Actually, presuming we're talking about the same comment from Chomsky, which I posted here before, he wasn't really explaining why he refuses to go on television as much as why television doesn't want him on -- because what is required for TV is "concision" -- the ability to state ideas in 30-60 second soundbites, and so only people who spout conventional wisdom can do that.

Those who argue things outside of conventional boundaries basically can't go on because it takes them longer, by definition, to argue their premises (those who spout CW don't need to argue premises, since they're just assumed) --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cceC3DeFcY

Again, I'm curious about whether there were things he could have done/could do to overcome those barriers, and whether -- even if so -- he should have tried.

A question for those who decry the "collective punishments" imposed by Israel: Has Israel any right at all to respond to attacks on it from within Gaza or the West Bank, and, if so, what response would be acceptable to you?

The problem with asking the question this way is that it excludes a rather significant factor -- that Israel has spent the last 35+ years brutally occupying land which doesn't belong do it.

Your question would be akin to asking: "Does the U.S. have any right at all to respond to attacks on it inside Iraq, and if so, what response would be acceptable to you?" One answer might be: it should probably leave that country and stop occupying it. If the attacks on Americans by Iraqis then continued inside the U.S. despite the fact that we were no longer occupying their land, that would obviously be a different calculus - then it would be an appropriate question to ask what response from the U.S. is warranted.

So far we've heard from only two of your bees. I do hope we don't have to hear from the whole billion, especially if they've nothing more sensible to offer.

When you narrow the evidence you're willing to consider, you can shape the basis of the argument into something that's more congenial to your prejudices, but such an argument won't convince anyone who sees with his own eyes.

Those who argue things outside of conventional boundaries basically can't go on [TV] because it takes them longer, by definition, to argue their premises (those who spout CW don't need to argue premises, since they're just assumed) --

Hmmm. One could make a case that both Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul dealt with this. Unsucessfully.

A question for those who decry the "collective punishments" imposed by Israel: Has Israel any right at all to respond to attacks on it from within Gaza or the West Bank, and, if so, what response would be acceptable to you?

Israel's problem here is that for decades it has failed to draw clear distinctions between the act of police dealing with crime and the act of military dealing with enemies. When you don't make that distinction clear, you can't distinguish between war and peace, you can't distinguish between occupation and oppression, you can't distinguish between survival and law and order, you can't distinguish between terrorism and criminal activity. You begin to lose all of your moral perspective, your ability to distinguish a criminal and a sworn enemy, your belief in international and even national law, and your ability, in the end, to distinguish right from wrong, criminal detainees from prisoners of war, and torture from interrogation. Oh, wait, that last one is GWOT not Israel, umm, maybe...

Has Chomsky ever appeared on Charlie Rose? That's the perfect forum for someone like him. (Not that that would make him mainstream, LOL. I don't know anybody in my robot world--neighbors, family, coworkers, etc., who ever watches Rose. What a shame.)

Yes, I think you're right, and it may be here that I read it, just as you suggest. I'm afraid that beyond that, I don't have any opinion to offer. As someone who turned the TV off five years or so ago, I've already voted with my feet, so to speak.

(I simply couldn't stand any more of that hysterical nonsense -- the coiffured gasbags, the flag lapel pins, the breathless questions about weren't Democrats screwed if they couldn't figure out how to appeal to angry Evangelicals, intellectuals in the person of an impossibly sycophantic Charlie Rose, the alternately mincing and sneering Barbie Dolls -- you know the drill.)

Ugh! I hate even remembering what it was like....

Sorry, lateagain. If I'd known what you were about to say, I might have tried to be a little more diplomatic.

It reminds me of the old New Yorker cartoon of two crowds approaching the corner of a building from opposite sides, still out of sight of each other. One is carrying pictures of its leader on sticks. The other is carrying the head of that same leader -- its mortal enemy -- on a single stick.

Maybe a little bit. But so much better than the cable talking heads. The point is, there is time to make your point on his show. He actually lets his guests talk.

Given that GG's question was about how to get Chomsky's message out to the regular folk (ie, if C regrets not doing so or if we think he should have), then we sort of have to get into the cesspool of television, no? I mean, that's where it's at, like it or not.

Absolutely hilarious (from the concision point of view) interview with Dr. George Olah about Direct Methanol Fuel Cells (DFMC's). Ira Flato keeps sounding as if Olah is a moron for not picking up the pace. In fact, Olah is stating some of the most basic and fundamental of all truths about energy and global warming, and is taking his time to make sure the audience understands. A bit of a shock hearing a Nobel laureate being treated like an idiot because he doesn't fit the format.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5369301