forgot password?   register

#housing #investing #politics more»
750,530 comments in 77,137 posts by 11,006 registered users, 10 online now: APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE, BayAreaObserver, Blurtman, Dan8267, FortWayne, goat, just any guy, Kepi, kgk01, PCGyver

new post


By jazz_music   2016 Nov 15, 10:03pm   5 links   2,919 views   22 comments   watch (1)   quote      

This is the fullest version of the recent Chomsky interview. A small quote follows below:

... On Nov. 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government—executive, Congress, the Supreme Court—in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history.

Apart from the last phrase, all of this is uncontroversial. The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand.

Is this an exaggeration? Consider what we have just been witnessing.

During the Republican primaries, every candidate denied that what is happening is happening—with the exception of the sensible moderates, like Jeb Bush, who said it's all uncertain, but we don't have to do anything because we're producing more natural gas, thanks to fracking. Or John Kasich, who agreed that global warming is taking place, but added that "we are going to burn [coal] in Ohio and we are not going to apologize for it."

The winning candidate, now the president-elect, calls for rapid increase in use of fossil fuels, including coal; dismantling of regulations; rejection of help to developing countries that are seeking to move to sustainable energy; and in general, racing to the cliff as fast as possible.

Trump has already taken steps to dismantle the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by placing in charge of the EPA transition a notorious (and proud) climate change denier, Myron Ebell. Trump's top adviser on energy, billionaire oil executive Harold Hamm, announced his expectations, which were predictable: dismantling regulations, tax cuts for the industry (and the wealthy and corporate sector generally), more fossil fuel production, lifting Obama's temporary block on the Dakota Access Pipeline.


Comments 1-22 of 22     Last »

1   bob2356   653/657 = 99% civil   2016 Nov 15, 11:15pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

jazz music says

Myron Ebell

Nice job picking the Exxon-Mobil financed climate change denier, who has a degree in political science, as head of the EPA. Who said trump has no sense of humor.

2   curious2   1127/1127 = 100% civil   2016 Nov 16, 1:47am  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Voters were not offered a fair choice. You can say what you want about the Republicans, but the Democrats did not offer any plan to gain control of the climate. That would require geo-engineering, e.g. maybe converting CO2 to calcium carbonate, or developing space elevators to move cargo and heat from the surface into space, or something else. (Current proposals have not been adopted by either major party due to being either dreadfully bad ideas, e.g. spraying H2SO4 into the upper atmosphere, or prohibitively expensive, e.g. orbiting mirrors.) Instead, Democrats proposed massive transfer payments to corrupt governments in backwards countries, including Muslim countries that would kill us if they get a chance. All the Democrats' complaints about Republicans merely illustrate the point: to be a winning party, you need to build a winning coalition and platform. Even a modestly sensible party with a reasonable candidate should have been able to win this election by a wide margin, but instead Democrats campaigned on Obamneycare, importing jihadis, and making Americans pay jizya. Somehow that sold in California, though turnout in CA was low. It didn't sell across the other 49 states, where turnout was higher.

3   WorkInProgress   46/47 = 97% civil   2016 Nov 16, 6:24am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Government agencies, filled with unelected dictators, make more laws that upend you life than elected politicians do. I hope Trump dismantles 50% of all government agencies through budget cuts.

Can I get a whoop whoop?!!!!

4   Dan8267   3581/3628 = 98% civil   2016 Nov 16, 8:48am  ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike   quote    

WorkInProgress says

I hope Trump dismantles 50% of all government agencies through budget cuts.

Starting with the military and defense contractors.

5   jazz_music   872/873 = 99% civil   2016 Nov 16, 9:21am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

WorkInProgress says

I hope Trump dismantles 50% of all government agencies

Yeah. Of course there will be harsh realities if not deadly: Anything that gives life, comfort or joy to working people is fair game now with green-eyed monsters of inhumanity drooling all over themselves to carve us up for dinner.

If Trump reduces the debt it would be a first ever in history of this country for a Republican to reduce the debt.

