A) Form adjectives from the nouns in the first column so as to make collocations with the noun following it. Underline the adjectival suffixes

Noun	Adjective + Noun	Russian equivalent
politics	political elite	политическая элита
public	__________ commotion
judge	judicial investigation
democracy	__________ institutions
damage	__________ information
government	____________ bodies
environment	____________ mismanagement
expense	___________ lawsuits
diversity	_____________ types
investigation	_______________ reporting
Congress	______________ actions
account	______________ government
continue	______________ press attention
finance	_____________ institutions
effect	_____________ mechanism

B) With your partner, practice giving Russian and English equivalents of the phrases above.

WORD-BUILDING 3:NEGATIVE PREFIXES

un in im il ir non dis de dys mis anti

A) Choose the right negative prefix for these words. The right answers can be found in the text (Core reading 2).

dispensible	indispensible
honesty
function
justice
enunciation
fame
management
withstanding
evitable
governmental
corruption
true
complete
trustworthy
legal
relevant
lawful
compose
integrate

IV. FOCUS ON LEGAL VOCABULARY

Complete the table. Put (-) where impossible.

Verb	Noun	Person
commit crime	crime
		corruptor
	investigation
judge	judgment	judge
	defamation	-
do sth wrong	wrongdoing	wrongdoer
prosecute
	denunciation	denunciator
perpetrate
	abuse

COLLOCATIONS

a) Match the verb to the noun to form collocations:

Verb	Noun	Collocation	Russian equivalent
1) make	information	1) make contribution	внести вклад
2) leak	wrongdoing	2)
3) reveal	investigation	3)
4) trigger	contribution	4)

5) prosecute	public records	5)
6) monitor	performance	6)
7) access	duties	7)
8) fulfill	abuses	8)

9) affect	inquiries	9)
10) conduct	requirements	10)
11) meet	citizen’s life	11)

B) Translate the collocations into Russian. Practice them with your partner.

CORE READING 3

Noam Chomsky: The US Behaves Nothing Like a Democracy

Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor (retired) at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). He is the author of many books and articles on international affairs and social-political issues, and a long-time participant in activist movements. The following is a transcript of his speech delivered in Bonn, Germany, at DW Global Media Forum.

According to received doctrine, we live in capitalist democracies, which are the best possible system, despite some flaws. There’s been an interesting debate over the years about the relation between capitalism and democracy, for example, are they even compatible? I won’t be pursuing this because I’d like to discuss a different system – what we could call the “really existing capitalist democracy”, RECD for short, pronounced “wrecked” by accident. To begin with, how does RECD compare with democracy? Well, that depends on what we mean by “democracy”. There are several versions of this. One, there is a kind of received version. It’s soaring rhetoric of the Obama variety, patriotic speeches, what children are taught in school, and so on. In the U.S. version, it’s government “of, by and for the people”. And it’s quite easy to compare that with RECD.

…The study of attitudes is reasonably easy in the United States: heavily-polled society, pretty serious and accurate polls, and policy you can see, and you can compare them. And the results are interesting. In the work that’s essentially the gold standard in the field, it’s concluded that for roughly 70% of the population – the lower 70% on the wealth/income scale – they have no influence on policy whatsoever. They’re effectively disenfranchised. As you move up the wealth/income ladder, you get a little bit more influence on policy. When you get to the top, which is maybe a tenth of one percent, people essentially get what they want, i.e. they determine the policy. So the proper term for that is not democracy; it’s plutocracy.

Inquiries of this kind turn out to be dangerous stuff because they can tell people too much about the nature of the society in which they live. So fortunately, Congress has banned funding for them, so we won’t have to worry about them in the future.

In the past, the United States has sometimes, kind of sardonically, been described as a one-party state: the business party with two factions called Democrats and Republicans. That’s no longer true. It’s still a one-party state, the business party. But it only has one faction. The faction is moderate Republicans, who are now called Democrats. There are virtually no moderate Republicans in what’s called the Republican Party and virtually no liberal Democrats in what’s called the Democratic Party. It’s basically a party of what would be moderate Republicans and similarly, Richard Nixon would be way at the left of the political spectrum today. Eisenhower would be in outer space.

… Well, another important feature of RECD is that the public must be kept in the dark about what is happening to them. The “herd” must remain “bewildered”. The reasons were explained lucidly by the professor of the science of government at Harvard – that’s the official name – another respected liberal figure, Samuel Huntington. As he pointed out, “power remains strong when it remains in the dark. Exposed to sunlight, it begins to evaporate”. Bradley Manning is facing a life in prison for failure to comprehend this scientific principle. Now Edward Snowden as well. And it works pretty well.

The role of the PR industry in elections is explicitly to undermine the school-child version of democracy. What you learn in school is that democracies are based on informed voters making rational decisions. All you have to do is take a look at an electoral campaign run by the PR industry and see that the purpose is to create uninformed voters who will make irrational decisions. For the PR industry that’s a very easy transition from their primary function. Their primary function is commercial advertising. Commercial advertising is designed to undermine markets. If you took an economics course you learned that markets are based on informed consumers making rational choices. If you turn on the TV set, you see that ads are designed to create irrational, uninformed consumers making irrational choices. The whole purpose is to undermine markets in the technical sense.

