"The practice of Noam Chomsky, is to tell you what he thinks, not what you think. [...] It does not just curse the darkness, he lights a candle for us to see. "To see or understand what? U.S. imperialism, first, that apart with remarkable acuity - the eradication of resistance against the South American terrorism. The psychological and lexical "manufacture of consent" in the world. But also the significance of the mobilization against the WTO in Seattle, the operation of the United Nations and international courts, especially about the Pinochet case, the basis of the capitalist economy since the 1970s Chomsky ... behind the policy is the linguist Chomsky, insisting on the deterioration and adulteration of language, through a neoliberal ideology to put the wool over lanterns ...
p.46:
Should discover the "inner child" to ask the obvious questions?
Anyone who has visited the children know they are curious and creative. They want to explore things, understand what is happening. Much of school education is to deprive them of the taste and insert them into a mold to make them stay well, stop thinking, to dissuade them from causing problems. It starts in kindergarten up to the stage as described Huntington them of setting aside the mob. People are supposed to be producers obedient, do what they said, spend the rest of their days consumed passively. Do not think, do not know. Do not bother with things like the MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investment) or international affairs. Do only what you say, be interested in something else, eat as much as possible. The role of the public.
People such as Walter Lippman (journalist for the New York Herald Tribune between 1931 and 1966) say the public should be "spectators," not participating. That's the role of "responsible men". This is a new version of an old theory, centuries old. It can be traced back to the first democratic revolution in modern history, that of England of 17 th century. All components meet there very clearly.
p.64:
Remember Madeleine Albright's comments when questioned on national television: "How do you react to the evidence indicating that half a million Iraqi children died because of sanctions? She said that the choice was difficult but "we think it was worth it." This is undoubtedly a major crime, in my opinion, to kill half a million Iraqi children, if that's the number. This she accepted.
What about so-called "reform of social assistance", force people to do more "homer"? The terms are interesting. Clinton was able to pass a program of withdrawal of aid to poor women with dependent children. They should be back to work. Until now, they do not work: caring for a child and raise it, it's not a job. Work is what is in an office on Wall Street speculate on the exchange. That is, work, and why we get a lot money, but not to raise a child. This is not work, it has no social value and therefore the society should not support it. And reform of welfare has been a great success, a triumph, because people are now less likely to be enrolled on the lists. Is this a good or a bad thing? Go ask stakeholders. But the scratch list is not in itself a good thing if this happens we might expect - that is to say if they find jobs very poorly paid, thereby lowering the salaries of people located in any the bottom of wages, and are at once forced to abandon their children to an educational system quite unsatisfactory. Is it successful? I do not pretend that this necessarily worth impeachment (procedure to remove a senior official), but it is criminal, in a sense.
What about the increase in imprisonment rates in the country, which continues to climb, regardless of the crime? That is criminal, if not worthy of impeachment. It can be quite a list. In any case, what happens in Washington (the Lewinsky affair) was not the slightest sense compared to those facts. Some are real crimes. If another head of state was responsible, we would insist that it be brought before an international tribunal for war crimes.
p.121:
I noticed a small change in one of your public policies. At the conference in Cambridge, someone has challenged you to get involved in the fight to "smash capitalism". In the past you would have given a detailed response and powerful, but this time you've reacted differently.
It was a great talk, very constructively, that "disheveled." Groups were formed to organize things. Of course, there was the usual fringe leftist parasites, with a mission for years to break down popular movements. We heard: "I have to get up, organize the working class to smash capitalism. Nothing else will advance the situation. "I replied something like:" I agree. I think it would be a good idea to get workers to crush capitalism, but obviously we are not the right place, so what you gotta do is go to the nearest factory - I'll be happy to pay for the trip. " This is not a new strategy. I've never been old.
Using humor to counter such arguments can be very effective.
I had not premeditated, it was spontaneous.
In any case, the type had to be silent.
