Chomsky nails it

[Joseph Tracy]

Are you really saying there should be no legal or ethical accountability for a president.. And this isn't just values, there are laws being violated.  Part of the dialog of a self governing nation is accountability to the people.  So should there be no criticism or action directed to  Al Qaeda, because in the "REAL" world where Bin Laden was forced to reside and wanted to  get us to spend a a couple trillion dollars making new enemies, the airplanes seemed like a good idea.  What about the REAL world of Afghan non combatants killed by the US or the REAL world of Gazan schools, ambulance drivers and hospitals bombed by Israel. I'll bet that seemed REALLY REAL to the those whose loved ones were killed.  

Obama doesn't follow these policies because of some mysterious compelling force that you call the REAL world  and that precludes consistent ethical principles. His choices as commander in chief  and chief architect of US foreign policy are his own.  
On May 19, 2011, at 2:27 PM, Paul Mackin wrote:

> On 5/19/2011 12:55 PM, Joseph Tracy wrote:
>> 
>> A headline from Democracy Now
>> 
>> President Obama is scheduled to deliver an address today billed by aides as his most important on the Middle East since his speech in Cairo in June 2009. Obama is expected to announce billions of dollars in aid for Egypt and Tunisia following criticism of U.S. support for both countries’ former long-term heads of state. A U.S. official said Obama will announce "a single standard," including the renunciation of violence for groups including Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and others seeking engagement with the United States. In response, the MIT linguist and political analyst Noam Chomsky said: "It follows that the U.S. will no longer engage with Israel, which has long relied on violence to impose its will and has highly discriminatory laws and practices targeting             [Palestinians]. And the U.S. will not engage with itself, given its longstanding commitment to violence to impose the domestic arrangements of its choice, including political change. Since Obama doesn’t mean that, the 'single standard' is just more of the familiar deceptive rhetoric."
>> 
>> This is the essence of the Chomsky critique; simply reverse the stated standard of behavior and apply it to those in power. Not sophisticated, not reliant on obscure philosophical premises- just good old fashioned do what you say. 
>> 
> Chomsky's critique is that the U.S. doesn't live up to it own principles or values.  He hasn't happened to notice that in the REAL world (where unlike Chomsky Obama is forced to reside) people very often don't live up to their principles.  
> 
> Principles and values are certainly a good thing we can all agree, but aren't we also forced to acknowledge that sometimes they cannot be followed  to the degree we would like.   Competing principles and values intrude.
> 
> Take the example of abortion.  Most people probably consider abortion wrong to varying degrees.  That's a perfectly good principle.  However a majority also probably believe a woman shouldn't have motherhood forced upon her if she doesn't want it.  The situation is troubling, but what can you do?
> 
> I wonder if there's a Mrs. Chomsky.
> 
> p
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20110519/96823f04/attachment.html>