emma_goldman
30th August 2006, 03:13
Website (http://www.belfastt elegraph. co.uk/news/ features/ story.jsp% 3Fstory%3D704191 &cid=0)
Noam Chomsky: You Ask The Questions
Do you believe Israel is doing the West's dirty work? And
what do you think of Elvis's music?
28 August 2006
How did you feel about the lack of a swift UN intervention
in the recent Lebanon crisis?
Robin, Inverness
The first requirement was an immediate cease-fire. That was
blocked by Washington, presumably to allow maximal
destruction by the invasion -- the US-Israeli invasion,
according to the (accurate) perception of 90 per cent of
Lebanese. That call should have been accompanied by a demand
for withdrawal of the invading army and reparations,
unthinkable given the distribution of power. The resolution
that was passed is deeply flawed, a separate matter.
Can Israelis and Palestinians ever live peacefully together
in one state?
Matthew Peters, Philadelphia
Perhaps, but it would have to be approached in stages. Since
the 1970s, an international consensus has crystallised on
the first stage: a two-state settlement on the
internationally recognised borders, with minor and mutual
adjustments. That has been barred by the US and Israel, with
inconsequential departures. The US-Israeli alliance is now
working to undermine the option by their programs of
"convergence" : annexation, dismemberment, and imprisonment
(by takeover of the Jordan Valley), cynically described as
"courageous withdrawal". If these policies can be reversed,
and the first stage achieved, then further steps are possible.
Do you believe Israel should exist, why and in what form?
Nick Harris
As a Zionist youth leader in the 1940s, I was among those
who called for a binational state in Mandatory Palestine.
When a Jewish state was declared, I felt that it should have
the rights of other states -- no more, no less.
Why should the US exist, sitting on half of Mexico,
including Florida, conquered in a violent racist war carried
out in violation of the Constitution?
And we can ask much the same about other states. State
formation has been a brutal project, with many hideous
consequences. But the results exist, and their pernicious
aspects should be overcome.
Would you describe the US as it is now as a fascist state?
T Summers, Cornwall
Far from it. In many respects it is the most free country in
the world.
In 2002 you said that anti-Semitism in the US was no longer
a problem but was raised because a "privileged people"
wanted to make sure they had total control, and not just 98
per cent control. Do you really believe Jews have 98 per
cent control of America?
Rohan Planck, London
You misunderstood. It was an ironic reference to people who
would not be satisfied even if they had only 98 per cent
control. Of course there is nothing even remotely like that.
What can be done to hamper what is presumed to be the
Pentagon's ambition to "take out" the Iranian leadership?
Mike Bloxham
Not really the Pentagon. The military appears to be strongly
opposed to an attack on Iran. What de facto President
Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others are planning we do not know.
But we know what we can do. We enjoy incomparable privilege
and freedom. Accordingly, we can act in a great many ways to
prevent such actions. There is no shortage of means; rather
of will and dedication.
You have said you see a "hint of anti-Semitic implications"
in the work of Robert Faurisson, the notorious French
Holocaust denier. Is Jew-baiting merely a hobby of yours, or
is it vocational? Laurence Cole, Kent
The facts and the principle have been spelled out dozens of
times since 1980 (so it is a bit boring), but once again,
briefly.
The last time I had anything to do with this affair,
Faurisson was accused of raising questions about gas
chambers. Several years later, he was tried and sentenced
for "Falsification of History", but there was no charge of
Holocaust denial or anti-Semitism (according to Le Monde).
The only issue concerning my connection with this sordid
affair is whether we should adopt the Goebbels-Zhdanov
doctrine that the State has the right to determine
Historical Truth and punish deviation from it. As I wrote
then, and am happy to repeat, it is a gross insult to the
memory of victims of the Holocaust to adopt the doctrines of
their murderers. The remark you are misrepresenting is from
a personal letter -- an interesting source. It reviewed the
facts and went on to point out that even denial of huge
atrocities would not in itself be evidence for racism,
giving a few of the many examples. Thus neither you, nor I,
conclude that Americans are vicious racists because they
estimate Vietnamese deaths at about 5 per cent of the
official figure, or because for centuries even scholarship
vastly understated the scale and character of the
destruction of the indigenous population. The point
generalises to England and others, of course. There can be
many reasons for denying horrendous crimes, even in the
cases that are the most serious on moral grounds: our own.
