Sunday, June 20, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Chomsky Turns To The Right !!!
Chomsky Joins Fox News and Sarah Palin to Fight Obama and the Evil Bankers
Last week, Noam Chomsky may have taken the first step in a long-overdue search for personal redemption. Speaking to what can only be imagined as a very liberal audience in Madison, Wisconsin, he signaled a clear philosophical move to the political right. The audience must have been stunned since they were mostly from the very Leftist University community.
I have always used Chomsky as a poster boy for the radical intellectual elite. When I assert that the Leftist intelligentsias take their cues from such radicals, I can always point to Chomsky’s latest antics as evidence that they are hell-bent on destroying American traditions, values, and civil culture. But that easy target may be history. Perhaps Chomsky is aping Podhoretz? I recall that when Norman Podhoretz was asked in an interview on C-SPAN why it took him over thirty years to lose faith in Soviet Communism, he replied that, being an intellectual, it took him 30 years to see what an average person would realize immediately. Based on Chomsky’s lifetime of rant it is understandable that his conversion would take even longer.
Now, I don’t believe Chomsky is ready to lead the neo-conservatives, but he did take a swipe at Obama and his close ties with the evil bankers and speculators who just recently toppled our economy. In his speech, Chomsky endorsed a recent poll showing that half the unaffiliated voters identify with the tea party movement. “Ridiculing the tea party shenanigans is a serious error,” Chomsky said, because their attitudes “are understandable.”
He even gave Fox News and Sarah Palin a pat on the back: After pointing out how voters’ indignation and rage was fueled by “the colossal toll of the institutional crimes of state capitalism,” he justified the Tea Party’s demand for answers. And, he added: “They are hearing answers from only one place: Fox, talk radio, and Sarah Palin.” Could even Rush be in there for an indirect compliment?
Chomsky took Obama to task for toadying to the Wall Street speculators and hedge fund traders. He accused Obama, after his initial tough talk about evil bankers might have scared off political contributions, of having reversed course: Obama changed his tune and said that bankers are “fine guys. . . I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system.“ Obama’s sudden love of the “free-market” must have been enough to frost Chomsky’s butt and cool his support of the Obama administration!
These were extraordinary comments coming from Chomsky. He actually linked Obama, a radical leftist, to “state capitalism” and the evil bankers and suggests they caused the financial crisis that has wiped out the savings of millions of Americans and is now bankrupting the country. All Chomsky had to do was add in the fact that it was the Feds as a group that colluded with a few bankers and speculators and created the bubble and the crash.
After all, it was Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Reserve, and the House Banking Committee that all worked in tandem to have the government guarantee sub prime loans. That gave speculators and mortgage brokers a free pass to make obscene profits. Obama then came in and threw away a few trillion that will make things worse.
The main point of Chomsky’s talk was that this justified voter anger would lead to a fascist take-over of America. He likened our current situation to Germany’s when Hitler rose to power riding the crest of voter dissatisfaction. I disagree with that and believe that in America, current voter anger can be expressed at the ballot box and not by a fascist take-over as he predicts.
Unfortunately, the advocates of massive government spending are so vehement, and their dependent constituency has gotten so large, it will be difficult to remove them from power. If that turns out to be the case, Chomsky’s allusion to a fascist rise to power could become reality. Of course, there are fascists and there are fascists. A benevolent and enlightened fascist might restore sanity and order to the country. It happened under the recurring Medici Princes in the Rennaissance, and though not attractive, could save the country from something worse–the total collapse we are headed for if deficits are not eliminated.
To avoid such a dire alternative, it would be wise for America’s voters to rise up and demand a balanced budget. Major across-the- board cuts in spending would obviously cause some hardships and dislocations in the economy, but the pain would be less than what will happen if we continue escalating our national debt. Americans must accept the fact that there is no easy or painless solution. I would recommend that we all opt for some near term pain to avoid later total misery.
For Original article : Refer to http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/chomsky-warns-of-risk-of-fascism-in-america/
****
Last week, Noam Chomsky may have taken the first step in a long-overdue search for personal redemption. Speaking to what can only be imagined as a very liberal audience in Madison, Wisconsin, he signaled a clear philosophical move to the political right. The audience must have been stunned since they were mostly from the very Leftist University community.
I have always used Chomsky as a poster boy for the radical intellectual elite. When I assert that the Leftist intelligentsias take their cues from such radicals, I can always point to Chomsky’s latest antics as evidence that they are hell-bent on destroying American traditions, values, and civil culture. But that easy target may be history. Perhaps Chomsky is aping Podhoretz? I recall that when Norman Podhoretz was asked in an interview on C-SPAN why it took him over thirty years to lose faith in Soviet Communism, he replied that, being an intellectual, it took him 30 years to see what an average person would realize immediately. Based on Chomsky’s lifetime of rant it is understandable that his conversion would take even longer.
