This is as far as i have gone! THREE MORE PAGES TO GO !
Noam Chomskey: The Umbrella of U.S. Power
As it were and as it stands currently on an international and domestic scale, the U.S., according to Chomskey and vehemently lauded through a concise
brittle of egoism by itself, is a sociopolitical superpower; and one could also conclude the U.S. has no spatiotemporal extension and is a paradigm,
par excellence, of the perfect society. A sort of spurious child of the xenophobic clan God YAWEH; a jelous and often angered anthromorphic diety
demanding utter obedience by it's subjects and an outright onerous attitude towards other cults and followings usualy regurgitated in a contradictory
and apocryphalic manner. A child who has gone above and beyond the call of duty to it's father will and surpassed even it's xenophobia and abhorent
attitude to every "right" minded person; a child whom is quite adamant in the belief of "picking and choosing" select passages from scripture, in
this case: "The Universal Delcaration of Human Rights", and using it as a weapon against the oncoming "insurgency" of non-western relativism. Noam
Chomskey takes this "child" and often the pedagogical insight and dogmatism accrued thereunto towards non-western nations as an act "reeking of
hypocrisy"; these, more often than not, being the vehement and hypocrtical nature of the world super power to invoke sanctions on countries showing
an utter disregard to human rights, whilst committing, if not the most discreetly brutal, economic warfare on this planet, vis-a-vis "Reaganite
Sanction Threats". The book demands an extremely informed -- of international affairs -- background for the reader, and is no par short of assuming
that said circumstance/event is well known and habituated in the mind of the readers. The erection of quandary, bar none, bears a heavy load onto
readers poorly educated in the field of politics and social sciences, but does intice further speculative enquiry. To those inclined to philophical
terminology, we cany justy assume a style of " argumentum ad verecundiam" inherent in the book; i found it, in utter dismay, the constant
bombardment of criminologists, human rights agencies, and other "intellects" to be mildy comforting, but, as it were, the ligitimacy of these said
men and women have dire implications on the merit of the material and accusations being convey; accusations that seemed quite oblique and require one
to take a "grand" leap of faith to justly assume, for example, that racial discrimination was being partaken by the U.S. goverment's "war on
drugs" and quite evidently left one with no justifications or even a sociopyscholigcal discourse as to "why" and leaving arguments pertaining to
"hang dry" and leaving readers to make assumptions based on selective conotations.
Was this book "good" or "bad", well, is a matter of semantics.
What do you think ?
This is the first book of his i have read, it was okay...
I'm gonna go through that site though, after, i don't want to lose my train of thought on this current piece.
[edit on 4-11-2004 by ZeroDeep]