there are background issues. we are, like it or not, the human species, racing to imminent disaster. there are two huge problems. one is the growing threat of nuclear war. which would, basically, end modern civilization as we know it. the other is the destruction of the environment. inexorable. we know it has to be done, we are not doing it. if we do not turn that corner soon, we will reach an irreversible tipping point and it will be a matter of slow moves towards catastrophe,

irrevocable catastrophe. that, in addition to what is right on the front pages, the background of it. there is plenty to be on everyone's mind. >> professor chomsky, you have been active for decades on nuclear war, economic policies, social justice, what is the progress you think you have made, or that the world has made? noam: there has been, over long periods, there has been progress. we happen to be -- we happen to have been, for the past 40 years, in a period of serious regression. but, there are ups and downs before. if you think back to what society was say, in 1960, 60 years ago, this was a society in

which we literally had laws against miscegenation, which were so extreme that the nazis refused to accept them. the one drop of blood loss. -- laws. the rights of women were still not recognized. it was not until 1975 that women had the legal right, guaranteed legal right to serve on the federal juries. that means, to be regarded as peers, as persons and not property. which they basically were in british common law that the country to go over.

they were, in many respects, minimal rights were not respected. well, that has changed. that is an improvement. beginning in the late 1970's, there was a shift in the nature of the state capitalist system, which was described in the previous comment, the move towards the neoliberal system that has been quite harsh for the general population here, and across the world. an enormous concentration of wealth and a precarious existence for many, which has led to understandable feelings of anger and resentment, distrust of authority, contempt

for institutions. that can take positive forms. let's have changes for the better. there are such elements that can also take very dangerous forms. i am old enough to remember 90 years ago when there was, as today, a very serious threat, the threat of the depression, deep depression, much worse than anything today. my extended family was first immigrated, new increments -- new immigrants, first-generation immigrants, working-class mostly. they were, and this was -- there were two ways out of the depression. one was taken by the united states.

the u.s. led the way towards a social democratic revival, committed to and -- by a revived militant labor movement. organizing, militant labor tactics, led the way to the new deal measures which pioneered postwar social democracy, an enormous lift for the population. that was one way out. the other way out was what happened in europe, which sank to the depths of fascism. those were the ways out. actually, there are residences today -- residences -- it would

be utterly ironic if the united states continues to unravel and move towards a kind of proto-fascism, while europe hangs onto the -- of social democracies that have resisted the neoliberal assault. and perhaps revise these very positive tendencies. it doesn't have to. the choice is in our hands. meanwhile, there are imminent problems. the war in ukraine is on the front page headlines. it is not the only one. literally millions of people are facing starvation in afghanistan. millions of people facing imminent starvation.

people who a little bit of money can't go to the markets where there is food, to buy food for their starving children because the banks are shut. they can't get access to the money. where is the money? new york. the u.s. refuses to release to the people of afghanistan their own money. the banks are supposed to be fiduciary institutions. you place your money in them, with the assurance that it is yours to attain when you need it. not in this case. the u.s. government has stepped in, not just in this case, but others too, to block people from getting their own money. there is a pretext for this.

the pretext is, we have to assure that victims of 9/11 have a right to compensation from afghans who had nothing to do with 9/11. the rural people of afghanistan who are starving had nothing at all to do with 9/11. in fact, those with good memories will recall that the taliban offered total surrender, which would have meant handing over to the united states the suspects in the 9/11 attack, the al qaeda suspects. remember, at the time, they were suspects. the fbi informed the press months later that they suspected them, but did not have definitive evidence. but, the taliban offered to turn them over.

the u.s. reaction was, we do not do surrenders. romney. echoed by george bush. rumsfeld, i am sorry. echoed by george bush. george w. bush. now, the afghan people have to starve to death because we hold their funds. and there are other things happening in the world. thankfully, there seems to have been an agreement for a two month reduction of fighting in yemen. the worst humanitarian disaster in the world, according to the united nations food -- united nations. the saudi government, which is

the main force responsible for the disaster, along with the united arab emirates, saudi arabia had been blockading, intensifying its blockade of the only port in which food and oil can be imported into the starving country. the official death toll last year was 370,000 people. the actual death role is unknown. again, the united nations warns that hundreds of thousands of children are facing imminent starvation. the saudi and emma rossi -- emirate air forces cannot function without u.s. equipment and u.s. intelligence. u.s. trading.

we are assisted by britain, a few others, that the u.s. is in the lead. these things can be changed. the things that can be uppermost in our mind. what can we do? what can we do about suffering, major problems in the world? whether it is existential problems the existence of the species like global warming or nuclear war, or whether it is the terrible, miserable suffering of the people of ukraine, under brutal and violent aggression by the russian army. people starving to death in afghanistan. or yemen. we can mention other things, but

what can we do about all of those things? that is what we have to be asking ourselves. that is what should be on everyone's mind. >> this is your chance to talk with noam chomsky. if you have been interested in public policy for the last 50 or 60 years, chances are you have heard of professor chomsky, perhaps even read some of his hundreds of books. the numbers are on the screen. for those of you of the east and central time zones. 8201 for the mountain and pacific time zones. you can also send a text message. please encode -- please include your first name and your city. we also have several social media ways of getting a hold of us. we will scroll through those on the screen. i want to quote professor chomsky from one of your most recent books, requiem for the

american dream. you say that some of the problems of government in the u.s. today stem from an excess of democracy. why do you say that? noam: actually, i did not say that. i quoted it. the quote was from a very important study, about 40 years ago, 50 years ago, 1975, it is the first study of the trilateral commission. the trilateral commission is an international commission of liberal internationalists. you get a rough idea of their political stances by the fact that the carter administration was drawn almost completely from within the ranks.

so, that group of people in the united states, they -- their counterparts in europe and japan, liberal internationalists were the trilateral commission. they came out with a very important report called, the crisis of democracy. they were responding to the activism of the 1960's, which considerably civilized society. and led to the developments that i mentioned briefly before. the trilateral commission warned that there is a crisis of democracy. the crisis is what you quoted, an excess of democracy. there is too much democracy. what is happening, they described during the 1960's, is that segments of the population

that are supposed to be passive and obedient began to try to enter the political arena to press their own demands. these are what are often called special interests. young people old people working people women farmers the minorities these people are not supposed to be. making noises in the political arena. they're supposed to be quiet quiet obedient. apathetic. show up every couple of years to push a button go home. what's called an election then go home and let their betters decide for them what to do. will that excess of democracy they said is putting too much of a burden on the state?

can't do it. so we must have what they called moderation and democracy. people should return to their passivity and obedience. they also talked about particular sectors of the society like the universities. they said the universities and the churches are not doing their job of indoctrination of the young. their phrase not mine. we have to do better indoctrination of the young. so that they aren't out there in the streets protesting the vietnam war a calling for civil rights for women's rights other things which are just too much. so that's the liberal internationalists. that there was actually another major document that came out at

about the same time also in response to the activism of the 60s. it's the pearl administration. boy, it was meant to be secret. this is the man who richard nixon appointed to the supreme court justice powell a little bit later a pole issued a memorandum to the chamber of commerce to the business world. and it was in a way similar to the trilateral commission report but much harsher. would it the document was intended to be confidential but it surfaced pretty soon so it's available publicly and was then oh memorandum urged the business community to take up. a forceful reaction to the attack on business that was going on in the sixties.

