I've listened to this at least half a dozen times and though I learned nothing new the first time it never gets old. It's like watching a bunch of balloons attack a cactus.
I'm so happy they were respectful and let him talk till he was finished. Chomsky is filled with so much valuable knowledge it just makes you see clearly what is really going on.
I'm actually amazed that Chomsky was allowed to talk uninterrupted for so long. Such a difference from the modern talking head debates of today's media. That's one thing I'll give to the format of this conversation. You can visibly see David Frum and the rest of the table fuming. I wonder what made them hold back.
32 years later and everything Chomsky has to say is just as true and relevant as it was when he said it. Sad, but hopeful that he left us his writings and speeches. He is still out there speaking truth to power today and we need that message more than ever.
More relevant, I'd say. The state is even further underground and the population is even more humane despite increasing efforts to destroy human feeling by capital
Mystic Noam at 22:20 talking about england not going to have a labour party for very long. Just a few short years before the rise of blair's new labour
"In England, they still have a labor party, though they won't for long." Tony Blair became the leader of the Labor Party 9 years later. This is how you know someone knows what they're talking about; that they're working with an accurate political model, and that it has predictive power.
For anyone seeking context for this, 1988 was the year Chomsky and Herman published their seminal work Manufacturing Consent, the central thesis of which is known as the Propaganda Model and it is now considered the most important and influential text on the subject of mass media pro-status quo propaganda. Any journalism course worth its salt teaches the Propaganda Model to its students as one of the fundamentals of media analysis.
If you use your knowledge, talk about it, write it down, truly learn from it, you will never forget it. It also helps if you’ve written hundreds of books, lol!
Have you read his recent book...the best exposé of the sham that is the Trump administration that has yet been written..Frum has really matured as a writer and analyst since this broadcast..he was just a kid then.
@@rkgrant I suppose it's good that Frum isn't marching (goose step) in line with Trumps obvious BS, but... Wasn't he a speech writer for 'Dubyah', making full-throated arguments for invading Iraq? He (Frum) and others are now behaving as if Trump is an aberration, 'I'm shocked, shocked to find there are Neo-fascists in the republican party!' When Frum and his ilk laid the ground work and made straight the way for the orange one. So, I don't see much redemption in him now effectively pointing out 'the sky is blue'.
I've noticed something extremely telling and illustrative. I'm currently reading Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent." Given the profundity of the thesis put forward in the book (ie that the media serves the interests of power rather than truth and democracy), I assumed that I would be able to find many examples of journalists debating this with Chomsky and countering his arguments. In fact, there's virtually nothing out there (this video being a rare exception). In a way, this supports the central thesis of the book - presumably none of the major networks were prepared to countenance even a debate on the matter.
Very little that you would call debates in a formal sense, but interviews with journalists have become adversarial, particularly on the subject of the media. The Andrew Marr one is a fine case. In general though Chomsky doesn't debate a huge amount. True, there are a few with Buckley, Dershowitz, Silber, Foucault (if you can follow it), but the vast bulk of what's out there in terms of debate are Q&As after lectures. These typically entail a first year student ignoring everything he has just said and waiting to spring a canned gotcha on him. It rarely ends well. His interactions with journalists are generally just question, answer, next question.
18:56 I love how they cut the queen of England part, I can even tell what he was saying at that moment, he was saying "nobody cares if she even understands it". How appropriate for Chomsky making an analogy with the queen of England, it's amazing to see the media censorship at work.
@@duxnihilo we're just saying, it might be curious, that the tape is chewed up when England comes up. You are the one who's trying to call a valid observation a conspiracy and thus dismiss it. People's mind shut off whenever the word conspiracy is mentioned. It's just a simple case of observation and interpretation; we accept it could be wrong, no need to call it a conspiracy you idiot.
@@duxnihilo and do some f***I ng research too dumbo, most political actions are very well planned in advance, just like a conspiracy. If you knew the truth, you would question everything too asshole.
They literally just don’t know what to do with him … every question he just knows the facts, the truth and he stays neutral and qualifies every time he gives a personal Opinion. He is genius 🙏🏻
You can tell they're riled up and they WANT to prove him wrong, but you can also tell by how they back down that they also know they have no chance because Noam Chomsky has the uncanny inability to be wrong.
