Intro: "In a national broadcast exclusive interview, we speak with world-renowned political dissident and linguist Noam Chomsky about the release of more than 250,000 secret US State Department cables by WikiLeaks."
World-renowned political dissident and linguist Noam Chomsky discussing WikiLeaks release of State Department cables on Democracy Now!, 11/30/10. (video image: Democracy Now!)
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Let's face it, Israel and the US are not honest brokers and neither bare any interest in promoting peace or justice for the Palestinians. Neither country intends to honor UN mandates. The best and most just thing that could happen in the middle east would be the dismantling of Israel and a return of the land to it's rightful owners, the Palestinians.
I ask you rock, is it so far fetched to believe that a person like Noam Chomsky can actually quote public opinion in countries ruled by brutal dictators and not have even MORE credibility because those opinions are different and have more credibility than the opinions of those who oppress them? Your argument doesn't really hold up. What do you think?
I was surprised that Noam went out of his way to bash Israel without conceding that at least it has a pretty decent democracy going.
Where you live that you can't vote for anyone you want to . . . where I live it is very common to write in the names of people who have not been selected by someone else . . . and as we know, "write-ins" are know to win sometimes.
Of course I agree that out democracy is less than perfect, but perhaps you will admit that it's not enough to be backed by extremely powerful special interests, and sometimes people like you and me can be elevated to public office!
Bottom line, I think my argument does hold up.
I believe they have the vote...and that when they don't vote according to what their Israel handlers expect of them, they get punished severely. That, as I understand it, is what Israel's treatment of the Gaza strip Palestinians is all about. They voted for Hamaas and Israel is punishing them violently for this. Does this cast any doubt on your assertions that Israel has a pretty decent democracy going?
Let's put it this way. The plight of "Palestinians" in Israel is considerably better than that of Jews in say, Syria or Iran, neh?
Your argument is supported by some underlying assumptions that I would seriously question. None the less, I'd simply hope that you'd take another look at those assumptions.
Best regards.
The public opinion thing is something Noam brought up . . . I guess we could ask him what his sources are and try to assess how "neutral" and reliable they are.
Write ins . . . well, it looks like Lisa Murkowski might win, and, as I recall [I was pretty young then] Robert Bird or maybe it was Strom Thurmond once got elected as a write-in. Stuff like that happens!
Yours truly.
So indeed, write in's produce results...very rarely evidently. I have my doubts that this is significant.
As for my running for office, an idea that has some merit, you tell me how it is that an anticorporate, antiestablishme nt character would ever survive the excessively over funded assault that would occur. Frankly, I'd rather participate in movement politics from the inside...which I do.
THANK you Chomsky and RSN for filling the gap.
BTW - poll in Arab countries Chomsky is quoting could be taken by Al Jazeera, UN - etc.
"Arab opinion holds that the major threat in the region is Israel, that’s 80 percent; the second threat is the United States, that’s 77 percent. Iran is listed as a threat by 10 percent," Chomsky says. "This may not be reported in the newspapers, but it’s certainly familiar to the Israeli and U.S. governments and the ambassadors. What this reveals is the profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership"
There's also a profound sense of hopelessness. People "know" they can't do anything about it, so they DON'T do anything about it--some people even avoid TALKING about politics for that reason.
And of course, security is an issue: We're talking over lines owned by "them", and anyone you talk to could be an agent just trying to get you to say or do something incriminating!
Even if something DID happen: Let's say the people overthrew the leaders. What's to say that the Government set up instead would be any less corrupt? I think there was a Twilight Zone on that subject? The new leader became paranoid and even MORE repressive than his predecessor. Already, some are comparing Obama's administration to King George that we kicked off during the American Revolution!
Old joke: "Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss."
Bingo! You just asked the million dollar question genierae!
Maybe you should ask for a recount?
Your response doesn't even answer the question rock. What would doing a recount, establishing again that people are too willing to put up with being lied to, prove? And, how likely would a recount be rigged as much as the original vote count?
The question remains: Why do so many people put up with being lied to, conned, and remain convinced to vote against their own best interests? Why do you think that is rock?
BITCH, BITCH, BITCH!
Raise your hand if you think that talking and bitching in 1776 would have gotten the - soon to be revolutionaries -out from under the thumb of the British Empire???
Well, the people now in the US are under a different thumb...but with the same results...subjugation - only it's more sinister - it's done by "our" people under the guise of 'Democracy'. (Insert Comedy & Tragedy here)
"What a revolting development"!
