tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine. >> c-span now features your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington live on the net. keep up with today's biggest events with live streams of hearings from u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more from the world ofpolitics all at your fingertips . you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and live scheduling information or c-span's tv networks and radio plus a variety of compelling podcast. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. download it for freetoday . your front row seat washington anytime anywhere. >> was in 2003 that philosopher and author and

linguist noam chomsky first appeared on this program. and we've invited him back to take your calls and talk to you once more time. since 2003 he's written dozens of books and one of those books was consequences of capitalism. here's professor chomsky from 2021 talking about one of his more recentbooks . >> a major poll just came out from pew research in which they asked people, they gave people a choice of 15 serious problems and asked them to rank themin terms of urgency . that was between republicans and democrats and republicans were the very last one at the

bottom was global warming. the top was illegal immigrants and the debt. the death incidentally became a problem from november 4, until then that that was fine. the republicans were craving it to enrich very rich people . november 4 by took it over. it was a major problem. it's not that the people who saidthat actually believed it . but that's what they hear in the polls in which they are contained. they listen to the murdoch tv station, fox news. they read the murdoch press, that's what you hear and then you're stuck in a bowl and that's what youbelieve . so the real problems are illegal immigrants, terrible problem. the debt suddenly became a

problem at the bottom of the list is destroying the tenvironment in which life can be sustained. all these are signs of the corrupt not only of the arena for rational discourse but just general social collapse. the social order is collapsed. it didn't just happen by itself. it happened because of the plague that was set in motion 40 years ago and i discussed a lot of it in the book. it's the plagueof neoliberalism . which was actually started in the 70s with a massive business campaign that took off with reagan and thatcher and as you look at their prescriptions it's perfectly obvious what's going to happen. through reagan's inaugural address, the government is

the problem, not the solution. decisions have to be taken out of the hands of government. well, they don't stop being made, whereare they going to be made ? in the private sector. they're going to be made powerful corporate tyrannies which is what corporations are. unaccountable to the public, the government of course is partially accountable to the public and can be controlled somewhat but part of the tyranny isaccountability . milton friedman who pronounced corporations have responsibilities to their owners, shareholders and then management, nothing else. corporate rates or the get from a.

there's plenty of analysis come from incorporating but don't have any responsibilities just to themselves. these two things together and decisions over to private tyrannies who have no responsibility other than to enrich themselves, margaret thatcher comes along and says there's no society, just individualism. somehow there managing on the market they're supposed to survive in. the first step both reagan and thatcher took was to destroy any possible defense against this assault. their first steps first were to attack labor unions with mostly illegal measures like strikebreakers. that opened the door to corporations doing the same. the one way people have to

defend themselves mainly by organizing, put all this away and you don't have to be a genius to figure out what's going to happen. 40 years later it was started by the rand corporation. super respectable american corporation. so they tried to estimate the transfer of wealth. the transfer of wealth from the low 90 percent of the population, middle class and working class to the very top which turns out to be a fraction of one percent. their estimate was $50 trillion during the 4 years of neoliberalism. an underestimate included things that are now pages when reagan came in. he opened the state to

businesses to do whatever they like. taxing have been illegal before that block by the treasury department.ke that's probably another tens of trillions of dollars .he but changed the rules on corporate management which the government sets, allowing ceos to. >> stock options instead of sellers. that means anything you can do to raise the stock with buyback stock was great.it may ruin the corporationbut good for you, you get higher income . also of course executives were permitted to everyone awards that would determine he their salary. just take a look at the figures. ceos salaries have

skyrocketed carrying top management along with them. same with public safety. university presidents, and meanwhile a majority of the population gets buy from payday payday in a precarious his existence. it's a major assault on the population and it's happened all over the world.ra australia, europe, not as severe as the united states but severe. the effect of that is people are angry, disillusioned, resentful. very easy prey to demagogues of the trump variety who say i'll see you it is a distrust for everything. why should i believe what the center of disease control says aboutthe pandemic ?

there are probably just runaway crooks in washington. i don't believe anything they say . you have the breakdown of the social order. it's happeningall over the world . >> .. >> one is the growing threat of

nuclear war, which would basically end modern civilization as we know it. the other is destruction of the environment, inexorable. we know it has to be done. we're not doing it. if we don't turn that corner pretty soon, we'll reach irreversible tipping points, and it will just be a matter of slow moves towards catastrophe, irrevocable catastrophe. that in addition to what is right on the front pages, that's in the background of it. so there's plenty to be on everyone's mind. >> well, professor, you've been active for decades on nuclear war, economic policy, social justice, what's the progress that you think you've made, or that the world has made?

>> there has been -- over long periods, there has been progress. 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 check -- think back to what the society was say in 1960, 60 years ago, this was a society in which we literally had laws against [inaudible] which were so extreme that the nazis refuse to accept them.