Now, I don’t believe Chomsky is ready to lead the neo-conservatives, but he did take a swipe at Obama and his close ties with the evil bankers and speculators who just recently toppled our economy. In his speech, Chomsky endorsed a recent poll showing that half the unaffiliated voters identify with the tea party movement. “Ridiculing the tea party shenanigans is a serious error,” Chomsky said, because their attitudes “are understandable.”
He even gave Fox News and Sarah Palin a pat on the back: After pointing out how voters’ indignation and rage was fueled by “the colossal toll of the institutional crimes of state capitalism,” he justified the Tea Party’s demand for answers. And, he added: “They are hearing answers from only one place: Fox, talk radio, and Sarah Palin.” Could even Rush be in there for an indirect compliment?
Chomsky took Obama to task for toadying to the Wall Street speculators and hedge fund traders. He accused Obama, after his initial tough talk about evil bankers might have scared off political contributions, of having reversed course: Obama changed his tune and said that bankers are “fine guys. . . I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system.“ Obama’s sudden love of the “free-market” must have been enough to frost Chomsky’s butt and cool his support of the Obama administration!
These were extraordinary comments coming from Chomsky. He actually linked Obama, a radical leftist, to “state capitalism” and the evil bankers and suggests they caused the financial crisis that has wiped out the savings of millions of Americans and is now bankrupting the country. All Chomsky had to do was add in the fact that it was the Feds as a group that colluded with a few bankers and speculators and created the bubble and the crash.
After all, it was Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Reserve, and the House Banking Committee that all worked in tandem to have the government guarantee sub prime loans. That gave speculators and mortgage brokers a free pass to make obscene profits. Obama then came in and threw away a few trillion that will make things worse.
The main point of Chomsky’s talk was that this justified voter anger would lead to a fascist take-over of America. He likened our current situation to Germany’s when Hitler rose to power riding the crest of voter dissatisfaction. I disagree with that and believe that in America, current voter anger can be expressed at the ballot box and not by a fascist take-over as he predicts.
Unfortunately, the advocates of massive government spending are so vehement, and their dependent constituency has gotten so large, it will be difficult to remove them from power. If that turns out to be the case, Chomsky’s allusion to a fascist rise to power could become reality. Of course, there are fascists and there are fascists. A benevolent and enlightened fascist might restore sanity and order to the country. It happened under the recurring Medici Princes in the Rennaissance, and though not attractive, could save the country from something worse–the total collapse we are headed for if deficits are not eliminated.
To avoid such a dire alternative, it would be wise for America’s voters to rise up and demand a balanced budget. Major across-the- board cuts in spending would obviously cause some hardships and dislocations in the economy, but the pain would be less than what will happen if we continue escalating our national debt. Americans must accept the fact that there is no easy or painless solution. I would recommend that we all opt for some near term pain to avoid later total misery.
For Original article : Refer to http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/chomsky-warns-of-risk-of-fascism-in-america/
****
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Could Compromise and Non-partisanship Make a Better Congress?
Retiring Sen. Evan Bayh recently warned that Congress needs harmony and must drop its rampant partisanship. In a nationally broadcast interview, the Indiana Democrat said, "The extremes of both parties have to be willing to accept compromises" in order to accomplish things for the national good. He added that voters are in a mood to turn out many incumbents "until we change this town, until we reform Congress." Doesn't that sound grand? But haven't we heard such nonsense before, many, many times?
The American political scene has never been harmonious nor has political ambition ever taken a back-seat to civility. Such mere "words" have proven meaningless in the actual conduct of affairs of state. What is needed instead of harmony and fancy words is a rational and non-ideological approach to solving the problems facing the nation. And the biggest problem now and for the forseeable future is the economy. The recent record of government oversight and management of the economy has proven disastrous so a change is both obvious and essential. And the change needed is so drastic that "compromise" cannot be the answer.
Congress and the Presidents have been compromising over spending, taxes and the budget forever, and recently those three vital areas of government have spun out of control. The annual spending deficits and the national debt have escalated so grotesquely that the restoration of fiscal sanity should be the first order of business. Sadly, the goal of even the most prudent observers is to merely "reduce' the deficit within some 5-10 year future period, and THEN to reduce the debt. That is hogwash. It is merely defering the problem off conveniently into the future. That has been the modus operandi for too long. It does not work.
Partisans can argue over the merits of every conceivable government program and policy until the cows come home but the programs themselves are not our major concern. The major concern is that the programs, whatever they may be, must be paid for out of current receipts. A balanced budget provides a self-limiting control over the nation's finances. It doesn't matter whether we believe that all government spending is essential or totally wasted--just as long as it is covered by revenue and nothing is added to our national debt. It would be nice to think that our elected officials could streamline government, simplify and eliminate overlapping inefficient programs, and eliminate corruption, expensive junkets, pork, and bribery. But it is more important right now to just live within our income. We could actually survive with waste and pork if it was paid for without issuing phony paper money! Fighting over the way it is spent is just a diversion and hides the real problem of how do we pay for it.
