US and the rest of the world - Opinion article

[s1m0n]

ROFL -- yes, Chomsky's cited often - but in what context? (Kind of an important little detail left out there).

In peer-reviewed scholarly publications of all kinds. We're talking mainstream publications.

[jGilder]

But, jGilder, I am curious when I read posters such as you that seem to absolutely hate everything to do with the United States. I'm curious, are you doing something to try to change what you so despise (other than writing about the horrible things the government does on websites)?

If you aren't trying to affect change (and I'm referring to real, workable change) why are you still living in a country you so despise?

I'm serious here, and not being sarcastic (I wish you could "hear" my voice and inflection so you could understand that). It always confounds me when someone is SO negative as to why they aren't either doing something to change things, or why they are still here.

I'm actually really glad you ask this question, Missy, and I don't take offense. I am often asked this question by people reading my posts, so you aren't alone in wondering.

You might have noticed that my signature says "Where's the outrage?" at the bottom of my posts. The reason is that when I first found out about these things -- I was outraged. I couldn't believe our government could be involved with such horrible atrocities. The more I looked into it, the more I found out, and the worse it got. What I was learning about our government and its foreign policy contradicted everything I was taught, and everything I believed our country stood for. I lost sleep and felt sick to my stomach, it was as if I just learned that my father was sneaking around the neighborhood murdering people's babies.

I assumed that Americans, like me, would be outraged when they learned about what's going on. I realized that the mainstream media seemed to be silent about these things, but if any other country the US government did anything similar -- they were all over the story. I was clear that Americans were being sheltered from these facts, especially if you visit other countries and see reports on their news programs and stories in their newspapers about it. You realize that truth is heavily filtered and controlled here in America, and Americans are oblivious to it. The Soviet propagandists are envious when they visit this country and witness our "Free Press." They can't believe how successful the US government is with propaganda. They'll say, "Back in the USSR everyone knew it was propaganda, but here the people think it's true." It's also disheartening for me to come to a board like this and see people who’s reaction to these facts be some sort of denial. Or instead of taking it to heart and getting outraged that their government is doing such thing – they attack the messenger or try to change the subject. That’s why I say, “Where’s the outrage?”

So what is my agenda then? Well I guarantee you that it's not whatever Brian thinks it is. But I'll tell you, Missy. I want Americans to have the opportunity to learn about what the truth is regarding US foreign policy. It's obvious in threads like this that there are many Americans who are hearing this for the first time. Like I said previously -- it's not their fault. I hold mainstream media accountable. Who is behind mainstream media? Corporations. Who represents corporate interests in our government? Republicans do hands down almost all the way across the board, Democrats do to a lesser degree. But I just want Americans to examine the facts and determine for themselves if they want this stuff happening in their name.

Edited in later: I never actually thought about whether or not I had an "agenda" until you asked, Missy. It's not like I came to this message board with this preconceived concept to put into motion, but rather that it's just the reason I endeavor to learn everything I can about what's going on, and then offer it when it seems that people are just repeating the "official truth" they heard in the media. (end of edit)

So this brings us to your next question: What am I doing about it? I am trying to get the information about what's really going on out to the public whenever possible. I support demonstrations that are representing issues I agree with, and I'm involved in fund raising for various organizations. Even posting on websites like this is part of what I'm doing.

Now your other question: Why do I stay in this country? Well, it’s not that I hate this country, because I don’t. And I don’t hate the people, but I guess I do hate the people in government who are betraying American ideals and principles. And I hate the ones who lie and deceive us, and the war profiteers who are murdering innocent people around the world to make a buck. But I like my friends and the place I live, my family etc. and my country... I think the country should be given back to the people. I'll tell you this though, if I won the lottery tomorrow I would pack my bags and move to Ireland the next day.

I just spent 5 weeks there and didn't meet one person that agreed with Bush and US foreign policy. I had to explain over and over to them about how Bush didn't come to power because a majority of Americans voted for him, and I explained how the Repubs have the mainstream media in their pocket and find it easy to manipulate public opinion in their favor using deceit and half truths... and in some cases -- out-right lies. Then when they have the election close enough -- they tweak the results in various ways to push it over the top. Then the Irish people I was talking about this to seemed to come to an understanding about why American tourists say such silly things when political issues come up in their conversations.

