Mickey Z
Cool Observer
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Making Friends with Black People...plus: Cheney's guilt and exploding whales
When I hear the word ´nigger´ I don´t think black people, it´s Lenny Bruce comes to mind:
“Are there any niggers here tonight? Could you turn on the house lights, please, and could the waiters and waitresses just stop serving, just for a second? And turn off this spot. Now what did he say? “Are there any niggers here tonight?” I know there’s one nigger, because I see him back there working. Let’s see, there’s two niggers. And between those two niggers sits a kike. And there’s another kike— that’s two kikes and three niggers. And there’s a spic. Right? Hmm? There’s another spic. Ooh, there’s a wop; there’s a pollock; and, oh, a couple of greaseballs. And there’s three lace-curtain Irish micks. And there’s one, hip, thick, hunky, funky, boogie. Boogie boogie. Mm-hmm. I got three kikes here, do I hear five kikes? I got five kikes, do I hear six spics, I got six spics, do I hear seven niggers? I got seven niggers. Sold American. I pass with seven niggers, six spics, five micks, four kikes, three guineas, and one wop. Well, I was just trying to make a point, and that is that it’s the suppression of the word that gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness. Dig: if President Kennedy would just go on television, and say, “I would like to introduce you to all the niggers in my cabinet,” and if he’d just say “nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger” to every nigger he saw, “boogie boogie boogie boogie boogie,” “nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger” ‘til nigger didn’t mean anything anymore, then you could never make some six-year-old black kid cry because somebody called him a nigger at school.”
When a group claims the right to keep a word to themselves, they protect its power to hurt.
Keir, about this: “Chomsky and others caution their readers to avoid this route. They say that we should focus on the absolutely provable evidence that Bush and company are criminals, and that research into the “mystery” of 9/11 is a diversion from the real work at hand,” I found this from Chomsky:
“There’s by now a small industry on the thesis that the administration had something to do with 9-11. I’ve looked at some of it, and have often been asked. There’s a weak thesis that is possible though extremely unlikely in my opinion, and a strong thesis that is close to inconceivable. The weak thesis is that they knew about it and didn’t try to stop it. The strong thesis is that they were actually involved. The evidence for either thesis is, in my opinion, based on a failure to understand properly what evidence is. Even in controlled scientific experiments one finds all sorts of unexplained phenomena, strange coincidences, loose ends, apparent contradictions, etc. Read the letters in technical science journals and you’ll find plenty of samples. In real world situations, chaos is overwhelming, and these will mount to the sky. That aside, they’d have had to be quite mad to try anything like that. It would have had to involve a large number of people, something would be very likely to leak, pretty quickly, they’d all be lined up before firing squads and the Republican Party would be dead forever. That would have happened whether the plan succeeded or not, and success was at best a long shot; it would have been extremely hard to predict what would happen.”
I don´t trust Chomsky one little bit. I don´t feel it possible for someone to have researched as he does and come out of it believing there is a difference between Republican and Democrat.
He says “It would have had to involve a large number of people, something would be very likely to leak,” but the nature of intelligence operations is that about 2% of the participants know who they´re working for and information is so rigidly compartmentalised that each element usually carries out their task without seeing the complete strategy. And at the same time Chomsky holds to the official line that the act was committed by a ragtag bunch of Arabs from a series of caves in Afghanistan.
What he says about the “mystery” of 911 is plain misdirection - if people shied away from mysteries we wouldn´t know anything at all. The 911 Ommission Report claimed it was “not important” who financed the attacks(!), I would think if Chomsky was interested in discovering who the perpetrators were he would have been yelling about this farcical remark.
Whatever you lot feel about this Chomsky bloke is fine with me, I´ll just say he has forfeited his right to contribute to my sense of reality forever.Posted by Owen on from Barcelona 02/16 at 06:43 AMHere´s piece about him:
Posted by owen on from barcelona 02/16 at 06:49 AMOwen, I don’t pretend for a moment to know what really happened on 9/11 but the fact that Chomsky has said what he said about it doesn’t change my overall positive opinion of him. The Rense article is, to me, silly. A paragraph like this—pure strawman stuff—cannot be taken seriously:
“He enjoys a slavish cult-like following from millions leftist students, journalists, and activists worldwide who fawn over his dense books as if they were scripture. To them, Chomsky is the supreme deity, a priestly master whose logic cannot be questioned.”
