18 September 2013


  Euclid.Elements. It is verydifficult to prove what is selfevident. Another way. Ignore the proof given by the author. State in my language or use proof by authors of later generations. Difference between demonstration geometric and algebraic. Latin and classicalgreek essential to master. One figure per proposition, Figure must be themostsimple or themostfamiliar. Memory delights in brevity. True. Truer words were never spoken. Ya mean? Ya mean? Gnomesaying? Gnomesaying? Ninetyeighttimes, that's toomanytimes. What are you, from theDepartmentOfGnomesSaying? You count how many times I say gnomesaying, gnomesaying? We ain't saying no. We're just saying gnomesaying, gnomesaying? What the hell is this guy saying? Some people think I'm making in this rapgame. Gnomesaying? I can feel that it is becoming moreclear.
  Who knows where they come from? Newton inventedGravity because some asshole hit him with an apple.

17 September 2013


  Plan. Feynman1964lecture. Summarise it. Create a veryshort index. Definition ofForce and Velocity. What has changed sinceNewton and sinceEinstein?
  New approach toElements.Euclid. Translate everyproposition into algebraicequation. 3Dfigures, also.
  DVD and screenplay at thesametime. DernierMétroLe et IlYALongtempsQueJeTAime.
  Definite list of malapropism inSopranosThe. Transcript ofRikiOh and RoomThe.

Soderbergh. Kickstarter.com. SpikeLee.

  The80s was not a great decade for americanCinema; with some exceptions, the filmmakers responsible for theAmericanNewWave that began in the latter part of the sixties had either burned out, selfdestructed, or lost their way creatively, and the increasinglycorporatecontrolled studios weren’t really cultivating the kind of bold, idiosyncratic films that made me want to make films. It felt like the sense of what was possible had shrunk, and I worried about my future. Every so often, however, an independent film (or filmmaker) would emerge that felt connected to both those recent, great american films and to great cinema from around the world, and as I was attempting to find my own voice and place in the film world, three independent american filmmakers in particular attracted my attention and expanded my idea of what was possible; DavidLynch, JimJarmusch, and SpikeLee. These were distinctive new voices, and the freedom (and success) they represented was liberating and energizing; these were shoulders I would try to stand on, that I would be proud to stand on.
  Certain filmmakers exist outside the traditional parameters of criticism; their point of view and body of work make discussions about individual films interesting but ultimatelyirrelevant because each project is merely a chapter in a very long book that must (and will) be acknowledged and appreciated for its breadth, ambition, and contributions to the art ofCinema. For me, SpikeLee is one of those filmmakers. He is a totallyunique figure in americanCinema, and he’s always gone his own way and spoken his mind (even when the commercial stakes were high), qualities which are in short supply in thefilmbusiness. I know Spike’s films better than I know Spike (maybe the Knicksgame with help with that), but we’re friendly enough for me to say I respect him as person as well as a filmmaker.
  So, in case you haven’t figured it out already, this is why I’m supporting Spike onKickstarter:
  1. Spike’s success helped make my success possible.
  2. Spike has earned my attention because of his body of work and its distinct point of view.
  3. You should support your friends.
  Now let’s light this candle!

16 September 2013


Found photocopies flawless of various works byHume.
List.purchase. CompletedWorksOfCharlesDarwin. CollectedPapersOfAlbertEinstein. CambridgeLibraryCollection.
Reading 1964lecture byFeynman. Excellent teacher for elementary students.
List.lecteurle. Fivenovels byGeorgeVHiggins. Feynmanlecture. AnalysisOfMindThe. Elements.Euclid.mustfuckingfinish it.

15 September 2013

Mail. Extension765.


my name is olestra blurry, and i am in charge of a whole lot of shit here. i am never too busy to help you.

i am very happy that you are happy with your clapper.

i do not know what kind of camera that is, since it is almost completely obscured and is not from the set of one of mr. andrews or mr. soderbergh's projects.

there would seem to be a play by scott z. burns in mr. soderbergh's future, but it has not been confirmed or announced.

mr. soderbergh is re-editing KAFKA and will release both the new version and the old version on DVD. it is currently available on DVD in france, if that helps. criterion is releasing KING OF THE HILL on dvd next year.



Image. Twitter. Bitchuation.

It is possible that it is how he perceives himself.

14 September 2013


  ActOfKilling2013. Totallyriveting. Thought to myself, They need to pay for this. USPresidents and USGovernments will endure what the defendants ofNumbergTrial had to endure.
  ThisIsTheEnd2013. Watched it because there was nothing to do. Mostboring. After Watching it, Walked toUHDstudyroom. Had difficulty studying, because the movie made me tired.
  RoadHouse194?. The usual UScrimemovie in the1940s.
  Watched a video ofStephenKing at SavannahGABookFestival, 19feb2012. He's been bitching about thefilmversion since it was released. What a fucking asshole. This defamation reveals his character. It greatlydisconcernts me that the writer of his fame and stature is so base and disgusting. MickeySpillane, who is one of themostdepicable writer that have ever existed, complained aboutKissMeDeadly1955 until he fucking died. JamesEllroy, who lives in his own little world and can never think outside ofLAPD and LASheriff'sDepartment, has never grown up, not really. Let him talk about that fucking cuntmother of his until he fucking dies. He is obssessed withJohnFKennedy and other american presidents, because he thinks he is the emperor of the world.
  04sep2013.wed. theBeckerBook. Had a conversation with the owner aboutGeorgeHerbertWalkerBush. He hung a photograph ofBush and his wife on the electionday. He defendedBush'sGulfWar on the ground that Kuwait was a sovereignty of theUS and it had a treaty, which allows it to intervene withSaddam'sinvasion. He regards theInternationalCourtOfJustice, InternationalLaw, UNGeneralAssembly as insignificant and ridiculous. He expressed his belief elitist that theLaw should be insulted from the public. Naturally, he was in favour of widening the gap between the rich and the poor. Thought that he didn't realise that he supports digging his own grave and that of his wife. He is the kind of man that supports a Government no matter what. He sincerelybelieves that theUS has a capitalistsystem and Democracy. He doesn't realise that he has been completelybrainwashed on the subject.
  14sep2013. FinishedAtEndOfDay byGeorgeVHiggins.secondtime. His description of bodylanguage is amazing, which I didn't notice thefirsttime.