there's a businessman or being persecuted the rate of profit is declining. we're we're under attack. the universities have been taken over by a crazed radicals led by herbert marcus who almost nobody ever heard of the business world is under attack by ralph nader. who is demanding that? a court automobiles have safety measures built in and moving for consumer rights and and other domains. so the business world can't tolerate all these attacks. and then he went on to say look we have the resources. we have the money we can fight back. we can refuse to accept this attack on our power and privilege.

and in fact that resonated and it was the part of the background which led to the neoliberal reaction that i was quoted in the early remarks before the program began. the roughly 50 trillion dollar robbery of the middle class and working class that's taking place in the first 40 years simply started in the late quarter years escalated under reagan. in britain under thatcher spread around the world under us power. structural adjustment programs which imposed by the imf which under us combination, which had a devastating effect in much of the global south. more than i can talk about now,

but going back to excess of democracy. that was the phrase from the trilateral commission report, which i did right about when it appeared enough. referred to since but those two documents. set a kind of ideological framework one from the liberal internationalists another from the business run right wing they kind of set the frame in which over the coming years the neoliberal programs were developed. imposed we've been living under that assault for 40 years. with pretty harsh effects i should. i mean, there's actually harsher effects in other countries. so the what actually happened in

the late? a seventies there was a what was called stuff pretty high inflation in the united states? and the a quarter administration responded to it the with a very short rise in interest rates which increased under the reagan years during the 1970s countries like mexico and other countries of the south had been urged by the world bank. us run world bank, they'd been urged to take out extensive loans. mostly from us banks city bank, let's know this city group a

conglomerate many others and they were deeply in debt. well when the high interest rates were introduced their debt is a link to you as interest rates. so they were in deep trouble. they couldn't pay they began to default. they had to take a loans from the international monet monetary fund which imposed harsh conditionalities. it cut back social spending cut back efforts of development. and other similar measures which devastated the population they had a horrifying effects and much of the third world. yugoslavia which had been? more or less functioning country

fell apart. under the impact of of the structural adjustment programs which intensified ethnic conflict lead the background for the horrors that took place in the early 90s the worst case was actually rwanda in the 1970s, they're already had been significant conflicts between who do and tootsie mostly in burundi, but it's basically the same conflict but my friend edward herman and i had written about it in the 1970s. 1980s rwanda like other countries was hit very hard by the structural adjustment programs. and the society which was already very fragile collapsed. the conflicts that existed were

extensive for the intensified. well, we'll go into the details, but that's part of the background for the horrendous developments that took place a few years later in the 1990s. events have actions have consequences. maybe you don't anticipate them, but you should well, that was the third world the global south. in the rich countries like the united states. it's pretty much what was described by the rand corporation? well, that's all. part of the new liberal reaction to the former period of what's called sometimes regimented capitalism? state capitalism based on new deal measures it's worth remembering how far we've moved from those days. to take dwight eisenhower the

last it's conservative president in the traditional sense of the word conservative. eisenhower if you read his statements sounds like a flaming radical today. eisenhower said any person who doesn't accept new deal measures? the measures of social welfare developed in the new deal. and continued in following years anyone who doesn't accept these measures doesn't even belong in our political system. that's eisenhower. anyone who denies working people the right to unionize? firm essential right such a person doesn't belong in our political system. well, that was the 1950s continued for some years into the 60s. then we get into the reaction

which escalated under reagan? compare eisenhower with what you hear today. the remnants of what remains of the party that he represented? quite a change tells us a lot about the regression of the past 40 years professor. let's get some of our callers involved here and let's begin with barbara in oak bluffs, massachusetts barbara, please go ahead and ask your question of noam chomsky. thank you peter. thank you mr. chomsky for your amazing career continuing with president eisenhower his famous statement about the emergence of the military industrial complex. so we've all watched decades of grotesque spending on weapons, but now we see this conflict in

ukraine where tiny munitions like stingers and javelins and switchblade drones and other kinds of drones these tiny micro weapons are able to take out the elephantine macro weapons of the tanks and the jet fighters and the naval ships. what do you make of this transition to micro warfare, and it's implications. thank you. thank you, ma'am. it heralds new era of warfare which is more dangerous more threatening but everyone but let me just ask her. slightly different question if you don't mind. i mentioned before. that we should be concerned

constantly with what we can do. and what we should do. well one thing we can do is send weapons. doesn't argument for that ukraine is under foreign attack from a brutal. military force which has no mercy. and they have a right to defend themselves. but there's another question. what is our goal? do we want to escalate the war? more ukrainians die more destruction or do we want to move towards a peaceful negotiated settlement? one of the most respected individuals in the us diplomatic corps ambassador says freeman highly respected properly individual with a wonderful record couple days ago.

he came out an interview and said us policy seems to be fight the russians to the last ukrainian that's the policy. will keep as we've formulated no feasible goals that can lead to an exit from this tragedy so we can keep pouring in arms, we're good at that to escalate the fighting. more ukrainians will die or rational die. goes nowhere just towards further escalation. well, is there a possible diplomatic settlement? yes, there is. just freeman outlined it. once again, everyone knows what it is. the settlement this has been going on for 30 years. i should say. not just started today.

the settlement is and rough outline a neutralized ukraine not part of a military block. and an internal settlement it will. guarantee the rights of the russian speaking minority. provide a probably some form of federal solution like switzerland pilgrim others in which minority groups have a degree of autonomy in their own regions. it's actually formulated an agreement called minsk to some version of that. has to be the possible outcome and as freeman against stressed if we don't want to just fight to the last, ukrainian. we have to offer.

a little more putin an escape hatch he has to have some way to escape from this without. would amounts to suicide. if we tell him or if we send our current message. you're going to face war crimes trials. nothing you can do about it. sanctions will continue no matter what happens. we're telling him. fight on to the last ukrainian it might sound bold and you know winston churchill impersonation. sounds very heroic. but for the ukrainians, it's a death warrant. we have to come out with a proposal. we have to support i should say the proposals that are on the table have been for a long time for a settlement. that offers putin some kind of

escape like it or not. that's a necessity and it will have to be based on neutralization of ukraine and some kind of diplomatic arrangement for degree of autonomy for the russian-oriented areas those things are on the table us isn't supporting them. the us actually has an official policy. unfortunately doesn't seem to have been reported in the united states, press the least. i can't find it. but the policy is there. you can read it in government documents. actually quoted it repeatedly and things have been writing. of the policy was set in september.