One special case -- purely hypothetical in this personal
correspondence -- was that denial of the Holocaust would not
establish anti-Semitism, for exactly the same reasons.
You have spent a lifetime researching human intelligence and
communication, have you seen any sign we humans are evolving
a wisdom from our experience? If so, what is it?
Anne Geraghty
In the literal sense, there has been no relevant evolution
since the trek from Africa. But there has been substantial
progress towards higher standards of rights, justice and
freedom -- along with all too many illustrations of how
remote is the goal of a decent society.
How did the current US administration get railroaded by the
neo-cons?
Eira Tovey, Australia
The neo-cons constitute a radical reactionary fringe of the
planning spectrum, but the spectrum is narrow. Some of the
more extreme -- Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith and others -- have
been removed, with little policy change. The administration
adopted neo-con principles when they accorded with their
strategic and social/economic objectives, dismissing crazier
ideas. A serious question is how the clique in charge used
its extremely narrow hold on power to carry out radical
domestic and international policies opposed by the large
majority of the population. I've written about it, as have
others, from various perspectives. One valuable study is
Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, Off Center.
Can the curtailment of personal freedoms and the heightened
fear among many Western populations be compared to life in
the years preceding the Second World War and is it an
overstatement to imagine that current events are a precursor
to another global conflict?
Ray Long, Dublin
I'm sceptical about such comparisons. There is a serious
risk of global conflict, but for different reasons. We
should take seriously the judgement of prominent strategic
analysts that current policies, particularly Bush
administration aggressive militarism, significantly increase
the threat of "ultimate doom".
Since American foreign policy in the Middle East has
throughout history been primarily interventionist, do you
think the War in Iraq was inevitable, even if Bush had not
stolen the 2000 election?
David Keelaghan, Monaghan, Ireland
Not at all. There was unprecedented criticism of the war
plans within elite sectors, compelling Bush-Blair to resort
to considerable deceit to manipulate their countries into
war. That aside, the US has been no more interventionist
than Britain or France, often less so, as in 1956.
Surely the US, UK and Israel are guilty of war crimes?
Balall Maqbool
In the case of Lebanon, there is little doubt. Ample reasons
have been given by Amnesty International and Human Rights
Watch, and that's a bare beginning. But guilt extends far
beyond. The Bush-Blair invasion of Iraq, for example, is a
clear example of what the Nuremberg Tribunal determined to
be "the supreme international crime", which encompasses all
the evil that follows. We would do well to recall the
eloquent words of Nuremberg chief counsel Justice Robert
Jackson: "We are handing the defendants a 'poisoned
chalice', and if we sip from it, we must accept the same
judgement." The conclusions seem clear enough.
Do you think Israel is doing the West's dirty work by
combating Hizbollah, i.e., Iran and Syria? Robert Iannone, Paris
For the people of the West, the US-Israeli invasion of
Lebanon caused great harm, including the likely creation of
new generations of jihadis. I doubt that the US-Israel are
seeking "regime change" in Syria. However awful within (a
matter of little Western concern), Assad is doing nothing
about Israel's takeover of the Syrian Golan Heights in
violation of Security Council orders and is generally
preserving "stability"; and a successor might well be
radical Islamist. On Iran, the US-Israel are pursuing
policies that could cause great harm to the West (and the
world). No space here to review that.
The first victims of the Communist oppression in Cuba were
anarchists, so how can you, as a confessed Libertarian
Socialist (Anarchist?) justify ideologically your uncritical
visit in October 2003 to dictator Fidel Castro?
Claude Moreira, Welling London
The "uncritical visit" is a fabrication of British editors.
As they knew, I was an invited speaker (along with prominent
British and American scholars) at an international
conference of the society of Latin American scholars, which
happened to meet that year in Havana, and used the
opportunity to criticise state repression quite harshly on
Cuban national TV and in a public meeting. Castro routinely
met attendees. I've often actually met high officials of
countries that have carried out incomparably worse crimes
than anything attributed to Castro, even travelled to meet
them, unlike this case: the US, to take the most obvious
example.