I respect those seeking the truth about 9/11 and I hope I can learn something from their efforts. However, I see no reason to downplay the contributions of Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Z Magazine, etc. in the process. We should not seek purity in our allies and should not expect them to conform to our vision.
That’s my two cents.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 02/16 at 08:18 AMThat Rense article is worse than silly, and I’m a bit suprised you hold it up as anything but a gag, Owen.
The “lefter-than-thou” thing doesn’t help anybody. I’m happy for Chomsky to continue to inspire and elucidate without having to embrace every possible line of questioning. What? Is he not busy enough? As for Amy Goodman (who Mickey brings up), I’ve read criticism that Deocracy Now! does not adhere to a Parecon model, but I’m still glad it serves the function it does.
I will give you this, though: important as his contributions have been, Chomsky has too much credit if not embracing a particular theory or line of questioning somehow discredits “the left”.
What’s more important, that he write convincingly that the Bush Administration planned 9/11, or that he promote veganism, or that he boycott Nike, or that he promote Parecon....?
Posted by Keir on from The Hague 02/16 at 08:42 AMOh, and Mickey: somehow I’m a “quiet vegetarian”. All that shouting for nothing!
Posted by Keir on from The Hague 02/16 at 08:43 AMGood morning Owen, Mickey, Keir and everyone who’s yet to check in…
I missed all the action here yesterday, and possibly again today.
I see your point Keir of the ‘lefter than thou’, but I do think it serves the purpose of finding the truth of matters. But Owen, I don’t think I ever completely dismiss Chomsky even though I often don’t agree with the way he rationalises his points of attention.
I’m right in the middle there. I think the govt planned Sept.11th and is covering up as much evidence as they can, while selling everyone the American Dream (JOS mentioned this yesterday, I think). It’s as much of a distraction as they need. I don’t think anyone’s time is being wasted by proper investigation...eventually the truth will come out, although we’ll probably all have kicked it by then.
I didn’t cheat, I’m apparently a “militant vegan” despite the fact that I’m not vegan. I suppose I’m just militant then and I’m not sure how to feel about that. I admit to the occasional bout of ‘bossiness’ and nothing more.
Mudge I hope today’s a better feeling day for you.
RMJ / MZ: that’s great news about the response from Gaye ...! I’m still hoping to have sufficient time to put together a follow up to our email campaign; maybe it’s just as well to wait a little while to see where the dust settles and which officials might have the balls (not brass ones though!) to brush a little of it off and get down to business.Posted by Amelopsis on from Canada 02/16 at 10:25 AMgreat conversation here this morning...I’ll be going through it shortly.
In the meantime, has anyone seen this yet?:
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/multi_media/
Posted by JOS on from A Chicago Library 02/16 at 11:02 AMI haven’t been able to watch it yet as these computers here are older than Dick Cheney.
EXCELLENT call on Dick’s horror at seeing his friend fall after pulling the trigger, Mick. These are the comments that set off a rage inside me...he accidently shoots his drunk friend while hunting for helpless quail and the image will be with him for the rest of his life.
Too bad he never saw the real horror of war. He never thought of the effects those images will have on the survivors of war, let alone those that do not survive.
Posted by JOS on from A Chicago Library 02/16 at 11:09 AMhttp://newsletters.worldpeaceemerging.com/pictures/Code Pink.jpg
CODE PINK at the World Social Forum
by Jody Evans Co-FounderJanuary 28, 2006 - We started the day with another CODEPINK / Women Say No To War march through the streets. With our umbrellas, banners, Cheney and Rumsfeld masks and a fabulous mix of activists. We went the other direction this morning, towards the tents from the various countries. June, Woody and I hung the giant pink slip off the Anauco, one of the main hotels of the WSF, it faces everything, the tents and the Hilton, the other hub, it stayed up for about 6 hours. We watched as the team below snaked through the streets handing our flyers for our afternoon panel and stopping for photographs. We all arrived at the panel room just in time to begin. Yanar Mohammad joined the panel for the first hour, we had just run into her in the streets. Yanar is the head of one of the women’s groups in Iraq, she can only be there about 6 months of the year because her life is constantly threatened. It was about this time 2 years ago that we did a women’s march with her in the streets of Baghdad with other women’s groups. Many of the people left the panel really amazed at what they saw and heard.