09 September 2013


  Woke up. WatchedRienNeVaPlus. DemoiselleDeLHonneurLa while editing transcript. IlYALongtempsJeT'Aime while reading thescreenplay, later. Want to defecate diarrhea. Malnutrition. My kitchen is fucked. Ordered frenchvocab. onAmazon.

08 September 2013


  French. Now, ability to compose sentences spontaneously and understand the nativespeakers.
  Fucking noise onCNN about the imminent war inSyria.
  Will complete the translations. Latin and german, Math. Movingcompany.
  Idea, use whitedishes, draw diagrams on it. Variations.

02 September 2013


  Will watchMuseumHours soon.
  Should fucking move toParis.
  Now, Have the capacity to move all of the maps ofDoomOne and Two and Three. SuperMarioOne and Three. SuperMarioWorld. SuperMario64. What else? I just asked you a question, man. You're seeing something I don't see. Will you shut up?
  Will transcribe an interview ofMarkBoal. Possibly will decide what his position is.

Transcript. Soderbergh. SideEffects. WalterReadeTheater. FilmSocietyOfLincolnCenter. 30jan2013.

The entire video not found. Wanted. I fucking hate these talk in secret codes. They can shove it up their fucking ass.

1.     So we could start a bit traditionally, and I'll ask the two of you about the origins of this project. Was the script written and Steven saw it because you two collaborated before?
2.     Burns: I wrote, I started writing it a verylong time ago. I was working on a TVshow, and doing research atBellevue[Hospital], and I met a doctor namedSashaBarday, who was our consultant on the movie. And I tailed him. He's a forensicpsychiatrist, so I tailed him aroundBellevue[Hospital], and thefirstday I was there, there was a vampire, and it was about tenyearsago. Thesubwaypusher was there. There were [was] a lot of fascinating cases. And I became interested the world of forensicPsychiatry, and the story sort of ["]percolated["] up out of that, and Steven was aware that I was writing it for the most of thelastdecade, and I was hoping that I would direct it. Cough ofBurns. And that wasn't working out verywell. Sound of laughter. So, one point, another project that we were going to do, and that didn't work out verywell, either. So Steven, you know, said that he read the script and he liked it, and said, Would I do craftservice instead of direct the movie?
3.     Soderbergh: And produce.
4.     And what about this project appealed to you?
5.     Soderbergh: I think, well, what I, Scott, I knew about it. I knew what Scott was up to, and I really, I really loved the idea that he sort of taken a. Sort of socialissue, ["]veryzeitgeist-y["] issue, [Fuckareyoutalkingabout? English, motherfucker, english.] and sort of used it as trojanhorse to kind of hide a thriller inside of. So I've been. I've been talking to him about it for a while, and we were going. We worked for almostoneyear forManFromUNCLE, and suddenly and unexpectedly, it kind of ["]blew up["]. And I called him immediately and said, I really, I thought we were going to be working together in april. Can we switch? Will you give meSideEffects? He said, Yeah. So. I just. I really. This was kind of movie that used to be made a lot, and for some reason, sort of. I don't know if it got priced out of existence or what? In the[19]80s, which I've talked about as being probably theworstdecade in americanFilm. Sound of laughter. With the exception of some great independent filmmakers who were starting to emerge, and these kind of fun thrillers, likeFatalAttraction or JaggedEdgeThe, that were just kind of great matineemovies. And like I said, they just kind of [disappeared] went away. And I, I was really excited about the idea of doing an updated version of that, that took advantage of the fact that we are. Let's put it this way. I started my career by making a movie about someone who was seeing a psychiatrist, who. And. In1989, the idea that AndieMcDowell inSexLies would have been medicated didn't even occur to me. So here we are, twenetyplusyearslater and the idea that she wouldn't be medicated wouldn't occur to anyone. That's a big, I mean, that's a big, you know, in twentyyears, that's a big movement, I think. [Movement? Fuck are you talking about?] And thanks for coming. [He pretends to leave the chair.] Sound of laughter.
6.     Omitted.
7.     So interesting is that the movie is so ["]paired down["] momentbymoment. I mean, it's so elegant and there's not an extra shotor an extra line, and yet, everything is verycomplicated and ambiguous as far as the characters go. And that's so interesting, you know.
8.     Soderbergh: Well, this is a big, you know, this is a big ["]bagaboo["] of mine, watching what's happening lately, because I feel like you should have a reason for everyshot, you should have a reason for everycut, and if you don't, then you're kind of, you know, you've broken some sort of. I don't know if you've broken a contract with the audience, but you've broken a contract with me. Sound of laughter. Because I feel like that's your job. The point is, Everything matters, everything matters. So when you start ["]throwing["] up shots and cuts, in which. I'm watching them as somebody who makes movies. I go, I don't understand what you're doing. What, what, this is just noise. Like, where is the signal? And that just makes me nuts, and what I loved about this piece of material was it was an incredible opportunity to be, just to [remove everything]  take it all down to the marrow, and have scenes in which. I could sit there as a director and go, How few shots do I need ultimately to make this scene work, because more often than not, it was two, you know. I'm not afraid to have twopersons sit in a room and have a conversation and have it be twoshots if it is a good scene. I don't feel insecure about that. And so. That doesn't mean that it has to be boring, it doesn't mean that, that, it doesn't, it can't be stylish. It just means that, as a director, you're supposed to sort of sit there and have the ["]thirtythousandfootview["] [Another favourite phrase ofSoderbergh.] of the whole movie and be able to ["]calibrate["] [Calibrate what? Fuck are you talking about?], you know, how, how, the, the shots and the cuttingpatterns are going to affect the audience? I'll give. I'll do. A quick example. Thefirstshrinkscene with you two guys, right? Thefirsttwocompositions were sort of odd. Above you. There's morenegativespace than you would normallyhave in a shot. There's moreheadroom than you would have in a shot. There's something notquitesymmetrical about the twoshots as the scene begins. Then she goes into her monologue about meetingChanning, and we do a diagonal drop in which the camera is still thesamedistance away from her, but when it lands, we are muchmore-typical, -symmetircal shot of her, and when I cut around toJude, I'm matching that, and everything now seems to be back to normal in terms of the ["]grammar["] we're used to looking at when we watch the movies. That, to me, that's the job, right? Is to use sort of these elements that you have available to you sort of, start in oneplace. And the audience may never be able to articulate that, they may never notice it, but they know that there's something odd about thosefirsttwocompositions that they're nottypical, and when the scene ends, we're calm, we're back to par. And so, that, that to me, that's what you're supposed to do as a director, and when I see something [in which] that has obviouslyneveroccured to anyone. Sound of laughter. I just go, Well, you know, what have you been looking at, you know? I've gotten there because I've watched a lot of movies, good movies that other people have made, you know, and I'm standing on the shoulders of anybody who have made good movie. And I'm stealing from, you know, them. So, that's the job, stealing.
9.     Shaw: Steven, why are you quitting directing based on everything you just said?
10. Soderbergh: Because. Sound of applaud. Because, you know why? Because I don't ever want to be in the situation that's the solve [solution] again, you know what I mean? I want to, I want to, I can't use that again. I used it there. I can't use it again, and that was thelastgoodidea I ever had.
11. Shaw: Sound of laughter. That's not true.