the rights of women were still not recognized. it wasn't until 1975 that women had the legal right, guaranteed legal right to serve on federal juries. that means to be regarded as peers, as persons, not property, which they basically were in the british common law that the country took over. in many respects, rights were not respected. all that's changed. that's an improvement beginning in the late 70s. there was a shift in the nature of the state capitalist system, which was described in the

previous comment that moved towards the new liberal system that has been quite harsh for the general population here and in fact across the world, led to enormous concentration of wealth, of precarious existence for many, so the understandable feelings of anger, resentment, distrust of authority, contempt for institutions, that can take positive forms, changes for the better, and there are such elements. it can also take very dangerous forms, and i'm old enough to remember 90 years ago when there

was as today very serious threats, the threat of a depression, much worse than anything today. my own extended family was first generation immigrants, working class, mostly -- [inaudible]. 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, a revised labor movement, cio organizing militant labor tactics led the

way to the new deal measures which pioneered postwar social democracy, an enormous [inaudible] to the population. that's one way out. the other way out was what happened to europe, sank to the depths of the fascist horror. those were the ways out. there's some resonances today. it would be ironic if the united states continues to unravel and move towards a kind of [inaudible] fascism while europe hangs on to the threads of social democracy that have resisted the new liberal assault and perhaps revised these very

positive tendencies. 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 have 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's the money? in new york banks. 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's yours to obtain when you need it. not in this case. the u.s. government has stepped in, not just in this case, 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 people of afghanistan who are starving had nothing to do at all with 9/11.

in fact, those with good memories will recall that the taliban offered total surrender, which meant -- which would have meant handing over to the united states the suspects in the 9/11 attack, the al qaeda suspects, and remember, at the time, they were suspects. the fbi informed months later that they suspected them but didn't have definitive evidence. taliban offered to turn them over. the u.s. reaction was we do not do surrenders -- [inaudible] echoed by george bush -- rumsfeld, sorry, echoed by george w. bush. well, now the afghan people have

to starve to death because we hold their funds. there are other things happening in the world. 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. the government, which is the main responsible for the disaster, along with the uae, saudi arabia had been blockading, in fact intensifying its blockade at 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 toll is unknown. again, the united nations warns that hundreds of thousands of children are facing imminent starvation. the [inaudible] and the emirate air forces cannot function without u.s. equipment, u.s. intelligence, u.s. training, assisted by britain, at a lesser level a few others, but the u.s. is in the lead. well, these are things we can change, the things that should be uppermost in our minds always. what can we do? what can we do about suffering, misery, major problems in the

world, whether it's existential problems that threaten the existence of the species, like global warming and nuclear war, or whether it's the terrible, miserable suffering of people of ukraine under brutal violent aggression by the russian army, or people starving to death in afghanistan or in yemen. we could mention other things. but what can we do about all those things? that's what we have to be asking ourselves. that's what should be on everyone's mind. >> and this is your chance to talk with the professor. if you have been interested in public policy for the last 50, 60 years, chances are you have heard of the professor, perhaps

read some of his hundreds of books. the numbers are on the screen. 748-8201 if you live in the mountain and pacific time zones. you can also send a text message, including your first name and your city. 202-748-8903 for text messages only. we also have several social media ways of getting ahold of us. we'll scroll through those on the screen. i want to quote the professor from one of your most recent books, requiem, for the american dream, and you say that some of the problems of governance in the u.s. today stem from an excess of democracy. why do you say that? >> actually i didn't say that. i quoted it. the quote is from the -- a very important study about 40 years

ago, 50 years ago, 197 -- it is the first study of the trilateral commission. that's 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 the ranks. so that group of people in the united states, their counterparts in europe and japan, the 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 the society, led to the developments that i mentioned briefly before. the trilateral commission warned that there's a crisis of democracy. the crisis is what you quoted, an excess of democracy. there's too much democracy. what's happening they described during the 60'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 often called special interests, young people, old people, working people, women,

farmers, minorities. these people are not supposed to be making noises in the political arena. they are supposed to be quiet, obedient, apathetic, show up every couple of years to push a button, go home -- [inaudible] and then go home and let others decide for them what to do. well, that excess of democracy they said is putting too much of a burden on the state, so we must have what they called moderation in democracy. people should return to their passivity and obedience. they also talked about particular sectors of 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, calling for civil rights, women's rights, other things which are just too much. that's the liberal internationalists. 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 [inaudible] administration. it was meant to be secret. this is a man who richard nixon appointed to the supreme court, justice powell a little bit later. powell 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. the document was intended to be confidential, but it surfaced pretty soon. so it's available publicly and was then. the memorandum urged the business community to take up a forceful reaction to the attack on business that was going on in the 60s, as a business [inaudible] being persecuted. the rate of profit is declining. we are under attack. the universities have been taken over by crazed radicals led by herbert [inaudible] who almost nobody ever heard of.

the business world is under attack by ralph nader who is demanding that automobiles have safety measures built in and moving for consumer rights and consumer safety and other domains. the business world can't tolerate all these attacks. then he went 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. in fact, that resonated, and it was the part of the background which led to the liberal reaction that i was quoted in the early remarks before the program began, the roughly 50

trillion dollars robbery of the middle class and working class that's taken place in the past 40 years, since it started in the late carter years, escalated under reagan and in britain under thatcher, spread around the world, under u.s. power, structural adjustment programs which imposed by the imf which under u.s. domination 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 write about when it appeared and i've 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 neo liberal programs were developed, imposed. we've been living under that assault for 40 years with pretty harsh effects. i mean there are harsher effects in other countries. so what actually happened in the late 70s, there was what was called -- pretty high inflation in the united states, and the carter administration responded

to it with a very sharp rise in interest rates, which increased under the reagan years. well, during the 1970s, countries like mexico and other countries of the south had been urged by the world bank, u.s.-run world bank, they'd been urged to take extensive loans, mostly from u.s. banks, citi bank -- citigroup conglomerate, many others, and they were deeply in debt. well, when the high interest rates were introduced, their debt is linked to u.s. interest rates. they were in deep trouble. they couldn't pay.

