Charlie Rose Science Series
Click here to watch previous episodes of the Charlie Rose Science Series
The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals
by Jane Mayer
Buy it
by Jane Mayer
Buy it
06/09/2006
Noam Chomsky
A conversation with Noam Chomsky
Keywords:
Guest host Brian Lehrer talks with Noam Chomsky, an MIT linguist and political analyst about his book "Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy".
DVD
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Audio
Audio available through Audible.com.
Audio available through Audible.com.
Transcripts
Transcripts available through Voxant.
Transcripts available through Voxant.
Finally, a good man on TV! Was Charlie Rose hiding for fear of offending his usual (non-mainstream) guests?
It's great to see Noam Chomsky on mainstream TV. His access to the mass media, although still very limited, has at least increased over the years, which is a reflection of public pressure to include voices like his. Also, propaganda institutions realize that it's better to include him in a limited way than to exclude him completely, because they can then claim to be unbiased and open to a diverse range of opinion.
Getting tired of bias!! Everyone knows that American mainstream media is highly biased and completely controlled by corporate American. Charlie Rose is no exception although biased to a lesser degree. But PLEASE have guests that can comment on American domestic issues as well as other important issues, who aren't part of the conservative establishment more OFTEN!!
Yes, Chomsky needs to be interviewed more often. Typically those abusively critical of Chomsky - as in the comments above - either avoid his analysis or completely misunderstand it. Surely anyone who studies anything seriously understands that facile interpretations of major thinkers are misinterpretations.
so chomsky suggest that 1)if we did not have any information against Osama we should have done nothing against him. Not an unreasonable request, the problem is we dont know what the FBI knew and neither does chomsky. We also dont know IF the government didnt hand off some evidence to the Taliban. this guy is a hack, I cannot believe people take him so seriously.
The use of "Failed State" is an inflammatory state and a word choice of a type used exclusively by the Types like Rush Limbaugh and his Ilk. The only difference between Chomsky and Limbaugh is the side of the fence that they stomp around on. Chomsky is not a historian.
Charlie, if you were able to put together Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft & Henry Kissinger in a interview, WHY DON'T YOU INCLUDE THIS TIME Mr. Chomsky and Mr. Howard Zinn to have a balanced debate. Don't be vias!!!
Charlie needs to interview Chomsky himself. One of the greates american luminaries..... Would be good for this increasingly devastated world. Last time Charlie interviewed him was 2003! Charlie, please do interview him YOURSELF. stop catering to power as much as you are doing. balance!
Charlie needs to interview Chomsky himself. One of the greates american luminaries..... Would be good for this increasingly devastated world. Last time Charlie interviewed him was 2003! Charlie, please do interview him YOURSELF. stop catering to power as much as you are doing. balance!
Chomsky is an american hero for speaking truth to power, and Charlie should do another interview with him as he personally promised to do at the end of his interview with him. It was shocking to see Charlie so ignorant of his work when he interviewed him and Charlie seemed more flustered and combative than I have ever seen him in any other interview. Charlie seems incredibly intelligent most of the time but acts ignorant like in tonights interview with baradei, he states doesn't iran know how much their support for hamas and hezbelloh bothers america ignoring how angry our support for israeli militarism and occupation bothers iran and the arabs. I actually think Charlie is smarter than he comes off a lot of the times but he acts stupid to not turn off too many people and get criticized by those he needs to support his work. I only hope he has chomsky on again soon before chomsky dies as he is 78 years old. Charlie and Annanpour are my favorite journalists and Chomsky my favorite american critical thinker.
Great to hear an American who has something to say, and unfortunately has to answer the usual idiotic questions and of a journalist who desperatly try to warp the issues!
It's funny how Noam Chomsky's harshest critics in the media or anywhere else for that matter can only come up with cheap insults, and easily dismiss him as a "left-wing loony liberal", when in fact they absolutely do not have any valid points to support the Bush administration's foreign policies based on sheer idiocy and lunacy in the Middle East. By the way, they already rewrote history as to why the U.S went to war in Iraq.
Charlie. Please REFLECT, why don't you invite Noam Chomsky more often? We are fed up with the imbalance, you show basically people in power and Hollywood.
Full-hour interview with Dr. Chomsky with Charlie from Jan. 2003...in case you want a real converation, as opposed to this Brian Lehrer attempt. http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2003/11/20/1/an-hour-with-mit-professor-noam-chomsky
really sad to see a figure like Noam Chomksy was not afforded a full hour in front of Charlie Rose- not the obviously partial and disappointingly uninformed Brian Lehrer. Chomsky is a class act and should be a 101 for all Americans.