Will Anarchism ever be taken seriously as a political
philosophy?
Ian Dunt
That's up to us.
Do you regret mocking the accounts of refugees fleeing Pol
Pot's Cambodia?
Lijia Freeman, New York
The closest approximation to this ludicrous charge is that
Edward Herman and I cited the best-informed sources then
available on Cambodia, State Department intelligence and
François Ponchaud, who made the familiar point that
testimony of refugees must be treated with caution. I
certainly do not regret that. The record of deceit on this
topic is huge. It has all been refuted, point by point, many
times. This is one illustration of an interesting feature of
intellectual culture. Periodically, there are atrocities
that we can blame on official enemies -- what Herman calls
"nefarious atrocities", unlike those for which we share
responsibility and can therefore easily mitigate or
terminate. The latter are regularly downplayed or
suppressed. The nefarious atrocities regularly elicit
religious fervour, dramatic posturing, baseless claims to
inflate them as much as possible -- and fury if anyone does
not blindly join the parade, but seeks to determine the
truth, cites the most reputable authorities, and exposes the
innumerable fabrications. The common reaction to such
treachery is an impressive torrent of deceit. There is an
instructive record, quite well documented in many cases. The
reasons are not hard to explain. The topic should be pursued
systematically, but that is unlikely, obviously.
The anti-globalisation movement, which you have lent your
support to, appears to have run out of steam. Is this a lost
battle?
Danny Campbell, Cardiff
The term "globalisation" is conventionally used to refer to
the specific form of investor-rights integration designed by
wealth and power, for their own interests. The
"anti-globalisation movement" is the most significant
proponent of globalisation -- but in the interests of
people, not concentrations of state-private power. The
people from all over the world and all walks of life who
meet annually in Porto Alegre, Mumbai, etc, are far more
representative of globalisation than those who gather at the
same time in Davos.
This global justice movement is expanding in significant
ways. Among the many illustrations is the proliferation of
regional and local social forums, with similar concerns but
focusing on more specific problems. Other illustrations are
the exciting developments taking place in South America. And
there are many others.
Bono called you "The Elvis of Academia"? What do you
actually think of his music (Elvis, not Bono)? And how do
you find the time to read so much?
Hich, Nottingham
Afraid all I know about Elvis is what I hear from my
grandchildren. On reading, you're touching a sore point.
It's painful to be able to read so little of what I should.
You like to scoff at "elites". But you yourself are an
important member of the intellectual elite. Doesn't your
position contradict your anti-elitism?
Spyridon Kamvissis, Iraklion, Greece
I don't recall scoffing at prominent figures in the arts and
sciences, or at Martin Luther King and numerous others among
the "elites". I do of course criticise "elites" and others
who I think merit criticism, and the hierarchical and
authoritarian structures that confer power on selected
"elites". I hope you do so as well.
Don't you find it amazing that the UK is still a monarchy? I
know I do.
Marcus Di Stefano, London
Some years ago, there was a debate in Australia over whether
it should separate itself from the monarchy. In general,
left-liberal opinion favoured doing so, but a philosopher on
the left surprised everyone by writing in favour of the
monarchy. His argument was that the ceremonies and reverence
tend to undermine respect for power, a good thing,
generally. But I can't comment on your question. That's up
to people of the UK.
Is there any constructive role at all that religion can play
in the contemporary world?
B N Patnaik Karnataka, India
Sometimes, and in important ways. There is a good reason,
for example, why the School of the Americas, which has
trained many Latin American killers and torturers, boasts
that the US army helped "defeat liberation theology". They
are referring to the US-run wars in Central America, leaving
hundreds of thousands of corpses and four countries ruined.
The wars were substantially directed against the Church,
which had committed a grave sin: taking the Gospels
seriously and adopting "the preferential option for the
poor". It therefore had to be punished. It's more than
symbolic that the hideous decade of the 1980s opened with
the assassination of an archbishop who was "a voice for the
voiceless", and ended with the murder of six leading Latin
American intellectuals, Jesuit priests, at the hands of an
elite battalion that had already left a bloody trail of the
usual victims, a battalion that was armed and trained by the
people now in Washington, or their immediate mentors. We
also learn something about ourselves from this gruesome
record. Few in the West can even name the assassinated
intellectuals. Suppose this had happened in Czechoslovakia
in the same years. Those assassinated would be famous and
revered. Outrage would have been uncontained. The lesson is
not unique, nor insignificant.