they began to default. they had to take loans from the international monetary fund, which imposed harsh conditionalities. they had to cut back social spending, cut back efforts of development and other similar measures which devastated the populations, and it had horrifying effects in much of the third world, yugoslavia which had been more or less a functioning country fell apart under the impact of the structural [inaudible] programs which intensified, i think, conflicts, laid the background for the horrors that took place in the early 90s. the worst case was actually

rwanda in the 1970s. there already had been significant conflicts between [inaudible]. it was basically the same conflict. my friend had written about it in the 70s. 1980s, rwanda like other countries was hit very hard by the structural adjustment programs, and the society which was already very fragile collapsed, and the conflicts that existed were extensively intensified. well, i won't 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, and the rich countries like the united states, it's pretty much what was described by the rand corporation. that's all part of the neo 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. dwight eisenhower, the last conservative president in the traditional sense of the world conservative, eisenhower, if you read his statements sounds like a 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. anybody who denies working people the right to unionize, a firm central 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 from the remnants of what remains of the party that he represented. it is 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 the professor. >> caller: thank you, peter. thank you, professor, for your amazing career. continuing with president eisenhower, his famous statement about the emergence of the military industrial complex. so we have 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 team macro weapons of the tanks and the jet

[inaudible] and the naval ships. what do you make of this transition to micro warfare and its implications? thank you. >> host: thank you, ma'am. >> guest: it heralds a new era of warfare which is more dangerous, more threatening for everyone. let me just ask a 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, and there's an 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 u.s. diplomatic corps, ambassador freeman, highly respected properly individual with a wonderful record. couple of days ago, he came out in an interview and said u.s. policy seems to be to fight the russians to the last ukrainian. that's the policy. we'll keep -- formulated no feasible goals that could 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. more russians will die. it goes nowhere, just towards further escalation. well, is there a possible diplomatic settlement? yes, there is. chaz 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 in rough outline a neutralized ukraine, not part the military block and an internal settlement that will guarantee the rights of the

russian-speaking minority provide probably some form of federal solution, like switzerland, belgium, others, in which minority groups have a degree of autonomy in their own regions. it is actually formulated in an agreement called [inaudible]. some version of that has to be the possible outcome, and as freeman again stressed, if we don't want to just fight to the last ukrainian, we have to offer vladimir putin an escape hatch. he has to have some way to escape from this without what amounts to suicide. 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, for the ukrainians, it is 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 a degree of autonomy for the russian-ore yepted areas -- oriented areas. those things are on the table. the u.s. isn't supporting them. the u.s. actually has an official policy. unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have been reported in the united states press. at least i can't find it. but the policy is there. you can read it in government documents. i actually have quoted it repeatedly in things i've been writing. the policy was set in september 2021, september 1st, 2021. there was a joint statement of the u.s. 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 and

amplifying the policy that had been in effect for many years. it's worth reading. it 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. it is called nato, but it means u.s. 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. i'm paraphrasing it, but it is roughly that. well, that's a call for the horrors that have followed. it didn't just start then. it's been going on for actually 28 years. you look back to the clinton -- let's go back to the george h. w. bush administration, the first president bush, in 1990 and 1991. the soviet union was collapsing. there were intensive discussions with george bush, james baker, secretary of state, his russian counterpart, mikhail gorbachev, the germans, who were extensively involved in this. the question was, what would be

the shape of the post-cold war world with the soviet union collapsing? well, there were several visions. gorbachev's vision was what he called a common european home, from the atlantic, from lisbon all the way to [inaudible]. no military blocks, common european home, neutral accommodation. this was actually an extension of a program of charles de gaulle in earlier years. recently macron has been -- [inaudible] something similar. common european home incorporating russia within a

european and maybe eurasian peaceful system with no military blocks. that was one vision. the other one is -- this goes back 50 or 60 years -- the u.s. vision called atlanticist, based on the atlantic alliance, based on nato and europe, which the u.s. dominates and controls. that's a deep issue in world affairs. it goes back to the end of the second world war, where europe subordinated in the united states within the atlanticist nato framework or will it move towards a european common home along the lines of de gaulle -- [inaudible] gorbachev's proposals in 1990?

this u.s. had no interest in -- actually opposed the european common home, but it did have a compromised version, and that was what was agreed by bush and baker in the united states, germany, gorbachev and russia. germany would be unified and would join nato, which is quite a concession on the part of the russians. recall their history. germany alone had practically destroyed russia several times in the past half century to allow a unified germany to join a possible military alliance was not a small step. gorbachev agreed on a condition, the condition was that nato

would not move one inch to the east beyond germany. 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 documents. no ambiguity. well, gorbachev agreed to that. the bush baker administration adhered to it. they adhered to it. clinton came in a couple years later. the first few years of the clinton administration, he also adhered to the agreement. by 1994, with his eye on

domestic politics, minority voting groups, [inaudible] 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 [inaudible], clinton agreed, invited several east european countries on the borders of russia to join nato. well, yeltzen was very close to clinton. clinton intervened tov him elected -- to have him elected in 1996. yeltzen bitterly objected to this, so did gorbachev, so did every russian leader. u.s. statesman george kennon,