The 2 hours went too quickly, with the audience wanting more we had to end and be rushed off to a meeting with President Chavez and other anti-war activists. We had an hour to walk around the palace and question his Chief of Staff before moving into his office for our time with him. The atmosphere at the palace was so comfortable. It is called a palace, but it feels more like a home. No one stopped me when I started wandering around the halls, no one even asked questions. At the end of one corridor I push open a door and found the counsel room I knew so well from “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised”. We were well supplied with coffee the entire time, Chavez had to leave the meeting for 5 minutes to take an international call and as he left he asked for more coffee for his guests. He was a doll. Generous, open, passionate, excited, stimulated by the requests and happy to be planning with us. He was realistic but willing to stretch. I was fascinated to learn what a well educated environmentalist he is. The next project of his administration is one focused on the environment. When we asked him to take a stronger leadership position in the international anti-war movement, he was happy to do so, and said “this is not a lost cause, we can stop this war.”
by Medea Benjamin
Co-founder of both Global Exchange and Code Pink“On the stage with President Chavez were activists and revolutionaries from around the world, including Aleida Guevara, the daughter of Che Guevara; Ricardo Alarcon, the head of the Cuban National Assembly; and leaders from Asia, Haiti and other parts of Latin America. The one person on the stage representing the United States was Cindy Sheehan, who the president greeted warmly and with great respect.
Chavez talked about the people throughout the continent, especially the indigenous people, rising up against oppression. He recalled the efforts of Bolivar and others to unite Latin America, and said that challenge now is to unite Africa, Asia and Latin America to challenge US imperialism. He talked about his friend Evo Morales, and how they were going to help Bolivia by trading soy, meat and other products for Venezuelan oil, and about the literacy plan they are going to do, together with Cuba, to help eradicate illiteracy in Bolivia.
The most beautiful part of the speech for us was when he talked about the US people rising up. He said that the people of Latin America had to work together WITH the people of the United States to end injustice, inequality, and to create a better world. He invited us to dream of a US government that called for peace in the world, a US government that worked with everyone else to end poverty, hunger, misery. He conjured up the image of the US people waking up, the great giant inside the US awakening. “What a tremendous positive impact we could have on the world”, he said.”
From the WolrdPeaceEmerging.com newsletter.
Another bad day. Hands, now knees. Grumpf.
Posted by Mudge on from Austin 02/16 at 11:23 AMI logged off and took the article home to finish reading there, spose some of it is a bit hyperbolic. While a lot of the things Chomsky says are wonderfully illuminating, like I never would have heard a thing about what was going on in East Timor if not for him, he keeps dialogue rooted a bit too much on ´big bad America´ for me. Sure the Rockefeller family have the lock on so many scientific patents and education boards in the US, but they are relatively new money, having gotten their funds from the Morgans who got theirs from the Rothschilds - these are the crucial European financial ties that Chomsky steers clear of in favour off this far-too-simplistic-for-him “America vs. everybody” stance he´s taking, hence my suspicions.
Posted by Owen on from barcelona 02/16 at 11:23 AMLove this story about Murphy on Letterman in your interview:
MZ: I remember seeing Eddie Murphy on Letterman a zillion years ago when he first hit it. Dave asked him what he was gonna do with all the money he was making and Eddie wondered if he asked young white stars the same question. “I’m gonna buy me a big hat,” Murphy snickered with a Buckwheat-like accent.
I’ll be back later on…
Posted by JOS on from A Chicago Library 02/16 at 11:32 AMHey JOS…
(it is so cool you’re checking in more regularly, now if we could only get Joe, Hawk, etc etc and etc to stop by)
...I did watch that SBS video from Australia. Horrible stuff. Like Holocaust horrible. I’m working on a piece about it. Seems the culture has reversed Stalin’s remark “one death a tragedy, a million: a statistic” because opposition to the war grows only in proportion to the number of people it swallows, not simply because it was morally reprehensible from the git go. A numbers game, emphasis on the numb.
Incidentally, if anyone can supply the precise quote from Stalin and the context I would be oh so happy.
Posted by Keir on from The Hague 02/16 at 11:34 AMMudge: in Poland instead of crossing one’s fingers, one holds their thumbs to superstitiously will something good to happen. To the extent that is possible while typing, I am holding my thumbs to will away your pain.