After all the lies about the "war on terror", why has nobody
in America started procedures to impeach George Bush?
Maricarmen Sandoval De Pasmans, Sint Odilienberg, The
Netherlands
There are several efforts, but there is unlikely to be any
outcome in the absence of a genuine opposition party.
To what extent does the language of the Piraha tribe (which
has no subordinate clauses, numbers or descriptive words)
invalidate your work on linguistics?
Kevin Rogers
The reports are interesting, but do not bear on the work of
mine (along with many others). No one has proposed that
languages must have subordinate clauses, number words, etc.
Many structures of our language (and presumably that of the
Piraha) are rarely if ever used in ordinary speech because
of extrinsic constraints.
Why do you never appear on CNN or Fox News in the US. What
are they afraid of?
Christine Nixon, Canada
It's not me, but anyone who goes beyond doctrinal bounds.
It's easier for me (and others) to appear on CNN and Fox
than on the major channels.
Why do you suppose it is so difficult for us Americans to
create a real citizens' movement as a proper counterweight
to the administration' s power?
Honorable Anna Taylor, US District Court
The question is much too important for a brief answer. The
level of activism is high, probably higher than the 1960s.
But it is diffuse and not well-integrated. An ideal form of
social control is an atomised collection of individuals
focused on their own narrow concern, lacking the kinds of
organisations in which they can gain information, develop
and articulate their thoughts, and act constructively to
achieve common ends. By many familiar mechanisms, that ideal
has been approached in dangerous but not irreversible ways.
Is it time to give up on liberal democracy?
Paul Rogers, Vietnam
Reminds me of a comment attributed to Gandhi, when asked
what he thought of Western civilisation: "It might be a good
idea".
Where do you find the courage?
Carole Craig, Ireland
For people as lucky as we are, it takes no courage.
Noam Chomsky: You Ask The Questions
Do you believe Israel is doing the West's dirty work? And
what do you think of Elvis's music?
28 August 2006
How did you feel about the lack of a swift UN intervention
in the recent Lebanon crisis?
Robin, Inverness
The first requirement was an immediate cease-fire. That was
blocked by Washington, presumably to allow maximal
destruction by the invasion -- the US-Israeli invasion,
according to the (accurate) perception of 90 per cent of
Lebanese. That call should have been accompanied by a demand
for withdrawal of the invading army and reparations,
unthinkable given the distribution of power. The resolution
that was passed is deeply flawed, a separate matter.
Can Israelis and Palestinians ever live peacefully together
in one state?
Matthew Peters, Philadelphia
Perhaps, but it would have to be approached in stages. Since
the 1970s, an international consensus has crystallised on
the first stage: a two-state settlement on the
internationally recognised borders, with minor and mutual
adjustments. That has been barred by the US and Israel, with
inconsequential departures. The US-Israeli alliance is now
working to undermine the option by their programs of
"convergence" : annexation, dismemberment, and imprisonment
(by takeover of the Jordan Valley), cynically described as
"courageous withdrawal". If these policies can be reversed,
and the first stage achieved, then further steps are possible.
Do you believe Israel should exist, why and in what form?
Nick Harris
As a Zionist youth leader in the 1940s, I was among those
who called for a binational state in Mandatory Palestine.
When a Jewish state was declared, I felt that it should have
the rights of other states -- no more, no less.
Why should the US exist, sitting on half of Mexico,
including Florida, conquered in a violent racist war carried
out in violation of the Constitution?
And we can ask much the same about other states. State
formation has been a brutal project, with many hideous
consequences. But the results exist, and their pernicious
aspects should be overcome.
Would you describe the US as it is now as a fascist state?
T Summers, Cornwall
Far from it. In many respects it is the most free country in
the world.