01 September 2013


  Problem with memorisingElements. Impression. Each point? Each step is each impression? Where should I put the impressions?
  French. Listening. Book and audio ofDVD at the same time. JacquesRivette, completefilmography wanted. Cocksuckingmoney. Out1 et AmourFouLe.
  Journal? Translation.

28 August 2013


  OnCNN. Imminent attack toSyria. Mostlikely it will happen.
  Still need morebookshelves. Steelcabinet?
  Tomorrow, movingcompany.
  Read the article written byAndrewWallenstein. It is probable that he doesn't give a shit about people inSyria. To him, the number of visitors is moreimportant than the content of the article. That is why CaitlinKaluza and the rest of the cunts are fucked. Fucking disgusting rationalisation. "Before wringing your hands raw over online news, consider that this is a temporary state of affairs. We’re still in the infancy of Internet content delivery, and there’s going to be plenty of innovation in the years ahead. The notion of a home page as one curated idea that the masses consume alike has already begun to be replaced by a more algorithm -driven, personalized approach. No two home pages are the same. If you like your news Miley-free, your browser history will make that clear to your news provider of choice, which will filter what content options you receive based on your behavioral data."

Chomsky. DemocracyNow. 17apr2007.

1.     Goodman: We turn now to the second part of our conversation withNoamChomsky and HowardZinn, two of the leading dissidents in this country today. I spoke to them yesterday here in Boston in a rare joint interview. HowardZinn is one of America’s most widely read historians. His classic work A People’s History of the United States has sold over a million and a half copies, and it’s altered how many people teach the nation’s history. His latest book is A Power Governments Cannot Suppress.NoamChomsky began teaching linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge over half a century ago. He is the author of dozens of books on linguistics and US foreign policy. His most recent book is called Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy. In a wideranging interview, we talked about USwars fromIraq toVietnam, about resistance and about academia. I askedNoamChomsky about PoliticalScienceprofessorNormanFinKELstein, one of the country’s foremost critics ofIsraelpolicy, and his battle to receive tenure atDePaulUniversity, where he has taught for six years. Professor FinKELstein’s tenure has been approved at the departmental and collegelevel, but the dean of theCollegeOfLiberal ArtsAndSciences atDePaul has opposed it. A final decision is expected to be made in may. FinKELstein has accusedHarvardLawprofessor, AlanDershowitz, of being responsible for leading the effort to deny him tenure. In an interview with theHarvardCrimson, Dershowitz admitted he had sent a letter to DePaulfacultymembers lobbying against FinKELstein’s tenure. I askedNoamChomsky about the dispute.
2.     Chomsky: The whole thing is outrageous. I mean, he’s an outstanding scholar. He has produced book after book. He’s got recommendations from some of the leading scholars in the many areas in which he has worked. The faculty, the departmental committee unanimously recommended him for tenure. It’s amazing that he hasn’t had fullprofessorship a long time ago. And, as you were saying, there was a huge campaign led by a HarvardLawprofessor, AlanDershowitz, to try in a desperate effort to defame him and vilify him, so as to prevent him from getting tenure. The details of it are utterlyshocking, and, as you said, it got to the point where theDePauladministration called onHarvard to put an end to this.
3.     Goodman: That’s verysignificant, for one university to call on the leadership of another university to stop one of its professors.
4.     Chomsky: To stop this maniac, yeah. What’s behind it, verysimple and straightforward. NormanFinKELstein wrote a book, which is in fact thebestcompendium that now exists ofHumanRightsviolations inIsrael and the blocking of diplomacy byIsrael and theUnitedStates, which I mentioned, verycareful scholarly book, as all of his work is, impeccable. Also about the uses of antiSemitism to try to silence a critical discussion. And the framework of his book was a critique of a book of apologetics for atrocities and violence byAlanDershowitz. That was the framework. So he went through Dershowitz’s shark claims, showed in great detail that they are completelyfalse and outrageous, that he’s lying about the facts, that he’s an apologist for violence, that he’s a passionate opponent of civilliberties, which he is, and he documented it in detail. Dershowitz is intelligentenough to know that he can’t respond, so he does what any tenthratelawyer does. When you have a ["]rotten["] case, you try to change the subject, maybe by vilifying opposing counsel. That changes the subject. Now we talk about whether, you know, opposing counsel did or did not commit this INIquity. And the tactic is a verygood one, because you win even if you lose. Suppose your charges against are all refuted. You’ve still won. You’ve changed the subject. The subject is no longer the real topic. The crucial facts about Israel, Dershowitz’s vulgar apologetics for them, which sort of are reminiscent of theworstdays ofStalinism, we’ve forgotten all of that. We’re now talking about whether FinKELstein did this, that and the other thing. And even if the charges are false, the topic’s been changed. That’s the basis of it. Dershowitz has been desperate to prevent this book from being. First of all, he tried to stop it from being published, in an outlandish effort. I’ve never seen anything like it. Hiring a major lawfirm to threaten libelsuits, writing to theGovernour ofCalifornia. [ArnoldSchwarzenegger] It was published by theUCPress. When he couldn’t stop the publication, he launched a jihad againstNormanFinKELstein, simply to try to vilify and defame him in the hope that maybe what he’s writing will disappear. That’s the background. It’s not, incidentally, thefirsttime. I mean, actually, I happen to be veryhigh onDershowitz’shitlist, hatelist. And he has also produced outlandish lies about me for years. You know, I told him I was an agnostic about the[Nazi]Holocaust and I wouldn’t tell him the time of day, you know, and so on and so forth.
