Okay, I'm stupid.

First, Codrescu has a regular spot on NPR; great voice - lots between the lines. Best to hear him at least once.

My guess is that he's referring here ~ to maybe two aspects of Chomsky: his over-detailed and patently academic tone, frequently of rant-length then.. to the Chomsky wannabes who excerpt some of his phrases, run with it: but don't really know shit about our history or world history. Protesters Light, say? I don't think this is about any serious disagreement with C. ie about the scam of Capitalism; just the means of dealing with the crap.

My own take (whether or not I've grasped the basis of Codrescu's dis here) is that Chomsky's approach to the patent "rich will always be with us" root and Dream of Capitalism (as spawned the ungovernable Int'l Corporations) - is to argue the principles of democracy that are raped. Few people IME are sufficiently ept about political theory to do much with this. Or they've made one of these a personal religion already = no communication is then possible.

More people are able to grasp verifiable facts about just where the world's wealth (control of same) ends up, grok the methods by which this shell game is kept functioning as the gap widens. This I'd call practical demoronising of the cant we were fed in Civic 101.

I think Codrescu's style is to make his little homilies with explicit examples too - and with little patience for 'theory', given the much larger audience than academia. Someday I'll ask him. He's one sharp middle-European (descent) Murican, and I'd deduce that his education has been in both university and street - in some rough times.

My take,

Ashton

Post #52,937 by mmoffitt 9/23/02 11:04:37 PM Reply	Okay, I'm stupid. What's Andrei's beef w/Chomsky?
Post #52,958 by Ashton 9/24/02 2:53:27 AM Reply	Only the inferences First, Codrescu has a regular spot on NPR; great voice - lots between the lines. Best to hear him at least once. My guess is that he's referring here ~ to maybe two aspects of Chomsky: his over-detailed and patently academic tone, frequently of rant-length then.. to the Chomsky wannabes who excerpt some of his phrases, run with it: but don't really know shit about our history or world history. Protesters Light, say? I don't think this is about any serious disagreement with C. ie about the scam of Capitalism; just the means of dealing with the crap. My own take (whether or not I've grasped the basis of Codrescu's dis here) is that Chomsky's approach to the patent "rich will always be with us" root and Dream of Capitalism (as spawned the ungovernable Int'l Corporations) - is to argue the principles of democracy that are raped. Few people IME are sufficiently ept about political theory to do much with this. Or they've made one of these a personal religion already = no communication is then possible. More people are able to grasp verifiable facts about just where the world's wealth (control of same) ends up, grok the methods by which this shell game is kept functioning as the gap widens. This I'd call practical demoronising of the cant we were fed in Civic 101. I think Codrescu's style is to make his little homilies with explicit examples too - and with little patience for 'theory', given the much larger audience than academia. Someday I'll ask him. He's one sharp middle-European (descent) Murican, and I'd deduce that his education has been in both university and street - in some rough times. My take, Ashton
Post #53,094 by mmoffitt 9/24/02 8:26:43 PM Reply	I heard him do a piece on "nationalism". He was talking about being in school in Romania (?) under Soviet oppression. Interestingly, he commented on what a great sin it was to "make fun of some one because of" from whence they came. This was very much forbidden. I think it was during the time of Bosnian ethnic cleansing, don't remember for sure, but I always enjoy listening to him (as I do reading Chomsky ;-).

Welcome to IWETHEY!