he mentioned a book by noam bookky, he put chomsky's new york times best- seller list. when you are trying to raise the country, does that not put you against headwind? does that make you automatically a heated and reviled figure by at least some people in the country? >> it depends on how you manage it. he had an opportunity to reach across and deal with the elite in this country, with the managerial and technical class. this is an oil based economy. the only thing that venezuela produces is oil. everything else the imports. chavez got into power and polarized the country, he attacked the elites and they left the country. the national oil company became politicized and suffer from low investment, declining production. the irony is that here is someone came in and had an opportunity to diversify the economy, to make it a more broadbased basis for economic growth and he is more reliant on the oil sector than ever. he is more reliant on the u.s. market than ever, even despite his attacks against the united states, so i think that is the question. he could have -- he clear

n.g.o.s is the agents and governments for you know could i you know listen if i want to play my noam chomsky card i could say you know solving the aids crisis in africa for some people means you have more consumers divide g.m. products you know it is that kind of all true left stuff interests me not a whit i'm interested in what can be done about aids in africa and you know the fact that big develop. and geos take money from government does not seem to me something that should be the main focus of our attention let alone of our indignation. is there the right attention right now for development because a lot of people say it's the expense of other things the development strategy of today is not positive not strong enough global justice should be applied those kinds of ideas. i think that's a political question i was ok. yeah and what how you developed countries is also very political whether aid is a good idea to help countries develop or whether free market mechanisms should be at play again i think that we have a huge debate among non-governmental organizations scholars journalists as well

you can obviously in this time, chomsky is obvious, robert but it is obvious, but dionne that it's hardthere is an historian, russell jacoby wrote a book a few decades ago called the last intellectual and the themis academe was cut in and out, preventing it. but academe is not a place for public intellectuals, rather a research tenure process makes that impossible. and no, erik erikson came out to teach without any decrees that all in 1960 and the faculty was overwhelmingly opposed. no publications, no degrees. so luckily, recent told by me he's going to be the best teacher in the history of harvard, which he was. so my furies note. also on the world probably better, but not great. that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. that okay? >> absolutely. >> i love how you talked about all the separate lives over time and they were very discreet as some of them overlapped. have you had any thought if you were to be alive today and do you think he would have evolved into another life or can you need a particular one? state that i like it is easy questions. what would happen? i think he would be very

plus seventy years you know copyright is important i do believe there is copyright i mean even noam chomsky copyright says material you know many people believe in copyright but it can be very oppressive and i don't agree with the disney decision at all right so we have some common common ground here in terms of copyright as is currently in aerated is what lawrence lessig would call perpetual copyright and it's extremely damaging to artists because what happens is that ideas end up being perpetually locked up behind corporate firewalls and this isn't doing anybody any good so i mean it seems as though we agree on that's not part of this this debate well i absolutely agree but i think that art is sometimes make very foolish decisions like signing to a major label like one of the reasons we call ourselves thievery corporation is that we're a d.i.y. company we never signed to a major label we own our copyrights we set up our own distribution networks and we financed everything we bootstrapped it and financed everything for a self we never sold our souls to any major label or any large corporat

plus seventy years you know copyright is important i do believe there is copyright i mean even noam chomsky copyright says material you know many people believe in copyright but it can be very oppressive and i don't agree with the disney decision at all right so we have some common common ground here in terms of copyright as is currently in aerated is what lawrence lessig would call perpetual copyright and it's extremely damaging to artists because what happens is that idea is end up being perpetually locked up behind corporate firewalls and this isn't doing anybody any good so i mean it seems as though we agree on that's not part of this of this debate well i absolutely agree but i think that art is sometimes make very foolish decisions like signing to a major label like one of the reasons we call ourselves the every corporation. why a company we never signed to a major label we own our copyrights we set up our own distribution network and we financed everything we bootstrapped it and financed everything for us sells we never sold our souls to any major label or any large corporation we're

