The “Democratic Deficit”
Noam Avram Chomsky was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on December 7, 1928. He attended the University of Pennsylvania where he studied linguistics, mathematics, and philosophy. In 1955, he received his Ph. D. from the University of Pennsylvania, however, most of the research leading to this degree was done at Harvard between 1951 and 1955. Since receiving his Ph. D., Chomsky has taught at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he now holds the Ferrari P. Ward Chair of Modern Language and Linguistics.
Among his many accomplishments, he is most famous for his work on generative grammar, which developed from his interest in modern logic and mathematical foundations. As a result, he applied it to the description of natural languages.
His political tendencies toward socialism and anarchism are a result of what he calls "the radical Jewish community in New York." Since 1965 he has become one of the leading critics of U.S. foreign policy. He published a book of essays called American Power and the New Mandarins which is considered to be one of the most substantial arguments ever against American involvement in Vietnam.
Question: What is the most dysfunctional thing about American democracy?
Noam Chomsky: American democracy is what we call a "guided democracy" in countries that we don't like, like Iran. So in Iran, elections are, putting aside questions of the credibility of elections, elections are—the candidates are vetted by the clerical leadership. Guardian council decides who can run.
We're pretty much the same. Here candidates are vetted by corporate interests. The way it's done is, that unless you have huge corporate financing and support, you just can't run. [Barack] Obama won over [John] McCain, primarily because the financial institutions liked him better, so poured money into his campaign much more than McCain. And if you check funding and polls, you find that the advertising and so on, in fact carried him over the edge.
And that's true all the way along. Elections are basically bought.
Congress, for example, has very low ranking among the population; it's in the teens sometimes. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of incumbents win. What does that tell you? It tells you people are voting for candidates that they don't like, because they don't have any choice. These are fundamental defects in the democratic system. It's a huge “democratic deficit,” as it's called and it shows up. There's a very sharp division between public policy and public attitudes on a host of major issues.
In fact, both political parties are well to the right of the population on a great number of critical issues and the population feels they can't do anything about it. So, for example, last polls I saw about this, about eighty percent of the population said the government doesn't work for the people—it works for a few big interests looking out for themselves. Well, that's eighty percent of the population, but if you had asked the next question—they didn't do it—well, what are you going to do about it? People probably would have said, well, I can't do anything. There's no way to do anything about the fact that the government's in the pockets of the rich and a few big interests—corporate interests primarily.
That feeling of helplessness, impotence, everything is run by somebody else, I can't do anything about it—that reflects a democratic deficit. These are enormous problems with the way the democratic system functions. There's something similar in most places, but the United States is pretty extreme in this regard, among the industrial democracies.
Recorded on: Aug 18, 2009
Noam Chomsky explains why "that feeling of helplessness" and "impotence" is the natural response to American democracy.
Malcolm Gladwell teaches "Get over yourself and get to work" for Big Think Edge.
- Learn to recognize failure and know the big difference between panicking and choking.
- At Big Think Edge, Malcolm Gladwell teaches how to check your inner critic and get clear on what failure is.
- Subscribe to Big Think Edge before we launch on March 30 to get 20% off monthly and annual memberships.
It turns out, that tattoo ink can travel throughout your body and settle in lymph nodes.
In the slightly macabre experiment to find out where tattoo ink travels to in the body, French and German researchers recently used synchrotron X-ray fluorescence in four "inked" human cadavers — as well as one without. The results of their 2017 study? Some of the tattoo ink apparently settled in lymph nodes.
Image from the study.
As the authors explain in the study — they hail from Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility, and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment — it would have been unethical to test this on live animals since those creatures would not be able to give permission to be tattooed.
Because of the prevalence of tattoos these days, the researchers wanted to find out if the ink could be harmful in some way.
"The increasing prevalence of tattoos provoked safety concerns with respect to particle distribution and effects inside the human body," they write.
It works like this: Since lymph nodes filter lymph, which is the fluid that carries white blood cells throughout the body in an effort to fight infections that are encountered, that is where some of the ink particles collect.
Image by authors of the study.
Titanium dioxide appears to be the thing that travels. It's a white tattoo ink pigment that's mixed with other colors all the time to control shades.
The study's authors will keep working on this in the meantime.
“In future experiments we will also look into the pigment and heavy metal burden of other, more distant internal organs and tissues in order to track any possible bio-distribution of tattoo ink ingredients throughout the body. The outcome of these investigations not only will be helpful in the assessment of the health risks associated with tattooing but also in the judgment of other exposures such as, e.g., the entrance of TiO2 nanoparticles present in cosmetics at the site of damaged skin."
We take fewer mental pictures per second.
- Recent memories run in our brains like sped-up old movies.
- In childhood, we capture images in our memory much more quickly.
- The complexities of grownup neural pathways are no match for the direct routes of young brains.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.