2021 september 1st. 2021 there was a joint statement. of the us and ukraine notice, this is a couple of months before the russian invasion. the document is basically a policy statement of the united states reiterating an amplifying the policy that had been in effect for many years. two or three first says the door to ukrainian entry into nato is wide open. we're inviting you to join nato. and it says the united states will intensify. the sending of advanced military weapons to ukraine it will continue with joint military efforts in ukraine us. it's called nato, but it means

us ukrainian military operations all of this at placing weapons within ukraine aimed at russia. all of this is part of the enhanced nato admissions program you should really look at the exact wording on paraphrasing it, but it's roughly that. well, that's a call. for the horrors that have followed and it didn't just start then. it's been going on for actually 28 years. you look back. to the clinton to the go back to the george hw bush administration the first president bush in 1990 and 1991 soviet union was collapsing

there were intensive discussions with george bush james baker secretary of state his russian counterpart mikhail gorbachev the germans let's ensure. helmet cole who were very extensively involved in this the question was what would be the shape of the post? cold war world with the soviet union collapsing well, then there were several visions. the gorbachev's vision was what he called a common european home. from the atlantic from lisbon all the way to letterville stuck no military blocks. common european home mutual accommodation this was actually an extension. of a program of tools to go in

earlier years very brunt people no more macron recently has been pressing something similar a common european home from the atlantic to the euros. incorporating russia within a a european and maybe eurasian a peaceful system with no military blocks. that was one vision. the other one is this is goes back 50 or 60 years is the us vision called atlanticist. based on the atlantic alliance based on nato in europe which the us dominates and controls that's a deep issue in world affairs. goes back to the end of the second world war. will europe be?

subordinated the united states within the atlanticist nato framework, or will it move towards a european common home? along the lines of the goal. really branch so called hospitality. a gorbachev's proposes in 1990 will this the us? had no interest in actually oppose the human european coming home, but it did have a compromise version. and that was what was agreed by bush and baker in the united states. venture and coal in germany gorbachev in russia nato germany would be unified. and would join nato which is quite a concession on the board of the russians. recalled their history germany alone had practically destroyed

russia. several times in the past half century to allow a unified germany to join a hostile. military alliance was not a small step. gorbachev agreed on a condition the condition was the nato would not move one inch to the east. beyond germany he's in fact nato forces wouldn't even go to east germany. that was the condition. perfectly explicit unambiguous you want to see the actual wording? look it up in the online national security archives. georgetown university which have a record an authoritative record of the official document no ambiguity gorbachev agreed to

that the bush baker administration adhered to it they adhere to it. clinton came in a couple years later. first few years of the clinton administration. he also adhered to the agreement. by 1994 with his eye on domestic politics minority group voting groups polish voters and so on. clinton began to vacillate began to offer some hints of the east european countries joining nato in 1997 presumably with his eye on the 1998 vote. clinton agreed invited several east european countries the borders of russia to join nato

or shields and president. it was very close to clinton. in fact clinton had intervened to have him elected in 1996. yelton bitterly objected to this so did gorbachev. so that every russian leader. us statesman george cannon which matlock? and best former ambassador to russia under reagan leading russia specialist in the government. numerous other henry kissinger numerous others pointed out to washington, they're making a terrible mistake. i should say that includes the current cia director william burns. former cia director stanfield turner william perry secretary of defense under clinton was so outreached by this. he practically resigned in

protest. 50 specialists and russia ruda warning littered to clinton saying this is extremely dangerous. you should not be doing it. you're just calling on russia to become militant and aggressive instead of accommodating in a common european home. well clinton went ahead. george w. bush who came later he just tore it the shreds invite everyone. 2008 invited ukraine to join that was actually vetoed by germany and france, but it remains on the table everyone all the people i quoted high-level us diplomats and erosion specialists and so on. understood perfectly that for

russia there are some definite red lines that no russian leader will tolerate none yelten gorbachev anyone. that ukraine and georgia right within the russian geostrategic, heartland. joining a hostile. military alliance they will never accept that. us forged ahead. the september 2021 policy statement amplifies it states explicitly we will go ahead. and we will continue to arm ukraine if you want to. imagine what that's like from the russian point of view. understood well by high level us statesman. as i mentioned it's as if mexico

were to join a chinese run military alliance carry out joint exercises with the chinese army place weapons in mexico aimed at washington we wouldn't tolerate that for one second. that would never not mexico. not anywhere in latin america. can remember the cuban missile crisis? inconceivable notice that this is no infringement on the sovereignty of mexico. mexico is essentially neutral. not part of any military alliance it has restrictions. it cannot do when i just described. that cannot join the chinese run. military alliance career military operations with the people's liberation army look at

training and advanced weaponry from chinese military experts place weapons on the border and washington. nobody bothers to say this. perfectly well understood. notice that would have just described is the september. 2021 us official policy on ukraine and russia well, none of that justifies the russian aggression. which is a kind of crime that ranks with the us invasion of iraq the hitler stolen invasion of poland other examples of what the nuremberg troy-bunal called the supreme international crime. crime of aggression not in defense that nothing justifies

that but to understand is not the justify. to understand is important. if we care about ukrainians. and even if we care about world, peace. is this thing could escalate easily? to a major conflict with the us with nato which would go on to a terminal nuclear war. so we should try to understand. and again recognizing that understanding is not justified. the people i mentioned like george cannon henry kissinger william perry william burns cia director many others or not and there's no longer with us would not be justifying the russian aggression when they they explain the background for it. in which we play a role and

continue to play a role by not joining today in offering. in developing diplomatic options supporting those that are already on the table going back to ambassador freeman that was his point crucial point. as long as our position back by england is you're finished. putin you're done. war crimes trials permanent sanctions no way out for you. we're telling putin truman said i'm quoting him. we're going to fight you to the last ukrainian. that's not something we should be doing. we should be moving towards. peace. we spend a lot of time talking about the kinds of weapons we can provide okay?

worth doing it, but the real thing we should be talking about is how can we move towards a peaceful settlement which will end this horror not to the last, ukrainian. and you're watching book tv on c-span 2 joining us is noam chomsky who since his first appearance on this program has written dozens more books. the next call for him comes from marine in toms river, new jersey go ahead marine. or professor tomsky. i'm a great admire reviewers and it's a pleasure to even speak with you. i wondered about your thoughts and any optimism about the recent last year starbucks location in new york had unionized and now with the amazon warehouse in staten island using unionizing if you would see any of that having an

effect and involving emboldening the people throughout the country to actually start unionizing and recognizing that they can take this power into their own hands. thank you maureen. let's get a response professor chomsky in case you didn't understand she was talking about amazon unionizing and if you think that's a good sign and you're other thoughts about those types issues. will labor has been under bitter attack. throughout this whole new liberal period you may recall. the reagan's first action was to attack unions using what? internationally regarded as illegal means scurbs permanent replacement workers was a bitter attack on the labor movement. margaret thatcher who is

carrying out the same programs in england? opened her programs the same way. major attack on unions that opened the door. private corporation saying okay we can do it too. caterpillar others launched early union activities also using band internationally banned methods like herbs, and so on the laws were changed to make labor organizing much harder. there is a national labor relations board, which is supposed to protect workers' rights. it was defunded. barely functions bill clinton came along another major attack on labor the and after the agreement with mexico and canada

was bitterly attacked by the labor movement. actually, they were in favor. of a north of an agreement, but not this one. labor came forth with a proposal the labor action committee proposal for a north american free trade agreement which would be based on the principle of high wages high growth. they were seconded. by the office of technology assessment congresses research bureau which has since been disbanded congress doesn't seem to want independent information, but it existed then and they came out with a proposal for nafta. very similar to the labor movement proposal efforts to build a high growth high wage trade system clinton went