jack matlock, and former ambassador under reagan leading russia specialists in the government, numerous other -- henry kissinger, numerous others pointed out to washington they are making a terrible mistake. i should say that includes the current cia director william burns and former cia director stanfield turner, william curry, secretary of defense under clinton was so outraged by this, he practically resigned in protest. fifty specialists in russia wrote a warning letter 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 to shreds. 2008, he 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 u.s. diplomats and russia specialists and so on understood perfectly that for russia, there are some definite red lines that no russian leader will tolerate, none, yeltzen, gorbachev, anyone, that's ukraine and georgia, right within the russian strategic land joining a

hostile military alliance. they will never accept that. u.s. forged ahead. the september 2021 policy statement amplifies it, states it 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 u.s. statesmen, 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. it would never -- not mexico,

not anywhere in latin america. and remember, the cuban missile crisis, inconceivable. notice that this is no infringement on the sovereignty of mexico. mexico is essentially neutral. it is not part of any military alliance. it has restrictions. it cannot do what i just described. it cannot join the chinese-run military alliance, carry out military operations with the peoples liberation army, get training and advanced weaponry from chinese military experts, place weapons on the border aimed at washington. nobody bothers to say this. it is perfectly well understood. notice that what i've just described is the september 2021

u.s. official policy on ukraine and russia. well, none of that justifies the russian aggression which is a kind of crime that ranks with the u.s. invasion of iraq, the hitler stalin invasion of poland, other examples of what the nuremberg tribunal called the supreme international crime, crime of aggression, not in defense. nothing justifies that. but to understand is not to justify. to understand is important, if we care about ukrainians, and even if we care about world peace, because this thing could escalate easily to a major conflict with the u.s., with

nato, which would go on to a terminal nuclear war. so we should try to understand and again recognizing that understanding is not justifying. the people i mentioned, like george cannon, henry kissinger, william perry, william burns, cia director, many others, cannon is no longer with us would not be justifying the russian aggression when they explain the background for it, if which we play a role and continue to play a role by not joining today and offering and 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 backed by england is you're finished, putin. you're done. war crimes trials, permanent sanctions, no way out for you, we're telling putin, as freeman said it, 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. 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. >> host: you are watching book tv on c-span 2. joining is the professor who since his first appearance on

this program has written dozens more books. the next call for him comes from maureen in toms river, new jersey. go ahead, maureen. >> caller: hello, professor. i'm a great admirer of yours, and it is a pleasure to even speak with you. i wondered about your thoughts and any optimism about the recent [inaudible] location in new york had unionized and now with the amazon warehouses in staten island unionizing, if you see any of that having an effect emboldening people throughout the country to start unionizing and recognizing they can take this power into their own hands. >> host: thank you, maureen. let's get a response. she was talking about amazon unionizing and if you think

that's a good sign and your other thoughts of those types of issues. >> guest: well, labor has been under bitter attack throughout this whole neo liberal period. you may recall that reagan's first action was to attack unions, using what were internationally regarded as illegal means, permanent replacement workers. there was a bitter attack on the labor movement. margaret thatcher, who was carrying out the same programs in england, opened her programs the same way, major attack on unions. that opened the door to private corporations saying okay, we can do it too. caterpillar and others launched anti-union activities, also

using internationally banned methods, like scabs 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 nafta, the agreement with mexico and canada was bitterly attacked by the labor movement. actually they were in favor 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, congress's research bureau, which has since been disbanded. congress doesn't seem to want independent information, but it existed then. 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 the corporate-based system, low wage, low growth, but great for profits. well, that was nafta. that was later extended to [inaudible] the world trade organization agreements which have the same properties that go into the details.

it is 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, a study was undertaken under nafta rules by kate bronson brenner, a labor historian at cornell university, under nafta rules, 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 government to apply labor laws led to a very sharp reduction in union organizing, by illegal means. a business couldn't -- if there was an effort at organizing, a business couldn't put up a

banner saying transfer operation mexico. -- [inaudible] call in workers for obligatory saying you go ahead with this unionizing, 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 now major industries worked 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, the unionization declines, under attack from a state corporate program of attacking labor. that's what it amounts to. well, going back to the amazon strike, it's a dramatic break from that, despite the enormous advantages that corporate business system has been given by state criminality, which is what it is, despite the enormous advantages, amazon workers in staten island managed to win an election. they will be immediately under attack by amazon, by the kinds of means as described, but it is a small victory. there are a couple of others.

there are small signs of revival of labor -- actually started in non-unionized areas, in red states, like my state, arizona, west virginia, that began with teachers, teachers who were not unionized began to strike for not just for higher wages, but for better conditions for children. part of the neo liberal programs has been defund, defund education to try to destroy the public education system. in fact, 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 the late 19 -- early 20th century, the united states pioneered, led the world in developing public education, mass public education, enormous contribution to democracy and to the health of society. it's an american achievement at the university level too. the grants for universities, unfortunately taking away native american land wasn't pretty, but these land grants enabled the establishment of major universities. the united states has great state universities. mit where i taught all my life was actually a land grant university. that was an enormous

contribution. during the neo liberal period, it's been under sharp attack. i quoted the crisis of democracy calling for more indock tri nation of the youth, bitter attack on the educational system -- indoctrination of the youth, bitter attack on the education system. funding for state college universities has sharply declined, also part of the k to 12 level, all part of the effort to destroy one of the major contributions of the united states towards democracy and public welfare. it's still continuing. well, 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 no possibility of dealing with the children. teachers were fights not just for better salaries which they richly deserve, but for 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 supportering the teachers -- 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 badly need. the republican 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. the 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 have devastated the labor movements since reagan. well, the biden administration has actually been trying to do it, but it's been blocked by 100% rock solid republican opposition, joined by a few right wing democrats so it can't get through.