Anyway, I'm sure I'll be challenged on my analysis about the election now, and it will be from the same folks in here that still believe US foreign policy is "good" and "best in the world." And that Chomsky is a “wacko.” But don't worry; I'm ready for them.

Anyway, Missy, thanks for asking the question, I hope that answers it for you.

[brianc]

You know, in Chomsky's rhetoric, his concepts state that we should always "question authority", and if the answer given is unacceptable, then that authority should be dismantled.

Well, based on Chomsky's concept, what happens when Chomsky becomes (and he has - based on Barsamian's sycophantic ode) then is it acceptable to go to Chomsky's home and destroy it, and he along with it?

After all, that IS the very basis of anarchism.

The problem with those that choose this route is that there can BE no authority - ever.

That's a pretty cowardly approach to society, if you ask me. I mean, think about it - what Chomsky preaches never bothers to ask, "And what good is to be gained by my actions?"

Chomsky's "religion", then, is 'no accountability for anyone'. Question authority, and if you don't like / agree with it, dismantle it. (That's in another part of that same interview, Jack).

So, Jack - what comes after the anarchy? I must confess, unlike you, I haven't studied this for 30 years. Surely you as a disciple of St. Noam can tell us what happens after all authority (and its inherent laws) are dismantled?

[brianc]

I hold mainstream media accountable. Who is behind mainstream media? Corporations. Who represents corporate interests in our government? Republicans do hands down almost all the way across the board, Democrats do to a lesser degree. But I just want Americans to examine the facts and determine for themselves if they want this stuff happening in their name.

Pure, unmitigated flatulence.

Jack, the single largest contributor - both directly and indirectly, to the 2004 presidential campaign coffers was a guy named George Soros. Soros on his own donated $16,000,000 (that's 16 million) into various fundraising goups under the "527" umbrellas set up to benefit Democrats. Most of it was to moveon.org - (and hysterically, they claimed to be a "grassroots effort"). (So much for campaign finance reform, which was intended to take big money OUT of politics). And those were just his donations as of JUNE 2004 - 5 months ahead of the election. And he's just ONE of the donors.

Have a visit to http://www.motherjones.com/news/special ... rowse.html
and see who are the top 10 donors... every single one of the Top 10 donors are to ... Democrats.

That's on the macro-level.

On the micro-level, there were 3 - just 3 - multi-millionaire Democrats in Colorado who helped influence - with millions of dollars - the 2004 election results in that state.

So please - don't even go there with the "rich Republicans" spew. It's old, it's tired, it's false.

[brianc]

You realize that truth is heavily filtered and controlled here in America, and Americans are oblivious to it. The Soviet propagandists are envious when they visit this country and witness our "Free Press." They can't believe how successful the US government is with propaganda. They'll say, "Back in the USSR everyone knew it was propaganda, but here the people think it's true."

Oh, please.

Just the other day, Vladimir Putin was asking why it was that President Bush had Dan Rather fired.

Need a reference?
Here you go:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Feb28.html

That's how CLUELESS someone like Putin who is stuck in the old Soviet mentality can be.

The odd thing here is - it makes me wonder how long Chomsky and his outspoken views would have lasted in the 1970s if he'd been in the Soviet Union... a few days? A few weeks? A few hours, perhaps, before he was hauled off to the gulag?

Well of course Chomsky says he loves democracy - without it, you'd never had heard about him.

[brianc]

Editing in: I have had the misfortune to argue with Chomsky-followers in the past though. Seeking a concession on anything was impossible, so virulent is the certitude.

Must.... keep... reminding... myself....

[jGilder]

You know, in Chomsky's rhetoric, his concepts state that we should always "question authority", and if the answer given is unacceptable, then that authority should be dismantled.