It works maybe.
p.137: about Orthodox Jews in Israel:
If you look at traditional Jewish culture in Eastern Europe or in North Africa, you see a Christian, a goy , was designated as belonging to a different species, less than the Jews. Thus, theoretically Jewish doctors had no right to treat goy, unless it is beneficial to their community. That is why Maimonides could be the physician of the Sultan: Jews have benefited.
Is this a tradition or cultural canon?
is a rabbinic tradition, the Halakah (Jewish religious law), you'll find much the same precepts of flour. If one side were an oppressed minority, on the other they were very racist. This racism has triumphed when they ceased to be an oppressed minority.
p.162:
39 million elderly and disabled Medicare benefits (health insurance for U.S. elderly over 65 years). A federal advisory panel recently recommended that private health insurers play a much greater role in managing Medicare. Ted Kennedy said that there was a real threat of privatization of Medicare.
It's the same thing. Privatization, when it takes place, the rest will be similar in the private sector. A private institution has one purpose: to maximize profits, minimize human conditions. This makes it possible to increase profits. That's what they aspire. What can they want more? If the system is a little bit competitive, they are forced to. It is the nature of the system. There will of course rules, as with investment companies that manage pension funds. Sure there will be rules. But there are so many ways to circumvent them, especially when one is rich, powerful and has much that lawyers! This is not a big problem. It's the same thing for the safety ...
Kennedy is right. This is part of efforts to deteriorate the system so that we can push for privatization. Once the privatization gained, we will decide in the heart to reduce costs. This is the meaning of privatization. And that means we're looking for the least risky patients and does not cost much. Get rid of others. It's the 80/20 rule they teach in business schools: 80% of customers are not worth the shot, get rid of them and dedicate yourself to the 20% rich enough to bring something. It is the nature of the private economy. And, of course, you will get government subsidies. Amount of funds paid by taxpayers will sit your profits.
p.196:
Do you think that the issue of food security could allow the left to look more broadly?
I do not see how it could be a theme of "left". The themes of "left" are really popular themes. If the left has a meaning, it's good to be mindful of the needs, welfare, human rights mass. It follows that the left should be the vast majority of the population, and I think that is the case in some respects. Other subjects are more difficult to repress: they are passed to the forefront, so dramatic in the poorest countries, but also here.
Consider for example the price of drugs. It is exorbitant. Pharmaceuticals are 25% more expensive in the U.S. and Canada, and probably twice as expensive in Italy, because of monopolistic practices vigorously defended by the U.S. government and integrated rules WTO. These devices are highly protectionist 'intellectual property rights, which guarantee the huge profits of multinational companies producing drugs by allowing them to charge monopoly prices for an extended period, while ousting the generic market. Africa, Thailand and others vehemently oppose this process.
In Africa, the AIDS epidemic is extremely dangerous and could lead to a major health catastrophe. United States, when Clinton and Gore make a speech, they talk the need for Africans to change their behavior. Let. But our behavior is crucial to us, which is to allow manufacturers, who are mostly, but not all based in the United States, to charge prices so high that nobody can pay.
According to recent surveys, each year about 600,000 children are infected with the HIV virus by intra-uterine, which means they probably will die of AIDS. It is a process that could be eliminated by the use of drugs costing about $ 2 per year. But pharmaceutical companies deny that they are sold through what is called a "compulsory license", in other words, that countries can produce at a cost much cheaper than the monopoly. There could be 40 million orphans due to AIDS in Africa in the near future.
p.244:
Can you give me some positive examples of humanitarian intervention?
If you honestly probe the historical record, it is very difficult to find any example of using military force for humanitarian purposes sincere. In fact, we can assume that this possibility is nil. I would not swear that there are not, but finding such an example will not be easy.
In large collections of international law, humanitarian law, mention some cases. The sample is usually taken from the French intervention in the Levant in 1860 to protect the Christians who were massacred by Muslims. But if you look better, you discover that the reality was different. This case was part of the game between the Ottoman Empire, the French and English for control of the region. It is true that Christians were murdered, but this was not the reason for the intervention.
Of all the cases I know, there is not one that is resistant to long examination. States are not driven by morality. They do not use force for humanitarian purposes, even if we still claims. But there may be genuine examples!
