Ah yes. Demolition via deconstruction. At least it was well constructed, props for that.

Essentially, Robert Manne made a comment refuting the hard left policies of Chomsky or Klein. This appears eminently reasonable to me, however I'm certain that were I to deconstruct the political views of either individual, I could come up with quite a convincing series of comments which illuminate vastly different views and political opinions. No doubt, I could then use them to render my own proposition invalid. All I would need to do, would be to cherry pick the best comments of either, then use contrary statements to invalidate one another.

I could then use this to discredit Manne, claiming he's been "bought". I wouldn't even need to say it directly, I could just insinuate as much via a heading (though to give the benefit of the doubt, this could have been caused via the editing process rather than the opinion of the writer).

To be honest, I find this piece shallow. There isn't much beyond the deconstruction techniques taught to undergraduates. Certainly, it's reasonably well done, if you judge it by the basic routine, but frankly, if you're going to criticise Rudd, don't criticise him for refusing to adhere to the stupidity of the extreme right or left, which only really seem attractive to the naive masses huddled within the walls of academia.

Offer alternatives. Give some kind of real-world scenario instead of the stereotyped criticism typically launched from beyond rose-coloured lenses.

Why do people on the right spend so much time criticizing Robert Manne?

I find him to be one of the most decent public intellectuals in Australia. And despite his sometimes bloopers etc he is a beacon of clarity compared to most of the right wing ranters who now associate with Quadrant Magazine.

Check out Quadrants website and see how bad they really are. Including, and especially, the chief wind-bag.

If that website represents Australia's "leading" journal/forum of so called conservative ideas and opinions, then the Australian body-politic is in deep trouble.

Several years ago he was voted as Australia's most admired and respected public intellectual.

Are all the people who voted for him missing something?

Why do people refer to Naomi Klein as either "far" or "hard" left?

To me she is one of many who are telling the truth to the powers that be.

One of the many individuals and groups featured on this page:

http://www.dabase.org/GCF.htm

Telling the Truth to the now world dominant military-industrial-"entertainment" complex.

For which all of those on the right side of the culture wars divide are effectively cheer-leaders and propaganda hacks (while most often pretending otherwise.)

Marko, have a look at my recent comments here
http://newmatilda.com/2010/01/22/losing-faith-softlysoftly-visionaries
and here
http://newmatilda.com/2009/10/30/where-are-we-going-kevin
to contradict your claim that "criticism of Kevin Rudd is frowned upon on Australian campuses". You've set up a straw man.

And I am not "left" of any brand, nor "right". We need to move beyond that tired false dichotomy.

"Why do people on the right spend so much time criticizing Robert Manne?"

They don't, it's your imagination, and when he is maybe it is because he doesn't back up what he says, e.g. so name 10, just 10 of the "stolen" ones.

Otherwise, he's irrelevant to the right, if he just makes wild statements that have been clearly shown by Windshuttle to be ridiculous, he lacks any credibility, is that why the left are so outraged?.

One could ask

"Why do people on the left spend so much time criticizing Andrew Bolt" at least he backs up what he says, regardless of the baseless and unsubstantiated attacks by the left.

I could care less about both of these, but it amuses me to see the outrage when one of the left is criticised, as the left continually attack the right. Has the right set up a Facebook hate site of Robert Manns, as the left has done of Andrew Bolt.

pot, kettle, black .. get it now?

Ah yes--Andrew Bolt as a source of deeply considered discriminative intelligence! Re the great matters of human culture.

Bolt belongs entirely within the kind of journalism criticized in this essay. http://www.dabase.org/popdisgu.htm

Ho Hum, you think "Andrew Bolt as a source of deeply considered discriminative intelligence!"

Amazing!

Well he certainly brings out the whackos of the left doesn't he?

He's just a hack journo trying to earn a living and has a little niche, why do you all take him so seriously?

oh the outrage!

Gosh, maybe I should have mentioned Sarah Palin .. you do get it that folks just love to bait the left for the reaction it gets don't you?

At least the right are not apologists for state sponsored child abuse as are all left of centre pro feman-nazi intelligentsia.

Has Rudd bought the 'intelligentsia'

Well it's his form isn't it?

He tried to buy popularity with many in the electorate by giving away our savings $1000 at a time.

And today he's tried to buy the TV stations with a strings free gift of $250 Mil. Now that will upset the ABC and I can just hear them crying foul ... just like all the other Rudd ass kissers.

Rudd and Intellegencia is a true oxymoron.Kevin has a great memory but is devoid of any analytical capacity.

The man is a a narcissist in the true sense of the word.He chucked a wally in Afghanistsan because a blow drier was not at his beckon amd call.He berated an RAAF hostess because the food did not meet his expectations.He is all image and no substance.Perhaps he should have auditioned for AVATAR.

Kevin Rudd in my view is the most shallow man ever to have held the mantle of PM.He should hand the mantle over to Julia Gillard now and save some semblance of face and us the embarrassment of having him as our head of state.

My comment re Andrew the DOLT was a sarcastic criticism.The Dolt belongs in the same rat-infested hole as Russ Limbaugh and all the other psychotics at Fox "news".

Meanwhile I am not really on the left. All of my opinions are informed by by understanding and appreciation of the Wisdom Teaching of the Spiritual Philosopher I quite often point to re politics and religion

This Philosopher is profoundly conservative but not at all right wing. Conservative in that He only Blesses and advocates whatever is truly conducive to both individual and collective well-being.

He also points out that there is essentially no real difference between the individual and the collective. Pointing out that EVERY individual (NO exceptions) is entirely a product of the dominant system, with every minute fraction of their existence-being, being patterned by the technocratic death-machine that now rules the world (what Lewis Mumford called the Invisible Megamachine).

As such we are all unconscious robotic monads - sleepwalkers. Even the so-called libertarians who pretend they are rebelling against the all powerful state

Never mind that corporations and big money now rule the world.

Neither is he left wing.

In terms of the state of the world in 2010 I find that many people on the left of the culture wars divide advocate ideas and organizations that are congruent with this Philosophers Wisdom Teaching--especially his Social Wisdom Teaching. Or put in another way, are neither left or right wing, but essentially life-positive in what they advocate and the COMPANY THAT THEY KEEP--that is the organizations that they directly associate with or link into.

For instance all of the organizations listed or featured on the GCF page that I pointed too in my first posting yesterday.

By contrast people on the right are more often than not associated with, and in one way or another advocate life-negative outfits and causes---while pretending otherwise.

The REAL TEST always being the company they keep.

You can either raise a fist and curse the darkness or light a candle and quietly do whatever you can to promote the culture of cooperation and tolerance.