a hard time by French authorities, who wanted to censor the book. 3) Chomsky was asked to write an opinion piece regarding the issue for them, in which he spelled out his consistent philosophy (as agreed upon by the ACLU and our founding fathers), that if freedom of speech means anything it means allowing people who you disagree with to speak. (Chomsky doesn't deny the holocaust, by the way, and thinks the concept is really wack) 4) Chomsky agreed to give the opinion piece royalty-free for their use (probably a mistake). 5) They stuck it in the preface of their damned book, and the mud immediately began flying. 6) Chomsky (rightly) has stuck by his opinion. What Chomsky demonstrates here is something his critics can't comprehend, the ability to judge a situation neutrally even if "your side" is slighted in the process. If you want to be educated on Chomsky the first place to start might be something a little more even-keeled like Wikipedia... scroll down to the "Criticism" section for a refutation of the "Khmer Rouge apologist" nonsense. And if you actually want to read his political ideas (yep, he has some), a good place to start is Profit Over People... it's like 150 pages, and covers most of the bases. Chomsky is a one-trick pony: Never say anything that can be tied down to a single meaning... Sorry, but people drastically misunderstanding or misrepresenting what he's saying doesn't constitute additional meanings. Chomsky is all about, always has been about, denying the very existence of the truth. Well, I did put "the truth" in quotes ;) . Anyway, I have no idea what you mean by "the truth"... ...he just makes up whatever story seems appropriate for whoever he wants to attack today. Your kidding, right? The guys is labeled by his worshipers as "the greatest intellectual alive today" and you thing he's just throwing random sentences together. That a pretty big rift! among the ranks of the most evil men of the past century Wow. I'd tell you what I think of this comment, but you'd probably just delete this post... Anyway, not to rush off without actually talking about some of Chomsky's political philosophy: At it's core is the idea that all superpowers try to organize the world around themselves using military and economic means. Would you agree?

15 Lemme guess, grad school at the Free Republic? Not even close. You clearly have not the faintest breath of understanding of politics, if you think Miyake or Kerstein, let alone Kamm, are "ultra right-wing". Marc Miyake is a linguist publishing himself on RightWingNews.com... what's wrong with this picture? Nothing at all. Marc ain't even in the ballpark, as this guy points out. That guy has completely missed the point. Chomsky's Universal Grammar is not a theory. It's handwaving. It does not actually explain anything, it is completely useless as a foundation for further linguistic study. It's cargo-cult science. 2) He was given a hard time by French authorities, who wanted to censor the book. False. Go back to 1 and try again. Anyway, I have no idea what you mean by "the truth"... Exactly the problem. Your kidding, right? Not in the slightest. Chomsky has been caught out, time and time again, in the worst sort of historical revisionism and deliberate distortions when he's not flat-out lying. It's his stock-in-trade: When the facts aren't on his side (and they never are), make shit up. The guys is labeled by his worshipers as "the greatest intellectual alive today" Well, duh. They're his worshippers. and you thing he's just throwing random sentences together. Not at all. His lies are very carefully constructed. Not consistent, but locally well-crafted. At it's core is the idea that all superpowers try to organize the world around themselves using military and economic means. All people, and Chomsky far from least, try to organize the world around themselves. This is his great insight?

16 Anyway, what superpowers? America and... Who, exactly? China? The Soviet Union, as was?

17 That guy has completely missed the point. Well, let's see, on one hand you've got Marc, who concludes: "Is Chomsky a double fraud in both science and politics? I honestly don't know. I have never met him and don't want to - the urge to verbally attack him is too strong. Maybe he really believes what he says in one or both fields. But in any case, Chomsky is a troublemaker on two fronts. He is like Lenin and Lysenko rolled into one." Oh, but on the other hand you've got Chomsky, who through mind control power managed to REVOLUTIONIZE several field of study and convince the entire community to go along. Hmmmm... whether his theories end up being disproven, is that really grounds for FRAUD charges? Sounds like someone is INSANE here, and it ain't Chomsky. False. Go back to 1 and try again. True. Go back to 1 and try again. Exactly the problem. Oh, I see... you believe in the "Objective Truth", because the opposite must be "Moral Relativism" which means no truth whatsoever which means there's no reason to do or not do anything which means total anarchy and societal meltdown. Whew! That slope was slippery!!! Anyway, "Moral Relativists" are probably more concerned that YOU thinking that YOU have the only insight as to what is true and good for humanity probably isn't the healthiest thing for humanity. In fact, just about every crime ever committed against humanity started with someone believing their "truth" demanded the other person's destruction. All people, and Chomsky far from least, try to organize the world around themselves. This is his great insight? No, just the beginning of the road. So you've got a lone superpower organizing the world around itself using military and economic means. What do you suppose that means for the people of the planet on the other end of that "Objective Truth". I'm guessing your British, so you can dust off your Empire history for this one.