They’re well aware of it, incidentally. So for example, after Obama’s election in 2008, a couple of months later the advertising industry had its annual conference. Every year they award a prize for the best marketing campaign of the year. That year they awarded it to Obama. He beat out Apple computer, did an even better job of deluding the public – or his PR agents did. If you want to hear some of it, turn on the television today and listen to the soaring rhetoric at the G-8 Summit in Belfast. It’s standard.

Obama’s now conducting the world’s greatest international terrorist campaign – the drones and special forces campaign. It’s also a terror-generating campaign. The common understanding at the highest level is that these actions generate potential terrorists. I’ll quote General Stanley McChrystal, Petraeus’ predecessor. He says that “for every innocent person you kill”, and there are plenty of them, “you create ten new enemies”.

One of the striking examples was the invasion of Iraq. U.S. and British intelligence agencies informed their governments that the invasion of Iraq was likely to lead to an increase in terrorism. They didn’t care. In fact, it did. Terrorism increased by a factor of seven the first year after the Iraqi invasion, according to government statistics. Right now the government is defending the massive surveillance operation. That’s on the front pages. The defense is on grounds that we have to do it to apprehend terrorists.

If there were a free press – an authentic free press – the headlines would be ridiculing this claim on the grounds that policy is designed in such a way that it amplifies the terrorist risk. But you can’t find that, which is one of innumerable indications of how far we are from anything that might be called a free press.

…So how do you deal with the threat, whatever it is? Actually, there are ways. I’m short of time so I won’t go through details but there’s one very striking one: We’ve just passed an opportunity last December. There was to be an international conference under the auspices of the non-proliferation treaty, UN auspices, in Helsinki to deal with moves to establish a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East. That has overwhelming international support – non-aligned countries; it’s been led by the Arab states, Egypt particularly, for decades. Overwhelming support. If it could be carried forward it would certainly mitigate the threat. It might eliminate it. Everyone was waiting to see whether Iran would agree to attend.

In early November, Iran agreed to attend. A couple of days later, Obama canceled the conference. No conference. The European Parliament passed a resolution calling for it to continue. The Arab states said they were going to proceed anyway, but it can’t be done. So we have to live with the gravest threat to world peace. And we possibly have to march on to war which in fact is being predicted.

The population could do something about it if they knew anything about it. But here, the free press enters. In the United States there has literally not been a single word about this anywhere near the mainstream. You can tell me about Europe.

POST-READING TASKS

1. Write a summary of the text.

A summary is a brief statement of the text’s main ideas.   1. Read the article trying to get a sense of its general focus and content 2. Write the article’s thesis. (Athesisis a one-sentence summary of the entire text/article.) 3. Read each paragraph (or divide the passage into logical sections). Underline key ideas and terms. 4. Write each paragraph’s topic. Follow the principle of the lead in most newspaper stories – what, who, why, where, when and how. 5. Combine all the sentences to form your summary: organize your summary sentences in the same order as the main ideas in the original text. 6. Use standard phrases and linking words to connect the ideas in the summary.

2. Why does the author think that the US does not behave like a democracy? List all the reasons mentioned in the text. Do you agree with the author?

3. Topic for discussion: Is Democracy Fact or Fiction?

II. GRAMMAR FOCUS:Relative clauses

A relative clause is a subordinate clause which begins with a relative pronoun who/which or the word that. There are two types of relative clauses: defining and non-defining.

A defining relative clause identifies a thing or person.

	Subject	Object	Possessive
for people	who that	whom/who that	whose
for things	which that	which that	whose/of which

e.g. The student whoachieves the highest GPA score will be awarded a prize of $20,000.

Computer games thatinvolve fighting and shooting have a negative effect on young people.

Whom is highly formal. We normally use who or that for the object and it is still more common to omit the object pronoun altogether:

e.g. The car (that) I hired a week ago broke down.

The police identified him as the man (who) they saw in the area yesterday.

A non-defining relative clause provides additional information about a thing or person. The relative pronoun who or which is always preceded by a comma.

	Subject	Object	Possessive
for people	who	whom/who	whose
for things	which	which	whose/of which

e.g. Albert Einstein, whowas born at Ulm, Germany, on March 14, 1879, is best known for his theory of relativity and specifically mass-energy equivalence E = mc2.

The United Nations, which is headquartered in New York, aims at promoting international cooperation and world peace.

(!) Do not use the relative pronoun that in non-defining relative clauses.

(!)You cannot omit the relative pronoun in non-defining relative clauses.

Relative Adverbs Level: intermediate

A relative adverb can be used instead of a relative pronoun plus preposition.

e.g. This is the shop in which I bought my bike.→ This is the shop where I bought my bike.

relative adverb	meaning	use	example
when	in/on which	refers to a time expression	the day when we met him
where	in/at which	refers to a place	the place where we met him
why	for which	refers to a reason	the reason why we met him

Connective clauses

Connective clauses do not define or describe a thing or object in the main clause – they continue the story. Connective clauses are preceded by a comma.

e.g. The clock struck thirteen, which made everyone laugh.

He refused to do his share of the chores, which annoyed the others.

PRACTICE