a minute gnome chomsky who got us thinking about how to talk about what people know, linguistic competence. so i know everybody who is a native speaker of a language has a level of confidence, knows the difference between what's grammatical and what not and this is what we worked with for many decades. so people would care whether it's everybody raised their hand for everybody raised his hand for her hand, but when you actually talk with people, they say whatever, why are you so hung up on this? and 90 good as the next step and say okay for the record, which one is correct? i don't know. so this whole model we've had of what counts as knowledge, whether it's a standard language or dialect doesn't matter, your way of speaking and training people don't care as much is because language has become far more informal to rewrite the way we speak rather than having a different register. we're much more writing the movie speak became increasingly infernally and it doesn't matter to us anymore. new technologies for communicating command instant messages and the chats of the blogs are great avenues f

yet you listen to someone like chomsky and get the impression that his real cause was about the mill worker. he was very dedicated to their cause. i am wondering about your take and analysis on that. what was lincoln's purpose? guest: he was dedicated to the idea of the mill worker owning the mill. he put it slightly differently. the idea upward mobility is what informed his anti-slavery. i take issue about what he said about him being reluctant to sign the emancipation proclamation. the cabinet was composed of more radical abolitionist who insisted he table it until there was a union victory. the only reluctance he had of signing it in 1863 was that his hand was so sore from shaking hundreds of hands at a new year's day reception that he wanted to wait until he could massage it back to normalcy so his signature and will not look tremulous. he said his whole soul was in it. i believe him. host: david is on the line for republicans. caller: could lincoln have avoided the civil war by requiring federal minimum wage for all workers? the slaves would have been paid. there would not have

tom delay and republican members of the house about the nato bombing of serbia, and they sound like chomski read these house speeches. they are about america thinks it can do whatever it wants. we're bombing these buildings that have noncombatant civilians in them. huge opposition of bombing serbia, largely because it was a democratic president. that kind of foreign policy impulse towards not using the military as a weapon disappeared as soon as a democrat was not in office, right? so part of this is totally circumstantial. >> distance between the neo cons and the actual base of the republican party, and the gap between the two has been growing and growing and growing, and, yet, the absolute control of the think tanks and the money men and mccain and graham over the foreign policy republican party has remained until remarkably unchallenged, and what you are seeing now is that that's untenable over a turn amount of time. you can't get that far away from your base. >> michael, they're willing to forfeit. i mean, they're willing to forfeit part of that base. look, virginia is a state that the

yet you listen to someone like chomsky and get the impression that his real cause was about the millorker. he was very dedicated to their cause. i am wondering about your take and analysis on that. what was lincoln's purpose? guest: he was dedicated to the idea of the mill worker owning the mill. he put it slightly differently. the idea of a. mobility is what informed his anti-slavery. -- the idea of of board mobility is what informed his anti- slavery. i take issue about what he said about him being reluctant to sign the emancipation proclamation. the cabinet was composed of more radical abolitionist who insisted he table it until there was a union victory. the only reluctance he had of signing it in 1863 was that his hand was so sore from shaking hundreds of hands at a new year's day reception that he wanted to wait until he could massage it back to normalcy so his signature and will not look tremulous. he said his whole soul was in it. i believe him. host: david is on the line for republicans. caller: could lincoln have avoided the civil war by requiring federal minimum wage for a

noam chomsky who got us thing about how you talk about people no linguist competence. so i knew, i knew that everybody who is a native speaker of a language has a level of competence. knows the difference between what's grammatical and what's not grammatical. and this is the moment we've worked with for many decades. so you'd like to think that people would be consistent in the way they speak, and people would care whether it's everybody raised their hand, everybody raised his or her hand. but when you actually talk to people, they say, whatever. why are you so hung up on this? it doesn't matter. and the next step and you say okay, but just for the record which one is correct? you say, i don't know. so this whole model that we've had of what counts as knowledge, whether the standard language or dialect, doesn't matter. what is your way of speaking, and finding that people don't care as much. partly because language has become far more informal. so we speak, we write the way we speak rather than having a different register. has to be all corrected and speech can be info