18 Chomsky has not revolutionised linguistics, or at least not on any positive sense. Marc's point, and mine, and the thing that "that guy" and you have completely missed is that Chomsky's Universal Grammar does not constitute a scientific theory. Its utility is precisely zero. True. Go back to 1 and try again. Sorry, still false. That piece is typical Chomsky. If you actually read it, you will find that it contains not a single word to support your claim. Not one. While simultaneously giving exactly the false impression under which you are labouring. Faurisson was never "given a hard time by French authorities". The "French authorities" never "wanted to censor the book." He was suspended by the University that employed him because he was suspected (correctly, as it happens) of academic fraud. Oh, I see... you believe in the "Objective Truth", because the opposite must be "Moral Relativism" which means no truth whatsoever which means there's no reason to do or not do anything which means total anarchy and societal meltdown. Whew! That slope was slippery!!! Anyway, "Moral Relativists" are probably more concerned that YOU thinking that YOU have the only insight as to what is true and good for humanity probably isn't the healthiest thing for humanity. In fact, just about every crime ever committed against humanity started with someone believing their "truth" demanded the other person's destruction. No. So you've got a lone superpower organizing the world around itself using military and economic means. No. For the most part of the past century, that's precisely what you don't have. At least if you're talking about America. If you want to talk about the pre-collapse Soviet Union, or China, you might find yourself on sounder footing. But I suspect that does not interest you. What do you suppose that means for the people of the planet on the other end of that "Objective Truth". Was that a question? If so, could you rephrase it so that it is actually coherent? I'm guessing your British, so you can dust off your Empire history for this one. No.

19 Okay, from the time difference let me change that guess to Australian... anyway, I'm sure you had the British history lessons all the same.

20 If you actually read it, you will find that it contains not a single word to support your claim. Not one. Well, right there in the second paragraph it says He was then brought to trial for "falsification of history," and condemned. Sounds like getting a pretty hard time by the French authorities to me, who seem particularly miffed about his subject matter. Are you sure you read it? Oh, I see... you believe in the "Objective Truth"?... No. Sorry, I must have gotten confused by your recent post in which you lashed out at "the Post-Modernists denying the concept of Objective Truth". Oh, and I think you said something about intellectual dishonesty, too. No. For the most part of the past century, that's precisely what you don't have. Huh? You're saying America HASN'T been spending the last hundred years setting the world up for it's benefit, by all means necessary? You think becoming a superpower happens by luck? Please.

21 Hey, I said in this very post that I'm Welsh! Okay, so maybe I emigrated... I didn't study the British Empire in school - we had ancient history, with Australian history as an elective, but I am tolerably familiar with the history of the Empire (and I have numerous scholarly works at hand in any case). But since the British Empire was actively being unwound even before the First World War, I must assume that you are referring to a historical period prior to that, most likely the 19th century, under Queen Victoria? Or perhaps you want to explore the roots of the empire in conquest and commerce, under Elizbeth I or Henry VII? I'm sure the relevance of this will be forthcoming.

22 Well, right there in the second paragraph it says He was then brought to trial for "falsification of history," and condemned. Sounds like getting a pretty hard time by the French authorities to me, who seem particularly miffed about his subject matter. Are you sure you read it? Yes. That's hyperbole, not fact. Check the facts. Sorry, I must have gotten confused by your recent post in which you lashed out at "the Post-Modernists denying the concept of Objective Truth". Oh, and I think you said something about intellectual dishonesty, too. My response of No was to your entire paragraph, which in so far as it had any meaning at all, was false. You're saying America HASN'T been spending the last hundred years setting the world up for it's benefit, by all means necessary? That is precisely what I'm saying, and something you would grasp if you actually took the time to study the history of the 20th Century. America in the 20th Century was not even remotely as you seem to picture it. You think becoming a superpower happens by luck? Partly luck, yes. Partly historical convergence. Partly diligence. Why? How did you think it happened?

23 Here's a clue for you: Check the dates that the United States entered World Wars I and II, respectively. Now, tell me why those dates.

24 Check the facts Do point me to the "facts" you're referring to. in so far as it had any meaning at all, was false Okay, I simply gotta know your definition of "Objective Truth". America in the 20th Century was not even remotely as you seem to picture it That's funny, I live in America, and you live in Australia... I guess I can see why you'd want to believe that superpower status is simply granted to the lucky, as Australia clearly isn't a superpower... or is it? It that part missing from my studies, too?

25 Now, tell me why those dates. Umm... 1917 and 1941. This doesn't require numerology, does it?

26 Do point me to the "facts" you're referring to. Oliver Kamm has a succinct summary of them... But you're not going to take his word for it, are you? He being of the ultra right-wing and all? Okay, I simply gotta know your definition of "Objective Truth". Objective Truth is that which remains when you cease to believe in it. I guess I can see why you'd want to believe that superpower status is simply granted to the lucky Did I say that? No, I did not. I said that luck played a part. That's somewhat lazy of me, since luck only exists from a historical perspective. To put it less densely: That North America was a vast and fertile continent, rich in natural resources but sparsely inhabited; that it was settled by Europeans at the time of the birth of the Enlightenment; that these particular Europeans had a substantially different and far more productive ethic of property and work than those who settled Central and South America; that at a critical juncture they were blessed with some of the best political thinkers of the age; that they, with a few exceptions, were able to avoid significant wars until they were firmly established as a nation; and that in the greatest of those exceptions, the right side won. The "luck" is largely the natural wealth of the middle latitudes of the North American continent; most of the rest is historical accident. Australia clearly isn't a superpower... or is it? On its own, clearly not. As a key member of the Anglosphere, it is part of the only superpower, since all the others have now defeated themselves, and no new ones have developed yet.

27 Umm... 1917 and 1941. Those are the years. How about the dates? The date for WW II should be particularly easy. This doesn't require numerology, does it? No. Even the years are very significant. Tell me why. It's not a trick question, it's not even hard. And if you don't understand why those years are significant, you cannot possibly understand 20th Century American history.

