lord_tyronisis's review against another edition
4.0
As someone who read a LOT of Chomsky and felt irritation the entire time, this book was extremely refreshing. It’s interesting to note throughout the essays a common theme of Chomsky engaging in dishonest language and, frankly, Doublethink throughout his work. In reading his books I was always troubled by his use of particular words and phrases that stacked premises in his favor or tacitly swept alternative views under the rug. It particularly troubled me because he’s an expert in language and likely knows what he is doing.
On that note, the final chapter about Chomsky’s work in language was quite interesting though parts of it went over my head due to the technical aspects of the study.
I do have a few criticism of this book though. Some of the commentary on US foreign relations seemed rather reductive. The authors glance over the crimes of the Pinochet regime in Chile in a disconcerting way. In another example, they don’t present the full story. Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups did and do attack the governments of various middle eastern countries that are allied with the US. Saudi Arabia is certainly a target of the ire of Al-Qaeda.
All that said, over all a very interesting book.
On that note, the final chapter about Chomsky’s work in language was quite interesting though parts of it went over my head due to the technical aspects of the study.
I do have a few criticism of this book though. Some of the commentary on US foreign relations seemed rather reductive. The authors glance over the crimes of the Pinochet regime in Chile in a disconcerting way. In another example, they don’t present the full story. Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups did and do attack the governments of various middle eastern countries that are allied with the US. Saudi Arabia is certainly a target of the ire of Al-Qaeda.
All that said, over all a very interesting book.
theartolater's review against another edition
3.0
Closer to a 2.5, this is a series of essays attacking many of the positions and claims of Noam Chomsky. Part of me enjoyed it just to get a flavor for some of the arguments against him, another part was shocked as to how many people actually adopt Chomsky's arguments, consciously or otherwise, in the discussions I've had over the years.
With that said, the book is flawed. I would have liked more consistent sourcing, I would have preferred a more sober, less polemical treatment (it's published in part by WND books, which I did not know when I picked it up and probably would have kept me away from it), and, at nearly 10 years old, is desperately in need of an update.
Worth reading if you need this specific kind of response, but it's otherwise expendable.
With that said, the book is flawed. I would have liked more consistent sourcing, I would have preferred a more sober, less polemical treatment (it's published in part by WND books, which I did not know when I picked it up and probably would have kept me away from it), and, at nearly 10 years old, is desperately in need of an update.
Worth reading if you need this specific kind of response, but it's otherwise expendable.
brettt's review
3.0
Starting in 1967, MIT linguistics professor Noam Chomsky began his blizzard of brief books and pamphlets about the United States, its history and its politics. At the risk of eliding the hundreds of thousands of words he's put into print, let's just say he holds a negative view of all three.
Writers Peter Collier and David Horowitz began as leftists like Chomsky, but over time migrated to the right, while keeping their laser-intense focus and gift for highly charged writing. In 2004, they collected several essays by historians, political scientists and opinion writers -- and Horowitz contributed a pair himself -- dissecting Chomsky's viewpoints and analysis. They also collected two essays about Chomsky's professional field of linguistics and linguistic analysis. At the risk of eliding the thousands of words they put into print, let's just say they hold a negative view of almost every bit of his work.
Specific targets include Chomsky's view of the actual heroes and villains of the United States' involvement in southeast Asia, his analysis of the true causes as well as the heroes and villains of the Cold War, and the actual reasons behind the September 11, 2001 attacks and some of the subsequent conflict as it was happening in that time.
According to the contributors to this Anti-Chomsky Reader, Chomsky believes the only reason something wrong with the world isn't the United States' fault is because Israel beat them to it. Both, and to a lesser extent some western European nations, cause most of the trouble in the world as ways to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. Nearly every American action is seen as a way for wealthy elitists, industrialists and other such power brokers to strengthen or maintain their grip on the reins of power. Pre-USSR collapse, the good guys in the story were the world's Communist dictatorships; now it's a rotating cast of whoever Chomsky believes is getting picked on or bullied by the United States.
The essays start to wear thin, although their authors are surveying a body of work rather than one book. The Reader could be a useful reference work when countering some of Chomsky's own work on the subjects in question but turns into a kind of heavy slog. The linguistics section presupposes the average reader knows quite a bit about the subject and can leave that reader wondering just what's being written about beyond the claim that Chomsky's a dishonest hack in his own legitimate field of study, not just politics and history. Since Chomsky shows little variation in his errors, pointing them out takes on a feeling of sameness as well.
Original available here.
Writers Peter Collier and David Horowitz began as leftists like Chomsky, but over time migrated to the right, while keeping their laser-intense focus and gift for highly charged writing. In 2004, they collected several essays by historians, political scientists and opinion writers -- and Horowitz contributed a pair himself -- dissecting Chomsky's viewpoints and analysis. They also collected two essays about Chomsky's professional field of linguistics and linguistic analysis. At the risk of eliding the thousands of words they put into print, let's just say they hold a negative view of almost every bit of his work.
Specific targets include Chomsky's view of the actual heroes and villains of the United States' involvement in southeast Asia, his analysis of the true causes as well as the heroes and villains of the Cold War, and the actual reasons behind the September 11, 2001 attacks and some of the subsequent conflict as it was happening in that time.
According to the contributors to this Anti-Chomsky Reader, Chomsky believes the only reason something wrong with the world isn't the United States' fault is because Israel beat them to it. Both, and to a lesser extent some western European nations, cause most of the trouble in the world as ways to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. Nearly every American action is seen as a way for wealthy elitists, industrialists and other such power brokers to strengthen or maintain their grip on the reins of power. Pre-USSR collapse, the good guys in the story were the world's Communist dictatorships; now it's a rotating cast of whoever Chomsky believes is getting picked on or bullied by the United States.
The essays start to wear thin, although their authors are surveying a body of work rather than one book. The Reader could be a useful reference work when countering some of Chomsky's own work on the subjects in question but turns into a kind of heavy slog. The linguistics section presupposes the average reader knows quite a bit about the subject and can leave that reader wondering just what's being written about beyond the claim that Chomsky's a dishonest hack in his own legitimate field of study, not just politics and history. Since Chomsky shows little variation in his errors, pointing them out takes on a feeling of sameness as well.
Original available here.
More...