5.     Goodman: You mean that he's made that charge against you?
6.     Chomsky: On and on. I won’t even talk about it. What’s the reason? It’s in print. In fact, you can look at it on the internet. In1973, I guess it was, the leading israeliHumanRightsactivist, IsraelShahak, who incidentally is a survivor of theWarsawGhetto and BergenBelsen and headed a smallHumanRightsgroup inIsrael, which was theonlyrealone at the time, came toBoston, had an interview with theBostonGlobe, in which he identified himself correctly as the chair of theIsraeliLeagueOfHumanRights. Dershowitz wrote a vitriolic letter to theGlobe, condemning him, claiming he’s lying aboutIsrael, he’s even lying about being the chair, he was voted out by the membership. I knew the facts. In fact, he’s an old friend, Shahak. So I wrote a letter to theGlobe, explaining it wasn’t true. In fact, theGovernment did try to get rid of him. They called on their membership to flood the meeting of this smallHumanRightsgroup and vote him out. But they brought it to the courts, and the courts said, yeah, we’d like to get rid of thisHumanTights group, but find a way to do it that’s not so blatantlyillegal. So I sort of wrote that. Dershowitz thought he could ["]brazen it out["], you know, HarvardLawprofessor. So, he wrote anotherletter saying Shahak’s lying, I’m lying, and he challenged me to quote from this early courtdecision. Never occurred to him for a minute that I’d actually have the transcript. But I did. So I wrote anotherletter in which I quoted from the courtdecision, demonstrating that, polite, but that Dershowitz is a liar, he’s evenfalsifying israeli courtdecisions, he’s a supporter of atrocities, and he even is a passionate opponent of civil rights. And this is like the russianGovernment destroying an AmnestyInternationalchapter by flooding it withCommunistPartymembers to vote out the membership. Well, he was, went berserk, and ever since then, I've been one of his targets. In fact, anyone who exposes him as what he is is going to be subjected to this technique, because he knows he can’t respond, so must return to vilification. And in the case ofNormanFinKELstein, he sort of went off ["]into outer space["]. But it’s an outrageous case. And the fact that it’s even being debated is outrageous. Just read his letters of recommendation from literally the leading figures in the many fields in which he works, mostrespected people.
7.     Goodman: Mostinteresting, the letters of support from the leading Holocaustscholars likeRaulHilberg.
8.     Chomsky: RaulHilberg is thefounder ofHolocauststudies, themostdistinguished figure in the field. In fact, Raul says that Norman didn’t go far enough. And it’s the same, AviShlaim is one of the, maybe the leading israeli historian, has stronglysupported him, and thesame with others. I can’t refer to the private correspondence, but it’s verystrong letters from leading figures in these fields. And it’s not surprising that thefacultycommittee unanimouslysupported him. I mean, there was, in fact they did, the facultycommittee did, in fact, run through in detail the deluge of vilification fromDershowitz and went through it point by point and essentially dismissed it as frivolous.
9.     Goodman: They rejected a twelvethousandwordattack pointbypoint.
10. Chomsky: Aside from saying that the veryidea of sending it is outrageous. You don’t do that in tenure cases.
11. Goodman: So, how do you think it will turn out?
12. Chomsky: Well, the usual story. This depends on public reaction.
13. Goodman: NoamChomsky and HowardZinn. We’ll come back to them in a minute.
14. [break]
15. Goodman: We return to my interview withNoamChomsky and HowardZinn, who joined me in the studio here yesterday. We continued to look at the issues of academia in a time of war, so I asked HowardZinn about his experience atSpelmanCollege, the historically black college for women in Atlanta. ProfessorZinn taught atSpelman for seve years before eventually being fired for insubordination. I asked him why he was pushed out.
16. Zinn: I had supported the students, and this was theCivilRightsMovement, right? My students are black women who get involved in theCivilRightsMovement. I support them. The administration is nervous about that, but they can’t really say anything publicly or do anything, because this is thefirst black president ofSpelmanCollege. They have all been white missionaries before that. And so, he doesn’t want to do anything then. But when the students come back from. You might say, "come back from jail" onto the campus and rebel against.
17. Goodman: What year was this?
18. Zinn: This was 1963. And the students rebel against the conditions that they’re living in, verypaternalistic, verycontrolling, and I support them in that, then that’s too much for the president, and so, although I have tenure and I’m a full professor and I’m chair of the department, I get a letter saying goodbye. And so, that was my, you know, what Noam was talking about when you ask him what’s going to happen, universities, colleges are not democratic institutions. Really, they’re like corporations. The people who have themostpower are the people who have the least to do withEducation. That is, they’re not the faculty, they’re not the students, they’re not even the people who keep the university going, the buildings and grounds people and the technical people and the secretaries, no. They’re the trustees, the businesspeople, the people with connections, and they’re the ones who have themostpower, they’re the ones who make the decisions. And so, that’s why I was fired from there, and that’s why I was almostfired byJohnSilber atBU, but there was a.