Well, based on Chomsky's concept, what happens when Chomsky becomes (and he has - based on Barsamian's sycophantic ode) then is it acceptable to go to Chomsky's home and destroy it, and he along with it?

After all, that IS the very basis of anarchism.

I seriously doubt that Chomsky would agree with you, but I'm still wondering when you're going to stop dabbling with these side issues and defend US foreign policy. I becoming increasingly convinced that you can't as time goes on. And you seem to have ample time to put into these side issues for someone who didn't have time in their schedule to defend US foreign policy. Hmmmm

[jGilder]

Jack, the single largest contributor - both directly and indirectly, to the 2004 presidential campaign coffers was a guy named George Soros. Soros on his own donated $16,000,000 (that's 16 million) into various fundraising goups under the "527" umbrellas set up to benefit Democrats. Most of it was to moveon.org - (and hysterically, they claimed to be a "grassroots effort"). (So much for campaign finance reform, which was intended to take big money OUT of politics). And those were just his donations as of JUNE 2004 - 5 months ahead of the election. And he's just ONE of the donors.

"U.S. corporate executives are the primary force behind the funding of President Bush's $180 million 2004 election campaign war chest.  By early April, Bush had raised so much money that he suspended all further fund-raising.  He now has the largest campaign fund of any candidate in U.S. history - almost double the amount he raised for the 2000 election."

"Corporate contributions to Kerry are insignificant in comparison to Bush's take.  Most of Kerry's major corporate contributors have given equal or greater amounts of money to the Bush campaign to hedge their bets. "

The article can be found here:
http://www.laborresearch.org/story.php?id=353

Maybe you should take something for that gas, Brian.

[jGilder]

You realize that truth is heavily filtered and controlled here in America, and Americans are oblivious to it. The Soviet propagandists are envious when they visit this country and witness our "Free Press." They can't believe how successful the US government is with propaganda. They'll say, "Back in the USSR everyone knew it was propaganda, but here the people think it's true."

Oh, please.

Here's the article I was referring to the was published in the Observer.

Lessons in how to lie about Iraq

The problem is not propaganda but the relentless control of the kind of things we think about

Brian Eno
Sunday August 17, 2003
The Observer

When I first visited Russia, in 1986, I made friends with a musician whose father had been Brezhnev's personal doctor. One day we were talking about life during 'the period of stagnation' - the Brezhnev era. 'It must have been strange being so completely immersed in propaganda,' I said.

'Ah, but there is the difference. We knew it was propaganda,' replied Sacha.

That is the difference. Russian propaganda was so obvious that most Russians were able to ignore it. They took it for granted that the government operated in its own interests and any message coming from it was probably slanted - and they discounted it.

In the West the calculated manipulation of public opinion to serve political and ideological interests is much more covert and therefore much more effective. Its greatest triumph is that we generally don't notice it - or laugh at the notion it even exists. We watch the democratic process taking place - heated debates in which we feel we could have a voice - and think that, because we have 'free' media, it would be hard for the Government to get away with anything very devious without someone calling them on it.

Here's the rest of the article:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/ ... 03,00.html

Just the other day, Vladimir Putin was asking why it was that President Bush had Dan Rather fired.

The odd thing here is - it makes me wonder how long Chomsky and his outspoken views would have lasted in the 1970s if he'd been in the Soviet Union... a few days? A few weeks? A few hours, perhaps, before he was hauled off to the gulag?

How did Putin get into this discussion? And what did Chomsky say that has convinced you he wants to live in the Soviet Union in the 70s?

Well of course Chomsky says he loves democracy - without it, you'd never had heard about him.

Chomsky loves democracy, so do I, what's your point?

Anyway, Brian, for a guy that didn't have time in his schedule to defend US foreign policy you sure seem to find time for your convoluted stream-of-thought meanderings. I'm still waiting.

[jGilder]

Editing in: I have had the misfortune to argue with Chomsky-followers in the past though. Seeking a concession on anything was impossible, so virulent is the certitude.

Must.... keep... reminding... myself....