just very recently, a very good representative appointment who was pro-labor was blocked. there's a big battle to overcome. i should remember as i said, i'm old enough to remember the early 1930s, and it's kind of similar. :: the wake of that oppression began to revise.

there were labor actions, sitdown strikes. under that impetus there was a sympathetic administration. you've got the new deal measures which have greatly improved the lives of americans, enormous way and lead the world to the post-war social democratic movement. well, maybe you will begin today but it's going to be a battle, a major battle. the amazon victor is a striking example of what could be done at its a long call. the attack on labor continues right now, relentless theatre and it will take plenty of dedication and commitment. as those who we have an hour left with their guest noam

chomsky this afternoon and we will continue to take your calls. noam chomsky has appeared on c-span 28 times. national reputation really sprang forth in 1967 when he wrote responsibility of intellectuals essay in the roof looks and it was in 1989 that he gave a lecture on thought control in modern society. here's a portion. >> the title of this book i suppose you saw somewhere is necessary illusion, thought control in a democratic society. the title is intended to be -- it should be. thought control is indoctrination inconsistent with democracy therefore one can't have a control in a democratic society. there is a standard view about this matter. the standard view is for example

by supreme court justice powell 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. he happens to be thinking about the media and their crucial role in effecting societal views and similarly remarks could be made and should be made about publishing about intellectual life generally. the media are particularly important in providing free access to information and opinion and therefore allowing the democratic trusts us to function in an equal way. the media fulfills with "the new york times" on sunday called their traditional jeffersonian role as a counter bound -- counterbalance to government power and if one takes strippers

and seriously which you may or may not take himself he would have presumably gone further seeking not just counter don't sing different power. other concentrations of power specifically the kinds of development in the jeffersonian. corporate power which is the dominant feature of modern social life. all of this seems obvious and 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 artisans of modern democracy and revelations of 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 in their public speeches which were

removing the cloak of mystery behind which the parliament were carrying out their narrower struggle. these people were in their words, they were people who wanted to be representative not by lords and gentry. by men of their own kind and who know the people and observing their activities. one contemporary historian warns that by revealing the workings of power they will make the people so curious and so that they will never find humility to submit to a civil rule which is a big problem. well after these radical democrats had been crushed john locke wrote day laborers and tradesmen and mates was -- must

be told what to believe. these concerns arose once again during the american revolution as they typically do during popular revelations and it was not until the 1780s that the radical democrats in the american revolution were crushed and there was no more thought that people would be representative by men of their own kind who know the people sorts. they would be representative by those qualified who rule over them assuming they were permitted to make a selection in the democratic clinical system which follows the principle laid down at the founding fathers that those who own the country ought to govern it. like john jay.

all of this comes to the present and i won't go back in history but it's a rich addiction expressing the same views that come down to the present. in a modern version a revered foreign-policy analyst he explains his words rationality along to the cool observer. because of the of the average man he follows not reason. fate and this faith relies upon necessary illusions. i thank him for offering me my title. this faith relies upon necessary illusion and emotionally potent oversimplifications which have to be provided by the cool observers, folks like us. walter lippman dean of american journalism talked about

manufacturing defense which has become a self-conscious art in the regular oriented popular government in a revolution in effect to democracy and that's appropriate because the common interest eludes public opinion entirely and can be managed only by a special class people who are cool observers. the same concerns explain a good deal of the fear of the radical movements after the present so for example in the early 19th century the czar of russia was deeply concerned about the contagion of revolutionary ideas coming from american democracy which may undermine the conservative world order that they were presiding over over and a century later the roles were reversed in the same ideas were expressed at a time when woodrow wilson sent troops to

join the west against the bolsheviks. they warned that the bolsheviks were quoting we are feeling the ignorance who by their very numbers are urged to become masters. the same ideas appear explicitly in the public relations industry, the patron said saint of the modern public ruling shuns and robert bernays in the krill can -- and engineering of consent which he says is the essence of democracy and something which he practiced in demonizing his democratic capitalist government of guatemala working for the united company in the early 50's paving the way for the cia coup.

the public relations industry by the end of center describes a path of controlling the public mind educating the american people about the economic facts of life to ensure a favorable climate and and a proper understanding of the lippman called the proper interest. the public mind is a serious danger confronting the company. and those problems have done with us ever since there's also an academic twists all of this. one of the leading political scientist a major figure in the field of communications allen blackwell wrote an interesting commentary on this in 1933 for

the international cyclopedia social sciences the entry of propaganda. those are more honest days people call them what they were. he wrote an entry on the propaganda in which he explained that we must succumb to did democratic dogmatism's about their own interests. the best judges of the elite to must be ensured the means to impose their will for the common good. that means he said are a whole new control largely through propaganda and if necessary to do this because of the ignorance and superstition of the masses. he explained why it's particularly important in a democracy. not the case that indoctrination is inconsistent with democracy rather it's the essence of democracy. the point is in a military state or feudal state or were we would

call nowadays the totalitarian state it doesn't matter what people think because they have a bludgeon over their heads and you can control what they do. you can control -- but when the state can't control people by force and then the voice of the people can't be heard you have this problem. it may make people so curious and so 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 they don't get out of control. >> host: that was noam chomsky and 1989 when it 28 experience experience -- appearances professor chomsky is made over the years. he joins us live from his home in tucson, arizona and the next call for him as for michael in