through with the corporate-based system. low wage low growth but great for profits. that was nafta that was later extended to the what's called the uruguay around the world trade organization agreements which have the same properties go into the details. a bitter attack on the labor movement in fact, we have some evidence about how great an attack it was couple of years after nafta study was undertaken under nafta rules by kate bronson brenner. she's a labor historian at cornell university. underneath the rules took us undertook a study of the effect of nafta on union organizing. turns out that the effect was dire. the nafta along with the refusal

of the the government to apply labor laws. led to a very sharp reduction in union organizing but illegal means a business couldn't if there was an effort at organizing a business could put up a banner saying transfer operation, mexico. could call in workers for obligatory meetings we would tell them you go ahead with this union organizing. we're going to move to mexico. they didn't intend to do it. but the warning was enough. meanwhile, a major industry had developed of strike breaking. there are no major industries working on what used to be called scientific methods of strike breaking lots of techniques many of them illegal

but it doesn't matter if you have a criminal state that doesn't enforce the law. the effect of all of this over the years has been a sharp decline in the labor movement. this is happening at a time when workers want to unionize. you look at workers preferences. majority want to be in unions. but unionization declined every year. again last year density of unionization declines under attack from a state corporate program of attacking labor. that's what it amounts to. will going back to the amazon strike. it's a dramatic break from that. despite the enormous advantages. corporate business system has been given. by state criminality which is what it is.

despite the enormous advantages. amazon workers and staten island managed to win an election a little bit immediately under attack by amazon, but the kinds of means i've described but it's a small victory. there are a couple of others. there are signs small signs of revival of labor. actually started in non-unionized areas. in red states like my state, arizona, west, virginia. began with teachers teachers who are not unionized began to strike. for not just for higher wages. but for better conditions for children part of the neoliberal programs has been to defund

defund education to try to destroy the public education system. effect under the trump years we had a secretary of education who was openly committed to destroying the public education system. public education is one of the great achievements of american democracy. back in late 19th early 20th century the united states pioneer led the world in developing public education. mass public education in a enormous contribution to democracy into the health of society. it's an american achievement. at the university level the grants for universities unfortunately taking away native

american land wasn't pretty put these land grants and enabled the establishment of major universities. state the great united states has great state universities. the mit where i total all my life was a land grant university. the that was an enormous contribution during the neoliberal period it's been under sharp attack. i quoted the crisis of democracy calling for more indoctrination of the youth that are attack on the educational system. there was also defunding. funding for state colleges and universities as sharply declined. also at the k-12 level all part of the effort to destroy the one of the major contributions of the united states towards

democracy and public welfare. and it still continuing will teachers began to strike in the red states, west, virginia, arizona? calling for better funding for schools so a teacher doesn't have to sit in front of 50 kids unable to teach because there's no resources and there's no possibility of dealing with the children. teachers were fighting not just for better salaries, which they richly deserve but for bitter can better conditions for children and schools. they got a lot of support. i happen to be living in arizona now. and drive around tucson where i live there were signs on. lawns all over the place supporting the teachers. signs on businesses support the teachers they won. referendum arizona passed a

referendum calling for more funding for the schools, which they vastly badly need. the republican leadership legislature won't do it. so the battle continues but this is a major growth of labor organizing. which extended? it has extended to the major labor movement. not enormous statistically speaking, but there have been scattered victories. starbucks there was a general motors victory. the amazon is the latest. but there's a long way to go. national labor relations board has to be reconstituted so that it actually carries out its legal responsibility of defending workers from illegal attacks by business which of

devastated the labor movement since reagan? well, the biden administration is actually been trying to do it, but it's been blocked by a hundred percent rock solid republican opposition. joined by a few right-wing democrats so it can't get through. just very recently. very good. representative appointment was pro labor was blocked? and there's a big battle to overcome. i should remember. as i said on old enough to remember the early 1930s. and kind of similar. the labor movement in the 1920s had been crushed. the united states has a very violent labor history. much worse than the woodrow wilson red scare the worst

regression in american history crushed the vibrant. middle labor movement 1920s it was almost nothing left. early 1930s the wake of of the depression began to revive. cio organizing militant labor actions sit down strikes under that impetus it was a sympathetic administration. the you got the new deal measures which have greatly improved the lives of americans enormously and led the world to. the post-war social democratic movements well, maybe it'll begin today, but it's going to be a battle. a major battle amazon victory is a striking example of what could

be done, but it's going to be a long haul. the attack on labor continues right now. relentless bitter and it'll take plenty of dedication and commitment to be back and overcome it. we have about an hour left with our guests noam chomsky this afternoon, and we're going to continue to take your calls noam chomsky has appeared on c-span 28 times. national reputation really sprang forth in 1967 when he wrote in responsibility for of intellectuals essay in the new york review of books. and it was in 1989 that he gave a lecture on thought control in modern society. here's a portion of that. well, the title of this talk is i suppose you saw somewhere is

necessary illusions thought controlling democratic societies. the title is intended to be paradoxical. it should be thought control and indoctrination are inconsistent with democracy. therefore one can't have thought control and a democratic society. the there is a standard view about this matter. the standard view is expressed for example by supreme court justice howell, who speaks of what he calls the societal purpose of the first amendment that is enabling the public to assert meaningful control over the political process now he happens to be speaking about the media and they're crucial role in affecting this societal purpose and similar remarks could be made and should be made about the educational system about publishing about intellectual life. but the media are particularly important in providing free access to information and

opinion and therefore allowing a democratic process to function in a meaningful way. so the media therefore fulfill what new york times on sunday called their traditional jeffersonian role as a a counterbalance the government power. and if one takes jeffers and seriously as he may or may not have taken himself, he would presumably have gone further speaking not just of counterbalancing government power but counterbalancing other concentrations of power specifically the kinds that developed in the post-jeffersonian period corporate power, which is the dominant feature of modern social life. well, all of this seems obvious even tautological what else could be the foundations of democracy, but it's worth bearing in mind that there is a contrary view and it probably is the dominant view among liberal democratic theorists.

it goes right back to the origins of modern democracy in the english revolutions of the 17th century english revolution the 17th century at that time great concern was expressed over popular agitators itinerant preachers and workers with their little printing presses and their pamphlets and their public speeches which were removing the cloak of mystery behind which the parliament and the king were carrying out there much narrower struggle when you read about in history books now these people were in their words they were people who wanted to be represented not by lords and gentry but by men of their own kind men who know the people swords, quoting from level or pamphlets and observing their activities one contemporary historian warned that by revealing the workings of power.