Some interventions have humanitarian consequences. Getting rid of Hitler was a humanitarian consequence, even if it was not, however, a intervention. The United States went to war when they were attacked. Germany has declared war on the United States, and not vice versa. But military action was part of those I have supported child and I would argue today.
After the Second World War, there were some similar cases, 2 to my knowledge, the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia that Pol Pot was eradicated, and the Indian invasion of what is now Bangladesh, which ended a terrible horror. These actions were not taken to end humanitarian, he was therefore not a humanitarian intervention, but they have humanitarian consequences. For those who care about our principles, our values and humanitarian interventionism, the reaction to them deserve consideration.
p.246:
I want to go back to what individuals can do to reverse the opinions received. Steve Biko, South African activist murdered by the apartheid regime while he was a prisoner, once said: "The most powerful weapon of the oppressor is in mind of the oppressed. "
is very fair. The most successful oppression because their legitimacy is internalized. This is true in the most extreme cases. Take, for example, slavery. It was not easy to rebel when you were a slave in any way. But when studying the history of slavery was, somehow, just recognizing a fact. He had to cope better under such a regime.
Another example is the Status of Women. Oppression is usually internalized and accepted as legitimate and appropriate. This remains true today, but it has been throughout history. This is true in all cases.
Or take the workers. There was a time, the United States, in the mid 19 th century, where wage labor was not held very different from slavery. It was not an unusual position. Was the slogan of the Republican party, the banner under which workers North fought the Civil War: we are opposed to slavery, be it men or wages. Free men do not rent to others. We may be compelled to do so temporarily, but only to free himself, being a "free man" to use the rhetoric of the day. Freedom comes when we are more obliged to take orders from others. It's ideal of the Enlightenment.
Incidentally, this concept does not come from the European radicalism. There were workers in Lowell, Massachusetts. You could even read editorials New York Times using this language at the time. It took a long time to persuade people that it is legitimate to rent. Today, alas, it's pretty widely accepted. Anyone who thinks it is legitimate to be a daily internalized oppression in a way that would have seemed intolerable to the people of the mills 150 years ago. This is another example of internalized oppression, and it is a success.
As Biko said, the fantastic success of the oppressors was to instill their arguments so they are the point of view from which one views the world.
p.252
What happens to you if you are a dissident intellectual in our countries? In affluent societies like the U.S. or England, we do not assassinate. If you're black, you run the risk of assassination, but relatively privileged people are immune to violent repression. At the same time, there are other reactions that many people do not like. In fact, the only solution, or thereabouts, is to continue without formalized. For example, if you despise the community Intellectual majority and you do not care, you are safe.
By cons, if you want it accepts you, be praised, see your books reviewed, you hear that you are brilliant and get good jobs, better not be dissenting. It's not impossible, the system is actually quite cowardly to accept it, but it's difficult. We can both name many people we just shorted because their work was too honest. This prevents success. This is not the same as being murdered or thrown in jail but it is not pleasant [...] one of the trips that I remember is my visit to the funeral of Fred Hampton (leader of the Black Panthers in Chicago, he was murdered in her bed in December 1969) . That's still someone who should have a "public intellectual", a very important person, resulting in the occurrence of the black community, and who was assassinated. It was an assassination plotted by the FBI in the purest style of the Gestapo. Exactly. We did not even consider the facts, all were established in court.
How many people they remember Fred Hampton? He was assassinated by the Nixon administration. Watergate did not provide the opportunity to speak. Assassinate a black leader, it will not be a problem! So when I say that you do not risk punishment if you are relatively privileged, this means that you might otherwise.
p.286:
We continue to give our gunships names of victims of genocide, and that person n'émeut: Black Hawk, Apache and Comanche . If the Luftwaffe gave her the names of military helicopters Jewish and Gypsy , I suppose it émeuvrait. Or a parody of the mascots in sports teams. It's very ugly.
p.314:
A large political battle taking place today in the United States about education. The word "reform" is often associated.
