Noam Chomsky: Why it's over for America (The Independent, London, UK)

[Apollo11]

Here are some highlights ...

Noam Chomsky: Why it's over for America

The Independent, May 30, 2006

An inability to protect its citizens. The belief that it is above the law. A lack of democracy. Three defining characteristics of the 'failed state'. And that, says Noam Chomsky, is exactly what the US is becoming. In an exclusive extract from his devastating new book, America's leading thinker explains how his country lost its way

<...>

Among the hardest tasks that anyone can undertake, and one of the most important, is to look honestly in the mirror. If we allow ourselves to do so, we should have little difficulty in finding the characteristics of "failed states" right at home.

No one familiar with history should be surprised that the growing democratic deficit in the United States is accompanied by declaration of messianic missions to bring democracy to a suffering world. <...>

The basic dilemma facing policymakers is sometimes candidly recognised at the dovish liberal extreme of the spectrum, for example, by Robert Pastor, President Carter's national security adviser for Latin America. He explained why the administration had to support the murderous and corrupt Somoza regime in Nicaragua, and, when that proved impossible, to try at least to maintain the US-trained National Guard even as it was massacring the population "with a brutality a nation usually reserves for its enemy", killing some 40,000 people. The reason was the familiar one: "The United States did not want to control Nicaragua or the other nations of the region, but it also did not want developments to get out of control. It wanted Nicaraguans to act independently, except when doing so would affect US interests adversely."

Similar dilemmas faced Bush administration planners after their invasion of Iraq. They want Iraqis "to act independently, except when doing so would affect US interests adversely". Iraq must therefore be sovereign and democratic, but within limits. It must somehow be constructed as an obedient client state, much in the manner of the traditional order in Central America. At a general level, the pattern is familiar, reaching to the opposite extreme of institutional structures. The Kremlin was able to maintain satellites that were run by domestic political and military forces, with the iron fist poised. <...>

To achieve the traditional goals in Iraq has proven to be surprisingly difficult, despite unusually favourable circumstances. The dilemma of combining a measure of independence with firm control arose in a stark form not long after the invasion, as mass non-violent resistance compelled the invaders to accept far more Iraqi initiative than they had anticipated. The outcome even evoked the nightmarish prospect of a more or less democratic and sovereign Iraq taking its place in a loose Shiite alliance comprising Iran, Shiite Iraq, and possibly the nearby Shiite-dominated regions of Saudi Arabia, controlling most of the world's oil and independent of Washington.

<...> The United States is very much like other powerful states. It pursues the strategic and economic interests of dominant sectors of the domestic population, to the accompaniment of rhetorical flourishes about its dedication to the highest values. That is practically a historical universal, and the reason why sensible people pay scant attention to declarations of noble intent by leaders, or accolades by their followers.

<...>

This is an edited extract from Failed States by Noam Chomsky

You can read the full article here:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article621899.ece

[carl_pwccaman]

1. That kind of rhetoric sells and makes headlines

But the reality is often a bit more nuanced.

[ixion]

2. care to elaborate? Chomsky doesn't generally concern himself

with generating headlines.

[marmar]

3. Exactly....

Ever read a Chomsky book? The "nuances" are all identified, to the 'nth detail.

[ixion]

4. yeah, I agree... Chomsky takes nuance to extreme granular levels

and provides evidence supporting each. If you ever seen him speak or read one of his books, you know right away that he's not at all concerned with sensationalism or empty rhetoric.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

5. There is a lot of truth in what he says

but I can't get past the disconcerting feeling that he relishes seeing America slip.

However, I know he is a very honored writer here on DU, so don't flame me... It's just an intution I have about him. Can't defend it at all.


TG

[exlrrp]

6. I feel the same way Grannie

Although I agree with most of what Chomsky says and am myself very radical I also think he seems almost gleeful sometimes about America's demise, sort of a "I told you so" too much.
This may come from him being mostly right but its a little wearing sometimes.
Go ahead and flame me, I got my weeners out ready to cook

[ShortnFiery]

7. Don't confuse gleeful with intellectual curiosity ...

I believe that, in his quiet non-ozone IQ moments alone with his family, Noam rues the situation that the United States of America is in.