they will make the people so curious and so arrogant that they will never find humility enough to submit through a civil rule, which is a big problem. well well after these radical radical democrats had been crushed by about 1660 john locke wrote that they laborers and tradesmen spinsters and dairy maids must be told what to believe the greatest part cannot know and therefore they must believe now these concerns arose once again during the american revolution as they typically do during popular revolutions, and it was not until the 1780s that the radical democrats in the american revolution were crushed and there was no more any thought that people would be represented by. people at that time men of their own kind who know the people soars they would be represented

by those qualified to rule over them of whom they were permitted to make a selection the modern democratic political system, which follows the principle laid down by the founding fathers that those who own the country ought to govern it quoting john jay now, all of this comes right to the present, i won't try to go through the history, but as a rich tradition expressing these same views comes right down to the present in the modern version reinhold nibir for example, the revered moralist and the foreign policy analyst he explained that his words rationality belongs to the cool observer. but because of the stupidity of the average man, he follows not reason but faith and this faith. is upon necessary illusion. i thank him for offering me my title this faith relies upon

necessary illusion and emotionally potent oversimplification which have to be provided by the mythmakers by the cool observers folks like us smart guys who know how to serve power walter lippman dean of american journalists a few years early talked about what he called the manufacture of consent, which he said has become a self-conscious art and a regular organ of popular government in a revolution in the practice of democracy, and that's appropriate because the common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely and can be managed only by a specialized class. neighbors cool observers the same concerns explain a good deal of the fear of radical movements abroad right up to the present. so for example in the early 19th century the tsar of russia was deeply concerned about the

contagion of revolutionary ideas coming from american democracy, which might undermine the conservative world order that he and metternich and others were presiding over and a century later the roles were reversed, but the same ideas were expressed at the time when woodrow wilson sent troops to join the western intervention against the bolsheviks his secretary of state echoing lazar a century early warned that the bolsheviks were appealing on quoting robert lansing. we're quoting to the prolet. we're appealing to the proletariat of all countries to the ignorant and mentally deficient who by their very numbers are urged to become masters. the same ideas appear explicitly in the public relations industry the patron saint of the modern public relations industry edward bernay's received his training in the creel commission, which he was a member of and he later

developed the concept of what he called engineering of consent, which he said is the essence of democracy and is something which he practiced for example in demonizing the democratic capitalist government of guatemala when he was working for the united fruit company in 19 early 50s paving the way for the cia coup, which is turned the place into a charnel house and the public relations industry from the very beginning from the early part of the century described its task as controlling the public mind educating the american people about the economic facts of life. to ensure if favorable climate for business and a proper understanding of what littman called the interests the public mind is the only serious danger confronting the company an at&t executive commented about 80 years ago and those problems have been addressed ever since that's the role of the pr

industry. there's also an academic twist to all of this. in fact, it's a major theme in the academic social sciences one of the leading american political scientists the sort of major figure in the field of communications harold last will wrote an interesting commentary on this in 1933 in the international encyclopedia of social sciences the entry under propaganda. those were more honest days people called things what they were he wrote an entry under propaganda in which he explained that we must not succumb to democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests. they are not the best judges are the elites who must be insured the means to impose their will for the common good and the means he said are a whole new technique of control largely through propaganda and it's necessary to do this because of

the ignorance and superstition of the masses. and then he explained why it's particularly important in a democracy. it's not the case as the naive might think that indoctrination is inconsistent with democracy rather as this whole line of thinkers observes. it's the essence of democracy the point is that in a military state or a feudal state or what we would nowadays call it totalitarian state. it doesn't much matter what people think because you've got a bludgeon over their head, then you can control what they do so you can be a behaviorist care if they think at all you can control what they do, but when the state loses the bludgeon when you can't control people by force and when the voice of the people can be heard you have this problem it may make people so curious and so arrogant that they don't have the humility to submit to a civil rule and therefore you have to control what people think for their own good, of course to ensure that they don't get out of control.

and that was noam chomsky in 1989 one of 28 appearances. professor chomsky is made on c-span over the years. he joins us now live from his home in tucson, arizona and the next call for him is from michael in miami michael, please go ahead and ask your question. yes. hello, and thank you mr. thompson for your humanity and your scholarship my question it would if you answer yes, i believe the reason you're doing so is because we here in the south and on calling you from broward county, which is probably the school districts. that is under the most attack by a governor and by a lot of the forces you've described in covering everything. i don't know if people who haven't read all michael. what's your question?

oh sure. it has to do we've had our governor. i actually kind of come out and say that he wished to increase natural covid hurt immunity. in order to increase what he viewed as a benefit, but it's a very definition when you're pushing something like herd immunity for fatal disease. that's a definition of criminal eugenic genocide. it's a direct equivalent of using a student as equivalent. small talks like, okay, so covid heard immunity is the question governor desantis in florida noam chomsky. you know the question is about governor of the census and covid community covid heard immunity. yes, sir. herd immunity there is unfortunately. a powerful and evaccination

movement in the united states to santa says played a role in it in his not refusing vaccination, but not following policies advised by serious health officials not florida, but elsewhere. and i think this is seriously prolonging. a significant crisis about a million americans were already died. the hospitals are overflowing with mostly unvaccinated patients of course. provide a pool for future mutate more mutations we have the means. to if not eradicate greatly

control and diminish the harm caused by the the coronavirus infections and also to prevent at least to limit the possible mutations, which could be much more harmful than what exists now. the means exist, but they have to be followed. if they're not followed. they'll be more suffering more pain more deaths. more crocheting of hospitals many hospitals have literally had to suspend normal operations just because of the overflow of largely, unvaccinated patients are filling up the covid wards.

no minor will even experienced that myself, but it's been serious. so i think it's a major problem. there's a lot to do. there's more to say about this. the it's it's critically important. to get vaccination advanced in the lord's regions of the world which have not had access to vaccines are only limited access. the rich countries europe in the united states in the early part of the plague tended to monopolize the vaccines for themselves. actually, the european record is worse than the us record in this boyd administration has taken some steps to try to break

through the monopolization large part of which incidentally goes back to the world trade organization rules that i mentioned earlier which provide? those are called free trade agreements. they're not free trade. they provide extreme protectionist measures. to ensure very high profits for pharmaceutical corporations for omega media corporations and others what are called intellectual property rights absorbitant patent rights, which allow them to weigh overcharge and make extraordinary profits. even though in this case of the pharmaceutical industry is much of the research and development is actually done at public expense. including the modern of vaccine

but the rules of the mislabeled free trade agreements below them to have basically monopoly pricing rights. well, the germans have been even more adamant and protecting this then we have. but the effect has been to deprive large parts of the world of the vaccines that they need. this is a threat to us as well. not just to them. it means again a large pool of on vaccinated people which provide the virus opportunities to mutate as it does rapidly and nobody knows what the next variant might be. with so far been kind of lucky. and at the variance that have appeared over the years of either been highly lethal, but not very contagious like ebola.

or highly contagious but not very lethal like omicron can't guarantee that that'll continue. well, the point is going back to where i said before the question is what can we do? well, what we can do is apply the means that are available. intensive vaccination protected spaces for people who to be safe for from infection distancing masks many mechanisms it can be used to reduce the spread of infection and to ameliorate the crisis largely overcome it. so we have to pursue those measures. florida under the senators does

not have a good record on this. gyms and caliente, california and jim you're on with noam chomsky. hello. thank you very much for taking my call and professor. it's a great honor to talk to you. my question is basically the internet your thoughts on it. it's not been that long since it came into being like last 20 25 years. it seems to have taken over the world. so thank you very much. professor didn't quite catch it. i'm sorry the impact of the internet over the last 20 25 years. the impact of the internet. yes, sir. it's quite a story. i was actually present at the origin of what is now the internet? i was in the 1950s. i was at the research laboratory of electronics at mit.

which is where the early ideas were.

formulated it's became what was called the orphan? it later turned into the internet. it's interesting that. remember that almost i'm the internet was overwhelmingly like computers generally developed on public funding. it was a publicly largely publicly created achievement. later, it was privatized and that over to private power for profit. but that was many years later into the 90s. the internet has now become a major phenomenon. well that has mixed consequences.

