Meanwhile we have those journalists that recognize the Everett/Wolfe stuff is all a bunch of hokum but simply don’t care. Why? Because, in this day and age, it isn’t about finding the truth; it’s about winning the news cycle. This attitude is pristinely reflected in a review of the book in Canada’s Globe and Mail.
“Wolfe is a reporter and an entertainer, an opinionated raconteur rather than a scientist, and that is why we will always report on his jocular provocations. And if they serve as an excuse to explain what universal grammar was in the first place – as it has done – then Chomsky should be thrilled.”
Right. Because what could thrill Chomsky more than to have the media fraudulently misrepresent his theory using a facts-be-damned line of anti-intellectual argumentation that exoticizes another human culture? Chomsky must be “thrilled” about that, because, my God, his whole life he has been complaining that the media is too serious and too concerned with getting the facts right, when it should be, you know, writing about the Kardashians and otherwise using misinformation to bring eyeballs to advertisers.
I only recently discovered this article by Mr Spode (Daniel Bloody Everett started showing up in my Amazon recommendations). It amuses me that Tom Wolfe, whose primary beef with Chompers is he doesn’t like the Professor’s analysis of elite power, which he styles a “cabal” theory, felt the need to go after Universal Grammar as well, but, then, an endorsement from professional Chomsky-hater Oliver Kamm shows up as a blurb for Everett’s latest work, presumably because Kamm thought he could launch a surprise attack on this pesky anti-imperialist through the soft underbelly of linguistics. *laughs nerdily through nose*