What can be disconcerting to those of us with Average to a little Above Average Intelligence is the quest for details and uncovering the truth OVERCOMES any sense of *nationalistic pride.* IMO, that's a good thing. ;)

However, in his "personal life's space" I believe Noam Chomsky is very saddened by recent history. It doesn't show because he is highly intelligent and analytical beyond most. I respect him and make no extrapolating assumptions regarding his "feelings toward the USA." :hi:

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

10. We posted very similiar thoughts at almost the same time.

Thanks, Oh Vertically Challenged One.:thumbsup:

[ShortnFiery]

13. You're Welcome ...

I've had the pleasure of knowing some of these highly intelligent people. They're beautiful but are not on a similar emotional plane, i.e., their analytical brain's in overdrive. :P

Yes, it's nice to have some agreement. I'm happy not to be figuratively swinging from the end of that tree branch.

Hey! :applause: :hi:

[endarkenment]

12. From his perspective, and also from mine,

the collapse of the current system and the demise of the ruling elites is indeed a welcome event. We found our political roots in the 60's, in the brutal repression of the civil rights movement in the south, in assasinations of inconvenient leaders, and finally in an insane war, all of which destroyed the belief system we grew up in. Our eyes were opened.

For a brief period of time after Nixon's fall, it seemed like we could reform our system, green our domestic and foreign policies, move a progressive america forward. All of that collapsed, first with the Reagan administration, and then with the rightwing theofascist coup, starting with the Ginrich contract on america and culminating in 9/11 and the 'Long War'. It is not exactly glee, as I think that both Chomsky and I are terrified by the likely nature of the coming collapse, it is more in the nature of vindication of our analysis, that this collapse was inevitable, that their ideology is hopelessly flawed, that their system is unsustainable, that their greed and avarice, and their mendacious unleashing of the theocratic right, contains within itself the contradictions that are leading directly to their own defeat.

[izzie]

17. My own feeling is he feels sad about it.

Even if he had not said it we know it is going on. For one thing no one stays on top for ever and our great day may have been in 1945 and for a few years we helped countries and then for some reason our power got the best of us. Like the bombing at the end of the war that we really did not need to do after we knew Germany was on its last legs. It was like an yin/yang thing for a number of years and the power won out. True we were the great power after WW2 after all few home land people died and when you think of the death of the Fr. Brits, Germans, Russians, Japan etc. we had a country that was intact and ready and had a need to rebuild the world so we could trade with them and some feeling we needed to do such things. Now I am not sure we think like that at all. We are into every ones business with power only. The days we can say we have the power and you do as we wish are just going. It is time for the new people to take over and try to make the world better. We did show them a way with our ideals which many have picked up and run with. We have become stale.

[rman]

30. I'm pretty sure Chomsky would much rather have it that the US

would not be the global bully to begin with.

Also i'd say that how the messenger feels about the message (whichever way that may be) is irrelevant to the message.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

8. The kind of attitude you describe feeds the "hate America" rhetoric

OTOH, I can identify with him being smug about it. It's the intellectual's pride in his theory proving to be correct.

He and other progressives in academia and elsewhere have been saying for years that this path is taking us to Hell in a hand basket and nobody wanted to hear it. They preferred King Ronald the Brain Dead saying, "It's morning in America." They preferred to see greed as a virtue. They preferred simple, clear-cut solutions to complicated, murky problems.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

11. Perhaps it does

but it is an old, old division. If you are discerning enough to see that nationalism has its drawbacks, you by definition see things more globally, and therefore may, indeed, "hate" America and what she has become.

I fight that a lot internally.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

15. Indeed, it is an old division

Those of us willing to think about our nation and to be intellectually honest about it see the world very differently from those who either ignore the news or get it from Fox and talk radio.

I love my country, but I am deeply saddened and frequently angered by what she has become, especially under W.

It is very much about nationalism and the drawbacks. Our current government is not conservative in the traditional sense, but ultra-nationalist. Hence, many of the abuses of our rights and freedoms.

