i want to be clear that my characterization of the chomsky criticism launched by hitchens-georgia rondas-andrew hagen-leo casey as misguided, cynical and perverse in no way implies that i think chomsky is above crititism.
*i don't think wm lear on pen-l was effective in rebutting the charge that chomsky had misanalyzed what the costs were and who had borne them in the Marshall plan. wm lear relied on marcello dececco to defend chomsky; it seems to differ from the more defensible account in anthony tuo-kofi gadzey's political economy of power. **i do think chomsky can be criticized for not probing into the limits of some of the opposition groups or states to American empire. this is not his focus, but how he frames events can be challenged, i believe. however, unlike hitchens, i do not think chomsky ever apologized for milosevic or the 'serbs'-- in fact, i think he said the milosevic was guilty of more and greater war crimes than usually recognized. ***i tend to think that chomsky underestimates the political economic basis of foreign policy; i found edward herman's real terror network to be more helpful, and i think herman's contribution is underestimated. ****i look forward to learning more about chomsky's linguistics. unlike jim farmelant whose opinion i respect, i think i will find c's critque of skinner's behaviorism (and quine's philosophy insofar as it was influenced by skinner) to be persuasive. but aside from that, i appreciate chomsky's scientific audacity in positing an unobservable structure to explain observed phenomena. such scientific daring seems preferrable to me than a simple description of the acquisition of language in a behaviorist mode. but i have no opinion on this, and i suspect that i will be sympathetic to critiques of chomsky's innatism by people like bickerton. chomsky is certainly not above criticism, but in my opinion it may have beneath him to have responded to hitchens' and casey's grotesque criticisms. Rakesh
