It has become impossible to write a review of a Chomsky piece without focusing a large content of the review on Chomsky himself (witness ... slew of one-star versus five-star reviews of all his books, which often feature personal opinion rather than genuine, responsible argument). Being something of a free-thinker with an interest in politics and psychology, I've understandably been drawn toward the debate surrounding Chomsky and his stunning claims about the nature of Western (usually US) policy -- and have been very disappointed with the childish nature of that debate, as it has declined hopelessly toward name-calling and a ridiculous skewing of facts and quotes. How does a person know who to believe? (I should reiterate that it really has become a case of "who", not "what", as if the merit of an argument has anything to do with its author.)
Download disini atau disini
sumber dari sini
