If darwin is right there must have been a "first" man. Did this man have the "language acquisition device" hardwired into place, or did he adapt into it? No, really; no snark here; I really want to know!

Hitchens on Chomsky on Cambodia and Faurisson. Clears up some points (and I say his as no fan of Hitchens). As to Kamm's piece, he supplies no credible evidence for his claims - out of context quotes from Chomsky extracted from polemical debates prove nothing (if one looks up the debates one will see that Chomsky has done nothing underhand and is transparent in his arguments). http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/1985----.htm

It should be noted that Kamm's 'obsession' with Chomsky, stems from the latter's harsh criticism of Israel. Until a few years ago, Kamm was known only for his reviews on Amazon.co.uk books on politics; where his chief criteria on judging them was the respective author's views on Israel. Israeli apologists were given lavish praise, while Israeli critics (including Chomsky)are uniformly given the lowest score possible. Kamm's career as a 'journalist' was kick started when Times editor Daniel Finkelstein (the man who is credited with converting David Cameron to zionism) gave him a job - presumably after reading Kamm's emotionally charged Amazon emissions. Kamm will occupy the most untenable intectually two faced positions possible to defend Israel, and the US militarism it relies upon. Therefore while declaring himself a 'left-wing' defender of human rights, he supports Israel's cluster bombing of Beirut, the WWII nuking of Japanese cities, and the invasion of Iraq (although he is strangely silent on the need for 'muscular liberal' intervention to rescue the oppressed and victimised indigenous population of Gaza and the West Bank). Although I personally dislike Chomsky's works (which are indeed 'over-rated); Kamm's deceitful, hypocritical, and intellectually bankrupt positions are entirely worthless except as propaganda.

Hmm, tough crowd. I just came in here to say that my definition of 'tool' is someone who can say 'global capitalist hegemony' out loud without giggling.

This is a post I made some time ago, concerning the Faurisson issues with regards to Chomsky's defense (posted on Eric Alterman's "Altercation" blog back when it was on MSNBC). Eric Alterman contended that Chomsky could've easily apologized and admitted error in his signing of the petition, but instead defended his decision irrationally. This, as Kamm eludes to, is the "overrated" aspect of Chomsky. His ,at times, insightful thinking can be dangerously dogmatic and contrary to the ideals he precariously stands upon. Also, Kamm's own transgressions are irrelevant to the point he is attempting to make. Ad hominem attacks alone do not discredit an author's argument (this would extend to some of Kamm's argumentative devices in this article as well). Eric, I realize you're probably tired of the Chomsky debate. I recently took the time to visit your recent link to the fellow who called you a coward, and responded with this comment. I don't think it covers the issue fully, but like so many things that are intuitively simple and obvious it takes more time and energy then one would ever expect (as I'm sure your all to aware of). This comment was written after an earlier and much more brief exchange. "Well there are many claims that I would like to address, but first I believe there is a burden of proof on yourself to demonstrate why Alterman would be "jealous" of Chomsky. But thats a rather superficial contention and one I don't expect you to delve into extensively. However, I deeply believe, on a philosophical level, that you are wrong to say that there are no limits (to proper censorship), and I believe you yourself have shown this. As you said, absolute freedom of speech only reaches cogency on a metaphorical heuristic level, beyond that in everyday discourse we are able to reasonably discern between what is rational expressions of free speech and what is absolute vitriolic bullsh**t. Alterman's point(s), and I believe it is a good one, is that as an academic, presenting material not only to collegues but students and the public at large, one has a responsibility to present the truth; as close as one can get to such an elusive ideal. Expounding beliefs that the Holocaust never happened is not only an act of academic fraud, but is absurdly dangerous in matters of public discourse. Such "scholarly" writing only fuels the hatred of groups that threaten our freedoms, beyond the freedom of speech, but the freedom to literally be. If we are to talk of freedom, in its most absolute form, we must see it as a respect to the freedom of others, and as far as I am concerned, I do not see this respect coming from apologists of the holocaust. Instead of defending the ideal, would it not make more sense for Chomsky to defend the actual individuals who died/and/or were deeply affected by the Nazi regime. According to your logic, there actions are justified, and so is the defense of their actions becuase just as anyone else is, they are able to defend them through their expression of speech. We must remember that speech can lead to action, and it is in the action that we must measure and delineate the value of a persons articulation. Surely one can express what they want, but we should not blindly defend this expression simply for the sake of it, but must with a profoundly difficult precision, determine the implications that ones views have on society at large. Chomsky's defense allows for atrocities because it ends up defending eggregiously damaging thought. Chomsky's defense seems more for affect rather than actual practical implication. And so, I will leave with my original question, why defend such ridiculous claims (or the right to make them) when one could spend time on a more worth-while debate? (such as the imperial nature of the US perhaps) You asked me to put myself in Chomsky's shoes, and I can only ask you to put yourself in Alterman's. As a Jew, would you not think it ridiculous to find intelligent academics defending the right to claim that the holocaust did not exist? Likewise, would you not find it ridiculous if I punched you in the face and immediately claimed I did not? Would you not find it entirely counterintuitive for a national leader to lie about reasons for war and then to blatantly say that they did not? Surely one has the freedom to do so, but to defend one's right to blatenly lie is merely to defend ones right to also negate your own freedom; intellectual and external. For a lie is often the very negation of what is real, what is true, and so, like a double-edged sword, the act of free speech can often be the negation of another’s freedom; because it can bury the truth just as easily as it can reveal it. It therefore would make sense for Chomsky to defend free speech de facto, but in a particular case like the Faurisson one, it goes beyond intelligibility. In essence, by involving himself personally in support of Faurisson, he is, albeit indirectly, supporting the potential spread of Faurisson's ideas. Certainly not something any of us would like to see. As Adorno concluded, we should simply look to prevent anything like the Holocaust from ever happening again, and I think allowing Faurisson to express his beliefs in the halls of academia is incredibly dangerous and counterproductive to fulfilling Adorno's (and the worlds)simple and rational wish."