Can't control the presidency and congress - they're too busy covering their own asses; can't rely on the Fourth Estate - They're too busy helping the executive and legislative branches cover their own asses; can't look for help from SCOTUS - they're too busy negating our constitution(20 00) and giving our plutarchy(2010) more power; and last but not least, can't rely on the American electorate - 45%(R) don't know what's going on but like the way things are going, 45%(D) don't know what's going on but to gutless to do something about it, 10% don't know 'S**t from Shinola'! (That last percentage might be way to low)
(I'm disgusted at our military's half-measures, but that is a separate topic on another thread)
I've written almost 4,000 letters to Congress on everything from controlling our border to Net Neutrality (Namely, trying to block Comcast's new deal)
I took a pay cut of 30% to keep my job, but even at work, times are often slow.
If you think of anything else I could do to help the country, feel free to say!
I'm sure the current administration gets PLENTY of letters from military, active or otherwise, and just trashes it as a reflex. They've already discovered that officials in Illinois were throwing away absentee ballots by active military currently deployed in the terrorist countries.
The problem lies not in enthusiasm or even "insufficient numbers", it's in getting someone to listen without breaking the law.
Just wondering.
As to the "Social Creatures" bit, that is true, but a large part of American social system is based on mobility. I can't drive, which puts a bigger kibosh on things than you would expect!
As to empowered, the most empowering feeling of all isn't preaching to the choir, getting default approval, it's when you open someone's eyes and change their mind! Better than any videogame or drug yet invented!
Sorry to learn of your mobility issues.
Changing minds IS quite the drug, isn't it?! But having your mind changed can be even more thrilling don't you think?
Speaking of America changing, I also take care of my Grandma who has been diagnosed with Alzheimer's, and sometimes goes into trances, and talks about 1930s-1950s as if they were present-day. Even in her LUCID moments, she must be even more "lost" by how far America has fallen!
If even HALF the myths she tells are true, why hasn't there been a Holy Crusade on the part of all religious, economic, and political leaders to return us to that point economically, politically, but retaining current technology?
The kickers is, there's no place for displaced Americans to run to, countries from Canada to Australia are clamping down on immigration restrictions, preparing for an invasion by Americans on the scale of Mexico's into America--Even if we get in, will it be better?
Other countries are probably watching America's collapse with the same detached "objectivity" that Americans watch the sinking of the Titanic with, but for Americans, we don't want to Go Down With The Ship!
Look at the terrorists in (Insert country here)
Unlike the brave Revolutionaries they claim to be imitating, they simply whine and ****h when the Civilized World punishes them. If the Revolutionaries had tried that, England would've just punished them harder, not back off!
One interesting point: Before WikiLeaks, some African bigwig said he viewed the rest of his people as ants, but useful for sympathy to squeeze more money out of America! That kid of thing is why I think Foreign Aid--from America or anyone else--should be conditional on their behavior changing for the better.
Yes, it would "Ruin Their Culture", but it's too late for the Prime Directive now, our infusions of money, meds, and and food have already DRASTICALLY changed society and population dynamics in recipient countries!
If you wanted something, you fought for it and accepted the consequences, rather than just expressing some apocryphal "right" not to be punished for misdeeds. American leaders as far back as Captain John Smith had advocated AGAINST the creation of a Welfare State, because it would distort wealth and power...
"He Who Does Not Work Shall Not Eat", not "He Who Does Not Work Shall Take Food From Those Who Do"
We also kept tariffs high to enforce competition with other countries who were TRYING to crush our fledgling industry! Although combat wars are more "glorious", make no mistake, economics is a battlefield too, but a quieter one--and ironically, deadlier!
America (and the rest of the world) ARE backwards, but blame the bottom AS WELL AS the top!
As for "He Who Does Not Work Shall Not Eat"...what about those who would work, can work, but can't find work. What about those who can't work? Should they starve? Worse, "He Who Owns Food Production Gets To Set The Price And He Who Cannot Afford The Cost Which Is In Excess Of Actual Value Can Starve". Isn't this worse?
Yes, economics is war, and it is too often the consumer who is victimized.
I blame the bottom for its' passivity and the top for its' cruelty. We agree it seems.
Properly wielded, we'll have Star Trek.
Irresponsibly wielded, we'll have TekWar, Blade Runner, Rise of the Dragon, or even Moon Project.
Good point on the Welfare part of Welfare State. I had meant the variant where the incompetent take from the competent. Before you take offense, look at TARP, where tax-money from self-supporting people and even self-supporting Corporations was used to subsidize their careless competitors. I'm not using it in its usual pejorative against "Oh, those pesky poor people!" Part of what has sunk Communist nations, from Russia to Cuba, is that people want to be rewarded for their effort, and if slackers are rewarded the same as overachievers, the latter are obviously slighted, and the formers' sloth is involuntarily subsidized by the latter. They call this the Sucker Effect. Working people want to get rewarded more for more work, and those who don't want to work, want to make excuses why they DESERVE to be carried--Paupers as well as princes!
"those who won't work, but could, can starve for all I care." is probably the most welcome clause I've read on RSN. As to the bonuses, well, isn't that just another form of slacking coworker? Especially when they're rewarded for FAILURE, WITH Taxpayer money!
