[Assam] Chat with Chomsky-Washington Post

[Ram Sarangapani]

Its a rare opportunity to get to read Chomsky in the papers these days. Here
is one on a wide variety of sunjects.
Hope you all enjoy it
_______________________________

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/03/14/DI2006031400824_pf.html

*Chat With Chomsky
*

Noam Chomsky
Linguist, Author and Professor
Friday, March 24, 2006; 2:00 PM

*Noam Chomsky,* noted international activist and professor of linguistics at
M.I.T., was online to offer analysess and insights on the latest headlines
on domestic and international affairs.

Noam Chomsky received his Ph.D. in linguistics in 1955 from the University
of Pennsylvania. From 1951 to 1955, he served as a Junior Fellow of the
Harvard University Society of Fellows. The major theoretical viewpoints of
his doctoral dissertation appeared in the monograph Syntactic Structure,
1957. This formed part of a more extensive work, The Logical Structure of
Linguistic Theory, circulated in mimeograph in 1955 and published in 1975.

Chomsky joined the staff of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in
1955 and in 1961 was appointed full professor. In 1976 he was appointed
Institute Professor in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.

Chomsky has lectured at many universities in the U.S. and abroad and is the
recipient of numerous honorary degrees and awards. He has written and
lectured widely on linguistics, philosophy, intellectual history,
contemporary issues, international affairs and U.S. foreign policy.

Indeed, along with his linguistics work, Chomsky is also widely known for
his political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the
United States and other governments.

His most recent books are A New Generation Draws the Line; New Horizons in
the Study of Language and Mind; Rogue States; 9-11; Understanding Power; On
Nature and Language; Pirates and Emperors, Old and New; Chomsky on Democracy
and Education; Middle East Illusions; Hegemony or Survival; and Imperial
Ambitions.

According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992
Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any living scholar, and the
eighth most cited source overall.

*A transcript follows.*

____________________

*Arlington, Va.:* Why do you think the US went to war against Iraq?

*Noam Chomsky:* Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, it is
right in the midst of the major energy reserves in the world. Its been a
primary goal of US policy since World War II (like Britain before it) to
control what the State Department called "a stupendous source of strategic
power" and one of the greatest material prizes in history. Establishing a
client state in Iraq would significantly enhance that strategic power, a
matter of great significance for the future. As Zbigniew Brzezinski
observed, it would provide the US with "critical leverage" of its European
and Asian rivals, a conception with roots in early post-war planning. These
are substantial reasons for aggression -- not unlike those of the British
when they invaded and occupied Iraq over 80 years earlier, at the dawn of
the oil age.

_______________________

*State College, Pa.:* Noam - I heard you talking about international law on
alternative radio and (I think) expounding the idea that the Bush
administration's flavor of premtive war is illegal. I agree that the Bush
administration's actions are illegal. Would you comment on how much we
should submit to international law in that area?

*Noam Chomsky:* That depends on whether we want to be what's called an
"outlaw state," which dismisses international law and norms and treaty
obligations, or a law-abiding member of the international community. Public
opinion studies strongly indicate that the general public wants the latter.
State policy, to an extreme extent under Bush II, adopts the former
conception, quite explicitly, in words and in practice. I think this country
and the world would be far better off if the US is not an outlaw state.

_______________________

*Forest Glen Park, Md.:* Professor Chomsky, I don't recall your exact quote,
but I believe you have said something to the effect, that in your opinion,
the mainstream media outlets in the US have gotten better since 9-11 with
getting out accurate, more accessible, less-censored news to the general
public. My husband disagrees, he thinks that the editorial boards of too
many mainstream news outlets slant too much to the right. I agree in some
situations. Look at how NPR is now. Can you expand on your opinion of the
current state or trends, of US mainstream news outlets? Thank you!

*Noam Chomsky:* I don't recall the statement. It's hard to give a measure.
There are too many dimensions, too much variability. There are outstanding
reporters and commentators, but as a broad generalization, I think it is
fair to say that the media adopt the basic framework of state and private
power, mostly uncritically. It's not hard to demonstrate, and plenty has
been written revealing these unfortunate but typical patterns -- which are
by no means new.