The logical move is: Now that the Democrats are all but vanquished, the subject of any "debt crisis" will vanish from all media and discussion. The desire to cripple leadership is no longer tolerable.

You know what the Republicans want, that hasn't changed now that they control all federal government at the highest levels. Look for a big sell off of whatever infrastructure and entitlements still exists that makes life more bearable to citizenry.

We voted for a shake up, a religious extremist, tax breaks, and elimination of ACA in favor of something which cannot be described in any other way except "great" and "the best."

6   Dan8267   3581/3628 = 98% civil   2016 Nov 16, 9:57am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

jazz music says

Back in 1956 I would have surely been a republican. And I'd probably have an "I like Ike" pin.

Of course, back then the democrats were evil. No surprise because the people who were democrats then are republicans now and vice versa. It's not the name of the political party that matters. It's the people in it.

7   jazz_music   872/873 = 99% civil   2016 Nov 16, 10:15am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Chomsky also expresses penetrating views on economic woes. It's well worth adding the letter part of Chomsky's interview to the discussion we are having here:

... As Greenspan explained during his glory days, his successes in economic management were based substantially on "growing worker insecurity." Intimidated working people would not ask for higher wages, benefits and security, but would be satisfied with the stagnating wages and reduced benefits that signal a healthy economy by neoliberal standards.

Working people, who have been the subjects of these experiments in economic theory, are not particularly happy about the outcome. They are not, for example, overjoyed at the fact that in 2007, at the peak of the neoliberal miracle, real wages for nonsupervisory workers were lower than they had been years earlier, or that real wages for male workers are about at 1960s levels while spectacular gains have gone to the pockets of a very few at the top, disproportionately a fraction of 1%. Not the result of market forces, achievement or merit, but rather of definite policy decisions, matters reviewed carefully by economist Dean Baker in recently published work.

The fate of the minimum wage illustrates what has been happening. Through the periods of high and egalitarian growth in the '50s and '60s, the minimum wage—which sets a floor for other wages—tracked productivity. That ended with the onset of neoliberal doctrine. Since then, the minimum wage has stagnated (in real value). Had it continued as before, it would probably be close to $20 per hour. Today, it is considered a political revolution to raise it to $15.

With all the talk of near-full employment today, labor force participation remains below the earlier norm. And for working people, there is a great difference between a steady job in manufacturing with union wages and benefits, as in earlier years and a temporary job with little security in some service profession. Apart from wages, benefits and security, there is a loss of dignity, of hope for the future, of a sense that this is a world in which I belong and play a worthwhile role.

8   junkmail   34/34 = 100% civil   2016 Nov 16, 10:20am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

He's also slammed the Democrats too. He's not a fan of American Imperialism. Google what he said about Obama..

9   curious2   1127/1127 = 100% civil   2016 Nov 16, 12:34pm  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Democrats including the OP seem intensely emotional at the moment, competing to denounce the next administration, yet now might be the moment to see they could have done better. It's a climate thread, and I do want to follow up on the opportunities to make use of CO2:

Noam Chomsky has an office at MIT, where he remains Professor Emeritus. If he walks across the campus, he can see this:

"Putting carbon dioxide to good use

MIT biological engineers have found a way to convert carbon-dioxide emissions to useful building materials, using genetically altered yeast."

Noam travels, and might like to see this:

"Researchers convert carbon dioxide into a valuable resource
Researchers at Aalto University have opened a pilot plant that converts CO2 and slag, the by-product of steel manufacturing, into a valuable mineral product. The product, Precipitated Calcium Carbonate (PCC), is used in e.g. plastics, papers, rubbers and paints. The innovative plant represents the next stage prior commercialization of a new process that consumes CO2 in order to convert a low-value by-product into a highly valuable resource for industry."

If you believe that CO2 controls climate, then you should be thinking about how to convert excess CO2 into something more useful. Instead, Democrats proposed only transfer payments that they could take a cut of, en route to sending the money to backwards corrupt countries where they would get kickbacks, and those backwards countries include Muslim countries, so we could all get our heads cut off. That would be what scientists like to call "a bad idea." Finding uses for excess CO2, and ways to manage temperature more directly, would be what scientists like to call "a good idea."

