Oh, I dunno ... I sorta see some topicality in Radikal's cut-and-paste ... a stretch mebbe, but its there if ya dig for it. I happen to disagree with the thrust of the piece, but that's neither here nor there; that's merely a function of my own perception that Chomsky is absurd by nature.
Mostly, though, I don't lend much weight to the cut-and-paste style of arguement. So what if one can find a pundit who supports one's particular cherished prejudice? Generally, Internet Op-Ed pieces are about worth the paper they're printed on.
On the other hand, cut-and-paste an article or opinion, then disect and discuss it, pointing out where and why one agrees or disagrees with the thrust, or perhaps, depending on point of view, either dispute and rebut findings and/or conclusions as presented or further corroborate same with independently derived factual material, and there is thought and discussion going on. I'm not gonna bother taking the Chomsky blather apart, but anyone who objects to it is welcome to, just as anyone who agrees with it is welcome to deal with it from that point of view.
Either way, dissecting and critiquing the piece would serve the discussion at hand more ably than does sniping at one another about what may or may not be posted where by whom under which circumstances ... might not be as much fun, mebbe, and certainlty would call for more strenuous intellectual gymnastics than recently have been demonstrated here.
That's my take, anyway. And I'm not a self-appointed moderator, either.