28 But you're not going to take his word for it, are you? He being of the ultra right-wing and all? Well, he did refer to moderate liberal Brad DeLong as follows: The author of the socialist, vegan, transhumanist blog I mentioned above, and that I – presumably in common with my readers - had never stumbled across before... Sounds like a right-wing nut to me. And no, his argument isn't that compelling. Objective Truth is that which remains when you cease to believe in it. Given that definition, I think everyone on Earth believes in that. (i.e. the absence of light is darkness, etc.) So how does Post-Modernist thought differ? As a key member of the Anglosphere... The Anglosphere?! Okay, if that makes you feel better... And if you don't understand why those years are significant, you cannot possibly understand 20th Century American history. What on Earth are you talking about? The "luck" is largely the natural wealth of the middle latitudes of the North American continent And the noeliberal policies we devised to extract that wealth from our neighbors in the rest of Central and South America. Of course after WW2 with the world smoldering, with the exception of our fully intact and monstrous economy we set out to redefine the planet on our terms. As our old Head of State George Kennan said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction." Like I said, whatever lucky breaks aside, are you saying America HASN'T been spending the last hundred years setting the world up for it's benefit, by all means necessary?

29 Sounds like a right-wing nut to me. You really need to get out more. So how does Post-Modernist thought differ? Well, they deny what I just said. Really. I know it sounds crazy, but that's because it is. The Anglosphere?! Okay, if that makes you feel better... Well, call it what you will. The English-speaking world has been closely allied for well over a century and, since the fading of the British Empire was paralleled closely by the growth of America, it has remained the most significant power in the world throughout that time. What on Earth are you talking about? Okay, I'll give you a hint. The United States joined World War I on April 6, 1917, and it joined World War II on December 7, 1941. Now, on what days did World War I and II actually start? Or failing that, what years? And the noeliberal policies we devised to extract that wealth from our neighbors in the rest of Central and South America. Bzzzt! You lose. Check out the history of Central and South America following contact with Europe. Nothing to do with the United States. Not the slightest thing. Of course after WW2 with the world smoldering "The world"? Europe, yes. Japan. Parts of China and the Soviet Union. There was combat elsewhere, but it didn't leave those other countries smouldering. with the exception of our fully intact and monstrous economy Now, that's what I like about you! Always stick to the cold hard facts! Never a hint of bias! we set out to redefine the planet on our terms. By giving your former enemies huge amounts of money; by protecting them from the further depredations of the Soviets (not entirely successfully, alas). By providing an umbrella under which they could rebuild their shattered states as free and open democracies. Well, yes. As our old Head of State George Kennan said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population... Even at the end of 1945, the former figure was clearly hyperbole. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. True enough. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction. Heh. Kennan was one of the key authors of the Marshall Plan, which is exactly what he is saying could not be afforded. Do you have a date for your quote? Better yet, a specific cite? Like I said, whatever lucky breaks aside, are you saying America HASN'T been spending the last hundred years setting the world up for it's benefit, by all means necessary? Yes. How can I put it more simply than that? Yes. Obviously, yes. Most of the time they haven't been doing anything even remotely along those lines. The dates, man, the dates! Two World Wars, two dates! Think!

30 Oh, and by the way, Kennan was never "Head of State". That would be the President. He was never even Secretary of State. He was Director of Policy Planning within the State Department for four years during the Truman Administration.

31 "Well, he did refer to moderate liberal Brad DeLong as follows: The author of the socialist, vegan, transhumanist blog I mentioned above, and that I – presumably in common with my readers - had never stumbled across before... Sounds like a right-wing nut to me. And no, his argument isn't that compelling." He wasn't talking about Brad DeLong's blog. He was talking about a "socialist, vegan, transhumanist blog" which he "mentioned [linked] above" as a stock leftist antiphon to his commentary. Not sure where you derived that he was talking about DeLong. Maybe your first treasure egg is that DeLong isn't a "socialist, vegan, transhumanist" who wasn't "mentioned above"...and the rest will follow. Like Kamm or not, those are the facts. Pax,

32 I thought I'd worked out what yawn was referring to about U.S. policy vis-a-vis Central and South America, but on reading his words again, it just doesn't connect with reality. Sorry, yawn, I have no idea what you're talking about, but that's probably just because it never happened.