_______________________

*Cleveland, Miss.:* Are you really so much of a stereotypical "say as I do,
not as I say" liberal icon that you deride tax shelters and trust funds, all
the while setting up one of your own, or is the story that's been a hot
topic on the internet the past few days a lie?

*Noam Chomsky:* A person who issues that charge that someone adheres to the
principle "do as I say, not as I do" (the actual charge) has three options:
(1) produce an example; (2) withdraw the charge; (3) take the coward's way
out and slink away silently. So far, no one has provided even a single
example (if you can find one, I'd be glad to know about it and correct the
practice). Thzt leaves (2) or (3). The examples you mention obviously won't
work unless you can produce a statement of mine saying that others should
not do exactly what I do. You'll find no such statement, either in the
literature to which you are referring, or elsewhere. I'm omitting the many
pure fabrications that accompany these charges.

_______________________

*San Francisco, Calif.:* Why is the Republican spin (propaganda) so
effective with the American public?

*Noam Chomsky:* It's not so clear that it is all that effective, a long
story. But to some extent it doubtless is effective. There's no space to go
into the matter here, but there is a perceptive and accurate analysis of the
techniques of deceit and misrepresentation that the current administration
has refined to a high art in a recent book by political scientists Hacker
and Pierson, called "Off Center."

_______________________

*Elgin, Ill.:* Everyone in basic linguistics knows of your work. What are
you doing these days in linguistics? I've had some interesting discussions
with several neurobiologists... turns out the Language Organ may actually
exist, heh heh.

*Noam Chomsky:* That a "language organ" exists is almost impossible to deny.
The questions have to do with the nature of the genetically determined
capacities that enable an infant, but not her pet kitten (songbird, chimp,
etc.), to develop the capacities we are now using, even if they all have
exactly the same data. That's the topic I'm continuing to work on, as are
many others. There are I think quite interesting recent insights and
discoveries, but I can't go into them here.

_______________________

*Austin, Tex.:* From a sociolinguistic perspective, do you think that the
way that the US conveys messages is affecting the perception of the US
negatively in the international community? If so, what would you suggest to
government officials to keep in mind as they shape public statements?

*Noam Chomsky:* It's not a matter of public relations and rhetorical style
but of actions. It's the actions and policies that have left the US
government remarkably isolated, feared and often hated to an extent with no
historical precedent. International polls show that very clearly, in the
past few years.

_______________________

*Inverness, Fla.:* Professor Chomsky,I am curios if you have any
understandings and, or opinions of the global water situation? Where do you
see us in 10-20 years trying to sustain and distribute water?

*Noam Chomsky:* I'm no expert on this matter. It is, however, pretty clear
that the problems are severe and perhaps dire. Right now, huge numbers of
people cannot obtain even drinking water, and the situation is likely to
become worse with predicted climate change and failure to take the actions
that are necessary.

_______________________

*Washington, D.C.:* I've read a lot of your works and i can't figure out
where exactly to locate you in terms of political philosophy: social
democrat, socialist, communist? One useful barometer would be to know if you
believe in a right to private property? if, yes, what are the limits of that
right?

*Noam Chomsky:* The terms have been so debased that they are hardly usable.
I think a decent society should protect rights to private property within
limits, but not concentrations of private power that infringe on the freedom
and rights of others, including exploitation of labor, and that convert any
democratic forms into what have been called sometimes "hierarchical
democracies," like ours, in which some have vastly greater influence over
public policy than others. Spelling all of this out is a complex matter that
raises many issue and problems that are impossible to address here.

_______________________

*New York, N.Y.:* Noam, there is a general conception that the public is
much more cynical and jaded these days than past; and yet it also seems that
the public is gullible ("Manufacturing Consent"). How can I reconcile these
2 notions? Or is it as simple as anticipating and manipulating people's
distrust (in 9/11's case, xenophobia)?