"Reform" is one of those words that you should put a flea in his ear. The changes call themselves "reforms" if powerful supporters. Thus, Pol Pot has changed many things in Cambodia, but we do not talk about "reforms." The word belongs to the list of Orwell. One job for changes that is intended to support. So-called "educational reforms" should be assessed in terms of what is deemed good in the field of education, but it is not because we use the term "reform" that changes are necessarily positive. Much is destructive.
Alfie Kohn wrote a book entitled No Contest: The Case Against competition. You wrote a wonderful back cover for the book. The football coach Vince Lombardi once said: "Winning is not everything. That's the only thing in the world. "What are the social consequences of such conceptions?
If one took it seriously, if we behaved well on the sports field, it would be simply ludicrous. If we act together in society, it would be barbaric. This behavior exists. I see it in sports activities for children. Let me tell you an experience personal. One of my grandchildren are crazy about sport. He told me a disappointed air match aborted. These kids age 7 and playing baseball are all divided into teams. So far, okay. If they are to play as a team, that's fine. They had to play a game against another team. It did not have enough players, some children were absent. The team from my little son, she had more players than needed. And the match was canceled.
The kids were all disappointed. No match. There was an obvious solution: that some of their players team are on loan to another. Moreover, even with only one team could play a game. The kids could exchange their functions. They would all be fun. But in this case, the match would not have resulted in the victory of one side over the other and defeat the other. The strategy has caused the disappointment of all. The case is not very serious, but you see how childish absurdity we push the cult of competition.
When it is extended to the rest of existence, it becomes very harmful. There is no decent human life that not based on compassion, solidarity and mutual support. If we push to absurd idea that the only purpose is to win, in a family the strongest takes all the food. This is sheer inhumanity, when you generalize.
What do you replicate the argument that competition is intrinsic to human nature, and furthermore it builds character?
It forms a certain kind of character, ie that people who are willing to trample father and mother. Is it intrinsic to human nature? To begin, say anything about what is intrinsic to human nature is necessarily talking nonsense because we do not know much. But we can guess that there are all sorts of characters intrinsic to human nature.
I assume that each of us could be an executioner under certain conditions and a saint in others. All this is part of human nature. We have no reason to believe that people are fundamentally different in that respect. So many features that emerge reflect the one hand what we are and the other conditions in which we grow and we develop. I'm sure we can create social contexts where competition govern human nature.
But it takes work. As for market systems they are required for intrinsic to human nature but, as pointed out by Karl Polanyi in his classic book, there are nearly 60 years, they, they are also rare in human societies must be imposed by force almost.
Much of the education system is based on the method of rewards: diplomas, the victory over his peers in the examinations, which is to be congratulated by the teacher before the class.
is true, and it is a specific training. It stimulates a very antisocial behavior, also very harmful to the individual. It has nothing inherent to education.
In what sense was it harmful?
It makes us a person dissatisfied with the successes of others, who wants to see people crushed and trampled. It's as if I saw a great violinist and, instead of enjoying the fact that it is a great violinist and not me, I tried to imagine a way to break his instrument. This type of training makes you a monster. I do not see it is necessary for true education. I consider that such an attitude to him at night.
p.318:
Suppose that in another context, an auto plant, for example, your boss tells you: "If you work 8 hours per week, I'll increase of $ 100 and will give you an extra week of vacation. "
na 'nothing to do with the fact that harm others, be the 1 st , to ensure that the other is in second place. It is in this case to know how to react to an inhuman system in which you are forced to live. Because of the lack of choice, you should have a system where some bar on you, which should not exist in a society worthy of the name, and you should ask: "How do I adapt? "Take the example of the prison. If a guard tells you 'if you do this or that you will be punished, but if you do this or that, you'll have a little more freedom, "you can make a choice, avoid punishment and to accept the award. But you must act knowing that what you do. It has nothing to do with the competition. On the other hand, if your boss tells you: "Listen, if you work better, I will punish your colleague", the assumption is different. If you are a human being you do not.
0 comments:
Post a Comment