| BookTalk.org News |
| • If you are having trouble with logging into your account or making posts please know that we are working to resolve this issue. Please delete your temporary Internet files and cookies (at least those for our site) and stay tuned to see if that resolves the issue. If not our web designer believes he can find the code that is causing the issue. |
| Show us where you live! |
 |
| Donate & Support BookTalk.org |
Please support our free community by making a credit card donation through our secure PayPal account. We appreciate and depend on the generosity of our members. Thank you!
•
See who supports us
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Dissident Heart 
Embodiment of Reason
Bronze Contributor
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 1434
Gender: 
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:37 pm Post subject:
|
 |
|
| Quote: |
| JTA: It's neat that I had a chance to ask Chomsky those questions, and that he gave such thorough answers. |
I agree. Actually, considering the serious condition of his wife's health, his generosity in this process has been extraordinary. He has been consistently cordial and interested since I brought our small book discussion to his attention. He has proven accessable, polite and generous althruout, even while serving as primary caregiver for his wife who is gravely ill. I think we've been quite lucky to receive this opportunity.
| Quote: |
| JTA: A critic of his dismissed Chomsky as a thinker because he's been saying the same thing for decades. Though that reasoning struck me as bogus, I was curious whether Chomsky's views have stayed constant, as appears to be the case. Chomsky acknowledged that his views have been more-or-less the same for all these years. |
I don't think consistency is necessarily the sign of a closed mind: it may very well be that the world is consistently geared in the directions that Chomsky has and continues to describe it. Highly concentrated bodies of unaccountable power are consistently abusive in human affairs: they are antidemocratic and immoral and ultimately self-destructive...I think this is an axiom that carries enormous empirical support. I think Chomsky's work (in the political sphere) has been a herculean effort to present the empirical side of this basic axiom. He does say in his response that with new evidence he was forced to change his views regarding Kissinger's actual commands to bomb Cambodia...as well as the US role in creating the Khmer Rouge: both items where his suspicions proved accurate.
| Quote: |
| Chomsky's view of Iraq after a US withdrawal are similar to my own, though I'm more pessimistic about the possibility of things getting worse. I'm glad he answered that question honestly, unlike many war opponents who avoid discussing the topic. |
He points out two possibilities: 1. the absence of US troops will decrease the violence, making room for reconciliation between feuding Iraqi populations; 2. the absence of US troops will (like the USSR leaving Afghanistan) make room for Islamic terrorist forces who will decimate the region, making room for another Talibanic force of leadership. The second, remember, was largely the result of US support of Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan. Perhaps Iran is doing in Iraq what the US was doing in Afghanistan: i.e., fueling the worst of fanatical resistance against an invading force? I hope for Chomsky's first option- but, like yourself, expect to see the second play itself out.
| Quote: |
| JTA: My attitude towards Chavez is more negative than Chomsky is. News stories about journalists being locked up and Chavez positioning himself to be leader indefinitely are quite concerning. Chomsky would probably claim that the US media is distorting things, but I believe there are real concerns. However, the pro-Chavez sentiment in Venezuela may very well be real, since so many people benefit from his anti-poverty programs. |
I think Chomsky clarifies that it is more important to understand what Venezuelans think about Chavez than what Chomsky thinks. As he argues, the polls show considerable support, tied with Uruguay, and lots of optimism about economic propspects and democratic institutions...as well as bitter condemnation. Chomsky also points out the hypocrisy of US media and political leaders in highlighting Venezuelan abuses while forgetting their own attempts to finance and support a coup against his democratically elected position. As he says "It's fair to criticise violations of rights by an official enemy, but there should be limits on hypocrisy." I'm not calling your criticism, hypocrisy, at all. I share similar concerns with Chavez (or any National leader for that matter)...I just wonder how important those concerns are, when the real meat of critical thinking is best utilized challenging our own officials who act in our name using our tax dollars.
| Quote: |
| JTA:I agree with Chomsky about the Democratic candidates. The frontrunners are all too conservative for my taste. Edwards is the best of them, and I plan to vote for him in the primary. Bill Richardson is more insistent about leaving Iraq, which I admire, but his economic views are too pro-business. |
I like Edwards consistent challenge against the corporate lobbyist control of national politics, especially his fellow candidates. He has a populist appeal that I find refreshing, but it doesn't go to the root of the problem; in that unlike Nader, he is simply unwilling to call a spade a spade and name the devastating economic system we are subject to as a prime culprit. Couldn't stand to be called a "socialist"! Jeezus, all of the front runners miss the crucial point, exposing their shared delusion and collusion with capital and its control. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JulianTheApostate
Sophomore
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Posts: 289
Gender:
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:43 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| DH: I don't think consistency is necessarily the sign of a closed mind: it may very well be that the world is consistently geared in the directions that Chomsky has and continues to describe it. |
When I read Chomsky in the 90's, his criticism of US foreign policy seemed too harsh and extreme. However, under Bush II, US policy has come to resemble Chomsky's portrayal.
In any case, my opinion of Chomsky's intellect is vastly higher than my opinion of the neo-conservatives, some of who started off as leftists before moving to the far right.
| Quote: |
| DH: I like Edwards consistent challenge against the corporate lobbyist control of national politics, especially his fellow candidates. He has a populist appeal that I find refreshing, but it doesn't go to the root of the problem; in that unlike Nader, he is simply unwilling to call a spade a spade and name the devastating economic system we are subject to as a prime culprit. |
Edwards is a liberal but no leftist. However, considering that the only Presidents, since I became a teenager, have been Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, it would be a significant improvement to have a liberal in the White House. Besides, the candidates on the left, like Kucinich and Gravel, have no chance of being elected. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Recent Topics |
|
|
|