@Seb G I thought the guy at the bottom of the pic sat opposite Chomsky was a prick too. The one who admitted working for the Daily Herald near the end of the vid. Sounded like he was gloating when he falsely claimed Noam’s work was having no impact on the population.
Noam gets hit with a question that basically asks, "You make profound arguments against the elite, but only elites would understand the argument." One of the lamest attempts at a tautology I've ever seen. I'm a blue collar worker and I get Noam's point. Also I'm immature and I want to say F#@$ that guy in a way that only an "intellectual" would get it.
Awesome. Love it. But man, the reporter at 54:00 really gave Chomsky pause. He had to repeat, and reframe the question before he could have an answer, and he did it by digging under it, and defining his own specific definitions of “win”. I mean, he’s just fantastic, but here he is becoming a little slippery.
Peter Worthington: "I'm very impressed by the mass of evidence that's been arrayed , unfortunately it's not always accurate and it's very selective." OK., then, why did you just sit there and not challenge what was being said by Mr. Chomsky? And when you did speak, why not bring up these inaccuracies?
I'm not an academic, but I love to learn and expand my mind. This man intrigues me. I admire and respect his gifted intellect. I was offended though, when he said Canada didn't matter (basically). And that's after he said he'd try to express his point without being offensive ! Lol
It's interesting to see a change in response styles at 41:25. The previous question posed by the interviewer two spots to the left regarding popular culture and youth in the United States gets interrupted by the one to the right. Instantly you can see a change in posture. Whereas the former question was being answered as one adult to another, the latter was as an adult speaking to a child about an incredibly obvious point. Like another commenter mentioned, it's like balloons attacking a cactus.
'You're speaking to a room full of journalists on national t.v., how'd that happen?' What Chomsky could have said: 'Well, for this discussion to happen, I needed to be surrounded like a criminal in an interrogation room and grilled by skeptics whose questions demean and side-step the research that went into my best books.'
This interview reminds me of Noam Chomsky’s only appearance on William F. Buckley’s ‘Firing Line’ in 1969, a show to discuss the war in Vietnam and American military intervention in other parts of the world. That program in its entirety is on you tube. Mr. Chomsky debated Buckley (favoring intervention) on American intervention and the use of force in places such as Greece, Central America, the Philippines, and Vietnam. After 35-40 minutes or so (approx.), Mr. Buckley had nothing really left to say. It was a civilized discourse, the likes of which, unfortunately, you do not see on mainstream television today. No one on television today possesses Mr. Chomsky's knowledge or intelligence. Sad, really. I read somewhere that Mr. Buckley was mad afterwards and vowed never to have Noam Chomsky back a second time. He was right.
Hi, i watch that debate from time to time. Apart from buckleys incessant interrupting, its a great watch. At the close, buckleys meek sign off was that of a man so thoroughly bested, his head hung, his shoulders dropped, he was done. Also, i remember reading Chomsky in the 80s, he was writing about being offered by canadian media to come to Canada and share his views. He said it was going great until he bought up Canadas complicity in a number of extra judicial state sponsored killings, the power of oil over govt etc.
No according to Chomsky he was mad but promised he would have him on again. Of course, he didn't because he can't deal with Chomsky's mastery of the facts
It may only be available on audio, but I would highly recommend Howard Zinn vs William Buckley. Howard and Chomsky were friends for over 40 years, and they go together like peanut butter and jelly. Howard was a WWII vet and an activist in many crucial movements. His approach is even deeper
Noam Chompsky 1988: 21:40 “Working class culture has been dissolved.” 19:36 “There are no political parties in the United States. You don’t participate in a political party. You can push a button (vote) but that’s very different than participating in forming programs. In fact, the United a states is basically a one-party state. It has the business party with two factions, supported by shifting segments of the business community…” “Republicans were the party of Keynesian Growth. The part of deficit financing, huge state subsidies to industries, huge debts … The Republicans were saying ‘follow us, we’ll have growth but at the cost of huge debt’ and later generations will worry about it.” “Democrats were the party of fiscal conservatism. They were saying you have to worry about the consequences and you can’t just write checks and have a powerful state that’s interfering in the economy and so forth.” 21:02 “Notice incidentally the two parties shifted their traditional positions and that was easy because the parties don’t stand for anything anyway, they just reflect different sectors of the business community. Democrats reflected interests of investment bankers …and so the population ended up voting for the people that made them feel better.”