*Noam Chomsky:* One should be cautious about "general conceptions." I think
a strong case can be made that activism today is as high as ever, perhaps
more so, and is also taking new and significant forms. There has never been
anything like the international solidarity movements that began to take
shape in the 1980s, right in the mainstream, or the global justice movements
that have become a very powerful force in later yeasr. It's true that the
society is highly atomized, which does induce a sense of hopelessness often
-- quite mistakenly I think. There are enormous opportunities to work for a
world that is more free, peaceful and just. The phrase "manufacturing
consent" (which my co-author Edward Herman and I borrowed from Walter
Lippmann) does not have to do with the success of efforts at manipulation,
but rather with the nature of the institutions dedicated to these efforts,
and what they produce. How effective it is. and among which sectors of the
population, is a different matter.

_______________________

*Lancaster, U.K:* What do you feel are the limits to 'free speech' given the
arguments recently over racial hatred and religious intolerance?

*Noam Chomsky:* My feeling is that the Supreme Court reached a reasonable
standard of protection of speech in the 1960s, a standard higher than any
other country in the world, to my knowledge. In brief, speech should be
protected up to participation in imminent criminal action. So if you and I
go into a store to rob it, and I say "shoot," that's not protected. Like all
judicial decisions and legislation, this leaves plenty of gray areas,
including many of great significance that are rarely discussed: advocacy of
imminent war crimes, such as aggression, for example. I think we would all
agree that such speech should be protected, despite the often horrific
consequences, but it's worth noting that that stretches the doctrine to its
limits.

_______________________

*Austin, Tex.:* You stated in a previous response that "It's the actions and
policies that have left the US government remarkably isolated, feared and
often hated to an extent with no historical precedent. " What if any, have
been the most negative international reaction from those actions which have
adversely affected the US? I am familiar with losing partners in the "war on
terror", but I am looking more at business decisions of other
countries/international corporations.

*Noam Chomsky:* The response had to do with public opinion. Business
decisions are a diffeent matter.

_______________________

*Wellfleet, Mass.:* Mr. Chomsky:

Many fear the country is moving towards a "police state" where the Executive
acts according to its desires, without constraint. What possibilities do you
see, if any, for the trend towards consolidation of power in the Executive
to be thwarted?

*Noam Chomsky:* The concerns are justified. Thus in this morning's press it
was reported that after signing the new version of the Patriot Act with
grandiose flourishes, President Bush quietly issued a "signing statement"
that exempted him from its requirement to notify Congress of FBI actions
that go beyond court authorizaton. That is yet another brazen affirmation of
executive power. There are many others. There is little doubt that this
administration is at an extreme in seeking to establish a powerful state
executive, free from interference by Congress or public awareness of its
actions. The justification is the "war on terror," but that can hardly be
taken seriously. Terror is doubtless a very serious threat, but it is all to
easy to demonstrate that it does not rank high in administration priorities.

Though the concerns are valid, we should not exqggerate. The public is not
likely to give up the achievements of centuries of struggle easily.

_______________________

*Washington, D.C.:* Do you believe that Latin America can be successful in
developing alternatives to Washington Consensus neoliberal policy and do you
believe that Globalization is a real thing as often portrayed by writers
like Thomas Friedman?

*Noam Chomsky:* The term "globalization," like most terms of public
discourse, has two meanings: its literal meaning, and a technical sense used
for doctrinal purposes. In its literal sense, "globalization" means
international integration. Its strongest proponents since its origins have
been the workers movements and the left (which is why unions are called
"internationals"), and the strongest proponents today are those who meet
annually in the World Social Forum and its many regional offshoots. In the
technical sense defined by the powerful, they are described as
"anti-globalization," which means that they favor globalization directed to
the needs and concerns of people, not investors,financial institutions and
other sectors of power, with the interests of people incidental. That's
"globalization" in the technical doctrinal sense. Latin America is now
exploring new and often promising paths in rejecting the doctrinal notions
of "globalization," and also in the remarkable growth of popular movements
and authentic participation in the political systems. How successful this
will be is more a matter for action than for speculation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.assamnet.org/pipermail/assam-assamnet.org/attachments/20060331/d3f4583d/attachment.htm>