33 Chomsky is a hack. Fun reading the commentary revolving around that basic and fundamental fact, though.

34 Polysemous- He wasn't talking about Brad DeLong's blog. My mistake (and I'm glad for that, because DeLong's generally a really sharp guy, although I disagree with his Chomsky analysis), but he still sounds like a right-wing nut to me. He does at least present an "intelligent sounding" case, and avoids the pitfalls of endless slander, but aside from debunking Chomsky defenders who themselves may not have their facts straight, what "facts" are you referring to? His case is weak, and seems to debate a straw-man misunderstanding of Chomsky's very positions. By the way, I dig your name... speaking of Postmodernism. Pixy- Well, they deny what I just said. Sorry, but your definition that Objective Truth is that which remains when you cease to believe in it sounds a bit like intentionally cryptic hand-waving, and I'd say you're grossly oversimplifying Postmodernism. Care to actually just spell out your thoughts on "Objective Truth" and why people opposed to it are a threat? The dates, man, the dates! Okay, I suppose WWI technically started with the assassination of the Archduke on June 28, 1914. WWII is debatable, I suppose... either September 2, 1939 with the German invasion of Poland, July 7, 1937 with the Japanese invasion of China, or sometime in 1931 with the Japanese incursion into Manchuria. But how this is the Rosetta Stone of modern American history is truly a mystery that I wish you'd just dispel. Well, call it what you will. Actually, America's first real ally was probably France, who were pivotal in us driving the Brits out. Austraila should have tried it... very therapeutic. Anyway, instead of "Anglosphere" I'd more accurately call it "An America-centric First World propped up with the resources of the Third World." And it was all very intentional. Check out the history of Central and South America following contact with Europe. Nothing to do with the United States. Not the slightest thing. Come on, please don't pretend that you've never heard of the Monroe Doctrine. Over the last 150 years or so we've turned manipulating Latin governments into a national pastime. Maybe a little research into British and American neoliberalism might give you an idea of what I'm talking about. Kennan was never "Head of State" Ok, he was "Head of the US State Department Policy Planning Staff"... lazy on my part, but I guess I figured you know who he was and was hoping you wouldn't be like "that". a specific cite? Sure, the quote was taken from a section of a document titled PPS/23, written February 24, 1948. The complete paper was published in 1976 in Foreign Relations of the United States 1948, Vol. 1, No. 2. Anyway, if you think the Marshall Plan had anything to do with "altruism and world-benefaction" then that explains a lot. And the fact that (to risk making this thread explode) you support Bush because of his "honesty" even more so (it is funny that countless millions around the globe have documented Bush's obvious lies, yet you give him the benefit of the doubt. No such courtesy for Chomsky, though, oh no). Putting Chomsky aside for a minute, in my opinion, the fundamental rift between our world views is that you've taken a century of American propaganda (which you probably, like many, believe doesn't exist... truly masterful) and transformed that into American history. A lie agreed upon. While history books and the media happily stroke your world view, the documented and physical evidence (and common sense, if you allow it) contradicts it sharply. So does believing that make me a "Blame America First" radical, trying to tear down the system and usher in some leftist armageddon? Hardly, and this is what the Ann Coulters of the world don't get. Instead of loving my country like an infant, who's mommy has to be perfect or his world crumbles, I love my country like a parent, who wants my child to do good but point out when he's doing bad, for his sake most of all. I desperately want "my culture" to succeed... but I believe that while stealing and killing may yield short term gain, and are seductive, in the end people won't stand for it, and we'll be crushed. That's why all empires fall. We just happen to be at a point in human history where stealing an killing are self-evidently banned within a society, but outside of society are approved of. For our own sake we have to find a different path to long-term "success". No matter what you think of Chomsky (apparently one of the most evil men in history) there's no doubt in my mind he loves his country in the same way.

35 Seriously, though... why not set aside Kamm's criticism for a minute and check out Profit Over People (I say that one because it's a quick read and covers a lot of bases) and do a critique on your own blog, given your historical knowledge. I'd be interested in what you came up with.

36 Care to actually just spell out your thoughts on "Objective Truth" and why people opposed to it are a threat? The concept of Objective Truth is very simple: There is a Universe, and we are in it. The Universe is real. People who don't believe that the Universe is real tend to make bad choices. But how this is the Rosetta Stone of modern American history is truly a mystery that I wish you'd just dispel. Well, what do you make of the differences between the dates the World Wars began and the dates the United States joined combat? Actually, America's first real ally was probably France Heh. Funny man! France! Anyway, instead of "Anglosphere" I'd more accurately call it "An America-centric First World propped up with the resources of the Third World." Interesting use of the word "accurately" there. How do you, y'know, support that? Come on, please don't pretend that you've never heard of the Monroe Doctrine. Oh, I've heard of it alright. What's more, I know what it was. And it was the direct opposite of what you are suggesting. Over the last 150 years or so we've turned manipulating Latin governments into a national pastime. But that is, in essence, what the United States has refused to do. Yes, there are some counter-examples. But they stand out because they are so far removed from the norm. If you want to talk about manipulating Latin (American) governments, you really need to compare the behaviour of Spain and Portugal before their empires fell apart with the behaviour of the U.S. afterwards. The gulf is truly vast. Or compare and contrast with the Soviet Union, and the way they manipulated Eastern European governments in the 20th Century. Anyway, if you think the Marshall Plan had anything to do with "altruism and world-benefaction" then that explains a lot. It was altruism and benefaction. That is undeniable from the facts. The motives behind it were more complex, but the delivery of the Plan was not. And the fact that (to risk making this thread explode) you support Bush because of his "honesty" even more so (it is funny that countless millions around the globe have documented Bush's obvious lies, yet you give him the benefit of the doubt. Right. Here's something. Point out one lie by Bush. One. One actual lie. Blah blah Chomsky blah blah Coulter blah blah propoganda blah blah Sorry, did you say something? My history books report facts. Names, places, dates, actions. Where there is opinion, it is treated as opinion. No such thing from Chomsky, or from you.

37 Seriously, though... why not set aside Kamm's criticism for a minute and check out Profit Over People (I say that one because it's a quick read and covers a lot of bases) and do a critique on your own blog, given your historical knowledge. Because I prefer my fiction to have at least the honesty to be labelled as such. And also not to be so deathly dull as Chomsky's work.

38 Oh, and before you waste too much of your precious time coming up with "Bush's obvious lies", read this. Though you're really not going to like it. (Whoops. Fixed the link.)

39 Oh, and if you want to discuss France's dubious position as an ally of the United States, you really need to specify which France. Because in the time that the U.S. has existed as a nation, France has been more a geographic concept than a political one, with no less than nine regime-changes (to use the fashionable term). More than nine, if you want to get picky about the goings-on during various periods of chaos.

40 Point out one lie by Bush. One. One actual lie. Okay, now I AM yawning. Well, let's see, how about his July 14, 2003 press conference with Kofi Annan when he said: "The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful." Of course UNMOVIC inspectors had been in Iraq and being given unfettered access when they where withdrawn by the U.S. on March 18, 2003, prior to the invasion. Now given your keen sense of lie detection honed during your Chomsky studies, what would you consider that? Here's a hint: LIAR!!! If you'd like a bunch more, the Center For American Progress has compiled a database for your perusal. And sorry, even when he is "technically not lying" making statements that are highly misleading (his stock in trade) is not "honesty". Anyway, as far as the rest... it just occurred to me that you don't in fact live in Australia, you live in fantasyland. Nice talking to you...