19. Goodman: Over what?
20. Zinn: Over a strike. We had a faculty strike. We had a secretary strike. We had a buildings and ground workers strike. We had almost a general strike, almost an IWWstrike atBostonUniversity in1977. And when the faculty had actually won, got a contract and went back to work, some of us on the faculty said we shouldn’t go back to work while the secretaries are still on strike. We wouldn’t cross their picket lines. We held our classes out on the streets rather than do that. And so, five of us were threatened with firing. But there was a great clamour among students and faculty and actually across the country. They even got telegrams fromFrance, protesting against this. And so, one of the rare occasions in which the administration, with all its power, backed down. And so, I barelyheld onto my job.
21. Goodman: You begin your book with two quotes. One ofEugeneVDebs: "While there is a lower class, I am in it; and while there is a criminal element, I am of it; and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." And HenryDavidThoreau: "When the subject has refused allegiance and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished." You also write more about HenryDavidThoreau. You write about him going to jail.
22. Zinn: Yeah, well, Thoreau is worth reading today and remembering today, because Thoreau committed just a small act of civildisobedience against theMexicanWar. I mean, theMexicanWar had some of the same characteristics as the war in Iraq today, and that is that the American people were lied to about the reasons for going intoMexico, and they weren’t told that the real reason for going into Mexico was that we wanted mexican land, which we took at the end of theMexicanWar, just as today we’re not being told that the real reason for being in Iraq has to do with oil and profits and money. And so, the situation in theMexicanWar, against which Thoreau objected, was in many ways, you know, similar. And Thoreau saw that, and he saw that American boys were dying on the road toMexicoCity and we were killing a lot of innocent mexican people, and so he decided not to pay his taxes and spent just a veryshort time in jail, but then came out, delivered a lecture on civil disobedience and wrote an essay on the right to disobey the Government when the Government violates what it’s supposed to do, violates the rights of americans, violates the rights of other people. And so, that stands as a classic statement for americans, that it’s honorable and right to not to pay your taxes or to refuse military service or to disobey yourGovernment when you believe that yourGovernment is wrong. And so, the hope is that today moresoldiers who are asked to go toIraq, moreyoung people who are asked to enlist in the war against Iraq, will read Thoreau’sessay on civildisobedience, will take its advice to heart, realize that the Government is not holy, that what’s holy is human life and human freedom and the right of people to resist authority. And so, Thoreau has great lessons for us today.
23. Goodman: NoamChomsky, as we wrap up, that whole issue of hope and where you see things going in the currentBushadministration, what it stands for, and the level of protest in this country. Do you think that level of protest will succeed?
24. Chomsky: It depends what you mean by succeed. I mean, I have a slightlymorehopeful sense thanHoward, at least expressed. I suspect he agrees. It’s true that the country, that in terms of the institutional structure, Government for the wealthy and so on. There hasn’t been much change intwohundredsyears. But there’s been enormous progress, I mean, even in the last fortyyears, since the '60s. Many rights have been won. Rights for minorities, rights for women, rights of future generations, which is what the environmental movement is about. Opposition to aggression has increased. The first solidarity movements inHistory began in the1980s, after centuries of europeanImperialism, and no one ever thought of going to live in an algerian village to protect the people from french violence, or in a vietnamese village. Thousands of americans were doing that in the1980s in Reagan's terroristwars. It’s now extended over the whole world. There’s an international solidarity movement. The global justice movements, which meet annually in theWorldSocialForum, are a completelynew phenomenon. It’s true globalization among people, maybe the seeds of the first true international, people from all over the world, all walks of life, many ideas which are right on people’s minds and agenda, in fact, being implemented about a participatory society, the kind of work that MikeAlbert’s been doing. These are all new things. I mean, nothing is ever totally new. There are bits and pieces of them in the past, but the changes are enormous. And the same with opposition to aggression. I mean, after all, theIraqWar is thefirstwar in hundreds of years of westernHistory, at least thefirstone I can think of, which was massivelyprotested before it was officially launched. And it actually was underway, we have since learned, but it wasn’t officially underway. But it was huge, millions of people protesting it all over the world, so much so that TheNewYorkTimes lamented that there’s a second superpower, the population. Well, you know, that’s significant and, I think, gives good reason for hope. There are periods of regression. We’re now in a period of regression, but if you look at the cycle over time, it’s upwards. And there’s no limits that it can’t reach.
25. Goodman:NoamChomsky and HowardZinn, two of this country’s leading dissidents. We spoke yesterday onPatriot’sDay, which is observed here in Massachusetts, also, I believe, in Maine.