22:36 (Context: on working class culture and dissolution of labor institutions and support) It (popular pro-labor news outlets) couldn’t survive conditions of the market. The market is designed so dissidents are excluded naturally. Such as advertising. And so by the 1960s all the social democratic press disappeared and along with it went away the cultural basis for an alternative vision for the way society ought to be organized. And gradually participation in that dissident culture also dissolved…industrial democracies will go that same way. That seems to be something inherent to the process and the United States is advanced in that.”
why hasnt digital chomsky given the names & short bios of the journalists at the table it adds to understanding Worthington was from the toronto sun the other two people Mary & John have disappeared off the air waves but maybe Chomsky affected their reporting but we will 'never' know because Digital Chomsky isnt about Chomsky's lesson to inform ourselves poorly worded but its what i got
As usual the details matter. Reagan increased military spending substantially - sure, that qualifies as "Keynesian", but it's a poor use of federal tax dollars, and indeed contributed to Reagan's egregious and historical deficits. At the same time Reagan was cutting what Chomsky would consider "useful" Keynesianism, social spending: "education and training, community development, welfare, nutrition, housing assistance and other antipoverty programs suffered most." (NYT February 16, 1988). From the same article: "Prof. Richard Neustadt, a political scientist at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, said: ''Mr. Reagan has been willing to tolerate extraordinary deficits and extraordinary defense expenditures, by previous standards, for the sake of keeping Congress from expanding domestic programs. It became the purpose of the deficits.' In other words it seems that the nature of the Reagan style Keynesianism was the opposite of what Chomsky would approve of: more military instead of less, less social spending instead of more. Finally, the deficit was also being inflated not just by military spending but by cutting taxes on the rich.
Michael Darlingon: what Reagan did is called "military Keynesian" - it was always part of society following WWII, but he accelerated it and stripped away civil spending.
Chomsky is the perfect example of raising up people with memory and processing power :) In science it is very common that such people write history (not in the sense of fake history, I mean make a progress to find the truth). It is just a cultural upbringing, which any person of any race can enjoy. Please learn about Resource Based Economy :) You are welcome, your children can thank me later through you :D
This is the academic version of when Neo is fighting all those Agent Smith clones.
This is funny. There's no connection. But it's funny, because it's seems like it. In other words, appearances are deceiving.
The analogy is super on point !
LMAO
lol love it
@@miguelmurill1 You mean to say... there is no spoon?
I've listened to this at least half a dozen times and though I learned nothing new the first time it never gets old.
It's like watching a bunch of balloons attack a cactus.
lmao, that is the perfect analogy to what I just witnessed.
I'm so happy they were respectful and let him talk till he was finished. Chomsky is filled with so much valuable knowledge it just makes you see clearly what is really going on.
this analogy never gets old
I'm actually amazed that Chomsky was allowed to talk uninterrupted for so long. Such a difference from the modern talking head debates of today's media. That's one thing I'll give to the format of this conversation. You can visibly see David Frum and the rest of the table fuming. I wonder what made them hold back.
i wanted to like your comment more than once
but this damn comment system lol
I love listening to Frum get bodied over and over again.
Which ones frum
I am so grateful that I don't have to read 1000s of pages of primary sources to ge able to gain this perspective. Thank you Noam
Prolly more like hundreds or 1000s xD
A literal walking encyclopedia
24:50, this camera zoom out to show they’re actually on an entire narrow stage in front of a crowd of people was hilarious!
32 years later and everything Chomsky has to say is just as true and relevant as it was when he said it. Sad, but hopeful that he left us his writings and speeches. He is still out there speaking truth to power today and we need that message more than ever.