How far the US is from being in line with Chomsky's elementary moral principals for political thinking and behaviour. His first - the most profound - the principle of universality, in other words, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. We are a so called Christian country and here is a one of Christ's presciptions. Yet do we apply it in any sphere of international endeavour? Certainly not in the invasion of Iraq. Can you imagine how you would feel if we were invaded on any grounds, that alone for the spurious reasons that have been put forth. Come on everyone lets walk our talk. Charlie, lets get Norm on more often. And while I'm thinking about re your coversage of the presidential candidates. You do the US an injustice by giving representation to a selected few only. I want to see Dennis Kucinich and the other less publicized candidates. Its time to see the full reflection of US thought.
Language is a process of free creation; its laws and principles are fixed, but the manner in which the principles of generation are used is free and infinitely varied. Even the interpretation and use of words involves a process of free creation. -- -- noam chomsky
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- noam chomsky
After two decades watching, listening and occasionally reading, Mr. Chomsky, I remain fundamentally divided about Professor Chomsky's assertions. I'm consistently disturbed, annoyed, enraged and, as often as not, persuaded by his arguments. I often find myself torn between attacking and defending Chomsky's assertions, typically in opposition to the prevailing reaction of those around me. In a room full of deconstructionist leftists, I'm compelled to attack his analysis as too mechanistic, too deterministic, too pessimistic, and yes maybe even too prone to "blame America first". But when surrounded by a group of detractors, he becomes a heroic intellectual in the "speak truth to power" sense of the word, a truer patriot than any of the throngs of dittoheads who reject his arguments before they've even heard, let alone considered, them. Chomsky is at once infuriating and essential to any hopes for meaningful American public discourse, because he presents the Null-Hypothesis to the prevailing American discourse. He is often infuriating, because he denies any role for idealism in American foreign policy, just as his opponents are infuriating because they reject any analysis that might cast doubt about the essential beneficence of American policy (and even go so far as to suggest that such analysis might be "un-American"). He is essential, because the Null Hypothesis is essential, not just to statistics, or even science, but to all meaningful pursuit of knowledge and truth. To [mis\quote Ambrose Bierce: "He who never doubted, never half believed. There can be no belief without doubt, it is her shadow."
The guest host,Brian Lehrer, asked some intriguing questions of Mr. Chomsky, which Mr. Chomsky answered with grace and tolerance, and a depth of knowledge which is astonishing to hear in this era of ignorance and apathy. I just wonder why Mr. Chomsky was not given the honor of being interviewed by Charlie Rose? I watched the 2003 interview and frankly, Mr. Rose seemed intimidated and ill prepared to ask his usual probing and well thought out questions. Noam Chomsky is one of our greatest thinkers. Our country has much to learn from him. I was honored to see him speak just prior to the Iraq war and everything he informed us of in his lecture has been revealed over time as truthful and prophetic. I was insulted that he was not afforded the honor of being interviewed by Mr. Rose. I strongly believe that his analysis of the difference between a true democracy and what we call democracy in this country is about to be challenged by the populous in a revolutionary way. In hindsight it will be a shame that Charlie Rose was not part of that discussion.
Whether or not you agree with Chomsky's opinions, there is no denying that he makes even the most stubbornly self-righteous among us think...at least, those that bother to listen to him at all. It seems to me that many of his detractors resemble various book burners of the past and present: they condemn both book and writer, having read and heard neither. I find some of his positions stretched, but all of his ideas challenging. So much more relevant than the tired platitudes and "so mote it be"s of those most anxious to protect their power bases.
I understand that Noam Chomsky is cited more on computer searches than anyone else. I find him to be the MOST OVERRATED "so-called" intellectual that I have ever come across! He may be an expert in semantics and linguistics -- but as far as politics, geopolitics and distribution of wealth -- he is quite naive! Using "origial sin" as a metaphor -- he forgets or ignores that it envelopes all of humanity. MOST OF OUR SERIOUS PROBLEMS ARE DO TO THE NATURE OF HUMANITY! Just look at Chomsky: he gets media appearances (including, At Anapolis) plenty of media attention and publishes the same book -- with different titles with the same theme and a difference in the melody over and over -- again and again and collects royalities. Imagine if the entire wealth of the world were equally distributed among the six billion people of the Earth, within five or ten years, the same disparities would re-emerge! Many Western left wingers think they are sophisticated due to their "appreciation" of Chomsky. All are fools! And, so is Dr. Noam Chomsky!
Hi I dont want you to loose sponsors charlie,but it would be nice to see chomsky again in your show with the topic on class warfare.I think his knowledge about current affairs makes him most competent guest for this topic.I think that you charlie are the only one in media,that can do that and still find sponsors for your show. people need to hear something different thanks charlie,great shows vladimir
You should invite Mr Chomsky quite often in your show. his ideas and his take on the current affair is quite refreshing from the garbage you hear on the commercial network. Good show
because the reminders come too late in the day for those of us who rely on the library computer to get our email, we are not able to hear about chomsky, the most important voice i want to hear. if this country doesnt wise up and get more input from people like chomsky then the vultures in DC will continue to brainwash ignorant voters and the wretched system will be perpetuated, empowering dunces.
