Chomsky interview

[missouri dem 2]

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20106


GP: How could the Democrats distinguish themselves at this point, given
that
they've already played into that trap?

NC: Democrats read the polls way more than I do, their leadership. They
know
what public opinion is. They could take a stand that's supported by
public
opinion instead of opposed to it. Then they could become an opposition
party,
and a majority party. But then they're going to have to change their
position
on just about everything.

Take, for example, take your pick, say for example health care.
Probably the
major domestic problem for people. A large majority of the population
is in
favor of a national health care system of some kind. And that's been
true for
a long time. But whenever that comes up -- it's occasionally mentioned
in the
press -- it's called "politically impossible," or "lacking political
support,"
which is a way of saying that the insurance industry doesn't want it,
the
pharmaceutical corporations don't want it, and so on. Okay, so a large
majority of the population wants it, but who cares about them? Well,
Democrats
are the same. Clinton came up with some cockamamie scheme which was so
complicated you couldn't figure it out, and it collapsed.

Kerry in the last election, the last debate in the election, October 28
I
think it was, the debate was supposed to be on domestic issues. And the
New
York Times had a good report of it the next day. They pointed out,
correctly,
that Kerry never brought up any possible government involvement in the
health
system because it "lacks political support." It's their way of saying,
and
Kerry's way of understanding, that political support means support from
the
wealthy and the powerful. Well, that doesn't have to be what the
Democrats
are. You can imagine an opposition party that's based on popular
interests and
concerns.


Much more at the link above...

[pnorman]

1. Thanks for that find.

I'm building up a collection of Chomsky's talks (audio & transcripts) and I'll add that to my list. Here's one I found the other day, while Googling for SWL: http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/features/amsterdamforum/051220af

pnorman

[Protagoras]

2. Chomsky is an amazing social critic

wish a few democrats spoke with half his insight or conviction.

I especially liked this part "There's basically two principles that define the Bush administration policies: stuff the pockets of your rich friends with dollars, and increase your control over the world. Almost everything follows from that. If you happen to blow up the world, well, you know, it's somebody else's business. Stuff happens, as Rumsfeld said."

[pnorman]

5. Here's another one I had stashed away:

(1) Why did the U.S. invade Iraq, in your view?

These are naturally speculations, and policy makers may have varying motives. But we can have a high degree of confidence about the answers given by Bush-Powell and the rest; these cannot possibly be taken seriously. They have gone out of their way to make sure we understand that, by a steady dose of self-contradiction ever since last September when the war drums began to beat. One day the "single question" is whether Iraq will disarm; in today's version (April 12): "We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction -- that is what this war was about and is about." That was the pretext throughout the whole UN-disarmament farce, though it was never easy to take seriously; UNMOVIC was doing a good job in virtually disarming Iraq, and could have continued, if that were the goal. But there is no need to discuss it, because after stating solemnly that this is the "single question," they went on the next day to announce that it wasn't the goal at all: even if there isn't a pocket knife anywhere in Iraq, the US will invade anyway, because it is committed to "regime change." The next day we hear that there's nothing to that either; thus at the Azores summit, where Bush-Blair issued their ultimatum to the UN, they made it clear that they would invade even if Saddam and his gang left the country. So "regime change" is not enough. The next day we hear that the goal is "democracy" in the world. Pretexts range over the lot, depending on audience and circumstances, which means that no sane person can take the charade seriously.
>
>

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=3450

pnorman

[missouri dem 2]

3. Thanks for the link.

[NJCher]

6. Yes, I saw that one from the other day

Pnorman, will you share your list with me when you're through? I have students writing on various topics and I want them to use Chomsky as a source.




Cher

[rman]

7. Chomsky resources:

www.chomsky.info


zmag/znet Chomsky archive
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm


Manufacturing Consent
A Propaganda Model
excerpted from the book
Manufacturing Consent
by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky
Pantheon Books, 1988
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html

[newswolf56]

4. Thanks for posting. The more I read of Chomsky...

the more impressed by his thinking I am.

[omega minimo]

8. Only with electoral and campaign finance REFORMS IN PLACE

"You can imagine an opposition party that's based on popular interests and concerns."

(btw: why do gridlocked corporate toady state and federal legislators continually receive RAISES AND MORE PERKS?)

We don't have time to mess around. After 2000, what was EVER done to GUARANTEE free and fair elections in 2004?
And what happened?
A year ago the public obeyed the corporation-controlled media that ordered them to ignore the most recent fraudulent election
-- and now we're talking about IMPEACHMENT?

2006 IS NEXT WEEK. Will there really be a NEXT TIME? Or will Next Time perpetually be what the vote machine programmers say it is?


Meryy Mithras!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111 :bounce: :kick:

[long_green]

9. I first heard from Chomsky in my 20's

in a Rolling Stone interview. It was quite an epiphany. He sounded radical to me then. Not now.