Someday Democrats might admit that they have room for improvement. Actual liberalism should embrace science and must absolutely denounce Islam. Democrats did the opposite, and are currently doubling down. I hope America and science will make enough progress in the next four years to raise the level of discussion from despair to optimism.

10   TwoScoopsMcGee   1695/1695 = 100% civil   2016 Nov 16, 1:18pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Ban POV Cars. And intercontinental pleasure flights. And tax the fuck out of intercontinental business flights. Everytime Tom Friedman flies to Turkey to do a fawning report on IBM Officies in Izmir, he emits more carbon than a block of middle class American families do in a year. All else is nothing. Certainly recycling cardboard is "Environmental Theatre" the way the TSA is "Security Theatre". Carbon Credits is a Wall Street scam to create a speculative market.

The Democratic candidate, as SoS, travelled as far afield as Poland to promote Fracking, and the President had to step in and go over her head to delay Keystone XL, she wanted to approve it.

11   Quigley   872/878 = 99% civil   2016 Nov 16, 1:32pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

It can be so annoying when your beautiful idea is blown away by an ugly fact.

12   jazz_music   872/873 = 99% civil   2016 Nov 16, 1:42pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

curious2 says

Democrats including the OP seem intensely emotional at the moment,

Inasmuch as victory holds only a fleeting glimpse of pleasure, there is schadenfreude in projecting misery onto the vanquished opponent HOWEVER the exists hope, even communicated from some high-profile public personalities, to prevent Trump from ascending into power in the first place. I would support that goal in any way possible. You either lack the basic understanding of your opponent's mindset, or for your own reasons you choose not to communicate that understanding. Allow me to help.

Democrat voters are not devotees as many of you opponents imply but rather more at the anti-Republican agenda.

The majority were looking at
Clinton's high proven skill set,
her long history of performing humanitarian works, plus

to escape
the Republican agenda, (no secrets there)
the religious extremist vice president,
funding further inflating war and enforcement industries, (meaning oppression and slavery under the color of law)
Trump's history of betraying vast number of people's trust,
the shame of having YET ANOTHER narcissistic foolish daddy's boy-man as "leader of the free world."

Either administration SHOULD be petitioned and boycotted and demonstrated against as far as I'm concerned, we now stand positioned unfortunately in a deeper hole now and looking at opposition from a more inflated enforcement sector.

Popular demonstration has power to guide government and mobilize people to the extent that the people's needs and wants cannot be ignored. Don't forget that government and it's donors NEEDS us all to cooperate by blowing our money, making babies, working obediently. OUR POWER WILL BE A GREAT AND IMMEDIATE CONCERN to government and donors If we fail to perform any of those demands. Government uses only enough state violence to instill terror, but if obedience still does not follow they will not kill or enslave the majority standing united.

Do you see how essential to government and it's donors it is to keep us divided, distracted, scared, obedient, silent?

13   curious2   1127/1127 = 100% civil   2016 Nov 16, 1:47pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

So, returning to the topic of your own OP, what is your proposal to manage the climate? Taxing Americans to subsidize corrupt politicians and kleptocracies in central Africa? That is basically the point of the current conference in Morocco, and other similar conferences that generate a lot of spending. Do you see how your focus on red team vs blue team perpetuates the division you complain of, while preventing you from even proposing anything to address the issue you posted about?

jazz music says

humanitarian works

"[January 12] marked six years since a 7.0-magnitude earthquake devastated Haiti, killing an estimated 300,000 people. Tens of thousands of Haitians are still living in tents. Here in New York City, a group of Haitians gathered in front of the Clinton Foundation to protest former President Bill Clinton’s role as head of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission. Activist Dahoud Andre was among them.

Dahoud Andre: "Today is the 12th of January 2016, six years after the earthquake. And for us, it was important to be in front of the Clinton Foundation, because Bill Clinton, as head of the IHRC, Interim Haiti Recovery Commission, was responsible for the $6 billion that came into his hands. He had unlimited control of this money. Six years after the earthquake, not much has changed, and as a matter of fact, Haiti is in worse condition than it was in 2010. Only Bill Clinton can tell the world what happened with this money.""