Chomsky sez:
The main reasons for my concern with U.S. foreign policy are that I find it, in general, horrifying, and that I think that it is possible for me to do something to modify it, at least to mitigate some of its most dangerous and destructive aspects. In the concrete circumstances of my own society, where I live and work, there are various ways to do this: speaking, writing, organizing, demonstrating, resisting, and others. Over the years, I’ve been engaged in a variety of such activities.
The foreign policy of other states is also in general horrifying—roughly speaking, states are violent to the extent that they have the power to act in the interests of those with domestic power—but there is not very much that I can do about it. It is, for example, easy enough for an American intellectual to write critical analyses of the behavior of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and Eastern Europe (or in supporting the Argentine generals), but such efforts have little if any effect in modifying or reversing the actions of the U.S.S.R. Rather, such efforts, which are naturally much welcomed by those who dominate the ideological institutions here, may serve to contribute to the violence of the American state, by reinforcing the images of Soviet brutality (often accurate) that are used to frighten Americans into conformity and obedience. I do not suggest that this is a reason to avoid critical analysis of the U.S.S.R.; in fact, I have often written on the foreign policy of the Soviet state. Nor would I criticize someone who devotes much, even all his work to this task. But we should understand that the moral value of this work is at best very slight, where the moral value of an action is judged in terms of its human consequences. In fact, rather delicate judgments sometimes arise, for people who are committed to decent moral values. Suppose, for example, that some German intellectual chose in 1943 to write articles on terrible things done by Britain, or the U.S., or the Jews. What he wrote might be correct, but we would not be very much impressed. (From chomsky.info)
Posted by Keir on from The Hague 02/16 at 11:42 AMShooting one is an accident, shooting 200,000 is foreign policy.
I’ll be back later. Rushing off to a legal meeting now.
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 02/16 at 12:04 PMOkay I should fess up: the reason I say Chomsky doesn´t go far enough is because I don´t believe in the American government. Not in the sense that I don´t believe what they are doing is healthy, but in the sense that I feel the US government has the same ontological status as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.
Even if Chomsky criticised USSR foreign policy at one point, my point was that notions of US or USSR as separate entities are from a geopolitical landscape looooong gone, if they were ever there in the first place. I bought a secondhand biography of the Rothschilds, an official one by a fellow called Morton, in it he said the family wealth was estimated at $6 billion in 1850. Doesn´t sound like a lot but compound that over various returns on investment (at let´s say 8%) in the years since then, you end up with almost $500,000 trillion.
The US debt is $8 trillion.
For me to consider Chomsky as trustworthy he would have to actually say something about truly powerful people.Posted by Owen on from Barcelona 02/16 at 12:09 PMfor the record i think chomsky is trying to get us to look toward some of the powerful people.
this is from a bit of tubthumping i did…
“Noam Chomsky has described a form of ‘anti-politics.’ Essentially, what he means by it is that corporations are ‘unaccountable private tyrannies’ and in their terms government has a flaw, which corporations do not have, which is that it is potentially democratic. Therefore corporate interests encourage anger to be directed at the government or things that are not real (e.g. all encompassing Jewish conspiracies, Communist conspiracies, massive terrorist networks and so on). This keeps public resentment and anger from focusing on anything except where power really lies - the corporations.
Currently, nation states are almost entirely under the heel of the large corporations but there is at least the potential to wrest some of the power back. I am not sure whether what exists at the moment is “military dictatorship behind a democratic facade” or whether it is some form of corporate mercantilism - a case can be made for both of these positions. There is one thing that is certain though. As distasteful as the politics and politicians of this time are, if we leave the corporations to keep having quiet words in their ears while we howl at the moon then we will be left with something much worse than the already diabolical position we are in now.
More activist time should be focused on the corporate world. In some sense every attack on the political systems gives the corporations the excuse they need to step into the void, citing their false claims to greater efficiency and taking ever more power for themselves. I do not say this because I am a fan of the current UK or US system of sham democracy, far from it. But it pays to be aware when you might be fighting someone else’s battles for them.”
also RE: the rothschilds. i recommend everyone this admittedly long but utterly in depth documentary about it all…
follow this link http://tinyurl.com/9q34r and scroll down till you find the one called “the money masters”
Posted by michael on from scotland 02/16 at 12:16 PMMaybe I´m hard to please, but my criteria for Chomsky pointing out powerful people would be wearing a sandwich board with “$500,000 trillion” on it.