In 2002 you said that anti-Semitism in the US was no longer
a problem but was raised because a "privileged people"
wanted to make sure they had total control, and not just 98
per cent control. Do you really believe Jews have 98 per
cent control of America?
Rohan Planck, London
You misunderstood. It was an ironic reference to people who
would not be satisfied even if they had only 98 per cent
control. Of course there is nothing even remotely like that.
What can be done to hamper what is presumed to be the
Pentagon's ambition to "take out" the Iranian leadership?
Mike Bloxham
Not really the Pentagon. The military appears to be strongly
opposed to an attack on Iran. What de facto President
Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others are planning we do not know.
But we know what we can do. We enjoy incomparable privilege
and freedom. Accordingly, we can act in a great many ways to
prevent such actions. There is no shortage of means; rather
of will and dedication.
You have said you see a "hint of anti-Semitic implications"
in the work of Robert Faurisson, the notorious French
Holocaust denier. Is Jew-baiting merely a hobby of yours, or
is it vocational? Laurence Cole, Kent
The facts and the principle have been spelled out dozens of
times since 1980 (so it is a bit boring), but once again,
briefly.
The last time I had anything to do with this affair,
Faurisson was accused of raising questions about gas
chambers. Several years later, he was tried and sentenced
for "Falsification of History", but there was no charge of
Holocaust denial or anti-Semitism (according to Le Monde).
The only issue concerning my connection with this sordid
affair is whether we should adopt the Goebbels-Zhdanov
doctrine that the State has the right to determine
Historical Truth and punish deviation from it. As I wrote
then, and am happy to repeat, it is a gross insult to the
memory of victims of the Holocaust to adopt the doctrines of
their murderers. The remark you are misrepresenting is from
a personal letter -- an interesting source. It reviewed the
facts and went on to point out that even denial of huge
atrocities would not in itself be evidence for racism,
giving a few of the many examples. Thus neither you, nor I,
conclude that Americans are vicious racists because they
estimate Vietnamese deaths at about 5 per cent of the
official figure, or because for centuries even scholarship
vastly understated the scale and character of the
destruction of the indigenous population. The point
generalises to England and others, of course. There can be
many reasons for denying horrendous crimes, even in the
cases that are the most serious on moral grounds: our own.
One special case -- purely hypothetical in this personal
correspondence -- was that denial of the Holocaust would not
establish anti-Semitism, for exactly the same reasons.
You have spent a lifetime researching human intelligence and
communication, have you seen any sign we humans are evolving
a wisdom from our experience? If so, what is it?
Anne Geraghty
In the literal sense, there has been no relevant evolution
since the trek from Africa. But there has been substantial
progress towards higher standards of rights, justice and
freedom -- along with all too many illustrations of how
remote is the goal of a decent society.
How did the current US administration get railroaded by the
neo-cons?
Eira Tovey, Australia
The neo-cons constitute a radical reactionary fringe of the
planning spectrum, but the spectrum is narrow. Some of the
more extreme -- Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith and others -- have
been removed, with little policy change. The administration
adopted neo-con principles when they accorded with their
strategic and social/economic objectives, dismissing crazier
ideas. A serious question is how the clique in charge used
its extremely narrow hold on power to carry out radical
domestic and international policies opposed by the large
majority of the population. I've written about it, as have
others, from various perspectives. One valuable study is
Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, Off Center.
Can the curtailment of personal freedoms and the heightened
fear among many Western populations be compared to life in
the years preceding the Second World War and is it an
overstatement to imagine that current events are a precursor
to another global conflict?
Ray Long, Dublin
I'm sceptical about such comparisons. There is a serious
risk of global conflict, but for different reasons. We
should take seriously the judgement of prominent strategic
analysts that current policies, particularly Bush
administration aggressive militarism, significantly increase
the threat of "ultimate doom".
Since American foreign policy in the Middle East has
throughout history been primarily interventionist, do you
think the War in Iraq was inevitable, even if Bush had not
stolen the 2000 election?
David Keelaghan, Monaghan, Ireland
Not at all. There was unprecedented criticism of the war
plans within elite sectors, compelling Bush-Blair to resort
to considerable deceit to manipulate their countries into
war. That aside, the US has been no more interventionist
than Britain or France, often less so, as in 1956.