That doesn't even mention the cholera that Haitians got from the U.N. as part of that aid. Talking about disasters, and collecting money supposedly for humanitarian purposes, does not really do humanitarian work.

14   jazz_music   872/873 = 99% civil   2016 Nov 16, 9:10pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

curious2 says

So, returning to the topic of your own OP, what is your proposal to manage the climate?

My solution is to get the ideological deniers out of the sphere of influence over decision making entirely and that is not going to happen, not place them at the top of all the related org charts. Solutions are thinkable in the absence of POWERFUL REPUBLICAN ideologues.

Would you prefer I offer a simplistic solution to that requires the attention of a diverse group of subject matter experts, stake holders and policy implementation experts? Evidently Chomsky does not offer his own solution either.

The OP says the blockquote is a small portion of the interview. There are other dangers presented by the Republican agenda lacking meaningful resistance. Not the least is the power to use WMD and the inclination to offer reckless saber-rattling in that area too.

Similar observations hold for the other huge issue concerning human survival: the threat of nuclear destruction, which has been looming over our heads for 70 years and is now increasing.

It is no less difficult to find words to capture the utterly astonishing fact that in all of the massive coverage of the electoral extravaganza, none of this receives more than passing mention.

You should read the other portions of the linked Chomsky interview. This link appears near the bottom of the original article.

curious2 says

the division you complain of,

That quote was in reference to several traditional military tactics "divide and conquer" being one of them. You say complain I say I acknowledge it. A big part of my reading is to acquire a kind of situational awareness.

I wish somebody would sober up about the described existential threats to humanity. So far Trump has boasted a very big mouth about WMDs and the inadequacy of our already excessively costly military might.

As for me, you knew I advocate activism, demonstrations, etc. regardless of which party won because it is clear to me that the representatives are not going to represent us unless they are forced by us. You can no longer find a "Mr. Right," elect him, then proceed to forget about politics without expecting to be relegated to a kind of non-life afforded to migrant workers perpetually looking for subsistence .

For decades Chomsky has been speculating on the circumstances for a Hitler type to emerge and harness the populist outrage for fascist agendas. --this is yet another real danger confronting the whole of mankind here and now.

It might be red meat, but I don't see your referenced accusation of the Clinton Foundation as a fair characterization of the Clinton's humanitarian works: That argument is similar to the feminists that cry rape as if that should be conviction, commenters love to call them "special snowflakes."

And I don't even see "my focus of red team versus blue team" since I posted an interview here which is eloquently poignant and even famous.

Don't hate on government either, if you were funding those representatives reelections you'd likely think their execution is damned near perfect, alternately we have to start DOING something relevant.

15   jazz_music   872/873 = 99% civil   2016 Nov 16, 9:40pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

According to the linked interview, Trump as charismatic ideologue who could harness and direct popular rage and fear (e.g. against our poor or boogeyman foreigners) is ANOTHER key aspect of global concern over the USA now. Although Chomsky doesn't claim that Trump fits that profile particularly well due mainly to Trump's emphasis on himself.

...For many years, I have been writing and speaking about the danger of the rise of an honest and charismatic ideologue in the United States, someone who could exploit the fear and anger that has long been boiling in much of the society, and who could direct it away from the actual agents of malaise to vulnerable targets. That could indeed lead to what sociologist Bertram Gross called "friendly fascism" in a perceptive study 35 years ago. But that requires an honest ideologue, a Hitler type, not someone whose only detectable ideology is Me. The dangers, however, have been real for many years, perhaps even more so in the light of the forces that Trump has unleashed.