More relevant, I'd say. The state is even further underground and the population is even more humane despite increasing efforts to destroy human feeling by capital
Starts talking about the Queen in a Common Wealth country. Suddenly broadcast cuts out for a couple seconds.
perfect timing
Thanks for the timestamp
I just got the same…😂
this chomsky feller is is pretty smart :P
I'd say.
Dood, Guy ; this guyz wikked smaht -- way morer than pretty smaht
:P
Haha sounds like something Norm McDonald would say
@@kaizerman249 I love how all of us, Norm fans, can pick up these subtle references.
Love him so much....You know, we don't describe Chomsky this way...but he is a brave person.
Mystic Noam at 22:20 talking about england not going to have a labour party for very long.
Just a few short years before the rise of blair's new labour
Just to check, you’re agreeing with him yeah?
@@insight827 oh yeah I agree. New labour have been disastrous for the traditional principles of the original political labour movement
@@localkauf good good.
It's great finally seeing this in its totality! Chomsky never ceases to amazing me.
Chomsky is so sharp here. Super impressive.
As always. Even well in his 90s
As someone who has watched a great many Chomsky videos over the last six months, this is a fantastic Chomsky video.
Noam is the universe's gift to understanding.
"In England, they still have a labor party, though they won't for long." Tony Blair became the leader of the Labor Party 9 years later. This is how you know someone knows what they're talking about; that they're working with an accurate political model, and that it has predictive power.
This is the 80s one man army movie for intellectuals
For anyone seeking context for this, 1988 was the year Chomsky and Herman published their seminal work Manufacturing Consent, the central thesis of which is known as the Propaganda Model and it is now considered the most important and influential text on the subject of mass media pro-status quo propaganda. Any journalism course worth its salt teaches the Propaganda Model to its students as one of the fundamentals of media analysis.
The best part about this is when he blows the lid off of sports at 36:09
Absolutely
Love it...legit rock star of my generation. Thank you Noam.
this looks like that painting of dogs playing poker
Haha, yeah good one 😁👍
Thanks for the upload. Love the energy he had in these old talks.
Wow...”Irrational submissiveness to power is a very dangerous thing.” - Noam Chomsky
I will never not be jealous of his ability to recall facts right when he needs them. Maybe it just comes with time.
Time, a big brain and most of all insane amounts of dedication and effort
If you use your knowledge, talk about it, write it down, truly learn from it, you will never forget it. It also helps if you’ve written hundreds of books, lol!
This Chomsky fella, he looks good. Should write some books and get published.
As a Canadian, I'd like to thank the US for taking the creep David Frum off our hands.
Plz,Plz,Plz take him back!
Have you read his recent book...the best exposé of the sham that is the Trump administration that has yet been written..Frum has really matured as a writer and analyst since this broadcast..he was just a kid then.
@@rkgrant I suppose it's good that Frum isn't marching (goose step) in line with Trumps obvious BS, but...
Wasn't he a speech writer for 'Dubyah', making full-throated arguments for invading Iraq? He (Frum) and others are now behaving as if Trump is an aberration, 'I'm shocked, shocked to find there are Neo-fascists in the republican party!' When Frum and his ilk laid the ground work and made straight the way for the orange one.
So, I don't see much redemption in him now effectively pointing out 'the sky is blue'.
@@rkgrant but almost the entire world and half of America hated Trump. Not really brave or insightful to jump on that bandwagon
Interesting video and I must say I'm impressed by the video and my life is a lot richer for watching it.
david frum should be in jail for his cheerleading for the iraq war. what a despicable human being
Chomsky's slap of Peter @11:35 can still be heard today.
6 against 1 and the 1 kicks their ass all over the place....a Titan amongst minnows.
Chomsky nailing it again and again as usual.
I've noticed something extremely telling and illustrative. I'm currently reading Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent." Given the profundity of the thesis put forward in the book (ie that the media serves the interests of power rather than truth and democracy), I assumed that I would be able to find many examples of journalists debating this with Chomsky and countering his arguments. In fact, there's virtually nothing out there (this video being a rare exception). In a way, this supports the central thesis of the book - presumably none of the major networks were prepared to countenance even a debate on the matter.