Cute, but it was interesting that even though the comments I posted of Chomsky's about the Bush Administration’s National Security Strategy were relevant to the discussion, you didn’t acknowledged what he said or even take it into consideration. Instead there were immediate attacks on Chomsky personally. You'd have to be pretty damn pompous to think that’s an appropriate and intelligent response. I have no idea what Weekender's experience was with the "Chomsky-followers," but if Weekender's behavior was anything like what I witnessed in this thread at the mere mention of Chomsky's name it would be more like the virulent certitude of chimpanzees.

Disclaimer – These comments are not intended to insult chimpanzees.

[Walden]

I have no idea what Weekender's experience was with the "Chomsky-followers," but if Weekender's behavior was anything like what I witnessed in this thread at the mere mention of Chomsky's name it would be more like the virulent certitude of chimpanzees.

Disclaimer – These comments are not intended to insult chimpanzees.

The Weekenders is considerably more advanced than a chimp.

[missy]

jGilder -

Thanks for your response. Since I don't rely on TV or radio for any news, I honestly don't know who is skewed where - I can't stand the "entertainment" rhetoric in broadcast news to stomach it.

And even though my son is about to enter the Navy - and therefore foreign policy will be directly having an impact on my life - I don't have your strong ideals or opinions on our country and it's international behavior.

I tend to look at immediate ways I can have an impact on life and conditions, and in my case, that means being active on a much more local level. Like I wrote - we are heavily involved in Block Watch and local police issues. We do a lot of "volunteering" by playing music at the local Farmer's Market, which is in the area that the riots were several years ago. One of my son's volunteer tutors. The other volunteers at the local soup kitchen and zoo. And we are in the process of organizing a new family folk festival for Memorial Day weekend here in our community. We will be involving the schools, the churches, local businesses, and anyone else that wants to lend a hand. We're bringing in national talent, along with making sure we have loads of local musicians involved. There will be food, activities for the kids, historic tours, nature walks, workshops, and two stages of all day music, plus an evening feature concert. And we're doing fundraising so that kids don't have to pay any admission price.

Perhaps that doesn't mean a lot to you. But, like the rest of the country, this is a "divided" community. It's 60% African-American. We have old mansions worth millions, with Section 8 housing right next door. There's an "uptown" area of empty storefronts that we want to revitalize so the crack dealers don't hang out on the corners.

So - my approach is a little opposite of yours. I figure that if we can get College Hill "together", we can get Cincinnati "together" (a VERY big feat, this is a very polarized town). Then we can move on to state and national level. But - unless you start at the roots, making them strong, trying to shape the limbs of the tree is going to fail because a good wind will blow the whole thing down.

So - a reason like mine may be why you don't find "outrage" at your postings and writings. I'm not saying we need to be isolists, heck, I work in a global company and know that's impossible. But putting SO much effort into the international arena, when the local is a mess - well, there's just so much one person can do. I prefer to start at the local level.

Missy

[BillChin]

Alright, I'll do it. I'll defend American foreign policy, assasinations, overthrows, covert operations--all of it.

I make no apologies for American foreign policy. Our leaders from both sides of the aisle, act in the enlightened self-interest of the American people. To quote Mao, "power flows from the barrel of a gun." This is the overriding principle in the affairs of nation-states. More lately economic influence also plays a role, but military power, the big stick, has almost always determined which nation, which group gets its way when push comes to shove.

This talk of "world opinion" is naive. It is a useless concept for policy makers. No one who supports it is willing to tell me why it is not "world opinion" of one person, one vote, instead of a contrived construct of the opinions of educated elites from developed countries. If someone supports one person, one vote, I see them having a leg to stand on, or at least a point worth debating. Those that support this construct of educated elites in developed nations, put forward in the Boston Globe article, are in my opinion, self-serving (mostly) white people with a colonial view of the world.

Until the world evolves away from being organized as nation-states, and it will, the big stick will always determine what happens. Americans are in general, generous, kind, and fair people. To paraphrase, Mommar Quaddafi, when the Americans say they will take 50% (of the profits) they actually take 50%. When other countries make that deal, they take 95%.