miami. these go ahead and ask your question. >> yes hello and thank you mr. noam for your humanity and your scholarship. my question and if you answer yes i believe the reason you are doing so is because we here in the south and i'm calling you from broward county which is probably the school district that is being the most attacked by her governor and a lot of the forces you describe and covering it and i don't know people have read. >> host: michael would assure question? >> caller: oh sure. our governor i'm going to come out and say wish to increase covid herd immunity in order to increase what he viewed as a benefit but it's a defamation when you're pushing something

like herd immunity. the definition of genocide is a direct quote and using students in it. >> host: so covid herd immunity is the question governor desantis in florida, noam chomsky. >> caller: the question is about governor desantis and covid amina take? >> host: covid herd immunity, yes sir. >> guest: there is unfortunately a powerful anti-vaccination movement in the united states. desantis is played a role in it in his refusing vaccinations. following policies by serious

health officials in florida and elsewhere. i think this is seriously prolonging a significant crisis. there are 1 million americans who have already died. the hospitals are overflowing with mostly unvaccinated patients and of course it provides a pool for future and more mutations. we have the means to if not eradicate, greatly control and diminish the harm caused by the coronavirus infections and also to prevent or at least to limit the possible mutations which

could be much more harmful than what exists now. the means exist in the path they followed. if they are not followed there will be more suffering, more pain, more deaths, more crushing of hospitals. many hospitals have literally had to suspend normal operations just because of the overflow of largely unvaccinated patients filling up the covid ward. i have experienced that myself but it's very serious. i think it's a major problem and there's a lot to do. there's more to say about this. it's critically important to get

vaccination advanced in the large regions of the world which have not had access to two vaccines and only limited access. rich countries europe and the united states in the early part of this plague tended to monopolize the vaccines for themselves. the european record is worse than the u.s. record in the biden administration has taken some steps to try to break through the monopolization. a large part of which goes back to the world trade organization as i mentioned earlier which provided free trade agreements that are not free trade. they provide extreme protectionist measures to ensure

very high profits for pharmaceutical corporations for megamedia corporations and intellectual property rights which allow them to way overcharge and make extraordinary profits even though in the case of the pharmaceutical industry much of the research and development is actually done at the public's expense and the modern -- moderna vaccine. the roles of the mislabeled free trade agreements allow them to have basically monopoly pricing grabs while the germans have been even more adamant in protecting us than we have. the effect has been to deprive

large part of the world of the vaccines that they need. this is a threat to us as well, not just to them. it means we have a large pool of unvaccinated people which provide the virus opportunities to mutate as it does rapidly and nobody knows what the next variant might tee. we have so far been kind of lucky in the variants that have appeared over the years that have either been highly lethal but not very contagious like ebola or highly contagious but not very lethal like omicron. the point is back to what i said before the question is what can we do? what we can do is apply the means that are available, and

sense of vaccination, protected spaces for people who want to be safe from infection comment distancing, masks and many mechanisms that can be used to reduce the spread of infection and to ameliorate the crisis and largely overcome it. we have to pursue those measures. florida under desantis does not have a good record on this. >> host: jim and caliente, california california. you were on with noam chomsky. >> caller: thank you very much for taking my call him professor to great honor to talk to you. my question is basically the internet. your thoughts on it. it has not been that long since he came into being the last 20

or 25 years and its senses taken over the world so thank you very much. >> host: professor? >> guest: didn't quite catch it i'm sorry. >> host: the impact of the internet over the past 20 to 25 years. >> guest: the impact of the internet. quite a story. i was present at the origin of what is now the internet. in the 1950s i was at the research laboratory of electronics at m.i.t. which is where the early ideas were formulated. it became what was called the orb net that later turned into the internet. interesting to remember the internet was over my --

overwhelmingly like computers generally and develops public funding in what was a largely publicly created achievement. later it was privatized for-profit but that was many years later in the 90s. the internet has now become a major phenomenon. it has mixed consequences. the internet does allow us to discover things that we otherwise would not have known. it offers tremendous access to information. for years i have worked on, many years, 50 years back to the article you mentioned how the media operate as a kind of

combination of an information and indoctrination system, a combination of both. i used to have to go to the library and look up on microfilm machines and try to find what was in "the new york times" two years ago. now i can do it like clicking a button. you can find things that you never would have found and as i quoted before a crucially important document, crucially important september of 2021 the u.s. government policy statement on ukraine. you can find that on the internet and you aren't going to find it in the media. even if he went to libraries you wouldn't find it. now you can pick it up from a white house official on the internet page.