Surely the US, UK and Israel are guilty of war crimes?
Balall Maqbool
In the case of Lebanon, there is little doubt. Ample reasons
have been given by Amnesty International and Human Rights
Watch, and that's a bare beginning. But guilt extends far
beyond. The Bush-Blair invasion of Iraq, for example, is a
clear example of what the Nuremberg Tribunal determined to
be "the supreme international crime", which encompasses all
the evil that follows. We would do well to recall the
eloquent words of Nuremberg chief counsel Justice Robert
Jackson: "We are handing the defendants a 'poisoned
chalice', and if we sip from it, we must accept the same
judgement." The conclusions seem clear enough.
Do you think Israel is doing the West's dirty work by
combating Hizbollah, i.e., Iran and Syria? Robert Iannone, Paris
For the people of the West, the US-Israeli invasion of
Lebanon caused great harm, including the likely creation of
new generations of jihadis. I doubt that the US-Israel are
seeking "regime change" in Syria. However awful within (a
matter of little Western concern), Assad is doing nothing
about Israel's takeover of the Syrian Golan Heights in
violation of Security Council orders and is generally
preserving "stability"; and a successor might well be
radical Islamist. On Iran, the US-Israel are pursuing
policies that could cause great harm to the West (and the
world). No space here to review that.
The first victims of the Communist oppression in Cuba were
anarchists, so how can you, as a confessed Libertarian
Socialist (Anarchist?) justify ideologically your uncritical
visit in October 2003 to dictator Fidel Castro?
Claude Moreira, Welling London
The "uncritical visit" is a fabrication of British editors.
As they knew, I was an invited speaker (along with prominent
British and American scholars) at an international
conference of the society of Latin American scholars, which
happened to meet that year in Havana, and used the
opportunity to criticise state repression quite harshly on
Cuban national TV and in a public meeting. Castro routinely
met attendees. I've often actually met high officials of
countries that have carried out incomparably worse crimes
than anything attributed to Castro, even travelled to meet
them, unlike this case: the US, to take the most obvious
example.
Will Anarchism ever be taken seriously as a political
philosophy?
Ian Dunt
That's up to us.
Do you regret mocking the accounts of refugees fleeing Pol
Pot's Cambodia?
Lijia Freeman, New York
The closest approximation to this ludicrous charge is that
Edward Herman and I cited the best-informed sources then
available on Cambodia, State Department intelligence and
François Ponchaud, who made the familiar point that
testimony of refugees must be treated with caution. I
certainly do not regret that. The record of deceit on this
topic is huge. It has all been refuted, point by point, many
times. This is one illustration of an interesting feature of
intellectual culture. Periodically, there are atrocities
that we can blame on official enemies -- what Herman calls
"nefarious atrocities", unlike those for which we share
responsibility and can therefore easily mitigate or
terminate. The latter are regularly downplayed or
suppressed. The nefarious atrocities regularly elicit
religious fervour, dramatic posturing, baseless claims to
inflate them as much as possible -- and fury if anyone does
not blindly join the parade, but seeks to determine the
truth, cites the most reputable authorities, and exposes the
innumerable fabrications. The common reaction to such
treachery is an impressive torrent of deceit. There is an
instructive record, quite well documented in many cases. The
reasons are not hard to explain. The topic should be pursued
systematically, but that is unlikely, obviously.
The anti-globalisation movement, which you have lent your
support to, appears to have run out of steam. Is this a lost
battle?
Danny Campbell, Cardiff
The term "globalisation" is conventionally used to refer to
the specific form of investor-rights integration designed by
wealth and power, for their own interests. The
"anti-globalisation movement" is the most significant
proponent of globalisation -- but in the interests of
people, not concentrations of state-private power. The
people from all over the world and all walks of life who
meet annually in Porto Alegre, Mumbai, etc, are far more
representative of globalisation than those who gather at the
same time in Davos.
This global justice movement is expanding in significant
ways. Among the many illustrations is the proliferation of
regional and local social forums, with similar concerns but
focusing on more specific problems. Other illustrations are
the exciting developments taking place in South America. And
there are many others.