13 August 2013


  13aug2013. SkimmedNecessaryIllusionsThoughtControlInDemocraticSociety. Found a way to persuade everyone how the entire films in theHistory ofHollywoodCA are the products ofStatepropaganda. It will also apply toComicBooks, VideoGames, Television.Fiction, and Novels. It is completelyunderstandable why JamesEllroy supports Racism, Sexism, policebrutality, Stateviolence, economicInjustice and opposes freeinternet and freeaccess to information. Also, why StevenSoderbergh considers himself pragmatic and the opponent of power in a veryselfserving way and how he spontaneouslyconcocts rationalisations to persuade himself and others of various arguments. I need to completelyreconstruct my Moral- and Ethic-Philosophy. It will undermine the great directors in theUS, who deserve respect for their abilities, e.g. Scorsese, Spielberg, Lucas, RidleyScott, TonyScott, Hitchcock, Ford, Hawks, Tarantino, Friedkin, DavidLean, Carpenter, Huston, Fincher, Altman, Fuller, and many others. Warfilms. Westerns. Horrorfilms. Crimefilms. Thebullshitargument that people watch movies to relax themselves does not work any more, because the suffering of the victims are too great. Some of the above change their lines veryeasily, as is usual with people inHollywoodCA.

Chomsky. Transcript. bigthink.com.