the internet does allow us. to discover things that we otherwise would not have known. it offers tremendous access to information. i mean for years worked on many years 50 years back to the article you mentioned been working on. how the media operate as a kind of combination of an information and indoctrination system combination of both. well, i used to have to go to the library and look up. work with microfilm machines to try to find out what was in the new york times and you know two years ago. now i can do it by clicking a button. you can find things that you never would have found. look i quoted before a crucially important document. crucially important september

2021 us government policy statement on your ukraine you can find that on the internet. you're not going to find it in the media. even if you went to libraries, you wouldn't find it. but no you can pick it up from the white house official page on the internet. and that magnifies it's tremendous source of potential. information and enlightenment, but i stress potential. that matters how you use it. and unfortunately, it's often used to limit understanding and to restrict information. there's a natural tendency. can understand it partially share it. to turn at once towards the internet sites which reinforce your own positions. i know i'm going to hear the kinds of things. i like so i'll turn to that. and that tends to create. bubbles small bubbles of sulfur-enforcing doctrines and ideas where people become not only ignorant and what the outside but even immune to it. because they're hearing and getting reinforced by what they want to hear that's a very the widespread phenomenon. i think we're all familiar with it. and it's quite dangerous. it's undermining the possibilities of interchange and interaction across the society which are prerequisite for a functioning democratic society. based on an informed electorate aware of the views of others

understanding the views of others able to move forward that's the basis of a healthy society. that's pretty much what it was like. during the exciting new deal period during the 1960s. it was also true over a very wide range. of the at the time mostly younger population i was in my 40s at the time. so i was one of the old folks. but the this is this is deteriorating. so well the internet could be. a mechanism of liberation and enlightenment, it can also be an instrument of control indoctrination. divisiveness breakdown of social order it has all that potential.

kind of like a lot of technology. take a hammer. hammer doesn't care whether you use it to build a house or whether a torture uses it to crush somebody's skull. the hammers indifferent and a lot of technology is like that. the internet is an example. can be an enormous force? poor enlightenment liberation mutual aid and mutual understanding but we have to make that decision. the internet's not going to make it for us. john is calling in from el paso, texas, please go ahead john you're on book tv. i hope you don't mind if i change my question. i first asked if was going to ask if the united nations could solve the problems and yemen and

and and afghanistan and ukraine, but now i'm really concerned with whether or you think that economic sanctions are an act of war. did you catch that professor? well, it's worth. remembering that sanctions if sanctions are carried out by the united nations they're legal. we can ask whether they're advisable. but there are at least legal. most of the sanctions are carried out by the united states. actually more than more than half the world's population. is no under one or another form of us sanctions. these have no legal authority the united states is using

sanctions wildly. to punish people sometimes with some justification maybe sometimes not. but it should we do not want a world at least. i don't want a world which one power which happens to have enormous force and i'll behind it is capable of deciding who gets ancient. that's not a livable world. sometimes the sanctions are grotesque. to cuba for 60 years cuba has been under direct attack by the united states. began with the kennedy administration kennedy carried out a major terrorist war against cuba not much discussed here, but it was real and very serious. part of what led to the missile crisis that almost destroyed us.

then harsh sanctions were imposed. will they continue? when russian support was withdrawn and cuba faced really serious problems because that was the limited support. it was getting under the course us sanctions regime. at that moment the clinton admit bill clinton. outflanked the republicans from the right from the right but increasing the sanctions increasing the torture. other than came the helms burton low, which made it even worse. us sanctions or were called third party sanctions others have to adhere to us sanctions, even if they oppose them. and in the case of cuba dramatically the whole world opposes them strenuously. you take a look at the votes

annual votes in the united nations. on cuba sanctions they're condemned every year. i know they're condemned by everyone. the last vote was 184 to two. to where united states and israel which has to follow you as orders. it's client state. oh actually doesn't even observe for the sanctions but as the vote the united states. why do other countries? observe us sanctions, even though they oppose them because they're afraid of the united states. it's a frightening country. europe opposes the sanctions that opposes the iran sanctions vigorously but it has to go along. course you can't step on toes of

the united states. it's dangerous. in fact, the united states has the capacity. to through countries out of the international financial system, which mostly runs through new york and can carry out other measures. nobody's willing to face that so countries can't provide say sweden medical equipment in cuba. they can't sell something that uses nickel that they imported from cuba. what's the reason for this? well, one of the good things about the united states is it's quite an open society much more so than others. we have a lot of information about what our government is doing. not perfect, but a lot. a lot of material gets declassified unlike other countries, that's a very good thing. so we can look back to the records of the kennedy and

johnson administration in the 1960s. and ask why the torture of cuba and it is tortured. well, the reason is some quoting successful defiance of us policies going back to the 1820s. to the monroe doctrine which established? the us right? to dominate the hemisphere. to turn the hemisphere into a fear of influence as it's called for the united states. back in the 1820s. the united states wasn't powerful enough to implement it. britain was much more powerful than impeded the us. but over time as predicted by us. leaders john quincy adams others british power wayne the american

power increased finally the us was able to impose the monroe doctrine. cuba was acting in successful defiance. of us. hope demand to dominate the hemisphere and it determine what happened here. so we have to torture them. make them suffer. bitterly and brutally and europe joins in over the whole world joins in because they're afraid of the united states. well that's sanctions. same with the sanctions on iran. the there was an agreement. jcpoa, the joint agreement on nuclear weapons. so in under the obama administration 2015 iran lived up to it completely. us intelligence confirms that iran completely lived up to the agreement.

sharply limited iran's capacity to develop nuclear systems with the intended develop nuclear weapons. we don't know what they said. they weren't. maybe they were. but anyway, this limited. president trump dismantled it. torah to shreds violating security council orders security council at ordered that all countries maintain the jcpoa trump decided i don't like it. i'm going to tear it apart so he destroyed it. and then he punished iran. for the us violation of security council orders by imposing harsh sanctions on iran europe bitterly opposed that but they have to conform. for the reasons i mentioned. that's maintained.

it's no maintained by the burdened administration. there is a chance that we might be able to restore the agreement. tricky thing well, we can look through the rest of the world. sanctions or there are you in sanctions, which? again, one can debate whether they're right or wrong, but at least they're they're legitimate but us sanctions have no legitimacy nor would those of other countries if other countries were capable of imposing them to a limited extent they do but not much. it's mostly a us weapon. and we could we rich should into them closely. that take the there are some about which we have extensive evidence if we want to learn. so take the clinton administration.

clinton blair us uk sanctions on an iraq in 19 in the 1990s very horse sanctions they were administered through the un, but they were basically us british sanctions. well, the first administer there were distinguished. international diplomats who administered the sanctions the first was an irish diplomat tennis halliday he resigned in protest. because he said the sanctions were genocidal. they said or they're bitterly harming iraqi civilians. hundreds of thousands of children are dying. many others are economies being destroyed and they're not harming saddam hussein. fact he's gaining. because the population is suffering and has to shelter

under the umbrella of the brutal government, which did have an effective rationing policy so it's strengthening the tyrant. harming the population to the point where genocidal so he resigned. it was replaced by another distinguished international diplomat. huntsman spawnach he had. researchers all over the country finding observing what was happening knew more about iraq then anybody in the west? he resigned in protest. because as he put it. these sanctions or genocidal he reiterated and strengthened what dennis halliday had said he also published an important book. it's called a different kind of war.