Very little that you would call debates in a formal sense, but interviews with journalists have become adversarial, particularly on the subject of the media. The Andrew Marr one is a fine case. In general though Chomsky doesn't debate a huge amount. True, there are a few with Buckley, Dershowitz, Silber, Foucault (if you can follow it), but the vast bulk of what's out there in terms of debate are Q&As after lectures. These typically entail a first year student ignoring everything he has just said and waiting to spring a canned gotcha on him. It rarely ends well. His interactions with journalists are generally just question, answer, next question.
18:56 I love how they cut the queen of England part, I can even tell what he was saying at that moment, he was saying "nobody cares if she even understands it". How appropriate for Chomsky making an analogy with the queen of England, it's amazing to see the media censorship at work.
wow i caught that too. crazy.
Yup, i agree with you and chomsky !
Chomsky's face should be on anarchist posters everywhere !
It's just a chewed up VHS tape. No need to create a conspiracy to explain it, especially since he said so many much more controversial things.
@@duxnihilo we're just saying, it might be curious, that the tape is chewed up when England comes up. You are the one who's trying to call a valid observation a conspiracy and thus dismiss it. People's mind shut off whenever the word conspiracy is mentioned. It's just a simple case of observation and interpretation; we accept it could be wrong, no need to call it a conspiracy you idiot.
@@duxnihilo and do some f***I ng research too dumbo, most political actions are very well planned in advance, just like a conspiracy. If you knew the truth, you would question everything too asshole.
The glitch at around 19:00, bet the Queen is behind it.
Lmao
It’s so refreshing I almost don’t know how to breath..
The only disruption occurs when chomsky says, "the queen of england..."
They literally just don’t know what to do with him … every question he just knows the facts, the truth and he stays neutral and qualifies every time he gives a personal
Opinion.
He is genius 🙏🏻
You can tell they're riled up and they WANT to prove him wrong, but you can also tell by how they back down that they also know they have no chance because Noam Chomsky has the uncanny inability to be wrong.
I’ll tell my kids this was how the podcast was invented.
41:18 the Canadian oppressor's lapdog had to step in.
36:35 -- Sports.
39:06 -- The "Me Generation."
yeah, that is some good stuff chomsky slipped in there. really good.
I know! I hate that it got interrupted by a hostile question at around 41:25.
7:33 That guy to the right is like: I need a beer...
Frum
@Seb G I thought the guy at the bottom of the pic sat opposite Chomsky was a prick too. The one who admitted working for the Daily Herald near the end of the vid. Sounded like he was gloating when he falsely claimed Noam’s work was having no impact on the population.
In a meritocratic society David Frum wouldn't get another journalistic gig, ever.
You post great videos! But is it possible to get the rest of this one?
Noam gets hit with a question that basically asks, "You make profound arguments against the elite, but only elites would understand the argument." One of the lamest attempts at a tautology I've ever seen.
I'm a blue collar worker and I get Noam's point.
Also I'm immature and I want to say F#@$ that guy in a way that only an "intellectual" would get it.
Tautology?
great interview
Awesome. Love it. But man, the reporter at 54:00 really gave Chomsky pause. He had to repeat, and reframe the question before he could have an answer, and he did it by digging under it, and defining his own specific definitions of “win”. I mean, he’s just fantastic, but here he is becoming a little slippery.
I agree. But it was nonetheless an important point that wind for the elites are different goals to what the rest of us are told.
Neo Con David Frum blathering about some idiocy
At least tie his arm behind his back to make it fair
43:16 destruction
Was this filmed at 02:00 in the morning, or is this just starting 2 hours into their conversation?
Oh dear. It seems that the last few minutes were chopped off.
Yup, that's a pity and a shame !
No-one in Britain in a poll gets asked ‘who do you think runs the government?’ … would love that poll
Peter Worthington: "I'm very impressed by the mass of evidence that's been arrayed , unfortunately it's not always accurate and it's very selective." OK., then, why did you just sit there and not challenge what was being said by Mr. Chomsky? And when you did speak, why not bring up these inaccuracies?
haha he lacked answers and questions..