41 I stand ready to accept the challenge, though it has been some time since I took the field of battle and my BS tolerance is at immensely low levels (Holiday press and all, don't you know).

42 Of course UNMOVIC inspectors had been in Iraq and being given unfettered access False. They were not being given unfettered access as required under the terms of the ceasefire agreeement. The U.N. team under Hans Blix was filing a constant stream of complaints about not being given necessary access right up until the day they were removed. The inspectors were in Iraq, as everyone knew. They were categorically not given the access that Iraq was required to give them. Saddam Hussein's perpetual stonewalling of the U.N. teams is documented by the U.N. itself. The sentences you chose to highlight cannot be classified as a lie, because they are true. Try again.

43 And I don't care what the "Center For American Progress" may or may not have done. I'm asking you, as you are the one to claim that "countless millions around the globe have documented Bush's obvious lies". If they're so obvious and so well documented, why did you make such a poor choice as your first example?

44 The sentences you chose to highlight cannot be classified as a lie, because they are true. That's funny, considering that Hans Blix on January 27, 2003 in an update to the Security Council said: Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable. Maybe you were thinking of UNSCOM or something? Or maybe you're being a "Chomsky appologist" in reverse. So can we classify is as a LIE, now?

45 Do you really want to get into battle of Blixquotes? Blix's 27 January report is here. Three things are clear: That Iraq had not, prior to this period, been even remotely co-operative. That Iraq had only allowed inspections to resume under U.S. coercion (which is a pretty way of saying, threat of invasion). That Iraq was still not complying with the requirements, still being deliberately obstructive. Blix: "It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can. Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items." Blix again: "At my recent meeting in Baghdad, the Iraqis have committed themselves to supplementing the list, and some 80 additional names have been provided. In the past, much valuable information came from interviews. There are also cases in which the interviewee was clearly intimidated by the presence of an interruption by Iraq officials. This was the background to Resolution 1441's provision for a right for UNMOVIC and the IAEA to hold private interviews, I quote, "in the mode or the location," unquote of our choice in Baghdad or even abroad. Today, 11 individuals were asked for interviews in Baghdad by us. The replies have been that the individual would only speak at Iraq's Monitoring Directorate or at any rate in the presence of an Iraq official." Iraq was actively harassing, delaying, and blockading the UN inspectors right up until the day they left. Hans Blix, being devoted to the inspection process for his own reasons, clearly plays this down - he is actively making excuses for Iraqi violations right there in his report - but he was honest enough to report it all the same. Now, there is a separate and more interesting question of why the hell Iraq was doing this when they had no WMD stockpiles of any note and little in the way of weapons programs. But they did it. UNMOVIC's quarterly report from February 28, 2003 devotes quite a number of paragraphs to excusing Iraqi delays in the inspection process. Blix: "I am obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment. For instance, for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of intelligence character. While I might not defend every question that inspectors might have asked, Iraq knows that they do not serve intelligence purposes and Iraq should not say so. "On a number of occasions, demonstrations have taken place in front of our offices and at inspection sites. "The other day, a sightseeing excursion by five inspectors to a mosque was followed by an unwarranted public outburst. The inspectors went without any UN insignia and were welcomed in the kind manner that is characteristic of the normal Iraqi attitude to foreigners. They took off their shoes and were taken around. They asked perfectly innocent questions and parted with the invitation to come again. "Shortly thereafter, we receive protests from the Iraqi authorities about an unannounced inspection and about questions not relevant to weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, they were not. Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq without initiative or encouragement from the authorities. [For some reason, one version of this report has the word "without" in the last sentence replaced by the word "with", reversing the meaning, and making it rather contrary to what we know of Saddam's government.] We must ask ourselves what the motives may be for these events. They do not facilitate an already difficult job, in which we try to be effective, professional and, at the same time, correct. Where our Iraqi counterparts have some complaint they can take it up in a calmer and less unpleasant manner." Blix: "The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims that research staff sometimes may bring home papers from their work places. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes." [And you accuse me of living in a fantasy land!] Blix, January 27, 2003: "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace." President Bush compressed a 12-year history of Iraqi intransigence down to one sentence. You could, with care, construct a sentence that represented that history with more, shall we say, nuance. But it's still true.

46 And wow, is that quote popular on the left-wing sites! I just did a Google search on it. Much... interesting commentary. Heh.

47 "My mistake (and I'm glad for that, because DeLong's generally a really sharp guy, although I disagree with his Chomsky analysis), but he still sounds like a right-wing nut to me. He does at least present an 'intelligent sounding' case, and avoids the pitfalls of endless slander, but aside from debunking Chomsky defenders who themselves may not have their facts straight, what 'facts' are you referring to? His case is weak, and seems to debate a straw-man misunderstanding of Chomsky's very positions. By the way, I dig your name... speaking of Postmodernism." Cool people use italics. I use quotes. Anyway, I don't think Kamm needs your faint and feigned praise of "intelligent sounding" but thanks for admitting your mistake. By the by, I was referring to the fact(s) I presented. Dude. It was like 5 sentences. What gives. And how is Kamm a right wing nut? Seriously. I don't understand. Help me. Did you then just present your weakest or your strongest argument for that? If you presented your strongest, then get over it 'cause it's all kindsa wack. If your weakest, why do you do keep doing that? I believe that if you throw around your ideology's groupgiggle epithets at everyone who makes advances on your Chomsky that YOU are the nut. Be that as it may you probably aren't a nut so... What IS a "right wing nut" irrespective of its use as an, further than they usually apply, banal leftist shibboleth? Might be useful to know; might not. Lord knows we shouldn't shun leftists or shibboleths (good West Wing episode, eh?). Pixy is Welsh and smart? Is she single and hot? Pax and the PoMo,

48 A linguist joining the fray.

I, like Dr. Miyake, have a Ph.D. in Linguistics. I also have a strong background in the "hard" sciences (math, physics, chemistry, and even biology).