in which he described in detail the brutality and sadism of the us british sanctions and what they were doing to the population while they were strengthening the tyrant. we're not a fascist country. to the book isn't technically banned but try to find it. i don't think there's a single review in the united states or in britain. just silenced it's there and worth reading you can find out in detail extensive detail. what sanctions are like when they're applied in a brutal and sadistic manner. and you can't prove it but onceponent kind of suggests and i think there's some plausibility to this. that the sanctions may have saved saddam from being overthrown from within. that happened to a lot of

tyrants brutal. you expect tyrants. marcos in the philippines to really in haiti. churches school and romania the worst of the gangsters in the soviet system very strongly supported by the united states until virtually the day of his overthrow. the one after another were toppled by internal. revolt same thing happened in south korea possibly it could have happened in iraq. but not under the conditions of the sanctions. which punish the population and demoralized them. and so forced them to shelter under the saddam umbrella that there was no possibility of overthrow the government.

to improve it, but that might have happened. well, that's one case of sanctions where we can learn a great deal. from sponix book is very detailed and instructive? but we can only learn it if we try. if they saw it, we just want to accept the indoctrination, okay? then it doesn't matter that it's a free country. well, there are other cases you can look at. the usual discussion of sanctions is do they achieve their ends? so discussion of the there's a lot of criticism of the iran sanctions. public criticism in the united states because they didn't work. they didn't force iran to accept us demands. it's not the right question. the right question is what rate

does the united states have? to destroy the agreement. in violation of security council orders and then to punish iran because we destroyed the agreement. that's the question that should be asked. what right do we have to compel others to adhere to our decision to punish iranians because we withdrew from the agreement. those are the questions that could be asked. and similar questions can be asked in other cases. cube is the obvious one. venezuelan others and remember us sanctions are so widespread. that they actually reach over half the world's population. before in the early part of this discussion. i quoted jazz freeman again, one of the most highly regarded greatly highly regarded members

of the us diplomatic corps ambassador. he also in the same interview i described. goes into the illegality and cruelty of the sanctions it's worth listening to. and we're thinking about. and in professor chomsky's book who rules the world. there is a chapter that is entitled the us as a leading terrorist state. we have five minutes left with our guests kathy and albuquerque. go ahead. yes, thank you. i just the one issue that weighs heavily on my mind is a immigration and i have a feeling that's only going to get worse because of the climate, you know because of global warming and i don't know if there's anything we can do to make it better. i don't think we should turn these people away because they're desperate situations. it's not easy to leave a place that you know, they're unfamiliar with and go somewhere, but i don't know if you agree also that it's going to get worse because of the global warming and what we can do.

thank you. thank you, ma'am. i sort of half got it, but not sure i got it completely. could you repeat the essence she is concerned about immigration and she thinks it's going to get worse because of global climate change. well immigrations and interesting question. we don't have much time. but one thing we might do is look at the us record on immigration. us is in an unusual position. it has extraordinary advantages. very low population density enormous resources huge empty spaces so what's history on immigration up until the 20th century. immigrants were welcomed from europe. weight immigrants why? not a pretty story we were

wiping out an exterminating. the indigenous populations country was being opened up for settlement we needed lots of white faces to come in and settle it. 19 your orientals were blocked. there was an oriental exclusion act 1882. 1924 the us imposed its first strict immigration restriction the words weren't used but in effect it was aimed at italians and --. the effect and the design of the immigration act of 1924 many -- ended up in extermination camps because they couldn't get into the united states. happens to include the remnants of my extended family, but that's the least of it.

this law stayed until 1965. other arrangements were made, which or worth discussing no time for today the us has a it's not alone. if europe is even worse europe has even more brutal and immigration policies in the united states. europe has spent centuries devastating and destroying africa. it's no. and working hard to ensure that people escaping trying to escape from the wreckage of european savagery. can't make it to european shores. europe even has a military installations in central africa niger to try to pretend sub-term africa to try to pretend prevent.

miserable refugees from even making it to the mediterranean. where they might enter european sure, so you want to feel good about it. europe's even worse, but our policies are horrendous. people who are fleeing from the destruction of their societies by us terror under reagan in the 1980s murderous terror operations killed hundreds of thousands of people. a hundreds of thousands of refugees orphans widows meant much of it as extended people are trying to escape. the honduras there was a military coup in 2009. condemned by almost the entire continent accepted by obama and hillary clinton who basically supported it turned honduras even to more of a or chamber

than it had been led to a huge wave of flight. we now turn them back at the border or separate parents from children at the border under trump. disgraceful the pope pope francis properly said that the refugee crisis is not a refugee crisis. it's a moral crisis of the wealthy of the rich of the west. well the question question that it's going to get much more extreme. we are now. intensifying the threat and danger of global warming which will be devastating. it'll lead to huge flight. countries like say bangladesh are going to become unlivable. most of south asia is literally going to become virtually

unlivable. lord's parts of africa, what are the people going to do they're going to have to flee. hundreds of millions of people will be trying to flee not so great here either. in arizona where i live there's a long drought. that may have very severe consequences, but it's nothing like the poorer countries of the world. they're going to be shattered by this and yes, there will be enormous immigration problems. the way to deal with it is to stop. immediately her assault on the global environment we are just destroying the environment which can sustain. life on earth we must start. immediately following strong advice of the scientific

community ipcc that we cut back fossil fuels right away. certain percentage every year right away till we end the use of fossil fuels within a couple of decades and we're finished. okay, professor chomsky. we're going to have to end it there. we're going to close with this quick text message to you. few speak and have spoken for decades with conscience woven throughout their remarks and writings in the matter of dr. chomsky. professor chomsky has two new books coming out this year one is chomsky a new world in our hearts and notes on resistance both coming out this year and he noam chomsky has been our guest for the past two hours on in-depth here's a look at some books that are being published this week, san jose state university professor, roberto gonzalez offers his thoughts on how technology and automation is

changing military conflict in war virtually. in junk science and the american criminal justice system attorney and innocence project director of strategic litigation m. chris fabricant explores the flaws and forensic science and how it affects the outcome of judicial cases. and journalists mark fulman reports on the use of behavioral threat assessment to identify and stop potential mass shooters in trigger points. also being published this week in torn apart university of pennsylvania sociology and law professor. dorothy roberts insists that the us child welfare system is systematically racist and needs reform. and military historian richard ovary looks at world war two in his latest book blood and ruins. find these titles this coming week wherever books are sold and watch for many of the authors to appear in the near future on book tv. on about books our programs that report on the latest publishing news and nonfiction books. we spoke with rich rubino about

his latest book on american political trivia. mr. rubino, how did this project get started? well, it really got started when i was probably about nine years old and i actually started watching c-span. i'm kind of a congenital political. junkie. i don't know where it kind of formulated for some reason. i just kind of had this gravitational pull to it and had this interest specifically in kind of the minutiae the facts and it was interesting so that so it became a political author the first book i wrote was about a little known facts in american politics then i did a book tour and people ask about quotation. so i did a book about political quotations in american politics then to one that was kind of all encompassing. i was really looking for kind of a political trivia book just to buy all i could find were presidential trivia books and many were just question answer question answer so came up with the idea. i have all this information kind of inside my head. i want to put it together in some sort of attribute game, but also one where you can learn something so it's educative as well as interesting. so, you know, i bake 21,700 and five what words up questions