16   curious2   1127/1127 = 100% civil   2016 Nov 16, 9:47pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

jazz music says

the threat of nuclear destruction

Blue team partisans kept saying that, but it backfired because their candidate and her surrogates had the worst risk of it, escalating the war in Syria on behalf of their Saudi sponsors. Democrats proposed killing Russians in Syria, including shooting down Russian planes in Syria ("no fly zone"), literally seconds from Armageddon. Somehow, Democrats kept saying "nuclear war" without realizing it backfired on them every time, because they could not (or refused to) see the danger from their own policies. None so blind as those who will not see. I considered carefully the risk of war on either side, and every time Democrats mentioned the issue it hardened my unwillingness to vote for their catastrophic proposals. Watch the original The Sum of all Fears (2002), with Ben Affleck and Morgan Freeman, and remember Muslims are the last surviving component of the Nazis' European axis. 100k European Muslims joined the Nazi SS because of the similarity of their ideology. The Clintons have misled America into war on behalf of their Saudi sponsors time and again, killing hundreds of thousands and possibly millions, and HIllary proposed killing Russians, who can fight back in all sorts of ways including nuclear. You keep talking about existential threats, but citing examples that were worse from the blue team. Basically, you are making the case against the Democrats. You might like the Post about Why Democrats Lost because you keep bringing up reasons why Democrats lost.

17   jazz_music   872/873 = 99% civil   2016 Nov 16, 10:03pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

curious2 says

You keep talking about existential threats, but citing examples that they were actually worse from the blue team.

I'm mostly trying to paraphrase the meat of the interview for you hoping you get interested in looking at it.

My own insights on the current global situation with Russia are not particularly well-heeled, but I recognize reckless saber-rattling and I heard it too many times this year from Trump.

Maybe it's the media looking for something sensational to say, but this fondness of Putin and China for Trump does not bode well for us since they are our principal natural enemies. (so to speak)

Chomsky talks about the Republican party's inability to come up with a moderate candidate out of their core extremism, as a particular weakness exploit by Trump's rise to the presidency.

18   curious2   1127/1127 = 100% civil   2016 Nov 16, 10:24pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

jazz music says

our principal natural enemies.

If we would like to continue living, then our principal natural enemies are the people who believe they are commanded to kill us wherever they find us. They are the same people who commit the vast majority of terror attacks worldwide, because Islam commands believers to strike terror into the enemies of Allah. Democrats wanted to import more of them, and want now to have one chair the DNC. Again, you keep making a case against the Democrats, apparently without realizing it.

19   RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks   194/194 = 100% civil   2016 Nov 17, 9:13pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

another lying jew

20   P N Dr Lo R   400/401 = 99% civil   2016 Nov 17, 9:46pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

jazz music says

Chomsky talks about the Republican party's inability to come up with a moderate candidate

And the Democrats?

21   marcus   688/693 = 99% civil   2016 Nov 17, 10:42pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

P N Dr Lo R says

And the Democrats?

Wtf ? You don't think Hillary is moderate ? She's basically a republican except on social issues.

22   jazz_music   872/873 = 99% civil   2016 Nov 18, 9:53am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

marcus says

Wtf ?

@marcus I admire your patient comments and your commitment to high quality discussions. Others don't, they comment for exploitative sport and troll possibly to punish other for their bad moods and intellectual lacking. Also bigotry is rampant here and there is no arguing with bigotry.

Patnet users came out of the closet a month ago about trolling. Patrick started a post called "" and I notice you didn't participate.

Trolls celebrate "triggering" negative feelings in others but the true trigger is they got no legitimate argument with which to win, so out comes the verbal weaponry and switching to a discussion of that user's faults giving ample reason for contempt. You ever notice that this works every time if you are a talk radio host and it's your show? Also it works for any authority: I remember idiot/president Bush trolling Michael Moore when asked by a reporter about his documentary, Bush's reply was that Michael Moore should get a real job. This response has become a classic among the bigoted and the feeble minded. "another lying jew" is the same dismissal but using ironically prideful antisemitism.

Gaslighting is also discussed in the link as well which is a deliberate intellectual dishonesty and is the deliberate advocacy of a non-reality such as "democrat candidates are not moderate."

Comments 1-22 of 22     Last »

users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
patrick's 40 proposals  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home