I have that Money Masters at home, I´m going to check it out this weekend.
P.S. Michael, nation-states are not under the heel of large corporations, nation-states are large corporations.Posted by Owen on from Barcelona 02/16 at 12:24 PMMichael, that link is dead.
Owen, this is big stuff. Even if Chomsky “doesn’t go far enough”, do you think if a majority took his (moderate? uninformed? timid?) stance to heart---and acted on it---there would be no difference at all?
This is what Camus has to say in The Rebel (remember him?):
“A trial cannot be conducted by announcing the general culpability of a civilization.”
I myself have more questions than answers on this---sometimes I think people like green bioregionalists (for example) go to far: their message is too radical for the ears it needs to fall on. But then, time is short. Very short.
Posted by Keir on from The Hague 02/16 at 12:27 PMthe link is working from here but i have heard people having problems with it before..
you can get to it from links on my blog. the site is called “the dossier” and click on video, then drugs and money section
Posted by michael on from scotland 02/16 at 12:33 PMOh Chomsky is definitely well-informed, he just chooses to re-route dialogue according to these false “US vs. USSSR” or “<insert nation-state> vs. <nation-state>” paradigms. I´m not trying to discredit everything he says, because he has made some righteous stuff public knowledge, just anyone who comes across a family so monstrously influential like the aforementioned (which he must have done) yet leaves them out of their discussions is - and there are plenty of these - a governmental dissident, i.e., one placed to give out a little bit of the truth yet keep his readers/listeners essentially misdirected.
Posted by Owen on from barcelona 02/16 at 12:52 PMalthough the Camus, wasn´t chosen and I´m trying to get the whale book, I´d love to have a talk about a chapter of it or so at some point. or perhaps I should just read it and mention it time to time.
first time I´ve mentioned a captcha: “economic”
Posted by Owen on from barcelona 02/16 at 12:56 PMNick Adams sounds hilarious, Mickey! Now I’ve got to read your interview. And Lenny Bruce - priceless, Owen! Thanks for sharing that with us. Re Noam Chomsky: there was an interview on our public broadcaster last night which left this woman somewhat ‘flabbergasted’ because Chomsky said he had thought the occupation of Iraq would turn out to be ‘easy’, i.e. the ‘coalition forces’ would be greeted as liberators - really! Link will follow.
Last but not least: hi to you, Keir, Amelopsis, Jos, Rosemarie, Mudge and Michael.
It will be quite warm today: around 86 F.
Posted by Helga Fremlin on from Daylesford, Australia 02/16 at 02:16 PMHere’s the link to the Chomsky interview:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/lnl/
Scroll down to Thursday 16 February 2006 and you’ll see ‘Catching up with Noam Chomsky’. All you have to do is click on the micro under the date. The interview starts about 25 minutes into the program.Posted by Helga Fremlin on from Daylesford, Australia 02/16 at 02:36 PMI don’t think Chomsky realized that they had no damn clue about the uses of “soft” power.
This is what he said in July of 2005:
The US and Britain actually succeeded in creating a resistance - a brutal resistance, but it’s there. They succeeded in infuriating the population by all sorts of measures. They have failed to carry out the most elementary reconstruction - according to the last figures I looked at the electricity still isn’t at the pre-war level.
Posted by Fiona on from 02/16 at 02:46 PMBiometrics toolkits being introduced into Iraq scan people according to facial thermography, DNA, body odour, gait, foot dynamics ("considers not only the size of the foot, but dynamics, such as pressure analysis relating to the shape of the foot, the ‘foot geometric’ regarding timing of steps, and ‘dermatoglyphics’, which uses the measurement of footprint ridges to measure friction"), and there are people in Basra wearing barcodes so that´s the kind of “reconstruction” they´re talking about.
Posted by Owen on from Barcelona 02/16 at 03:09 PMAnd I plead guilty: I did not watch ‘Dateline’ which is broadcast by SBS (Special Broadcasting Service) every Tuesday. SBS is rapidly overtaking our other public broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), when it comes to current affairs programs. The ABC is dependent on funds from the federal government and has been tilting rightwards for quite some time. Here’s how they reported the Abu Ghraib pictures shown on SBS - talk about repeating BushCo. talking points:
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1571521.htmPosted by Helga Fremlin on from Daylesford, Australia 02/16 at 03:20 PMWow...I missed a whole lot, didn’t I? I was in Manhattan to train some clients and then meet my friend Josh Frank (http://tinyurl.com/cjqag) for lunch at Washington Square Park (another spring-like day here in NYC).