later. i put them all together and kind of amalgamated anything that could think of of and i also use kind of was interest you go back and you think about all that you think about all this all week what you think, you know and you can go back to the primary sources and go back to one primary source, and you say oh this happened as well. this happened as well. this happened as well and pretty soon you get seven more questions out of it. now. is this a full-time job for you writing political books? yeah right now and i also do some analysis and some and some speaking as well. now mr. rubino, you mentioned watching c-span at nine years old. however, old you are now. are you still watching c-span? yeah, i'm 43 years old and it is interesting once i got once cable came to my municipality. i just started watching it. it just became almost an addiction as they say it's just this, you know gravitational pull you have and you just want to get as much information as possible and it's actually is educative but it's also entertaining and i really enjoy it. how did you find out that rutherford b hayes is a national hero in paraguay. yeah, that's interesting because

if you go to paraguay actually, he's pretty much a household word. i don't know exactly where i found out but you find out rutherford behave just very little information about him in the united states as a matter of fact if you go to his birthplace in delaware, ohio, it's actually a gas station is actual house has been torn down but in terms of paraguay what happened when he was president. part of this was the secretary of state. it wasn't something usually active in at least all records show that but there was an agreement between argentina and paraguay and paraguay garnered about 60% of the land that it has today. and hayes is really credited with that. so in case so go down there and there's actually a national holiday forum. there's a postage stamp for him. there's a villa for him. there's actually a scholarship to ohio wilson university in delaware, ohio where rutherford b hayes was actually born and there was a reality tv show where the winners actually got to go to got to go to fremont ohio to visit the rutherford b hayes presidential library and museum that the contrast is fascinating in another fact by

the way kind of interesting is whether for behaves was the only president ever born in delaware, delaware, ohio. so mr. rubino when you put this book together, first of all, is it self-published? yes it is. and what's that process like for you? yeah, it's interestingly. so there definitely pros and cons for it the main pro is you have editorial discretion in terms of the order that you want to put it the con is you have to do a lot of the promotion yourself. i've had used publicists for passbooks this one. i'm basically using a lot of contacts that i made to promote it myself. but basically you just you pretty much write it and then you do all the editorial discretion do your own editing yourself and then it's pretty much ready, but you use a company called great space, which is a city area of amazon.com and then you go you get endorsements for the back. so it's just basically, you know, it's basically you write a book yourself you publish yourself and then if you don't have an actual publicist, then you promote it yourself as well. well, i do just one more piece of self-serving news. you dedicated it to space.

yes, i i think that's probably unprecedented. i don't know of anybody else who's done that but i was thinking about it. now. i was thinking should i dedicate it to an individual and i thought well where did my interest in politics political minutia come from and i thought to myself coming home from school. particularly actually starting on snow days and coming in and watching c-span and then i remember for example, you know all the times i spent watching special orders, for example, some of the interesting speakers that i would watch in the house. i remember watching, you know some members you get more of a pull toward than others. for example, i remember, you know watching gene taylor mississippi, come on and talking about the budget deficit and he had a very charismatic way of speaking about it and i kind of had an interest and i would listen to him speaking i would listen to they have other blue dogs on talking about this type of stuff. so then out with all so thinking about how much time i spent, you know could just going through the kind of the c-span archives kind of as a hobby and it's just fascinating how much you actually find out that you net stuff. that's just kind of lost to history. you know, you go back for example, i remember i remember i was watching a speech michael

the caucus made when bob dole and george hw bush for running through republican nomination, and this is just some of the kind of the great lines you hear some times and i was listening to talk to specifically and he started to speak. she said, you know, bob dole says that george hw bush did much of the leader george hw bush bob dole is a much the leader. well this time i actually agree with both of these two guys. neither of them is much of a leader and i thought you know, that's just kind of a great line and i think you can only find that through c-span. so i really would not have had this book had it not been for c-span, so i thought it was obviously kind of appropriate to dedicate a tuesday span. well something i've never set out loud as my favorite part of watching. c-span is during a senate vote you get to see all the interactions on the senate floor and that's a lot of fun to watch. i spend hours watching that. i'm afraid in the great american political trivia challenge. you have a whole section on political insults. yes, why did you include that? because i just find them absolutely fascinating, you know, politicians are very good

in terms of being able to somehow sometimes to be very creative in terms of the way that they insult people. i find that fastening. there's also some overlap between that and presidential campaigns like i remember for example watching the house one time and marion barry a congressman from arkansas with a very, you know, a southern accent deep as molasses gets up there and he was talking about adam putnam a congressman from florida and he was talking he basically said that adam putnam had miss characterized his view on the budget. so it's up there and he calls him. you know, he says, how do you look in nimrod? and i said, wow, you know that was said on the house floor. he didn't go after his actual. he didn't go after his name, but he actually went after him because of, you know, kind of that he can pairing him to how to do it. i thought that is extremely creative and then i thought i go back to someone like you know gene taylor, mississippi, you know really was kind of overrated i think for his rhetorical flourishes the americans for tax reform said that he had supported the that supported be affordable care act and it comes back and he gives a statement and he says he calls

them, you know lying sacks of scum and i thought wow, you know a politician said this but you know, it's interesting with insults. they also think they can be very underhanded. for example, jesse jackson was running in 1984. he didn't specifically go after malter mondale who was from minnesota. who was the front runner he was talking about hubert humphrey hubert humphrey the former vice president ran for president 1960-68 actually briefly in 52 as well in the 1972, and he said something to defective. you know, hubert humphrey was the greatest part was the only real progressive leader. whoever came on a minnesota. so obviously put two and two together you figure out oh he's trying to go after walter mondale. he's kind of trying to do with someone underhandling you thought wow. that was really kind of a great line. so i think that insults are really something, you know, no matter what side you're on. it's something you can really kind of appreciate the way politicians are able to insult some now. sometimes it can be just an impish, you know, first grade sophomore again, so what other times it can be something that's really creative and you say wow. rich rabino is the author of this book the great american political trivia challenge.

available online mr. rubino. thanks for spending a few minutes with us on about books. thanks. it was great to be on the night then the the station that i dedicated the book to. listen to full episodes of about books on the c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts or watch it online at booktv.org. you're watching book tv for a complete television schedule visit booktv.org. you can also follow along behind the scenes on social media at booktv on twitter instagram and facebook. weekends on c-span 2 are an intellectual feast every saturday american history tv documents america's story and on sundays book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors funding for c-span 2 comes from these television companies and more including comcast. are you think this is just a

community center? no, it's way more than that. comcast is partnering with a thousand community centers to create wi-fi enabled listings. so students from low-income families can get the tools. they need to be ready for anything. comcast along with these television companies support c-span 2 as a public service welcome to the independent women's forum book talk with miranda devine. thank you all for coming out tonight. to hear miranda discuss laptop from hell her important book on sex drugs money and power. or maybe it's depravity corruption and treason. we decided to have this event because for a book that delves into some pretty critical information about who owns the biden family we saw it was not getting the coverage it deserved. fox has given it a lot of play and so of a couple of other conservative outlets, but most