it's a tremendous source of potential information and enlightenment. i stress potential. it matters how you use it and unfortunately it's often used to limited understanding and to restrict information. there is a natural tendency to understand even partially sure it to turn towards the internet sites which reinforce your own position. i know i'm going to hear the case thanks that i'd like so i turned to that in that tents to create bubbles of self-reinforcing doctrines and ideas where people become downright because they are

hearing and being reinforced by what they want to hear. that's a very widespread phenomenon and i think we are all familiar with it and it's quite dangerous. it is undermining the possibilities of interchange and interaction across society which are. requisite for a functioning democratic society based on informed electorate aware of the views of others, understanding the views of others and 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, it the time, mostly younger population. i was in my 40s at the time so i was one of the old folks. this is deteriorating. while the internet could be a mechanism of liberation and enlightenment it can also be an instrument of control, indoctrination, divisiveness and a break down of social order. it has all that potential unlike a lot of technology. a hammer doesn't care whether you use it to build a house or a torturer uses it to crush somebody's skull. the hammer is indifferent. a lot of technology is like

that. the internet is an example. the enormous force for enlightenment with mutual aid and mutual understanding. we have to make that decision. the internet is not going to make it for us. posted on is calling from el paso, texas. please go ahead. you were were on booktv. >> i hope you don't mind if i change my question. i first was going to ask if the united nations could solve the problems in yemen and afghanistan and ukraine. now i'm really concerned with whether or not you think economic sanctions or an act of war. >> host: did you catch that professor? >> guest: it's worth remembering that sanctions, if

sanctions are carried out by the american nations they are legal. we can ask whether they are advisable but they are at least legal. most of the sanctions are carried out by the united states. actually more than half the worlds population is now under one or another form of u.s. sanction. the united states is using sanctions wildly to punish people. sometimes with some justification and maybe sometimes not. we do not want a world, or at least i don't want a world in which one country who has enormous force behind it is

capable of deciding who gets sanctioned. that's not a livable world. sometimes the sanctions are grotesque. take cuba. for 60 years cuba has been under attack by the united states. begin with the kennedy administration. kennedy carried out a major terrorist war against cuba not much discussed here but it was real and very serious and it led to the missile crisis that almost destroyed us. then harsh sanctions were imposed. they continued when russian support was withdrawn in cuba faced really serious problems because that was the limited support it was getting under the sanctions regime.

the bill clinton outflanked the republicans from the right by increasing the sanctions and decreasing the torture and then came the law which made it even. u.s. sanctions were called third-party sanctions. others have to adhere to u.s. sanctions even if they oppose them. in the case of cuba dramatically the whole world opposes. take a look at the annual votes in the united nations on the cuba sanctions. they are condemned every year. by now they are condemned by everyone. the last vote was 184-2. two was the united states and israel which has to follow u.s.

orders. it doesn't need to observe the sanctions but why do other countries observe u.s. sanctions even though they oppose them? because they are afraid of the united states. it's a frightening country. europe opposes the sanctions and opposes the iran sanctions but it has to go it alone because you can't step on the toes of the node -- of the united states the united states that the united states the biggest dangers the united states has the capacity to throw countries out of the international financial system which mostly went to new york and other measures. no one is willing to face that so countries can't provide the

medical equipment and sell something that uses a nickel they imported from cuba. what is the reason for this? 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. it's not perfect but a lot of material gets declassified unlike other countries and that's a very good thing. so we can look back through the records of the kennedy and johnson administration in the 1960s and ask why the torture of cuba and it is torture. well, the reason is and i'm quoting, successful defiance of u.s. policies going back to the

1820s to the monroe doctrine which established the u.s. right to dominate the hemisphere and turn the hemisphere into a sphere of influence for the united states. back in the 1820s united states wasn't powerful enough to implement. britain was much more powerful. over time it was protected by u.s. leaders john quincy adams and others. british power waned in american power increased increased and finally the u.s. was able to impose the monroe doctrine. cuba was acting in successful defiance of demand to dominate the hemisphere and determine what happens here. so we have to torture them and make them suffer.

brutally and europe joins in. the whole world joined then because they are afraid of the united states. and the same with the sanctions on iran. there was an agreement to cpl a the joint agreement on nuclear weapons signed under the obama administration. iran lived up to it completely. u.s. intelligence confirms that iran completely lived up to the agreement. it sharply limited iran's capacity to develop nuclear systems whether they intended to develop nuclear weapons we don't know. president trump dismantled it and tore to shreds, violating

security council orders. security council had ordered countries maintained jcpoa. trump decided i don't like it i'm going to tear it apart and destroy it and then he punished iran for the u.s. violation of security council quarters by imposing harsh sanctions on iran. europe bitterly opposed it but they have to conform for the reasons i mentioned. it's now maintained by the biden administration. there was a chance that they might able to restore the agreement. we can look to the rest of the world. sanctions u.n. sanctions which again one can debate whether

they are right or wrong. at least they are legitimate. u.s. sanctions have total legitimacy and would other countries if other countries were imposing. it's mostly the u.s. weapon and we should look into them closely. there are some about which we have extensive evidence if we want to learn. take the clinton administration clinton blair u.s.-uk sanctions on iraq in the 1990s. very harsh sanctions. they were administered through the u.n. but they were basically u.s. british sanctions. the first distinguished

international diplomats who administered the sanctions. the first was an irish diplomat dennis halliday. he resigned in protest because he said the sanctions were genocidal. he said they are bitterly harming iraqi civilians and hundreds of thousands of children are dying and many others are being destroyed and they are not harming saddam hussein. in fact he's gaining. the population is suffering it has to shelter under the umbrella of the brutal government which did have an effect that rational in policy. strengthening the tyrant, arming the population to the point where genocidal should be resigned. it was replaced by another

distinguished international diplomat hans von spaun. he had researchers all over the country observing what was happening to anybody in the west. he resigned in protest because as he put it the sanctions are genocidal. he reiterated to strengthen what dennis halliday had said any also published an important book called a different kind of war in which he described in detail the brutality and sadism of the u.s. british sanctions and what they were doing to the population while they were string cloning -- strengthening the tyrant. we are not a fascist country so the book isn't technically banned. try to find it. i don't think there's a single