I find the following major faults with Chomskyian theory:
* It relies on hypothetical constructs for which there is no evidence (e.g., transformations, empty categories, movement).
* It is unfalsifiable, that is, its constraints are so loose as to allow anything. Put another way, no data can show it wrong. A theory that allows anything explains nothing.
* In Chomskyian analyses, all languages have the same "underlying" structure, and this structure is extraordinarily like English.
* It is so complex that the only way children could have it in their heads is if they're born with it. While it is certain that many elements of human language ability are innate, a less convoluted theory requires less on the part of the brain, and fits better with what we know about general human cognition and learning processes. Chomsky's Universal Grammar, on the other hand, requires things (like strict binary branching) that are absent from general theories of learning and cognition.

I conclude that Chomskian theory is unscientific. It has no more place in academia than astrology.

Oh, Yawn, please point out where Dr. Miyake "slanders" Chomsky. Excoriation is not the same as slander (and you mean libel, don't you?).

49 Pixy- What part of "we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in" are you missing? Bush was suggesting that Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors back into Iraq. Period. And that is a lie. Unless you want to debate what the meaning of "in" is! Clinton would be proud... Now obviously we can debate Iraq's cooperation with weapons inspectors over the last decade, but to suggest that "well, that's what Bush meant" is extremely weak. The Blix quotes you mentioned were mostly just Blix pointing out what Res. 1441 required, and mentioning that in some cases they where getting mild resistance. But that is hardly the same as "not letting them in". The reality that you can't seem to face is that the weapons inspectors WORKED. It has been proven. Even when Iraq was EXTREMELY uncooperative during UNSCOM, which prompted Res. 1441, the inspectors managed to virtually eliminate Iraq's WMD capably and stockpiles. I know you don't read anything not printed in RightWingNews.com, but you should check out Scott Ritter's (former UNSCOM weapons inspector) book, War On Iraq... he clearly details how effective the inspectors were, and how absurd Bush's claims were. He also points out that the CIA was in fact using the weapons inspectors to gather non-WMD related data, which the Iraqi's quickly figured out, prompting at least some of their obstinance. The rest was probably Saddam bluffing, and showing off to his Arab neighbors, nothing unexpected considering the rough neighborhood. But Bush wanted to invade Iraq, his ideological buddies had been planning this for years, and claiming Iraq had a threatening arsenal was his ticket to public support, so he did. Thus and endless litany of HIGHLY misleading statements designed to scare the hell out of everybody... It's interesting how far you've lowered the bar to considering someone "honest". Apparently saying something that in a legal sense is "technically" true, even though 95% of those who hear is will get a very different impression is honest. And conveniently dropping any and all qualifiers on intelligence, cherry picking what you need to build a case to launch the first preemptive war in American history is honest. The ambient irony of this is that this is your ENTIRE complaint against Chomsky!!! Absolutely hilarious. So here's a challenge... given your new and improved definition of "honesty", and what it means to tell "lie", show me ONE instance in which Chomsky has lied. And given your "I don't care what the ... may or may not have done. I'm asking you" standards, don't just point me to some guy who supposedly has all the answers.

50 Poly- Cool people use italics. I use quotes. Maybe this is just an "awkward phase" for you. I'm sure you'll come around... I was referring to the fact(s)... I supposed when you said "Like Kamm or not, those are the facts" you were talking about his arguments, and was hoping you'd enlighten me on just what it is he's proven. What IS a "right wing nut" I dunno, I guess it's someone who is extremely partisan, spends a lot of time complaining about the other side, but uses poor logic and only a subset of the "facts", if any at all. A very subjective label, for sure... but once it seems like someone is a "nut" (and there a "left wing nuts" too, for sure) it becomes very hard to take them seriously.

51 Squidley- please point out where Dr. Miyake "slanders" Chomsky Well, how about his conclusion: Is Chomsky a double fraud in both science and politics? I honestly don't know. I have never met him and don't want to - the urge to verbally attack him is too strong. Maybe he really believes what he says in one or both fields. But in any case, Chomsky is a troublemaker on two fronts. He is like Lenin and Lysenko rolled into one. Can you tell me how Chomsky is like Lenin?! It has no more place in academia than astrology Well, you should tell that to the vast majority of linguists who don't agree with you. Who knows, maybe his theories are wrong... or maybe you just don't really understand them well enough. But clearly the the academic world has made a place for them, so that at least is worthy of respect. Maybe you and Miyake should just put your venom away and come up with a better theory.

52 Bush was suggesting that Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors back into Iraq. No he wasn't. He may have appeared to be suggesting that to you, but that is because you start by assuming he is lying. Who knows, maybe his theories are wrong Chomsky has yet to present a theory regarding linguistics. His Universal Grammar does not, as has been pointed out repeatedly, satisfy any of the fundamental requirements for a scientific theory. But clearly the the academic world has made a place for them, so that at least is worthy of respect. Why? His work in lingusitics is so bad it's not even wrong, it's meaningless. That it has become fashionable does not make it any more worthy of respect. Apparently saying something that in a legal sense is "technically" true, even though 95% of those who hear is will get a very different impression is honest. You have that exactly reversed. You are so desperate to make a lie out of Bush's statements that you pick through every word he says, looking for anything that could, in the worst possible light and the narrowest possible context, be viewed as misleading, and then screech "LIAR! LIAR!" like Miracle Max's wife out of The Princess Bride.

