as a graduate of an ivy league school, i'd like to take issue with your assertion that 80% of ivy league graduates would agree with the nyt on the reasonableness of eating some of our young. the actual figure is 75%.

The more things change.... I was just reading a Chomsky book called Pirates and Emperors and he was mentioning that the NY Times said something like this when it was defending Reagan bombing Libya in 1986. In fact, they said, "even the most scrupulous citizen can only approve and applaud the American attacks on Libya."

To this day they look with longing on the days when Uncle Ronnie murdered Qaddafi's daughter and several dozen others.

Bush is proving Chomsky to be a moderate.

I don't know how Chomsky would define himself, but after years of reading his political stuff, the most I can see is that he does define himself as an anarchist, but has very little prescriptive political writing; mostly he just describes what happens, using open source material. He is very consistent and manages to offend just about all ideologues of every stripe. It would be hard for me to categorize him on the left/right spectrum though, because he has very little to say about the "should" aspect of politics.

Anna,

Here's the way I see it:

The political spectrum isn't as much a line as a circle. Reactionaries and revolutionaries (the Moes) agree on the most important things -- violence, lying, etc. They just disagree on who should be in charge.

Diametrically opposed to them on the circle are those who want democracy. Most people on earth are here, if only because most people are in situations where real democracy would be a huge improvement in their control over their lives. This is where Chomsky is, too.

People at this point on the circle, including Chomsky, realize change can't all take place at once, and if you try to make it happen all at once you'll end up with a horrible result. You may have seen him sometimes refer to himself as a "conservative." The important thing is to always keep pushing in the right direction.

For Chomsky, and (I think) for most people on earth, this means ameliorating the worst aspects of the current system, while building for more fundamental change down the road. So in 500 years, perhaps, Chomsky wants to dissolve the nation-state, but right this second he thinks it's important to defend Social Security.

Do you interpret him in the same way?

I've always assumed "fit to print" was just another word (well, set of three words) for "reasonable." I always love the way the Times holds its figurative nose whenever it deigns to fill inches by commenting on "internet rumors" like the transmitter-shaped bulge on Bush's back, or the discrepancies between projected and reported election results. They make sure YOU know THEY know that such things are not reasonable.

Thank you, thank you, thank you Jon. At last I know how the American government is going to make good on their enormous debt.

"Reasonable" people will do something about social security. They will argue that they need to stop paying it. You watch.

Yes, I think your interpretation of Chomsky pretty much tracks with mine. As I said, I mostly read him to learn about the world as it presently is. He is very, very good at that and writes very clearly with no subterfuge.

Alexis,

You may well be right. The US will have to go through a great deal of pain to deal with our foreign debt, and I'm sure right this moment US business is trying to figure out how to force poorer Americans to experience most of that pain. One excellent way to do this would be essentially to default on Social Security obligations.

A plus side for American business -- even beyond offloading the pain onto others -- is that while this kind of default would weaken America as a whole, it would strengthen business interests within America.

Jon,
On the off chance you check old threads, I would like to point out that Paul Krugman explained in 500 words or less why social security does not need fixing. In terms even econo-idiots like ME can understand. I *was* taking your word for it because I implicitly trust your every word, but it is nice to now understand *why* it is not a problem.

Anna,

You're a wise, wise person to trust everything I say. :>

Unfortunately, for some unknown reason the world is full of people who want evidence. If I have time (and America has time before SS is privatized) I hope to do something that will present this evidence in funny, clear ways.