Web Grab: McCain vs Arnie, Chomsky is wrong again, Jermaine Jackson's hilarious life...

Here are some recommended posts from the web:

• Mickey Kaus in Slate.com: Maybe McCain should worry more about Arnie than Hilary (Note that you have to scroll down a few entries to get to this one)
• Oliver Kamm: Chomsky is wrong about the Bush Administration’s policy on the Middle East peace process
• Noam Scheiber in The Plank (The New Republic's blog): Do Conservatives know the meaning of unilateralism?
• Sarita Malik in Comment is free: Why do black and Asian women want to whiten up in the first place?
• Hugo Rifkind in the Times Online Big Brother blog: Spotting a hilarious wikipedia entry about Jermaine Jackson
• Iain Dale: New Style policing – “If you have no money, you won’t be charged”

Comments

[David Moss]

Before looking, try to guess, who said of Noam Chomsky "his public appearances are in America: the only country in the whole world that rewards those who denounce it with the honors and opportunities that make denouncing it into a rewarding way of life" and "it is his ability to excite not just contempt for American foreign policy but a lively sense that it is guided by some kind of criminal conspiracy that provides the motive for Prof. Chomsky's unceasing diatribes and the explanation of his influence". Got it? OK, I'll give you a hint, he also said of those who denounce the US "they hate America not for her faults, but for her virtues, which cast a humiliating light on those who cannot adapt to the modern world or take advantage of its achievements". I'll even throw in "he is not valued for his truths but for his rage, which stokes the rage of his admirers. He feeds the self-righteousness of America's enemies, who feed the self-righteousness of Prof. Chomsky. And in the ensuing blaze everything is sacrificed, including the constructive criticism that America so much needs, and that America--unlike its enemies, Prof. Chomsky included--is prepared to listen to". Now you can click: http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110008997.

[D.S.]

Moss, it seems to me like your idea of constructive criticism is criticism that is not guenuine or based on fact.

It seems to me me Chomsky is raising awareness of facts- all his research is well documented, as are his sources. I do not believe he would be effective in doing so, if he, as it seems you would want, would do the same as all media does- water down arguments and issues, and leave out some altogether, due to their "controversy".
Criticism of Chomsky always revolves around the "spirit" of his work, not the actual content, because anyone that is willing to check his sources on the issues will be quickly humbled.

Both criticisms of Chomsky, and his criticism of government (not just U.S.), society, and deception should both be based in substance and fact, not semantics and conceptual paradigms. I leave it to you to judge them.