[ixion]

9. it's more than just DU, grannie

Chomsky has been a respected intellectual for decades worldwide. His work on the 'deep structure' of language formation is still taught in linguistic classes. If there is an underlying current in Chomsky's work, I would have to say it is hope. You have to remember that Chomsky considers the US the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and he proves this by using the US governments own criteria for what defines state sponsored terrorism. So to see the tide turning would naturally bring an air of hope to his political op-eds.

Aren't you hopeful that we'll be able to restore our republic?

Not trying to flame, just trying to 'splain. :hi:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

21. You know what?

I'm talking through my hat here. I have never read more than a couple of articles. Can you send me some titles for a good primer of his work?

TG

[endarkenment]

23. We must be related.

It is a long tradition in my family to only have strong opinions about those things with which we have no direct experience. In particular, books and movies are routinely analyzed, and strong opinions expressed, without the slightest real information.

"Failed State" is not a bad place to start. I'm reading it now, and it is far less dense than some of his earlier more famous works. "Manufacturing Consent" is perhaps his seminal book.

[ixion]

28. sure...

if you search on Amazon, he's got three pages of books and DVD's. here are some examples...

DVDs:
-- Rebel w/o a pause
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007TKNO2/

-- Manufacturing Consent - Noam Chomsky and the Media (1993)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005Y726/


Books:

-- Chomsky Reader (Paperback) (1987)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0394751736/

-- Profit Over People: Neoliberalism & Global Order (Paperback) (1998)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1888363827/



These were, for the most part, published years before anyone knew what a 'neoliberal' (a.k.a. neocon) was/is. Hope this helps.

[rman]

33. "rebel without a pause"

Noam Chomsky, rebel without a pause
http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=321769
http://www.docurama.com/productdetail.html?productid=NV-NVG-9699

Called "the most important intellectual alive" by The New York Times, and “a rebel without a pause” by rock-star Bono, Noam Chomsky is one of the greatest minds of the 20th Century and the world’s leading voice of dissent.


good source of articles, interviews, audio and video
www.chomsky.info

[Viva_La_Revolution]

53. 193 articles...

not that I'm a fan or anything. ;)

select an author, hit submit
then scroll down to the yellow...


http://www.zmag.org/search/index.cfm?action=database

[Imperialism Inc.]

14. Chomsky has been speaking on politics for decades now.

Like now, he has always been highly critical of US policy. Some would say too critical. It is certainly true that he seldom has a kind word. However, it is simply that he sees that as his job. If you want to go somewhere to listen to someone sing praises of the US that is certainly easy enough to do. However, he is also quite critical of other world powers. If he talks of Britain you will hear similar criticism. Germany? Japan? The same. He simply likes to hold up a mirror to power and let them see themselves clearly. How they delude themselves, how they see and treat others.

He certainly takes no joy in America slipping. That perception is completely in the reader's mind. It certainly isn't in Chomsky's words, nor his tone or expressions. In fact, if you listen to or read much Chomsky the first thing you will notice is he is always saying how things are getting better. For example, though a strong critic of the war on Iraq, he is quick to point out how much quicker an opposition movement is present than in the case of Vietnam. How the actions that the US government was able to get away with then (e.g. regularly napalming civilians) would never fly in today's America. He thinks the media in the country is improving as well compared to back then. In fact he is way more optimistic than I am about such matters, but then, I am not a child of the sixties so maybe he is right.

I can understand why you may think what you think but alas it is all in your head.

Have a listen to his interview about this new book on Democracy Now. There is no joy in his voice. No gloating.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/31/148254

[TallahasseeGrannie]

25. I'm putting some of his works on my summer reading

list so I won't spout off on things I have only a passing knowledge of.

Any suggestions from you? Like "An Easy Chomsky Reader"?

[Imperialism Inc.]

26. There is so much stuff out there Grannie

When DU had up the demopedia there was a list of stuff I had put up but it appears to be gone now.

I would suggest listening to some talks first. I warn you though that they can be a little dry as his writing can be. There is also much to disagree with but overall his ideas are compelling and enlightening.

Depending on what subjects interest you pick one or some of these. I would suggest Prospects for Democracy first though.