53 Can you tell me how Chomsky is like Lenin?! So you agree that he is like Lysenko?

54 but that is because you start by assuming he is lying uh-huh... and you don't think there's any chance you start by wanting to find truth in what he's saying, because you subscribe to his underlying ideology, or you think he's cute or something. And how about this: You are so desperate to make a lie out of Chomsky's statements that you pick through every word he says, looking for anything that could, in the worst possible light and the narrowest possible context, be viewed as misleading, and then screech "LIAR! LIAR!" like Miracle Max's wife out of The Princess Bride. Funny, huh? Except you've clearly never read Chomsky yourself to any extent, and I've heard every word of Bush's shell game. Anyway, since you love links so much, here's a great essay detailing 40 instances of Bush's "honesty" regarding the "War on Terror". The guy is shameless. His work in lingusitics is so bad it's not even wrong, it's meaningless. Tell me, would you even care about Chomsky's linguistics work if you didn't so completely despise him politically and personally? Like I said, "axe to grind".

55 So you agree that he is like Lysenko? No, I figured the Lenin comparison was more that sufficient to point out was an absolute imbecile Miyake is.

56 and you don't think there's any chance you start by wanting to find truth in what he's saying, because you subscribe to his underlying ideology, or you think he's cute or something. Nope. Because I don't, either one. Tell me, would you even care about Chomsky's linguistics work if you didn't so completely despise him politically and personally? Like I said, "axe to grind". I care more about Chomsky's linguistics "work" than his politics. Politics are just politics, and even if his views are unusually vile, they are no more so than those of a thousand other commentators. But linguistics is science, and he has poisoned it. And what the hell is that latest link of yours supposed to demonstrate? It's a series of flawed rebuttals to unsupported assertions that bear little or no relation to anything anyone in the Bush administration has said. Or in some cases, unsupported rebuttals to obviously true statements. Example of the first type: 8) Saddam was involved with bin Laden and al Qaeda in the plotting of 9/11. No one in the Bush administration ever said he was. Example of the second type: 9) The U.S. wants democracy in Iraq and the Middle East. This is presented as being a lie. Funny that open elections have already been held in Afghanistan and are to be held in Iraq next month. Or take this one: 27) U.S. troops "rescued" Private Jessica Lynch from an Iraqi hospital. Which indeed they did. The "rebuttal" addresses all sorts of points, none of them actually addressing the statement. Yeah. So?

57 No, I figured the Lenin comparison was more that sufficient to point out was an absolute imbecile Miyake is. How so? I agree that the comparison with Lysenko is much more apt, but I can't see what point you are trying to make here, or how it would indicate any sort of failing on Miyake's part. Sorry.

58 Anyway, yawn, please take a couple of days off from this - I'll be frantically busy tomorrow and then away for Christmas, so I won't be able to respond. And I think it would be better if we both took a step back and calmed down. Merry Christmas, Pixy

59 "Actually, America's first real ally was probably France

Heh. Funny man!

France!"

Notably, very soon after the time the United States of America were actually unified under the current Constitution, our first international war (albeit a very one) was the maritime confrontation with France. It even predates our policy of pre-emptive regime change for outrageously offensive Muslim nations, which started (sensibly enough and with ample provocation) in the 18th century and has, thankfully, been dusted back off in time for the 21st.

Our cultural commonality and history of amity vis a vis France is much weaker than the same record with Britain, Australia, or even Canada (the latter marred, of course, by our early tendency as a nation to invade Canada as a means of antagonizing its British owners).

60 Anyway, yawn, please take a couple of days off from this Fair enough... take care.

61 Of course UNMOVIC inspectors had been in Iraq and being given unfettered access when they where withdrawn by the U.S. on March 18, 2003, prior to the invasion. Now given your keen sense of lie detection honed during your Chomsky studies, what would you consider that? Here's a hint: LIAR!!!

Saddam has a record of ignoring any and all UN Security Council Resolutions he finds inconvenient, despite the threat of the resumption of hostilities, as laid out in UN Security Council Resolution 687, if he should fail to comply. Those that have condemned the Iraqi regime for violations specifically relating to weapons inspections include: SCR 707 (1991), SCR 715 (1991 -- 715 does not condemn Iraq for violation, but he refused to comply with it for almost two years), SCR 1060 (1996), SCR 1115 (1997), SCR 1134 (1997), SCR 1137 (1997), SCR 1194 (1998), SCR 1205 (1998), and SCR 1441 (2002). This from a nation who lost the Gulf War and whose regime continued to exist after 1991 contingent upon compliance with SCR 687 and other UN Security Council Resolutions.

At the time that Hans Blix claimed inspections were working, albeit slowly the seasonal/environmental window for operations in Iraq was rapidly closing. Saddam was simply playing his usual games, trying to run out the clock on a potential spring invasion. As has been previously stated, if I recall correctly, the burden of proof fell completely on Iraq to demonstrate its compliance. UNSCOM/UNMOVIC was not intended to be a scavenger hunt across the desert, though Iraqi intransigence rendered it such. Technically, any if Iraq's various violations of the requirements of SCR 687 were grounds for the renewal of hostilities. Saddam was clear on this point, which is why he invested such time and money in bribing French, Russian, and Chinese officials to prevent a resumption of hostilities, regardless of his violations of 687.