The "blame America" first crowd is less and less, and to my mind, increasingly irrelevant. As they lose influence, they seem to grow increasingly strident and harsh in tone.

None of the charges put forth by this crowd makes me flinch. The hyperbole and rhetoric are so tired, so familiar. I also remind myself that there have been difficult decisions made by leaders, many of them with horrific consequences. I point to the fire bombings of Dresden and Hamburg during World War II. These were on a scale that make most of the events listed in this thread look like children's games, because they happened on one night, because civilians were explicitly targeted, because the military value of the targets was low, because the death, the suffering, the utter devastation were so great.

I am still proud to be an American. I am still proud of our leaders. I do find it distressing that there is so little common ground in this thread. How can peoples from different countries and cultures find common ground, when educated Americans from the same culture, have so little?
+ Bill

[The Weekenders]

Cute, but it was interesting that even though the comments I posted of Chomsky's about the Bush Administration’s National Security Strategy were relevant to the discussion, you didn’t acknowledged what he said or even take it into consideration. Instead there were immediate attacks on Chomsky personally. You'd have to be pretty damn pompous to think that’s an appropriate and intelligent response. I have no idea what Weekender's experience was with the "Chomsky-followers," but if Weekender's behavior was anything like what I witnessed in this thread at the mere mention of Chomsky's name it would be more like the virulent certitude of chimpanzees.

Disclaimer – These comments are not intended to insult chimpanzees.

If you could separate yourself from the desire to win the argument, you would see that I answered your questions already.

I told you my view of Chomsky's perspective and perceived value. Why would I care what he has to say, when, just like your many posts above, it is skewed by the anarchist belief-system and incredible elitism, that renders it of limited value? There are only so many conspiracy theories and generalizations a person can take. One of your posts before reminded me of a John Birch Society meeting I went to for a high school project back in the early 70s.. You, as they did, jump from conclusion to conclusion, in your case about Republicans, corporations etc etc. Probably the most frustrating part is that I SHARE a reticence about authority with your belief system, but its tempered by the reality that people seek hierarchies and authority in life. Without some form of responsible authority-making, people would be jumping about like chimpanzees. Anarchism only destroys for the next episodic reaction. I haven't forgotten the French Revolution from reading about it.

As for your 90% of the world opinion? I have certitude that YOU and CHOMSKY care even less about their opinions than Bush himself.

You already have the answers. You have asserted it over and over again.

This is what Stony referred to. If Chomsky ever was actually in a seat of power, it would be a disaster. Instead, he exists in either a symbiotic or parasitic relation to the larger world of people who actually do positive things, at the risk of making mistakes, which you are so good at ridiculing. He really is sort of like a new Karl Marx in that way.

And, aside from the moniker of whackjob, I did not attack Chomsky personally, but his style and substance of argument and where it leads.

You have insulted several people personally here so once again, I would wonder about charging ad hominem attacks.

As I said before, trying to argue with a Chomsky-ite just leaves one bloodied and bruised for no other reason than having tried to draw them out of their onanistic tent into the real world. Not worth it but likening me to a chimpanzee seemed to beg some kind of response.

[jGilder]

If you could separate yourself from the desire to win the argument, you would see that I answered your questions already.

Sorry, but that's not true. You derailed the discussion from world opinion to a personal and theoretical attack on Chomsky. Someone in the course of the discussion asked if US foreign policy was about world domination. I posted comments Chomsky made about the Bush Administration's National Security Strategy that were perfectly relevant. Then you commenced to attack the messenger. This is a cowardly tactic. My desire is not to "win the argument," as you assert, but rather to present the facts and provide intelligent analysis. If you don't recognize the National Security Strategy as a fact -- you're living in a fantasy world. Furthermore, if you can't recognize that Chomsky is one of the world's most respected political commentators -- you must be getting your information from comic books.

I do recall challenging you to be specific about your charges against Chomsky, and to point out the errors in what I posted -- you still haven't provided that. I also asked for you to demonstrate for us specific things Chomsky has said that were in error -- silence again. All you have done is present your opinion of Chomsky with empty platitudes. I think the man deserves better than that.