I'm not an academic, but I love to learn and expand my mind. This man intrigues me. I admire and respect his gifted intellect. I was offended though, when he said Canada didn't matter (basically). And that's after he said he'd try to express his point without being offensive ! Lol
It's interesting to see a change in response styles at 41:25. The previous question posed by the interviewer two spots to the left regarding popular culture and youth in the United States gets interrupted by the one to the right. Instantly you can see a change in posture. Whereas the former question was being answered as one adult to another, the latter was as an adult speaking to a child about an incredibly obvious point. Like another commenter mentioned, it's like balloons attacking a cactus.
'You're speaking to a room full of journalists on national t.v., how'd that happen?' What Chomsky could have said: 'Well, for this discussion to happen, I needed to be surrounded like a criminal in an interrogation room and grilled by skeptics whose questions demean and side-step the research that went into my best books.'
This interview reminds me of Noam Chomsky’s only appearance on William F. Buckley’s ‘Firing Line’ in 1969, a show to discuss the war in Vietnam and American military intervention in other parts of the world.
That program in its entirety is on you tube.
Mr. Chomsky debated Buckley (favoring intervention) on American intervention and the use of force in places such as Greece, Central America, the Philippines, and Vietnam. After 35-40 minutes or so (approx.), Mr. Buckley had nothing really left to say. It was a civilized discourse, the likes of which, unfortunately, you do not see on mainstream television today.
No one on television today possesses Mr. Chomsky's knowledge or intelligence. Sad, really.
I read somewhere that Mr. Buckley was mad afterwards and vowed never to have Noam Chomsky back a second time.
He was right.
Buckley did threaten to hit him at one point, seemingly jokingly.
Hi, i watch that debate from time to time. Apart from buckleys incessant interrupting, its a great watch. At the close, buckleys meek sign off was that of a man so thoroughly bested, his head hung, his shoulders dropped, he was done. Also, i remember reading Chomsky in the 80s, he was writing about being offered by canadian media to come to Canada and share his views. He said it was going great until he bought up Canadas complicity in a number of extra judicial state sponsored killings, the power of oil over govt etc.
No according to Chomsky he was mad but promised he would have him on again. Of course, he didn't because he can't deal with Chomsky's mastery of the facts
it was a reference to buckley's threatening gore vidal in a televised debate at the either the 1968 RNC or DNC convention.@@ronanpettit6900
It may only be available on audio, but I would highly recommend Howard Zinn vs William Buckley. Howard and Chomsky were friends for over 40 years, and they go together like peanut butter and jelly. Howard was a WWII vet and an activist in many crucial movements. His approach is even deeper
Where's the rest of it? It cut off just as it was getting good !!!
22:30 RIP headphone users
Prime Chomsky.
Please fix the audio. The sound is too low to understand discussion.
Canada is open because they don't matter.
:-D
I get what he meant, but still...
Noam Chompsky 1988:
21:40
“Working class culture has been dissolved.”
19:36
“There are no political parties in the United States. You don’t participate in a political party. You can push a button (vote) but that’s very different than participating in forming programs. In fact, the United a states is basically a one-party state. It has the business party with two factions, supported by shifting segments of the business community…”
“Republicans were the party of Keynesian Growth. The part of deficit financing, huge state subsidies to industries, huge debts … The Republicans were saying ‘follow us, we’ll have growth but at the cost of huge debt’ and later generations will worry about it.”
“Democrats were the party of fiscal conservatism. They were saying you have to worry about the consequences and you can’t just write checks and have a powerful state that’s interfering in the economy and so forth.”
21:02
“Notice incidentally the two parties shifted their traditional positions and that was easy because the parties don’t stand for anything anyway, they just reflect different sectors of the business community. Democrats reflected interests of investment bankers …and so the population ended up voting for the people that made them feel better.”
Theres a reason very few actual interviews of chomsky exist.
43:00 *SMACK*
ya.. that one hurt xD lol
Frum never knew what he was talking about, then and now..
I thought it was a poker match at first lol
Chomsky has all the cards
42:55 Ownership...
