Greenwald is on topic with Chomsky. High praise, indeed.

If I found myself agreeing in any way with Noam Chomsky, it would be time to start searching for a suitable mental institution.

If I found myself agreeing in any way with Noam Chomsky, it would be time to start searching for a suitable mental institution.

Mr Zenwick, any substantive critique to offer, or do you feel that the syllables nome-CHAWMMMM-skee, uttered with enough derision, are argument enough?

I couldn't help but notice the parallels between this sentence:

Likud, is certainly more reactionary in rhetoric, but there are few real political differences towards Palestine.

and your assertions last night concerning the lack of difference between the two parties here in America.

I particularly find it interesting becuase I'm of the opinion that differences in rhetoric actually matter if for no other reason than their reflection on the general population.

Rhetoric is certainly important in that it creates a common identity. We on the left hue to a certain rhetoric, while the right has theirs. When Hillary Clinton proclaims that she will end the Iraq war, we know that this is bs. But that's our side talkin! When McCain claims that the surge is working, I imagine many on the right hold their chuckles. But that's their side.

I wouldn't vote for McCain, I might have voted for HIllary if she 'd gotten the shot. But we all know the reality; the US has committed itself to a presence in Iraq for a long time to come. If the Republicans win, they will dress it up. And if Democrats win, they'll try to mention it as infrequently as possible. But the reality remains.

Similarly with Israel. Barak and Rabin did not waddle around Israel trumpeting that they would hold onto settlements in perpetuity, but that was their plan anyway. Likud and Kadima with a much more racist discourse trumpet these intentions to the exclusion of explaining their economic plans--which no doubt hurt the very constituencies that are most central to their support.

There are differences between Dems and Repubs and Kadima, Likud, and Labor. I don't mean to sound absolutist. There are differences, on some issues. But for the US in Iraq and Israel in Palestine, they are few.

I've wondered for some time whether: (a) Chomsky cares about how marginalized he is in the establishment press and whether he thinks it would be better if his views were more widely voiced and (b) he could have -- or should have -- done more to prevent that marginalization? -- GlennGreenwald

a) It's always seemed that he cares deeply, would have preferred not to be on the margins, and even remained somewhat surprised (for a while, at times) at the continual lack of a will to listen to and hear his insights. Further, he clearly believes that his efforts to truthfully and unflinchingly understand and communicate the workings of power in modern society are useful in service of achieving a just and workable polity, or - short of that lofty ideal - to at least have our nation execute its policies without blinders, under a kind of informed consent. Unfortunately, he appears to have concluded relatively early in his career that said efforts are wasted in the short-attention-span media world of today (~1965-present?).

b) It's hard to see what he could have done to prevent marginalization that would have enabled him to remain true to himself. It appears impossible for him to "dumb things down" because of what he knows would be lost in the process, and (I sense) out of genuine respect for his audience.

Though it is appropriate for others to convey synthesized versions of his insights that would be more palatable to rapid sound bites and images (and lesser intellects?), sadly, referencing "Chomsky" seems to evoke ridicule and contempt from most people who are not already aficionados.

Because he picked the wrong candidate, but I don't think that's zenwick's beef. Maybe it is.

Update: I E-mailed Prof. Chomsky for confirmation. Z magazine is an official source, but some Ron Paul supporters are calling the forum comments a hoax or a fake. View Prof. Chomsky’s response here.

From the znet sustainers forum:

Questioner: Hello Mr. Chomsky. I’m assuming you know who Ron Paul is. And I’m also assuming you have a general idea about his positions...

(...)

3) Would you support Ron Paul, if he was the Republican presidential candidate…and Hilary Clinton was his Democratic opponent?

Noam Chomsky: No.

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/noam-chomsky-on-ron-paul/

Absolutely spot-on, Glenn, two days in a row. Your linkage of the establishment's refusal to recognize and discuss the will of Israelis themselves to the willful refusal of our Members of Congress to even acknowledge, never mind to act upon, the will of the Iraqi people, is exceedingly apt.

President George Washington spelled it out brilliantly in his farewell message to the nation in 1796, as stumblingly read aloud in the Senate just this past Monday - in accordance with a long Senate tradition - by Mark Pryor of Arkansas. Senator Pryor's actions in our federal legislature (as with those of so many of his colleagues), in line with his obvious incomprehension of the wise words he was reciting, demonstrate utter tone deafness and ignorance about the dangers of certain biased alliances between nations that are clearly demonstrated, in particular of late, by America's relationship with Israel:

...In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachment for others should be excluded and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity, or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation's subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty of nations, has been the victim.

[Paragraph Break]

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducements or justifications. It leads also to concessions, to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained and by exciting jealously, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity gilding with the appearances of virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealously to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike for another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

[snip]

Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

[snip]

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish--that they will control the usual current of the passions or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good, that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism--this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated... - President George Washington, 9/17/1796

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2008_record&page=S1096&position=all