Oh Mr. Chomsky, you devil...

[Javaman]

I have been a cynic for most of my life, and lately, I have been listening more and more to Noam Chomsky. I'm slowly understanding his point in being an iconoclast.

My dad once told me, when I was a kid, "there is no two party system, just one". It took me a very long time to wrap my head around that. Perhaps now, that I'm middle aged, I understand what he meant.

I've been, pretty much my whole life, a socialist democrat. I've always been of the belief that people come first. That elected leaders should never profit from the good of the people.

We no longer demand anything from our officials, it's become taboo somehow. Instead we have entered into a realm of Iconifying.

As much as I prescribe to what I consider original democratic party principles, today I find them lacking.

Although, I still am a democrat, I'm coming to understand the concept of being neither left right and certainly not center, but stepping out of that framework, out of the classification, has a certain appeal to me.

Labeling is what I'm trying to avoid.

When bush* was running for election back in 2000, it was the first time in my life I put party before issues. Having had bush* as my governor,(he was in office when I moved to Texas, I didn't get a chance to vote against him*), I knew perfectly well what he* was incapable of doing. I chose to vote via party just so he* wouldn't be elected. I like Gore, not my full cup of tea, but again, he was against bush*. That was enough at the time. Prior to that, I was a issues voter. Sadly, most of the issues I'm concerned with, rarely if ever make to a ballot or a platform.

So here we are today, in a state of affairs where our own addiction to oil, once again, has bitten us square in the pants.

I watch as all the talking heads dance around the topic, least of which the 2000 pound elephant in the room, that are want to avoid.

Our desperate need to continue our "non-negotiable" way of life, to paraphrase mr. chaney.

Oddly, no one has really defined what that "way of life" actually is?

Everyone spouts on the need for alt fuels, but no one, not one person says anything about actually using less oil, less fossil fuels.

Funny, really.

The heroin junkie wants to quit, but while going to a methadone clinic, he's still scoring smack at the same rate. Sounds pretty stupid right?

Why are we different? Because oil is legal? That somehow justifies our use.

Studies have shown that simple conservation could cut our need for fossil fuels up to 1/3 without even noticing a difference.

But alas, we Americans are special somehow. Just how, I don't know.

As one of the two parties replaces the other in our circular election cycle, the topic of our addiction is always spoken about or dealt with in vague terms.

Ironically, failed oilman george w. bush* was the first to go on record saying we are addicted to oil, but what did he do? invaded a nation, two to be exact, for oil. (trying to get that ever elusive big gusher?)

Obama, not immune to irony, tries to appease the right, opens the east coast up to drilling, but falls victim to a blow out at an offshore oil rig causing a massive oil spill.

I am starting to wonder.

As I started off this post, I am still very much a dem, but I'm slowly coming around to understanding the point of view of Mr. Chomsky, a little be more each day.

[eleny]

1. K&R

:thumbsup:

[BeFree]

2. Agreed

Except for this:
"Everyone spouts on the need for alt fuels, but no one, not one person says anything about actually using less oil, less fossil fuels."

Jimmy Carter did and so do I. I use 30% less energy these days.
But yeah, lots of people hated Jimmy for speaking the truth.

[Javaman]

6. Yes, Pres. Carter did, but in this day in age, who in the media listens to him?

we are way past the point of rational discussion. No one wants to infringe upon the profits of a multinaional corp.

Those that are in the know, you and I, know better, but for 80-90% of this nation, they believe we have to keep using oil.

[amborin]

3. K&R the 'two party sys' just distracts the masses' attention from the ruling elite's grip on power

and pits them against each other, rather than the real culprits

otherwise, used to be Dems were better on environmental issues; at the local level, that's still somewhat true

[Echo In Light]

4. "Never underestimate the servitude and obedience of intellectuals"

... that's one of my favorite Chomsky quotes (it's taken from an email sent by Chomsky to journalist Greg Palast, after he wrote a truthful article re Reagan's passing)

Re the two party system:

"Well, Democrats and Republicans aren’t a category — the Republicans and Democrats differ. Like on the rare occasions when I vote – and they are pretty rare – sometimes I vote for Democrats, sometimes for Republicans, sometimes for somebody else. It’s not a sharp split. They are two factions of the same party. We have a one-party state with two somewhat different factions with a lot of overlap; the business party has a couple of factions. You find some difference between them. I wouldn’t say there’s no difference on the average. So what should you do in that case? Well, like everything, it’s your own choice. Do you want to live in a democratic society or do you want to live in the society we have, which remember is not a democratic society and is not intended to be. If you take a course in political theory here, I’m sure they’ll teach you that the United States is not a democracy. It’s what is called, in the technical literature, a polyarchy. That’s the term invented by the leading democratic theorist, Yale professor Robert Dahl, but the idea is old, its goes way back to James Madison and the foundation of the Constitution. A polyarchy is system in which power resides in the hands of those who manage the wealth of the nation, the responsible class of men. And the rest of the population is fragmented, distracted, allowed to participate every couple years — they’re allowed to come and say “yes, thank you, why don’t you continue for another four years.” They have a little choice among the responsible men, the wealth of the nation. That’s the way the country was founded. It was founded on the principle explained by Madison at the Constitutional Convention that the primary goal of government is to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. And then the Constitution was designed to sort of ensure that. There’s been a lot struggle about it over the years, a lot of victories have been won by the public, so it’s not the same as it was two centuries ago. But that remains. That remains the elite ideal. And it’s a constant struggle. And most of the population is well aware of it."

[postulater]

5. I can't ever remember

a person or party that I have ever voted for (since 1972) that espoused policies that remotely approached mine.

It has always been the lesser of two evils (sometimes not so much).

[leftstreet]

7. K&R

[spanone]

8. perhaps President Obama learned not to compromise his ideals for a compromise he won't get

[gov for sale]

9. Fatalistic but true

One party system can not exist because universal consensus on everything is not possible, even at basic levels peoples interest are naturally at odds. And multi-party systems are destine to facilitate power transfer to the hands of the elite.

Gettysburg address: government of the people, for the people, by the people.... An awesome notion; however, there can only be shades of success when it come to implementation. I believe Lincoln would declare clearly that the current state of things is far from any shade of success! Corporate interest are way over served. Our government serves corporate interest over the peoples interest, and policy decisions are driven by corporate interest over the peoples interest.

The people are manipulated to a degree that is appalling... on this day coastal residents are still defending the interest of big oil when they are standing on the precipice of a toxic superfund that will bring hardship, sickness, and death to their communities on scale unimaginable. And the oil companies, their lobby, and the political sell outs all knew the risk perfectly well. They didn't hesitate for one moment before deciding the lives of these people and the preservation of our environment were of small concern compared to their own payoff.

[chillspike]

10. But isn't Chomsky old news?

I like to think that many of the dems in congress and the senate have read chomsky and ARE trying to change the system.

Chomsky is good but I try not to apply anything from old book to present situations. It can skew your perspective.

I like to base my opinions on the here and now, from currents events and the present issues.

[Echo In Light]

11. No. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Javaman]

12. Chomsky said it himself regarding his past written works...

They aren't timely because when he wrote them, he wrote them in context.

Watch "the corporation" if you think he's old news.

He is probable one of the greatest thinkers ever to come from this country. He comments on democracy and society have never been more important.

The thing is with people who are considered Iconoclasts; the right will think they are wrong or old school and the left will do the same.

Because Iconoclasts belong to no one and upset everyone with their bluntness.

Sometimes standing back to see the forest for trees isn't enough, sometimes you have to stand back and see the continent.