General outlook on democracy
Prospects for Democracy: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/pd/index.cfm (audio)

Economy and Corporate World
Free Market Fantasies: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/audio/fmf.html (audio)

Class War: The Attack on Working People: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/cw/index.cfm (audio)

Edited to add Capital Rules: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/cr/index.cfm

US Foreign Policy
What Uncle Sam Really Wants: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/ (full book online)

Media
Manufacturing Consent: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html (excerpt from very popular book)

Necessary Illusions: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/

list of books for further reading
http://www.zmag.org/chomskybooks.htm

[MountainLaurel]

50. Thanks for those links!

I caught one of his presentations on Book TV recently and wanted more. This will provide a great start, as I've got enough book material to get to these days.

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. may I recommend Dr. Chomsky's own audio/visual website

link:

http://www.chomsky.info/audionvideo.htm

I don't by any means agree with everything the old Professor says. But I do find him a talented and extremely intelligent iconoclastic thinker.
I see him also as a sincere anti-Imperialist; not anti-American.

I think it is unfortunate that American society no longer has much room for iconoclastic commentators from the far left. In the case of Chomsky I suppose I would agree that he can reasonably be called far left.

At earlier times in American history crowds of ordinary people would gather around from miles around in public parks even in the Midwest to listen to the likes of Eugene Victor Debs or Emma Goldman; both people who would be at least as radical as Chomsky. Republican President Harding actually invited Debs to the White House (after he was released from Prison) as a special guest just because he had heard so much about him. And Eleanor Roosevelt actually befriended Emma Goldman because she admired her.

Has American moved so far to the right and gotten so antiseptic that only right-wing figures are allowed to challenge consensus?

I might also recommend one book and one movie:

The movie - available on DVD:


Manufacturing Consent - Noam Chomsky and the Media

link on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005Y726/qid=1149000674/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-1846545-3744063?s=dvd&v=glance&n=130

The Book - a collection of essays and interviews:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1565847032.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,32,-59_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky

link on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1565847032/qid=1149000972/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-1846545-3744063?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

"If I can't dance - I don't want to be part of your Revolution"
Emma Goldman

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

27. By "seeing America slip"...

...if you mean he does not wish to see American imperialism succeed, I doubt he would deny that.

Do you want it to succeed? I know I don't and I've been an American citizen for 46 years.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

29. I am conflicted

Imperialism is all I have ever known. I don't like it on paper, but in reality, I will admit I have always liked the concept of being on top. It will take some adjusting to remedy that.

[rman]

34. "on top"... of what?

A pile of corpes and starving people...

Sorry to put it so harshly, but it is reality.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

38. Perhaps

but "on top" nevertheless. I don't think you can deny that America has been THE superpower for years.

I'm not talking rationale for that, just the fact.

[rman]

41. There's no dispute whatsoever about the US being the super power

But what good is it?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

51. I used to think it was a good thing

because I thought we were a good country. I thought we were strong, invincible, honest, altruistic.

All it took was one attack on our homeland and we dropped all pretenses of being any of that.

Defense at all costs.

They can keep the Superpower status. Swedes are happier.

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. for a number of years I kind of thought that too. or at least better than

any foreseeable alternative. The one thing I can say for Bush and the loony neocon gang is that they made their agenda so obvious I couldn't maintain illusions anymore.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

61. That's true. He is so llousy and so transparent

those of us with illusions had to get real.

[martymar64]

62. Prepare to ditch your illusions

When I first read Chomsky, I became very depressed. "How could everything I've learned about my country and gov't been so wrong?" I thought. But as I read more, I began to see that telling the truth is more patriotic than jingoism. We may not like what he has to say, but we need to hear it.

I long for the day where we can be just another country.

[Ken Burch]

64. To paraphrase an old saying:

"But what hath a NATION that gaineth the world, but loseth its own soul"?

Jefferson did not seek an empire(other than the Pacific Northwest, and that was just because
he knew Woody Guthrie would need a good rhyme a century and a half later.)