Former Senator Sam Nunn, stated that the greatest threat to America is the uncontrolled nuclear material throughout the world. He also stated; that this issue, combined with al Qaeda determination too procure such material was a â?? recipe for disasterâ??. With respect towards Iran, he stated that the present administrationâ??s disicion to invade Iraq was a catastrophic mistake on the highest order. Inferring, that it would an equally ruinous idea, to conduct a preemptive strike on Iranâ??s nuclear enrichment project. What he did not say, and what no one has said, is why have we not engage the Iranianâ??s directly. Bilateral discussionâ??s are not on the table. The national hubris is a stake? I donâ??t think so, Not after the failed attempt at nation building !!! So, what are we to lose by inviting the Iranians to the table, Nothing!!! We have everything to gain. If we do strike, and we are capable of doing so, the expanded chaos will engulf the entire region. There is no benefit in that equation to anyone. The math is quite simple, as is the leadership necessary to extract us from the quagmire of blood for oil. 1. A national agenda, (with the 1960's style and commitment, ( â??of the Putting a man on the Moon...â??), to fund and create a agency very much like NASA. Charge, to develop alterative fuels, Carburetors that get 200 miles to the gallon, or what ever it takes, to eradicate the dependence on oil. If necessity is the mother of invention, nothing is more important. Remember, before the space project, power tools were not existent. They are one example, of the watershed, in that ongoing project. Whole industries would arise, stimulating a new economy. The possibility are endless! 2. Engage, engage, stay engaged. â??Keep your friends close, but your enemies closerâ??, diplomacy, and a honest accountability for our actions over the last fifty years. 3. Address the issueâ??s, that can be addressed, concerning radical Islam. In the end, all wars end at the negotiation table. Or, if we continue down this path, at the collective grave of humanity.
As long as there are people like Chomsky, there is still hope America will come out from the dark age it is right now in. One couldn't describe the reality any better. Excellent!
Matt has repeated the usual false allegations against Saddam Hussein. Hussein had NO "working" relationship with Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas. He sheltered them but they committed NO acts of terror while in Saddam's custody. Abdul Yasin fled to Iraq because he was Iraqi and Saddam offered to turn him over to the US. Finally in no way whatsoever did Saddam provide a safe haven for Zarqawi.
Has any one one pay attention that Mr. Chomsky have never been interviewed along other so called "neocons" to spark devates. I admired Charlie Rose, but it seems that he always likes to interview people that belong to the meainstream media. He is always trying to find if the cat was black or white, but never to figure out if it was a cat, a dog, or mice. A WHOLE lot of people are demanding to see a "full hour" of Mr. Chomsky in the C.R. show, but that is NEVER GOING to happen. Worst of all, he will never be put into a devate with people like Francis Fukuyama, Samuel P. Huntington, Robert Kaplan and other so called right-wing-agitators "intelectuals." Why? because Mr. Chonsky's ideas are not entangle with (coca-cola) corporation or "global preponderanse."
Saddam Hussein had a long working relationship with Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas. He provided safe haven for Abdul Yasin and Abu Musab Zarqawi. Why is that a man who has consistently supported thugs and dictators - be it the USSR, Milosevic, Hussein, and the Guardian Council - is still asked for an opinion?
I am amazed at Chomsky's in depth knowledge on just about any topic. He should be on the show more often to demystify foreign policy i.e. a more in-depth look at current foreign policy. He has a very clear way of analyzing how countries act in their own self interest and how countries set up rules to judge how other countries behave, and then do not abide by their own rules. His comments are very healthy as he does not analyse current events for patriotic ends, i.e. we are great or we had good intentions; rather points out problem spots that the general media misses. I think he gives credibility to the Charlie Rose show. He should be on every six months.
Chomsky helps us to let go of our myths. Without too few critical eyes within the only superpower, the world is given unchecked aggression...i.e., Iraq. Why is his voice not broadcast more often and widely in the US? Myths are hard to let go of, and even harder to take away. Charlie, please speak with Noam again soon. Thomas
Great to see Chomsky aired but the last part distilling his 50 years at MIT was cut off! I too would like to see him more often - people need to hear him
Can anyone relate to me what Chomsky said in his closing sentence. I couldn't quite catch the meaning of the sentence.
really would like to hear another FULL hour of chomsky on the latest situation(s). things happen so quickly. agree with him or not...the man has some interesting and very provocative ideas that most mainstream media figures will not even touch with a ten foot pole. i don't even agree with his perspective or conclusion in many specific cases...but i am always fascinated with his fresh take on things. since interviewers on this show are never hesitant to confront chomsky (unlike in interviews with SOME guest) a lively discussion is guaranteed. maybe just 30% less interruption of chomsky by rose (lehrer did not interrupt him much at all but it was a short segment) ....that would be an interesting show to be sure!!!