I am fully aware that I come across as blunt, but if we truly value transparency, bluntness should also be welcome.
Have you ever read "Shockwave Rider", by John Brunner? A super-hacker invents a semi-sentient computer virus that gets into Corporate networks and prints all their secrets ON THEIR OWN MATERIALS! Ingredients lists actually show ingredients, budgets show embezzling and waste, etc.
Very appropos, considering that Assange is trying to set himself up as the biological version of same.
America's economy used to be a closed system:
Greater Productivity->Greater Profits->Greater Wages->Higher Prices->Repeat
The part that Corporations forget--and someone else mentioned this on the "Ellsberg's Goodbye to Amazon" page--is that all workers are consumers, and if you don't pay them, they can't consume.
Henry Ford figured this out in the 1920s somehow, and paid his workers WAY more than other businesses at the time!
Undercutting Americans with foreigns, whether outsourced or snuck into America, will break the chain mentioned above, and ultimately ruin them too, although "ultimately" is a bit too long for most of us to wait!
The good news is, that it makes the economies of the countries who get the jobs better. The bad news is, they are implicitly reliant on "Importing" American money and when that flow stops or slows, they suffer along with us.
Moreover, the influx of money from America leads to inflation there, wherever "There" is, forcing the people there to accept the American jobs, because they pay SLIGHTLY more than local jobs!
He went on to show "Before" and "After" pictures about how scientists had made the cornstalks of near-uniform height instead of random, which made it easier to harvest, for human or machine, AND there were more cobs per stalk! From what I've researched on my own, there have been similar advances in livestock, so food should be dirt-cheap, especially now that most the farms have moved to Mexico, for "cheap" labor. (Not really cheap, see above) I would prefer they invest in automation, but why would they bother, if there are people willing to line up to be exploited?
As to the food thing, it's the markup that is the problem. I worked on my Uncle Joe's farm, and I helped with the books, and labor costs were a whopping 2% of his budget! That's not a typo, TWO percent, not twenty! Uncle Joe didn't make MUCH profit, but he stayed afloat.
There was also a joke on TV, "Popcorn in a bucket costs $10, but the same thing for pigs is $5 a bushel", or something like that, which inadvertently pointed out the DRASTIC markup between farm and consumer!
The TECHNOLOGY DOES make it possible, but someone has to pay for those ridiculous bonuses to the Bosses!
Also, look at Japan. TINY surface-area, almost fully-mechanized farming, because they can't afford inefficiency. They make enough food to feed themselves in what little arable land they have, so with America's larger farmland, we could feed the world--or would that be "interfering"?
Anything from a tractor to a robot arm, you can't just put minerals in an Alchemy Circle and make it into a robot arm. Someone has to mine iron, coal, and limestone, someone has to process that into steel, someone has to shape the steel into slabs, someone has to weld the slabs together, someone has to install control-circuitry, someone has to make motors and install those.
Plus, after it's built, someone has to program it and/or repair it--the latter two are the kind of "clean" high-tech jobs America supposedly wants!
I'm probably missing a few steps, but it creates more jobs than it ends, PLUS increasing productivity exponentially!
However, I have 2 big questions for you:
How would you DEFINE the Common Good, and how would you enforce it? For billions of years, organisms have sought advantage for themselves, both inter- and intra-species. Even an egalitarian distribution would have to prevent someone from getting more than his share!
Even the non-wealthy need their property protected from those who don't want to work for it.
Back to reality, though, there WILL be more crime--especially theft of various stripes--because There Are No More Jobs.
More despicable though, are the scams who pretend to be charities. I believe in private charities, but I don't like the "enforced charity" by the country. However, people who pretend to represent a charity and pocket the money are the third worst kind of people.
MOST people want to be generous, but preying on that generosity under false pretenses is despicable--as is the odd habit of modern charities to reject donations that aren't up to their "Standards"--Even complaining about COMPUTERS I donated in plusher times!
What happened to "Beggars Can't Be Choosers"?
Forcing the jobs to be returned would be accomplished simply by putting up punitive tariffs. To hell with the people who whine about "protectionism", as other countries do--and HAVE DONE--the same to America and American goods!
The richer have fewer. There's a joke that you'll only be successful if you're too busy WORKING to have kids, and it's not far from the truth.
Overpopulation is the other part of Globalization, and it's WONDERFULLY profitable--for the people at the top!
More people competing for the same job=lower wages.
More people competing for the same resources=higher prices!
However, try to convince any lesser culture to have less kids, or threaten NOT to pay for their excess breeding, and suddenly, YOU are the bad guy! In some lesser cultures, worth is actually defined by how many kids you can contribute to world overpopulation!
Brings up a good question: How do YOU define worth?
RSS feed for comments to this post.