We need to return to the healthy American tradition of skepticism about war and militarism.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

35. I've been extremely naive...

...and grossly uninformed about American imperialism for most of my life. I guess I learned too much world and American history from Audie Murphy, John Wayne and George C. Scott. Not reality.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

39. I suppose there is no

way to have a country with as much firepower and as imposing as we are and not have it misused. We're only as good as our people...and we are people just like everywhere else in the world.

[rman]

43. I'd think that being "imposing" = misuse of (fire)power

You can't really misuse 'being imposing'; it *is* misuse.

[Imperialism Inc.]

47. Except for the democratic deficit.

Which is one of the main topics of the book the excerpt is from. Our leaders and institutions no longer pay attention to what we as a people want. E.g. it is well known that a large, solid majority support some kind of government guarantee of health care or health insurance and yet you would never know it to listen to most of our politicians. Even John Kerry's program was only a partial one. Certainly not a single payer system. So in fact we are much worse than our people since our people no longer have a voice in their government.

[orwell]

49. Chomsky is...

...a professed anarcho-syndicalist, which means his philosophy is based on the junction of anarchy (the least government possible) and syndicalism (worker ownership of the means of production). As such, he would probably like to see all states effectively vanish, or at least be highly marginalized, as he views them as inevitably totalitarian and anti-liberal.

I think the US comes off so poorly in his institutional analysis because by many measures it is the most oppressive of the major powers, likely due to it being the largest economy and wielding the most political and military power. In the end, Chomsky believes that power devolved is power contained. The more you can put decision making in the hands of those it most directly effects, the better off it is for everyone.

So what you percieve as "relishing" is probably not too far from the truth - the same way many here would relish the removal of the Bush Cabal from the seat of global power.

[K-W]

60. Chomsky hates America so much he devoted his life to fixing it. EOM

[Briar]

16. I wonder if

Chomsky's optimism is justified. Are the majority of Americans really prepared to abandon pretensions of exceptionalism and dominance justified by superiority and support proposals such as these?

"One commonly hears that carping critics complain about what is wrong, but do not present solutions. There is an accurate translation for that charge: "They present solutions, but I don't like them." In addition to the proposals that should be familiar about dealing with the crises that reach to the level of survival, a few simple suggestions for the United States have already been mentioned: 1) accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the World Court; 2) sign and carry forward the Kyoto protocols; 3) let the UN take the lead in international crises; 4) rely on diplomatic and economic measures rather than military ones in confronting terror; 5) keep to the traditional interpretation of the UN Charter; 6) give up the Security Council veto and have "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind," as the Declaration of Independence advises, even if power centres disagree; 7) cut back sharply on military spending and sharply increase social spending. For people who believe in democracy, these are very conservative suggestions: they appear to be the opinions of the majority of the US population, in most cases the overwhelming majority. They are in radical opposition to public policy. To be sure, we cannot be very confident about the state of public opinion on such matters because of another feature of the democratic deficit: the topics scarcely enter into public discussion and the basic facts are little known. In a highly atomised society, the public is therefore largely deprived of the opportunity to form considered opinions."

[al bupp]

19. Call me a hope fiend...

but I think optimism is almost always justifiable, at least as far as one's own mental health is concerned.

However, your point is well-taken. I expect that many will fight any change in the status quo tooth and nail.

[Briar]

20. and

probably call it unpatriotic. Yes.

[w4rma]

18. I guess it's time to give up and move out then.

FU Chomsky. :puke:

[Joe Chi Minh]

22. At last, the perfect, remorselessly cogent refutation of Chomsky's

insights! As long as the US has luminaries of the ilk of w4rma, you'll never want for Administrations of the highest standards. Way to go!

[Imperialism Inc.]

24. LOL

You do realize that the headline is the newspaper's right?
I'm guessing not.

[rman]

36. Why dis the messenger?

He's just telling it how it is.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

31. "Among the hardest...

...tasks that anyone can undertake, and one of the most important, is to look honestly in the mirror."

And just what would our nation see if we were to take a collective gaze into the dreaded mirror of introspection?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

40. I don't care for the new face

but I was proud of the old. Yes, we had our weaknesses and excesses. But we were a generous people.

The new America is an anomaly, in my opinion. I hope so.