1.     I'mNoamChomsky. I'm a retired professor atMIT, DepartmentOfLinguisticsAndPhilosophy.
2.     What is themostcommendable thing Obama has done in office?
3.     I guess themostcommendalbe thing he's done is not decide, you know, to bombIran or something. I think the things he hasn't done, and it's commendable that he hasn't done them, but you can point to verylittle, at least by my standards as commendable. I mean, he's retracted some of themoreextreme Bushpositions. For example, say Cuba, Bush imposed condition. I mean, normal conditions are totallyoutlandish and ridiculous, which is why everyone, exceptIsrael, votes against them at UN. Majority of americans reject to them, but Bush went way beyond. He imposed evenharsher condition, and Obama withdrew some of those. On nuclearissues, he has indicated that theUS should return to the mainstream of international affairs, signed the, considered ComprehensiveTestBanTreaty, move towards reducing nuclearweapons. Okay, that's a step forward fromBush'sposition, but it's a step towards the center and towards the international mainstream, also towards american publicopnion. And there's a number of cases like that, where. Bushadministration, especially its first term, was quiteextreme, which is why theUS standing in the world has fell to historic lows. Omitted.
4.     What has Obama done that has disappointed you?
5.     Nothing much, because I never expected anything.
6.     Hmm.
7.     I was a little surprised by the fact that he reinstituted some of the judicial practices that were kind of unconscionable. Bush made use of preventive detention permanently. He's been ["]waffling["] about torture. He's refusing to grant normal criminaltrials to people that they have no evidence against. They claimed to have none. Things like that have been a little surprising. I don't think he had to be that extreme in his interpretation of, actually deviation from any reasonable legalsystem. Omitted.
8.     What is themostdysfunctionalthing about americanDemocracy?
9.     AmericanDemocracy is a what we call guidedDemocracy in countries we don't like, likeIran. So, inIran, elections are, putting aside, you know, the question of credibility, elections are candidates are vetted by the leadership, the clerical leadership, GuardianCouncil decides who can run. Okay, we're prettymuch the same. Here, the candidates are vetted by corporateinterests, and unless. The way it's done is, Unless you have huge corporatefinancingandsupport, you just can't run. I mean, Obama won overMcCain primarilybecause thefinancialinstitutions liked him better. So, poured money into his campaign, muchmore thanMcCain, and if you check the funding in polls, you find that the advertising, and so on. In fact, ["]carried him over the edge["]. And that's true of all the way long. Elections are basicallybought. Congress, for example, has verylow ranking among the population. It's in the teen sometimes. And nevertheless, the overwhelming majority incumbence wins. What does that tell you? It tells you people are voting for candidates that they don't like, because they don't have any choice. That's. These are fundamental defects in democraticsystem. It's a huge democratic deficit as it's called, and it shows how there's a verysharp division between public policy and public attitudes on a host of major issues. In fact, both politicalparties are welt to the right of the population on great number of critical issues. And the population feels they can't do anything about it. So for example, thelastpolls I saw about this, about eightypercent of the population said that, Goverment doesn't work for the people. It works for a few big interests looking out for themselves. That's eightypercent of the population. But if you were to ask thenextquestion, they didn't do it, What are you going to do abou it? Well, I can't do anything. There's no way to do anything about the fact that Goverments are in the pockets of the rich and few big interests, corporateinterests primarily. That feeling of helplessness, impotence, everything is run by somebody else, I can't do anything about it. that reflects democratic deficit. These are enormous problems with the way democraticsystem functions. I mean, there are some things similar in most places, but in theUnitedStates, it's prettyextreme in this regard. Among the industrialDemocracies. Omitted.
10. TheExcessOfDemocracy.
11. Americanélites. It goes back to theConstitutionalConvention, have been veryconcerned that over what sometimes calledTheExcessOfDemocracy, that is, the real participation by the public in forming the public policy. In fact, theConstitutionalSystem were designed to prevent that. Madison'sconception was what he called the wealth of the nation, responsible set of men, they're the ones who should set policy. That's why theSenate, which represented the wealthy, were given most of the power in constitutionalsystem. Theleastresponsive to the public, moreresponsive to the interest of wealth, and there have been battles about this all through americanHistory, and of course, things have changed a lot since theConstitutionalConvention. But thebasictheme remains the same. So for example, the leading public intellectual of thetwentiethcentury, WalterLippmann. Progressive. WilsonRooseveltKennedyprogressive. His view. He wrote what he calledProgressiveEssaysOnDemocracy, veryinfluential. His view was, Public should be spectators, not participants. And what he called responsible people, people like him, the ones who make policy, they should be insulated from the public. As he put it, they ought to be "protected from the trampling and the roar of the bewildered herd," the generalpublic, "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders," who don't belong in politicalsystem. That's a verystandard view. I mean, this is a version from progressive sector, but it extends prettymuch across the spectrum. There was an outburst of democratic participation in the1960s, and in fact, did significantly civilise the society. But it caused the enormous concern among elites. There's a major study calledACrisisOfDemocracy by relativelyliberal élites basically. For example, Carteradministration was drawn from that rank, that sector. Internationally. And they were concerned about theExcessOfDemocracy, toomuch participation. It's an overload onState. You can't have all these so called specialinterests pressing their own demands. Who were the specialintersts? It's minorities, women, the young, the old, the farmers, workers, in fact, the population. They're the specialinterests. And there's the nationalintersts, which has to be sustained, and that's the interests the one sector that they don't mention, mainly concentrated private capital, which is overwhelming in its influence, but they represent the nationalinterest, so it's okay. In fact, Madison had rathersimilar ideas. That's the leading conception of social and political thoughts, and there's a lot of effort put into instigating it. That's why propaganda's about. We don't call it propaganda, but what appears in Media and schools, and so on. And I think you can see it's facts. Omitted.
12. Taxation and Democracy.
13. In a Democracy, april15th, when you pay your taxes, would be the day of celebration. Here, we've gotten together as community. We've decided on certain policies. And now we're moving to implement them by our own participation. But that's not the way it's view in theUnitedStates. It's a day of warning. There's this alien entities, sort of like as if it's fromMars somewhere, which is stealing our hardearnedmoney from us. We have to give it up, because we have no choice. That reflects undermining even a conception ofDemocracy. Omitted.
14. USHealthcare, TheGovernments, and drugprices.