I’ll try to catch up and comment soon.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 02/16 at 04:06 PMBtw, let’s make it official that our next book is The Rebel. The Whale discussion is March 3...so why not set a discussion date in early April now for Camus?
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 02/16 at 04:29 PMI missed a lot here between library visits…
Yeah, where is Joe?
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 02/16 at 06:51 PMI’ve mentioned my friend Kathy here before...here’s a video she did in and about Roxbury, MA (for some reason I can’t get on tinyurl):
http://www.turnhere.com/vitalplayer_turnhere.cfm?name=dudleysquare
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 02/16 at 06:54 PMsee you all tomorrow…
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 02/16 at 07:02 PMHi Everyone....what a busy day around here! Just want to say thanks to Mickey for linking to the Fisk photos. What the rest of the world forgets, we will remember here at Mickey’s. While the rest wander off course, we will stay focused.
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 02/16 at 08:16 PMHi RMJ, how was your legal meeting?
As for the Chomsky debate, I guess I’ll stick with my original comment. I will say, however, it is a pleasure to witness a bunch of smart, passionate people disagree without the flaming and troll-like behavior that permeates so many other sites. Thanks, Expendables.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 02/16 at 08:29 PMGood night all!
Trollishly,
MudgePosted by Mudge on from Austin 02/16 at 11:07 PM“Whatever you lot feel about this Chomsky bloke is fine with me, I´ll just say he has forfeited his right to contribute to my sense of reality forever.”—Owen
I have high esteem for Prof. Chomsky. His analysis of US foreign policy is usually airtight, just brilliant. However, there are times I disagree with him. He called the overthrow of the Taliban an “afterthought”, for example. I don’t think that’s true at all.
I’ve written him on the topic of 9/11, listing briefly several of the main points behind the theory that 9/11 was (like Pearl Harbor) allowed to happen. His brief response was “I don’t think governments work that way.”
“I don’t think governments work that way”???
In other words, governments would never sacrifice their own in order to start a war for profit. But, then, a great deal of Chomsky’s writing points out that wars for profit are by nature proof of government willingness to sacrifice their own. He’s written about the NorthWoods documents, and such incidents as the Israeli attack of the USS Liberty, to name just the first two that come to the top of my head. And yet his response to the 9/11 theory is:
I don’t think governments work that way.
I must say I find his argument unconvincing. Certainly less convincing than those who have argued in favor of the conspiracy theory. I think, with regard to 9/11, there’s a compelling case to be made, and it should be taken seriously.
And I think it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an active cover up of 9/11. THAT, even if one doesn’t believe there was prior knowledge, should be cause for great concern.
Someone noted that the 9/11 Commission Report said the matter of the money trail was not important. That’s absolutely correct. When I read that, I had to put the book down for a while, my mouth agape. I kept picking it up and reading it again, just to be sure I’d read it correctly.
Two words: Mahmud Ahmed (Pakistan’s ISI Chief, who had $100,000 wired to Mohammed Atta).
But that’s irrelevant. Never mentioned. Actively covered up. Hush hush. Cover up.
Michael,
“The Money Masters” is a great documentary.
I’ve noticed Chomsky nevers discusses the FED or power elite from such a perspective, and have always been curious why not. The same is true for many authors I highly admire who criticize US foreign policy. I tend to think that there’s an element of controlled dissent even amongst the likes of Chomsky, Blum, etc. (Of course, my analysis could be flawed! But that’s the way I see it--though I agree with MZ we should recognize and focus more on the remarkable achievements and contributions of these men).
The indybay link to The Money Masters is dead. I have a copy. I’ll try to get it uploaded to my website this weekend, and I’ll post the link here once I’ve done so.
Whew. OK, I’m done now.
Posted by Jeremy on from Taiwan 02/17 at 03:12 AM
Next entry: Celluloid Subversives
Previous entry: Links, Links, Links...and some discount books, too
Copyright © 2005-2007 Mickey Z.