[rman]

42. US people are generous - as are most people, the State is not.

And the state gets to decide what the nation does, supposedly on behalf of its people.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

44. Well educated, well informed...

...societies (something we generally are not) are much less likely to fall into the grips of fascism. The conditions that have made it possible for thugs like BushCo and his PNAC backers to hijack America have been developing for a long time.

[Imperialism Inc.]

48. Your heart is in the right place to be sure.

The current admin is certainly extreme but I personally would disagree about it being an anomaly. Look at Reagan's terrorist wars in Central America. Carter supported the brutal Somoza in Nicaragua as well. Nixon has the stain of the coup and dictatorship in Chile on his hands as well as supporting the brutal actions of the Indonesian government in East Timor. Even Bill Clinton has the blood of Turkish Kurds on his hands as he dumped massive amounts of weapons and money in to Turkey at the very time they were busy with their ethnic cleansing of the Kurds. This was an escalation of a program started under Bush Sr. and ironically took place at a time when ethnic cleansing was being used as the casus belli for war in the Balkans (which tells us exactly how seriously we should take that excuse for the war). And that is to completely ignore the atrocity that was Vietnam. Like the Imperial powers before it the US has much to be ashamed of in its past.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

54. or...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

55. Powerful. And exactly how many of us are feeling. nt.

[Doctor_J]

37. Hard to argue with

The America of the Founders, and the great America of the 20th century, is very dead. It only remains to be seen when all the enemies that Smirk made punch our ticket, militarily and economically.

[yurbud]

45. those slamming Chomsky are like cancer patients slamming doctor

for correctly diagnosing them instead of the tobacco companies or their own habits and ignorance.

I read a little Chomsky before the Bush administration, and while he documents his stuff well, I would have rated his analysis somewhere between possibly and probably true.

The last six years seem almost designed to prove Chomsky's points. Our foreign policy has been proven to be not about spreading democracy but looking after business interests that benefit not America as a whole but a very, very small circle of people. The ultimate proof of this is the revelation by Greg Palast and the DSMs that the goal of the war wasn't to get cheap oil to fuel our economy, but to keep Saddam from pumping too much oil which would have hurt oil company profits.

[yurbud]

46. CHOMSKY CRITICS: How well has mindless cheerleading served us lately?

How has "My country right or wrong, but if you say it's wrong, you're a traitor," worked the last couple of years? Has it lead to sound policy or made us safer?

It's ironic that as the Republican house of cards is collapsing some on the left, or more likely DLC shills, want to ape the worst aspects of the GOP game plan--their goals, priorities, and emphasis on image over substance in debate.

The GOP does some things right--they frame things in clear, visceral ways, they have a handful of policies they doggedly pursue and even people who aren't paying attention could list the top two or three because they repeat them ad nauseum.

Some of that we can use, but we can't brush aside legitimate criticism because it's uncomfortable, or the retards who listen to Fox and talk radio might be offended. Doing that could kill us, as it's killing the Republicans and nearly killing America.

[savemefromdumbya]

52. I think people are doing the ostrich bit

unfortunately the writing is on the wall for this country.

[bobbieinok]

56. IMO some Chomsky critics are vs him b/c he often criticizes Israel

although he is Jewish; he's been called a 'self-hating Jew'.

edited to add--

I first heard of Chomsky b/c of his linguistic work, his significant disagreements with the behavioral psychologist Skinner, and his creation of transformational generative grammar. (BTW, it's weird that much of his linguistic work at MIT was done with the aid of US DOD grants.)

It was only later that I read of his political analyses. Some years ago I had the chance to hear him speak in person at a philosophy dept forum at a large midwestern state university.

[Douglas Carpenter]

57. I think that is the core reason for the most hostile reaction some have

toward him; not his critisim of U.S. policy

[MrBenchley]

59. And so now we know what a dreary old crackpot thinks....

[Ken Burch]

65. We learned what a "dreary old crackpot" thought

When YOU started posting, Benchley.

(Might I ask what Chomsky ever did to you, btw?)

[teryang]

63. Loved the CSPAN coverage of Chomsky at West Point n/t