review in the united states or in britain. silence. it's worth reading. you can find out in detail, extensive detail what sanctions are like when they are applied in a brutal and manner. you can't prove it. he kind of suggests it and there is supposedly to this that the sanctions may have saved from being overthrown from within. that happens to a lot of tyrant u.s.-backed tyrants. marcos in the philippines romania, the of the gangsters in the soviet system varies

strongly supported by the united states until virtually the day of its overthrow. one after another they were toppled by internal revolts. they happened in south korea and possibly could have happened in iraq. under the conditions of the sanctions which so punish the population and the more allies them and force them to shelter under the umbrella that there was no possibility of overthrowing the government. that's one case of sanctions where we can learn a great deal. his book is very detailed and instructive that we can only learn it if we try. or if we just want to accept any

indoctrination, okay and it doesn't matter that it's a free country. there are other cases you can look at. the usual discussion of sanctions is do they achieve their end? there is 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 u.s. demand. it's not the right question. the right question is what right does the united states have two destroy the agreement in violation of security council's orders to punish iran because we destroyed the agreement. that's the question that should be asked. what right do we have two compel others to adhere to our decision

to punish iranians because we withdrew from the agreement. those are the questions that we should be asking and similar questions can be asked in other cases. cuba is the obvious one. venezuela and others and remember u.s. sanctions are so widespread that they reach over half the worlds population. in the early part of this discussion i quoted chas freeman and one of the most highly-regarded right -- highly-regarded of the u.s. diplomatic corps. he also in the same interview described goes into the illegality and the cruelty of sanctions. >> host: in professor chomsky's book who rules the

world there's a chapter entitled the u.s. and the terrorist state. we have five minutes left with our guest for in albuquerque, go ahead. >> caller: thank you. the one issue that weighs heavily on my mind is immigration and i have a feeling it's only going to get because of the climate. 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 are in a desperate situation. i don't know if you agree that it's going to get because of global warming and what we should do. thank you. let's go thank you, maam. guess who i have got it. i'm not sure i got a come completely breaking your repeat the essence? host as she's concerned about immigration and she thinks it's going to get because of global climate change. >> guest: immigration is an interesting question. we don't have much time.

one thing we might do is look at the u.s. record on immigration. the u.s. is in an unusual position. it has extraordinary advantages. very low population density, enormous resources, huge empty spaces. but what is her history on immigration? up until the 20th century immigrants were welcomed from europe, immigrants. why? it's not a pretty story. we were wiping out in exterminating the indigenous population. the country was opened up for settlement and it needed lots o faces to come in and fill it. in 1920 orientals were blocked. there was an oriental exclusion act in -- 1882.

1924 the u.s. imposed its first strict immigration restriction. the words weren't use. in effect it was aimed at italians in. that's the effect of the immigration act of 1924. many people ended up in extermination camps because they couldn't get into the united states. that included the remnants of my extended family. this law stayed until 1865. other arrangements were made which are worth discussing if we have time for it. today the u.s. has, it's not alone. europe is even. europe is even more brutal

anti-immigration policies than the united states. europe has centuries devastating and destroying africa. it's now working hard to ensure that people escaping, trying to escape from the wreckage of the european separate jury can't make it to a european shores. europe even has a military installation in central africa initiator to try to pretend -- prevent miserable refugees from even making it to the mediterranean where they might enter european shores. if you want to feel good about it europe is even that our policies or are her in this. people who are fleeing from the destruction of their societies

by u.s. terror under reagan in the 1980s murderous operations killed hundreds of thousands of people and hundreds of dolphins of refugee orphans. much of it has extended. people are trying to escape. and the hunters there was a military coup in 2009 condemned by almost the entire continent except by obama and hillary clinton who basically supported it. turn the honduras into more of a horror chamber than it had been at the huge wave of flight back at the border separating parents from children at the border. it's. the pope, pope francis harper lee said the refugee crisis is

not a refugee crisis, it's a moral crisis of the wealthy and other rich. it's going to get much more extreme. we are now intensifying the threat and danger of global warming which will be devastating. it will lead to huge blight. countries like bangladesh are going to become unlivable. most of south asia is literally going to become virtually unlivable. large parts of africa. people will have to flee. hundreds of millions of people will have to flee. it's not so great here either. in arizona where i live there's a long drought that may have very severe consequences. it's the poor countries of the

world that will be shattered by this and yes there will be enormous immigration problems. the way to deal with it is to immediately stop our assault on the global environment. we are just destroying the environment which can sustain life on earth. we must start immediately following the strong advice of the scientific immunity like pcc that would cut back fossil fuels right away. a certain percentage every year right away in the use of fossil fuels. we are finished. >> host: professor chomsky we will close with this quick text

message to you. do you speak and have spoken for decades with conscience woven throughout the remarks and writings in the manner. professor chomsky has two new books coming out this year when his chomsky, new world in our hearts and "notes on resistance" both coming out this year and noam chomsky has been her guests for the last two hours on "in depth." >> certainly johnson's secretary's new because they were tasked with transcribing

many of those conversations. in fact they were the ones who made sure that the conversations were taped as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> i wonder reported the number of people assigned to kennedy the day he died and the numbers assigned to me now. i want them right quick. if i can ever go to the bathroom, i won't go. i promise you i won't go anywhere. i'll stay right behind these gates.

>> host: welcome dr. birx. i'm going to call you daddy. i have known you for many decades in the public