62 What IS a "right wing nut"

I dunno, I guess it's someone who is extremely partisan, spends a lot of time complaining about the other side, but uses poor logic and only a subset of the "facts", if any at all. A very subjective label, for sure... but once it seems like someone is a "nut" (and there a "left wing nuts" too, for sure) it becomes very hard to take them seriously.



For members of the Chomsky Cult it really is not nearly so complex as that rather simple definition allows for. Those who disagree with Chomsky or hold differing political views than Chomsky are "right wing nuts." Never mind that any rational person with non-Stalinist political views might regard such people as right, left, or center in the political spectrum, it is the act of disagreeing with the religious leadership that brands one as a "right wing nut," "freeper," etc., and therefore obligates the faithful to ignore anything they might say as reactionary and heretical. In so doing, of course, the minds of the faithful are protected from the contamination of anything that does not descend from proletarian heaven by way of the omniscient and omnibenevolent (except for the victims of Chomsky-sanctioned totalitarian regimes such and the Cuban and Vietnamese Communist Parties, the Khmer Rouge, various international and intranational terror groups, etc) Chomsky.

63 Yawn, I'm happy to see that you’re taking a break. I, too, have overreacted when attacked on-line, and a break is good for everyone involved. Still, I must take you to task for some of your statements.

First, please keep it civil. The best way to do that? No name-calling. You called Dr. Miyake "an absolute imbecile." You may disagree with him, but does that make him an imbecile? If so, you have no place in polite society. Have you ever read any of his academic writing, or talked with him? I have done both, and he is one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable people I've ever met. His academic work is of the highest caliber.

As for Dr. Miyake's comparison of Chomsky to Stalin and Lysenko, well, you'd have to ask him how that works. I don't think anyone is dying because of Chomsky, but the academic parallels to Chomsky and Lysenko--namely, ignoring empirical evidence due to adherence to a theory--are solid.

You claimed that "the vast majority of linguists" disagree with me as to the validity of Chomsky's work. The number of people who believe something has no effect on its veracity (ever hear the silly notion that the earth is round?). Furthermore, how many linguists do you know? I acknowledge that most American syntacticians use Chomskian theory, but the ones I know well who do so actually disagree with it, and only use the theory so that they can get published. As for non-syntacticians (who outnumber syntacticians), most ignore Chomskyism because it's irrelevant for their work. Some U.S. linguistics departments are decidedly non-Chomskyist, and outside of the U.S., his work is significantly less popular. In my professional opinion, your statement is false.

As for coming up with a better theory, neither I nor Dr. Miyake are syntacticians, so we're not going to come up with competing theories--but they're out there. Also, one does not need to propose an alternative merely to point out the shortcomings of one approach—though it is more productive if you can.

More later.

64 "right wing nut" It's a sloppy liberal topos charged with expressive exuberance and used as an emotional cyclotron of hatred towards one with who one disagrees--from a left wing nut's perch. What I mean is the term is used much more often by left wing nuts than anyone else. And does this surprise? Of course not. Just wondered what you thought it meant. It clearly does NOT mean what you think it does. A right wing nut has to apply coherently to one who makes home on the extreme radical right and does so in a fanatical fashion dysfunctional to intellectual discourse and activities. Elsewise wherefore the nut? Extreme right is vague of its own complexity the epithet becomes more and more trite the more people it's slung on so, be careful, is all. Your epithets have to stop at some point before you end up defining YOURSELF as a side-effect, as I believe learningcurve alluded to. Anyway, Oliver Kamm is not a right-wing nut, and not even by your own criteria. I'm not a fan of his or even an admirer, just an observer, and don't intend this to say anything other than what it did regarding your claim that he's a right wing nut. If you don't like capitalism, say so; if you don't like Kamm, say so. But don't couch it in a political cloth that belies the facts about the man. It may not be patent libel, but it's libelous. Pax,

65 Yawn impugned my ability to understand Chomsky's theories when he (?) said,
"maybe you just don't really understand them well enough."
Lessee here, I have a Ph.D. in Linguistics. Is this what makes me unable to understand his theories? Please tell us: what in your background or training gives you your superior understanding of Chomsky's academic writing?

Having said that, I will admit to having difficulty understanding Chomsky's writing. It's not due to the content; rather, it's the form. IMO, Chomsky is the worst popular writer in English alive today. His turgid prose is obscure, laden with jargon, and deliberately impenetrable. I believe that part of why his writing is so hard to fathom is that it puts the onus on the reader. "Gee, I didn’t understand that at all--must be something wrong with me," thinks the unsuspecting grad student upon reading Chomsky for the first time. Being able to wade through the swampy morasses of his writings is a kind of rite of passage. Once you've gone through it, you're in the club. Also, there's strong incentive to go with the flow, because some branches of linguistics (notably syntax and phonology) in America are dominated by certain theories, and one goes against them at one's own risk. Syntacticians who don't agree with Chomsky have a hard time getting published and finding work.

Furthermore, Chomsky's academic writing is intellectually dishonest. When he changes his theory, he'll publish a new book to tell everyone what's new and what's out. (His followers all fall in line; no one dissents.) However, his bibliography fails to mention all the books and articles that others have written that have already arrived at similar conclusions. Chomsky makes himself look like a genius for having come up with all these new ideas ex nihilo, when in fact what he's done is just short of plagiarism.

One last question: how is it venomous to give the reasons why you disagree with something? Show that my analysis of Chomsky is wrong. Show that his theories are, in fact, scientific. Show that empty categories and transformations are real. If you can, I will concede that I am wrong and Chomsky is right. What will it take for you to admit you might be less than correct? (BTW, I agree with Pixy: nothing Chomsky's written actually reaches the level of theory, but for want of a better word...)