A balanced budget that included actuarial computation of deferred mandate expenses would force a large reduction in spending and a big tax increase. The difference between what Congress is committing for and actual income is too huge not to require both. Such a policy would provide an important wake up call about how serious the problem is. And voters would be made vividly aware of both the curtailment of expenditures and the added burden of taxes. They would then be in a position to evaluate the issues at stake. But we would have stemmed the bleeding. Think of a gaping wound and the need above all else is for a tourniquet.
At present, the arcane chicanery of the Federal Reserve and its compulsive printing of money and issuing debt hides the perilous situation we face. What we have been doing is allowing foreign nations to own more and more of our national debt which will eventually give them an inordinate control over us. And hardly noticed, the escalating interest on that debt further burdens the annual budget, and grows larger every year.
Sen. Evan Bayh says partisanship and gridlock made it time for him to quit. It would have been better for him to enter legislation to keep all spending within the amount of revenue taken in. Then Congress would be free to fight over whether those expenditures would go to farmers, single moms, the aged, the injured, the homeless, the military, or the schools. Where it went would be secondary compared to the fact that we would be living within our means and the costs would be visible to everyone. To gain this essential situation every voter should look chiefly for a politician's pledge to balance the budget "now, not in the future sometime." The candidate's stated position on gay rights, foreign aid, welfare, and the war on terror, will not be terribly important if America goes bankrupt and is owned by foreign nations that have learned to save rather than just spend.
Retiring Sen. Evan Bayh recently warned that Congress needs harmony and must drop its rampant partisanship. In a nationally broadcast interview, the Indiana Democrat said, "The extremes of both parties have to be willing to accept compromises" in order to accomplish things for the national good. He added that voters are in a mood to turn out many incumbents "until we change this town, until we reform Congress." Doesn't that sound grand? But haven't we heard such nonsense before, many, many times?
The American political scene has never been harmonious nor has political ambition ever taken a back-seat to civility. Such mere "words" have proven meaningless in the actual conduct of affairs of state. What is needed instead of harmony and fancy words is a rational and non-ideological approach to solving the problems facing the nation. And the biggest problem now and for the forseeable future is the economy. The recent record of government oversight and management of the economy has proven disastrous so a change is both obvious and essential. And the change needed is so drastic that "compromise" cannot be the answer.
Congress and the Presidents have been compromising over spending, taxes and the budget forever, and recently those three vital areas of government have spun out of control. The annual spending deficits and the national debt have escalated so grotesquely that the restoration of fiscal sanity should be the first order of business. Sadly, the goal of even the most prudent observers is to merely "reduce' the deficit within some 5-10 year future period, and THEN to reduce the debt. That is hogwash. It is merely defering the problem off conveniently into the future. That has been the modus operandi for too long. It does not work.
Partisans can argue over the merits of every conceivable government program and policy until the cows come home but the programs themselves are not our major concern. The major concern is that the programs, whatever they may be, must be paid for out of current receipts. A balanced budget provides a self-limiting control over the nation's finances. It doesn't matter whether we believe that all government spending is essential or totally wasted--just as long as it is covered by revenue and nothing is added to our national debt. It would be nice to think that our elected officials could streamline government, simplify and eliminate overlapping inefficient programs, and eliminate corruption, expensive junkets, pork, and bribery. But it is more important right now to just live within our income. We could actually survive with waste and pork if it was paid for without issuing phony paper money! Fighting over the way it is spent is just a diversion and hides the real problem of how do we pay for it.
A balanced budget that included actuarial computation of deferred mandate expenses would force a large reduction in spending and a big tax increase. The difference between what Congress is committing for and actual income is too huge not to require both. Such a policy would provide an important wake up call about how serious the problem is. And voters would be made vividly aware of both the curtailment of expenditures and the added burden of taxes. They would then be in a position to evaluate the issues at stake. But we would have stemmed the bleeding. Think of a gaping wound and the need above all else is for a tourniquet.
At present, the arcane chicanery of the Federal Reserve and its compulsive printing of money and issuing debt hides the perilous situation we face. What we have been doing is allowing foreign nations to own more and more of our national debt which will eventually give them an inordinate control over us. And hardly noticed, the escalating interest on that debt further burdens the annual budget, and grows larger every year.
Sen. Evan Bayh says partisanship and gridlock made it time for him to quit. It would have been better for him to enter legislation to keep all spending within the amount of revenue taken in. Then Congress would be free to fight over whether those expenditures would go to farmers, single moms, the aged, the injured, the homeless, the military, or the schools. Where it went would be secondary compared to the fact that we would be living within our means and the costs would be visible to everyone. To gain this essential situation every voter should look chiefly for a politician's pledge to balance the budget "now, not in the future sometime." The candidate's stated position on gay rights, foreign aid, welfare, and the war on terror, will not be terribly important if America goes bankrupt and is owned by foreign nations that have learned to save rather than just spend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)