Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - An enlightening interview with Noam Chomsky

Pennington · 07-30-2003, 01:21 AM

I'd hate to do it, but I guess I'll have to defend the guy here.
--------
'For one thing they need something for the next presidential election.'

Obviously, the last election was close. No politician in the world would want to go through a repeat of that, so Bush needs something to get him votes, alot of votes to guarentee his victory.
----------
'Through their first twelve years office this continued year after year; and it will continue until they manage to institutionalise the domestic policies to which they are committed and to ensure the global system
they want'

By the first twelve years, he is refering to the Reagan/Bush era. I think I'll just list some examples of where those two used force to 'institutionalise the domestic policies to which they are committed and to ensure the global system they want':
Reagan - 'The US was condemned by the World Court during the Reagan years for its "unlawful use of force," meaning aggression in Nicaragua.'
Reagan - 'In southern Africa about 1.5 million people were killed and over $60 billion of damage were done according to the UN commission which reviewed it later from 1980 to 1988. That's from South African forces that the US was directly supporting.'
Bush - 'The invasion of Panama for example was simply outright aggression. It was condemned internationally -- the US was able to veto the security counsel condemnations, that doesn't change the fact that they were there.'

-------
"The Bush administration, let me repeat it again, they are not conservatives; they are statist reactionaries."

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

'A reactionary is someone who seeks to restore conditions to those of a previous era.' Sounds like Bush to me.
Statist- Advocate of a strong and centralised governing body. Patriot act, TIA, Rumsfeld- all examples of statism.
----------
"They want a very powerful state, a huge state in fact, a violent state and one that enforces obedience on the population. There is a kind of quasi-fascist spirit there, in the background, and they have been attempting to undermine civil rights in many ways."

Again, Patriot act one and two, TIA and Rumsfeld.
-------

" This means slashing public medical assistance, social security; probably schools; and increasing state power. These people are not conservatives, they brought the country into a federal deficit with the largest increase in federal spending in 20 years, that is since their last term in office and ahuge tax cuts for the rich, and they want to institutionalise these programs."

A little harder- Republicans have been pushing for privitisation of SS and also for private school vouchers, both of which would pretty much destroy both SS and public school in their current forms. Conservatives tend to want to lower state spending, these guys have increased it. They did give tax cuts to the rich, while leaving out working people like my family.
-------

"They are seeking a "fiscal train wreck" that will make it impossible to fund the programs. "
What he is saying is that the Republicans have cut taxes and increased spending without worrying about the deficit. However, they can now use the deficit to justify cutting programs that they don't like or they think they could do without.This is conjecture and may or may not be true based on the evidence, but it is an interesting opinion none the less, even if we don't agree with it.
------

Again, I'd like to state my position on Chomsky- Says alot of intelligent stuff but also alot of crap. There is evidence to back up the majority of his opinions and you have got to realize that, but there is also some stuff that he says that is completly his opinion, just like any other person in politics. Read his books and listen to what they say, but don't base your entire philosophy around them.

07-30-2003, 01:21 AM	#15 (permalink)
Pennington Banned Location: Autonomous Zone	I'd hate to do it, but I guess I'll have to defend the guy here. -------- 'For one thing they need something for the next presidential election.' Obviously, the last election was close. No politician in the world would want to go through a repeat of that, so Bush needs something to get him votes, alot of votes to guarentee his victory. ---------- 'Through their first twelve years office this continued year after year; and it will continue until they manage to institutionalise the domestic policies to which they are committed and to ensure the global system they want' By the first twelve years, he is refering to the Reagan/Bush era. I think I'll just list some examples of where those two used force to 'institutionalise the domestic policies to which they are committed and to ensure the global system they want': Reagan - 'The US was condemned by the World Court during the Reagan years for its "unlawful use of force," meaning aggression in Nicaragua.' Reagan - 'In southern Africa about 1.5 million people were killed and over $60 billion of damage were done according to the UN commission which reviewed it later from 1980 to 1988. That's from South African forces that the US was directly supporting.' Bush - 'The invasion of Panama for example was simply outright aggression. It was condemned internationally -- the US was able to veto the security counsel condemnations, that doesn't change the fact that they were there.' ------- "The Bush administration, let me repeat it again, they are not conservatives; they are statist reactionaries." From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 'A reactionary is someone who seeks to restore conditions to those of a previous era.' Sounds like Bush to me. Statist- Advocate of a strong and centralised governing body. Patriot act, TIA, Rumsfeld- all examples of statism. ---------- "They want a very powerful state, a huge state in fact, a violent state and one that enforces obedience on the population. There is a kind of quasi-fascist spirit there, in the background, and they have been attempting to undermine civil rights in many ways." Again, Patriot act one and two, TIA and Rumsfeld. ------- " This means slashing public medical assistance, social security; probably schools; and increasing state power. These people are not conservatives, they brought the country into a federal deficit with the largest increase in federal spending in 20 years, that is since their last term in office and ahuge tax cuts for the rich, and they want to institutionalise these programs." A little harder- Republicans have been pushing for privitisation of SS and also for private school vouchers, both of which would pretty much destroy both SS and public school in their current forms. Conservatives tend to want to lower state spending, these guys have increased it. They did give tax cuts to the rich, while leaving out working people like my family. ------- "They are seeking a "fiscal train wreck" that will make it impossible to fund the programs. " What he is saying is that the Republicans have cut taxes and increased spending without worrying about the deficit. However, they can now use the deficit to justify cutting programs that they don't like or they think they could do without.This is conjecture and may or may not be true based on the evidence, but it is an interesting opinion none the less, even if we don't agree with it. ------ Again, I'd like to state my position on Chomsky- Says alot of intelligent stuff but also alot of crap. There is evidence to back up the majority of his opinions and you have got to realize that, but there is also some stuff that he says that is completly his opinion, just like any other person in politics. Read his books and listen to what they say, but don't base your entire philosophy around them.