Bono called you "The Elvis of Academia"? What do you
actually think of his music (Elvis, not Bono)? And how do
you find the time to read so much?
Hich, Nottingham
Afraid all I know about Elvis is what I hear from my
grandchildren. On reading, you're touching a sore point.
It's painful to be able to read so little of what I should.
You like to scoff at "elites". But you yourself are an
important member of the intellectual elite. Doesn't your
position contradict your anti-elitism?
Spyridon Kamvissis, Iraklion, Greece
I don't recall scoffing at prominent figures in the arts and
sciences, or at Martin Luther King and numerous others among
the "elites". I do of course criticise "elites" and others
who I think merit criticism, and the hierarchical and
authoritarian structures that confer power on selected
"elites". I hope you do so as well.
Don't you find it amazing that the UK is still a monarchy? I
know I do.
Marcus Di Stefano, London
Some years ago, there was a debate in Australia over whether
it should separate itself from the monarchy. In general,
left-liberal opinion favoured doing so, but a philosopher on
the left surprised everyone by writing in favour of the
monarchy. His argument was that the ceremonies and reverence
tend to undermine respect for power, a good thing,
generally. But I can't comment on your question. That's up
to people of the UK.
Is there any constructive role at all that religion can play
in the contemporary world?
B N Patnaik Karnataka, India
Sometimes, and in important ways. There is a good reason,
for example, why the School of the Americas, which has
trained many Latin American killers and torturers, boasts
that the US army helped "defeat liberation theology". They
are referring to the US-run wars in Central America, leaving
hundreds of thousands of corpses and four countries ruined.
The wars were substantially directed against the Church,
which had committed a grave sin: taking the Gospels
seriously and adopting "the preferential option for the
poor". It therefore had to be punished. It's more than
symbolic that the hideous decade of the 1980s opened with
the assassination of an archbishop who was "a voice for the
voiceless", and ended with the murder of six leading Latin
American intellectuals, Jesuit priests, at the hands of an
elite battalion that had already left a bloody trail of the
usual victims, a battalion that was armed and trained by the
people now in Washington, or their immediate mentors. We
also learn something about ourselves from this gruesome
record. Few in the West can even name the assassinated
intellectuals. Suppose this had happened in Czechoslovakia
in the same years. Those assassinated would be famous and
revered. Outrage would have been uncontained. The lesson is
not unique, nor insignificant.
After all the lies about the "war on terror", why has nobody
in America started procedures to impeach George Bush?
Maricarmen Sandoval De Pasmans, Sint Odilienberg, The
Netherlands
There are several efforts, but there is unlikely to be any
outcome in the absence of a genuine opposition party.
To what extent does the language of the Piraha tribe (which
has no subordinate clauses, numbers or descriptive words)
invalidate your work on linguistics?
Kevin Rogers
The reports are interesting, but do not bear on the work of
mine (along with many others). No one has proposed that
languages must have subordinate clauses, number words, etc.
Many structures of our language (and presumably that of the
Piraha) are rarely if ever used in ordinary speech because
of extrinsic constraints.
Why do you never appear on CNN or Fox News in the US. What
are they afraid of?
Christine Nixon, Canada
It's not me, but anyone who goes beyond doctrinal bounds.
It's easier for me (and others) to appear on CNN and Fox
than on the major channels.
Why do you suppose it is so difficult for us Americans to
create a real citizens' movement as a proper counterweight
to the administration' s power?
Honorable Anna Taylor, US District Court
The question is much too important for a brief answer. The
level of activism is high, probably higher than the 1960s.
But it is diffuse and not well-integrated. An ideal form of
social control is an atomised collection of individuals
focused on their own narrow concern, lacking the kinds of
organisations in which they can gain information, develop
and articulate their thoughts, and act constructively to
achieve common ends. By many familiar mechanisms, that ideal
has been approached in dangerous but not irreversible ways.
Is it time to give up on liberal democracy?
Paul Rogers, Vietnam
Reminds me of a comment attributed to Gandhi, when asked
what he thought of Western civilisation: "It might be a good
idea".
Where do you find the courage?
Carole Craig, Ireland
For people as lucky as we are, it takes no courage.