Apologies for the superfluous y. Pinker's piece appeared in Discover magazine, of course. (Discovery magazine is apparently a "Scripture and science" magazine for kids!)

Pinker on Chomsky in this month's Discovery magazine: "Noam Chomsky stands in the tradition of the great Enlightenment thinkers who combined a sweeping intellectual vision with meticulous technical analyses...despite having another life as a prolific activist, he remains, on the brink of his 80th birthday, the world’s most influential working linguist." http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/01-he-found-innate-humanity-in-the-...

Kamm wrote: "[Chomsky] has long employed a variety of unscholarly techniques to insulate his conclusions from criticism." Like what -- appeal to force? Do not make me laugh. Nobody can "insulate" their conclusions from criticism. It is impossible.

Folks, please read Mr. Kamm's article again. He is berating Chomsky here because, for a prominent intellectual and renowned linguist, it is noteworthy how often Chomsky falls back on a decidedly anti-intellectual sparring technique when his precepts are questioned. Which is what makes Kamm's observations so pointed to some, I guess. Usually, when a man has his facts straight he knows he's on solid ground, and he'll rebut an argument with verifiable facts. But when an "intellectual" doesn't have the facts, well, instead...you get the picture. Whatever you may think of Noam Chomsky's poitical sermonizing, don't confuse Kamm's cogent critique of another public intellectual's debating style with unwarranted, quippish horseplay. In this case, it easy to see that it is not.

Folks, please read Mr. Kamm's article again. In it he is berating Chomsky because it is noteworthy that, for a prominent intellectual and renowned linguist, Chomsky falls back on a decidedly anti-intellectual sparring technique when his precepts are questioned. Which is what makes Kamm's observations so pointed to some, I guess. Usually, when a man has his facts straight he knows he's on solid ground, and he'll rebut an argument with verifiable facts. But when an "intellectual" doesn't have the facts, well, instead...you get the picture. Whatever you may think of Noam Chomsky's poitical sermonizing, don't confuse Kamm's cogent critique of another public intellectual's debating style with unwarranted, quippish horseplay. In this case, it easy to see it is not.