Noam Chomsky and the Manufacturing of American Dissent: 2 videos

[Peter Presland]

I was going to stay mum on this but, since Paul and Jan are the two people I read most here - well - here goes.

Charles has already done just what was needed in my view - although I wouldn't describe Jan's response as 'moderate in the extreme'. Maybe in the comparative case cited but that just goes to illustrate how spats like this can become so counter-productive to our presumed shared purpose of teasing out the reality behind the facade.

Paul's logic is, in my view, impeccable but I must admit to wincing at the '*****-esque notion' bit. That said and using it purely as an adjective, the point illustrated, was spot-on. Jan did duck and dive in the manner of someone defending a weak position with the tools/weapons to hand. I'm also persuaded that outrage is not the best response to a presumed slander.

Knowing Paul, he was certainly not intending a slander, just nailing a point in a manner that was just a tad too cavalier about the personal - not to say pompous - sensitivities that we are all prone to in some measure.

Jan's point about the tendency to ascribe differences in interpretation to malign infuences is a good one too. In the nature of things DPF interests are almost bound to nurture paranoia. Mike Rupert's position on '9/11 truth' is a good case in point. His 'Crossing the Rubican' is one othe very best early analyses but he will now have nothing to do with the subject - 'move on' is his message - baffling really.

Frankly, I think that nailing points IS important - in fact VERY important - even if people do get upset in the process. I just hope that neither Paul nor Jan find it necessary to take the personal side of this any further, because they both have too much to offer by way of deep insights into what we are all primarily concerned with.