I told you my view of Chomsky's perspective and perceived value. Why would I care what he has to say, when, just like your many posts above, it is skewed by the anarchist belief-system and incredible elitism, that renders it of limited value? There are only so many conspiracy theories and generalizations a person can take.

If you want to make a case against Chomsky, present a list of the actual quotes and YOUR critique and analysis. I'm not interested in reverberations from the anti-Chomsky league.

One of your posts before reminded me of a John Birch Society meeting I went to for a high school project back in the early 70s.. You, as they did, jump from conclusion to conclusion, in your case about Republicans, corporations etc. Probably the most frustrating part is that I SHARE a reticence about authority with your belief system, but its tempered by the reality that people seek hierarchies and authority in life. Without some form of responsible authority-making, people would be jumping about like chimpanzees. Anarchism only destroys for the next episodic reaction. I haven't forgotten the French Revolution from reading about it.

Now who’s insulting whom? You compare my posts to a “John Birch Society meeting” and say that I “jump from conclusion to conclusion, about Republicans, corporations etc.” I’m sorry, but I most strongly disagree and do not appreciate your insults. I have provided evidence in every case to back up my assertions. I can only assume that you aren’t reading them. I do not “jump from conclusion to conclusion,” I have studied these matters for decades. You are incredibly pompous to make such a claim. If you were looking for examples of insults and a lack of civility, look no further than your own comments sir!

As for your 90% of the world opinion? I have certitude that YOU and CHOMSKY care even less about their opinions than Bush himself.

You couldn't be more wrong.

This is what Stony referred to. If Chomsky ever was actually in a seat of power, it would be a disaster. Instead, he exists in either a symbiotic or parasitic relation to the larger world of people who actually do positive things, at the risk of making mistakes, which you are so good at ridiculing. He really is sort of like a new Karl Marx in that way.

And I suppose you think having Bush in power hasn't been a disaster? I'd like you to go address the over 100,000 people who are lying dead in their graves because of the disaster Bush has created. Explain to them how wonderful he is. Then when you done, since you feel so positive about US foreign policy, you can go on a world tour and visit a few million more graves of people who have been murdered at the hands of US sponsored terror and tyranny.

And, aside from the moniker of whackjob, I did not attack Chomsky personally, but his style and substance of argument and where it leads.

You're delusional if you don't think calling Chomsky a "whackjob" isn't a personal insult. I think it was the first thing you said in response to his quote. I'd love to see you in a room debating Chomsky on these matters. I think we might discover who the "whackjob" really is.

You have insulted several people personally here so once again, I would wonder about charging ad hominem attacks.

First of all, you have no ground to speak on. Secondly, if you read back, the "insults" were initiated by people against me and what I was saying -- and who I was quoting. I was only responding to the attacks. I'm sure you'd love to be able to make this point that I'm insulting people because you and others seem to be set on demonetizing me in lieu of defending your positions.

As I said before, trying to argue with a Chomsky-ite just leaves one bloodied and bruised for no other reason than having tried to draw them out of their onanistic tent into the real world. Not worth it but likening me to a chimpanzee seemed to beg some kind of response.

I was referring to the fact that the mere mention of Chomsky's name resulted in immediate personal attacks instead of considering what he was saying. This was uncalled for and reminded me of that chimpanzee (recently in the news) that escaped from his cage and brutally attacked a man for no apparent reason. I suppose it’s ok if YOU attack someone personally, but you have a problem if someone defends the person you attack in kind. But I suppose this is consistent with your signature that appears at the bottom of your posts that says, "It's Always (About) You." My advice to you is that you shouldn’t live in a glass house.

You, and others in this thread have succeeded to derail any useful discussion of world opinion and how it relates to Bush and US foreign policy. Instead of debating the issue based on facts and evidence, you and others have diverted the discussion away and thereby avoided your responsibility to back up your assertions. Then you dragged it into a realm of insult and innuendo. I hope you’re proud.