(1) What does one of Chomsky's elementary principles - that you concern yourself first with the crimes of your country - mean, if not that citizenship is of fundamental importance?
(2) How many times have any of us heard Chomsky argue that Bennett and his putrid ilk HAVE to lie because people (Amurrican people) wouldn't stand for their crimes if they knew the truth?
(3) Bourdieu argued, rightly I think, that television only works for "fast thinkers" who do nothing more that cast a banal intellectual gloss over the affair as they instantiate the accepted verities? I didn't see the Chomsky/Bennett exchange, but I did tune in around 8:20 when I thought it would be occurring. Look at the mawkish sentimentality that preceded the exchange. How can you successfully follow that with a message that requires people to rethink fundamental assumptions about their world, in a way that is bound to be disturbing.
Bennett, on the other hand, had only to do what he always does. Everything that came and preceded his performance provided the frame within which he so easily fits.
Jesus this is depressing....when I think of how few people I can convine to love the resistances of textuality - how DO you break through this crap?
MM
>>> kelley at pulpculture.org 05/30/02 10:50 AM >>>
At 08:13 PM 5/29/02 -0700, Michael Perelman wrote:
>Itis on 4 AM here on the Left Coast. I expect full reports from those in
>more fortunate time zones.
i only saw part of it. chomsky tried to rip him apart. while peter's right that Zahn (what IS the scoop with Greta's facelift?) did him the favor of quoting where he says that "nothing justifies" 9-11, she really pissed all over him when she interrupted him so that he couldn't correct Bennettbaf.
I'll channel my mother here and give you what I know will be her response: chomsky did not look good, save for the part where he did what he does well, show how Bennettbarf clearly lied about what he's said. Bennettbarf insisted that Chomsky was trying to justify the attacks. Chomsky simply pointed to his quote.
Nonetheless, Bennettbarf was all self righteous and went on and on about how great America was and how Chomsky was a Hate America Firster. For Bennettbarf, because Chomsky doesn't do enough bowing at the Altar of America before he launches into his critique of US foreign policy.
Now, y'all can go on about how America sucks, but it just doesn't play well in Peoria if that's the only thing you can say about the US. Why do people come to the US, Bennettbarf asks, if it is so horrible. Why, hell, we bailed Europe out twice in the last century and we saved eastern Europe from the communist evildoers. what is your problem, Noam buddy, if you can't talk about that too?!
Chomsky's response is lame. People want to hear him say and mean it: I live in the greatest country on the planet. they want to hear him say, I love this country so fucking much that I want us to do better. I love the people in this country. I know we're a compassionate people. I know we want freedom and equality and peace. And I want our nation state to do what i know American people stand for because I know they don't stand for death, destruction, and terror.
Now, I don't know if Chomsky is capable of that. Are any of us capable of saying the above and meaning it? Do you want to criticize the US because you think the US is a nation of good and decent people, etc? I think that, on some left principles, it is anathema to say that. I think Chuck described it as selling out or something.
beats me.
kelley