15. There is a lot of concern about cost ofUSHealthcare, which makes good sense. I mean, it's going to tank theEconomy. There's about twice much per capita as comparable countries with some of the worst outcomes, and it's growing prettyfast. So yeah, that's a real problem. And a lot of criticism of Obamaplan from right as it is called. It's just tooexpensive. Well, there's a prettyeasy way to cut down the expense. For example, theUnitedStates is theonlyindustrialcountry that byLaw does not permit theGovernment to use its purchasingpower to negotiate to drugprices. One effect is that drugprices are wayhigher than anywhere else. Well, what does public think about this? Few polls are showing that approximately eightyfivepercent of the public think we ought to do it. It's not even on the agenda. In fact, a week or so ago, theNewYorkTimes had a frontpagearticle, saying that Obama had made a secret deal with the drugcompanies in which he assured them that there would be no such moves. Omitted.
16. Retooling the autoindustry.
17. TheGovernment is continuing the process of dismantling, effectivelydismantling the productive core of the americanEconomy, like the automobileindustry. That's part of the general fiancialisation, the shift of power, finance toWallStreet. It's been going on for thirtyyears. It's not being destroyed, it's just being domesticallydestroyed. Maybe thesamecorporations will produce abroad. Well, that's happening right now. It's causing a disaster in places like Michigan and Ohio and Indiana. It's destroying home, families, communities. Meanwhile, while this is happening, Obama'ssecretaryoftransportation is inEurope, visitingSpain, trying to work out contracts whereby, say Spain, can use federalstimulusmoney, taxpayermoney to provide infrastructure and Technology, equipment for highspeedrailtransport, which we desperatelyneed. If the world is going to survive, we're going to have to [stop] get off the commitment to verywasteful use of fossilfuels. Statecorporatesocialengineering project began in1940s, and it's leading right to disaster. So, you have to reduce, society is going to have reconstructed massively. And one crucial part of it is highspeedtransit. Okay, here we have theGovernment and the corporatesector dismantling sector of the industrialapparatus that can verywellproduce the highspeedtransit. Automobileindustry can be retooled for highspeedtransit. Muchmoreradical steps have been taken. During theSecondWorldWar, the industry was almosttotallyconvereted to warproduction in a kind of semicommandingEconomy, and it was verysuccesfful. American industrialproduction almostquadrupled. It could surely be done here. But instead of doing that, which would make sense for population and for our grandchildren. It will help preserve liberal environment. Instead of doing that, Obama sending his transportationsecretary to use taxpayermoney to get the spanish to do it for us. That's a commentary on the social and economic system that is just devastating. Have you seen comment about it anywhere? No, because it's in the interest of the sectors, the few big interest that, in fact, do run the country. By now, mostly financialsector. It's profitable for them. So, what the public want. We don't even know what the public wants, because they're not even asked. It's so remote from consciousness. But I suspect that people would support it, and it certainly could be done. Omitted.
18. What are the major debates inLinguistics?
19. As in mostSciences, espeically humanSciences, almostevery major question is opne. So for example, take the question. Two obvious questions. One is, How come there is anyLanguages at all? Second question is, Why there are appearantly so many? These are prettyelementary questions, but they're sensible questions. Roughly say, onehundredthousandyearsago, which is almostnothing in evolutionary time, the questions couldn't be raised, because there weren't any languages. You know, maybe twohundredthousand, roughly that area. So it's a sensible question. One is the question, How do languages suddenlyemerge in evolutionary record? And it's prettysudden in evolutionary framework. Not a lot of timeinvolved. And how come they're proliferated? How come there isn't just one? Well, there are steps towards answering that. There's progress, I think. My own view, I should say, is idiosyncratic. It's not widelyheld. I think we understand enough about the fundamental computational basis ofLanguage to see that to develop kind of plausible scenario for how there might have been a reasonablysudden emergence of fundamental nature ofLanguage, and also of why the apparent diversity is prettysuperfical. So if, say martians, are looking at human the way we look at say frogs, the martin might conclude that there's fundamentallyoneLanguage with minordeviations, and I think we're moving towards in understanding of how that might be the case, and it's prettyclear that that has to be the case. The time of development is muchtooshallow for fundamental changes to have taken place. And we know of no fundamental changes. So, a child from huntergatherertribe inStoneAgetribe in say theAmazon, brought toCambridge and raised here will go on to become a quantumphysicsts atMIT. There's no known differences in relative cognitivecapacities. So, there's something fundamentallythesame about all of us, and that's whatever emerged prettyrecenetly, and we have to work out the, to show the enormous appearent variety is kind of superficial variation. And also to explain how itmight have suddenlyappeared in evolutionary record. Omitted.
20. What is love?
21. I just know it has an unbreakable grip, but I can't tell you what it is. Just life's empty without it. Omitted.
22. Who would you like to meet and spend time with?
23. I have to say people who reallyimpressed me when I have a chance to meet them are people whose names nobody will ever hear. So for example. Let me give you a personal, verypersonal example. A couple of months ago, I learned that extremelypoor peasants in southernColombia, whose lives are destroyed in part byUSrun chemicalwarfare, called fumigation, which destroys their agricultural lands and communities, and in part just by terror of the colombianState, and by now, terror of guerillas. They're caught in the middle of. Reallymiserable people. They just planted a forest in memory of my wife, who died a couple of months ago. It's one of themostmoving things I have ever experienced. I've actually met some of them. I did go down. I couldn't do anything for them. I just listened to their horrible testimonies. These are people with real. And they're all over the world, you know, with real humanfeelings, commitment, concern, suffering beyond what we can imagine, but willing to do something for someone they've never met. You find things like that all over the place. Here, too. Some of themostmoving experience I've had are just in blackchurches in theSouth during theCivilRightsMovement, where, you know, people are getting beaten, killed, really struggling for themostelementary rights. Just asking for the congressionalAmendements during theCivilWar, asking they be implemented. Notparticularlyradical, but quite a battle. Continues like that. These are the really impressive people in my view. Omitted.
24. What Ethical dilemmas have you faced and how did you solve them?
25. There are fundamental questions that arising all the time, like How do I distribute my work and energy and effort? Every minute of the day you have to face those questions. Sometimes. I wouldn't exactly call it an Ethical dilemma. I guess it is. For example, early60s, I have to make a reallyhard, for me reallyhard decisions. Should I start becoming reallyactive instead of just talking in a critical humanissues that were arising then. War inVietnam, growing war inVietnam, CivilRightsMovements, many others. So, should I become reallyactive in those or should I devote my timeandenergy to veryexciting intellectual work with my growing family? I had little children. Well, that's a hard decision. I knew perfectlywell that you just can't put your foot in it and walk away. If you start it, it's a growing commitment. And my wife and I had to work that out in some fashion not simple. In fact, at one point, she actually had to go back to college after seventeenyears, because it looked as though I might serve a long prisonsentence. We had threekids to take care of. Those decisions, they're serious decisions, but there re lots of others all the time.