I’ve got intermittent sound. 😂😂
36:20. This is important. Athletes may not agree. 39:05 talking about the Me Generation
Anybody with the second part?
cuts suddenly; is a second part available?
It always cuts out when he's about to get to a solution to practical capitalism
Please mono the audio :/
19:00
22:36
(Context: on working class culture and dissolution of labor institutions and support)
It (popular pro-labor news outlets) couldn’t survive conditions of the market. The market is designed so dissidents are excluded naturally. Such as advertising. And so by the 1960s all the social democratic press disappeared and along with it went away the cultural basis for an alternative vision for the way society ought to be organized. And gradually participation in that dissident culture also dissolved…industrial democracies will go that same way. That seems to be something inherent to the process and the United States is advanced in that.”
Wtf is Chomsky
Answer: The political science equivalent of Albert Einstein
...but relativity isn't politically controversial o.o
The parallels between them are legion. Both spearheaded the creation of a new branch of science thereby revolutionising their respective fields.
Reminds me of Broly transforming and then ragdolling the Z fighters, effectively making the opposition look like raditz.
David Frum got his ass whooped!
i'm glad that's not what you say because that's not what you do, lol
Canadian jourlists cut the Queen part or what? Is there a full version of this interview available anywhere?
I've seen censorship like that before and given the technology then I highly believe that they did cut it.
Good job 😅😮🎉
why hasnt digital chomsky given the names & short bios of the journalists at the table it adds to understanding Worthington was from the toronto sun the other two people Mary & John have disappeared off the air waves but maybe Chomsky affected their reporting but we will 'never' know because Digital Chomsky isnt about Chomsky's lesson to inform ourselves poorly worded but its what i got
Anyone know the "liberal commentator" he's referring to at around 13:10 ?
Is that seriously a poker table?
Could they find a bigger table?
FBI interrogation 😂
Why is it so quiet
2020 in anti-racism protests and covid19... Knowledge is power!!
Is there a second part of this video or it ends there...?
37:40 add the even more insidious reality TV to the mix today. Talk about promoting greed.
When Smartypants goes on the loose, bowels of idiotypants go on the loose !
Wars are also the best opportunity for Military Industrial Capitalists to make the world safe for Corporate Plunder.
19:05 cassette change?
Looks like a poker game.
Chomsky seems to be against reckless Keynesian spending and debt policies here. What happened?
As usual the details matter. Reagan increased military spending substantially - sure, that qualifies as "Keynesian", but it's a poor use of federal tax dollars, and indeed contributed to Reagan's egregious and historical deficits. At the same time Reagan was cutting what Chomsky would consider "useful" Keynesianism, social spending: "education and training, community development, welfare, nutrition, housing assistance and other antipoverty programs suffered most." (NYT February 16, 1988).
From the same article: "Prof. Richard Neustadt, a political scientist at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, said: ''Mr. Reagan has been willing to tolerate extraordinary deficits and extraordinary defense expenditures, by previous standards, for the sake of keeping Congress from expanding domestic programs. It became the purpose of the deficits.'
In other words it seems that the nature of the Reagan style Keynesianism was the opposite of what Chomsky would approve of: more military instead of less, less social spending instead of more. Finally, the deficit was also being inflated not just by military spending but by cutting taxes on the rich.
Michael Darlingon: what Reagan did is called "military Keynesian" - it was always part of society following WWII, but he accelerated it and stripped away civil spending.
I think that's Stuart McLean at the bottom right. Only Canadians would know who that is.
Anyone have the names of all the Canadians?
They’re sitting way too close.
I feel discomfort straight from my couch.
Noam is sitting right next to George Bush’s Joseph Goebbels.
Noam was wacky back then too. Conspiracy theories abound.
See minute 36.....always knew there was a problem with professional sports!
Chomsky is the perfect example of raising up people with memory and processing power :) In science it is very common that such people write history (not in the sense of fake history, I mean make a progress to find the truth). It is just a cultural upbringing, which any person of any race can enjoy. Please learn about Resource Based Economy :) You are welcome, your children can thank me later through you :D
22:01 - England