<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Ted, as you can tell by the response that I was writing simultaneously
as you were writing this, we really are not so far apart. That is,
excluding our respect for Chomsky.<br>
<br>
As I've said before, I seem to never be able to miss an opportuinity to
p_ss people off. You should be able to tell, however, that I am not an
absolute idiologue.<br>
<br>
Dave Budge<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tbertruss@aol.com">Tbertruss@aol.com</a> wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mide0.d1940ba.2f4017d2@aol.com"><font
face="arial,helvetica"><font size="2" ptsize="10" family="SANSSERIF"
face="Arial" lang="0"><br>
Dave et. al.<br>
<br>
Below find two links, one to an extensive documented analysis
concerning Noam Chomsky and the Cambodian/Pol Pot controversy that is
critical of Chomsky, and a defense of Chomsky on this controversy by
Christopher Hitchens.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm">http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm</a><br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html">http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html</a><br>
<br>
Some of Chomsky's statements can be presented to support the assertion
that he "endorsed" Pol Pot. But like any statement that is taken out
of context, this can be very misleading. Consider that the rise of the
Khmer Rouge occurred in the chaos during and after the Vietnam war and
the consequences of the extensive US bombing of Cambodia, which
inflicted a horrific human toll on that country. Some of Chomsky's
statements during this period were made in the context of looking for a
positive political development in a country devastated by the effects
of the Vietnam war and the US bombing. And Chomsky was oriented for
years toward exposing what he saw as a bias in the US media to shift
the focus during the 1970s from the atrocities that the US committed
and was complicit in committing in the bombing campaign against
Cambodia, the war in Vietnam, and by Indonesia in East Timor, towards a
focus on the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge, minimizing the emphasis on
the former examples and exaggerating the later. <br>
<br>
This is consistent with the aim of much of his political work that has
focused on how filters in the media slant the reporting of atrocities
away from those with US involvement toward those that become the
official "whipping" boys of the day. <br>
<br>
To pick my own examples, when the US supported Saddam in the war
against Iran, when Saddam's notorious gassing incidents occurred, how
often in the media were we reminded of the atrocities of Saddam? Now
compare that to how often we have been reminded of Saddam's atrocities
since the US no longer viewed Saddam as a "useful" ally. Or consider
the reporting of the atrocities committed by Turkey, a US ally, against
the Kurds during the 1990s, compared to the reporting of the atrocities
Saddam committed against the Kurds. Many in the US have heard of
Saddam's abuse of the Kurds, but a much smaller number even know there
are Kurds in Turkey, much less that significant atrocities were
committed against the Kurds by the Turkish government.<br>
<br>
I'll leave the complex web of statements and history involved regarding
Chomsky and Pol Pot for others to examine in more detail, if they
chose, at the links I offer above, which I chose as an attempt to
present both "sides" of this controversy. But Hitchens does refute
several of the claims that Chomsky was a Pol Pot supporter. Even the
other article more damning of Chomsky is careful to balance the
virulent attacks against Chomsky with the fact that Chomsky fully
acknowledges the brutality of the Khmer Rouge regime.<br>
<br>
But your aside about Chomsky can be read to imply he was endorsing a
brutal and cruel dictator, which is the image that will pop into the
minds of many who read the statement "Chomsky endorsed Pol Pot."
Chomsky would condemn any mass murder at the hands of any government or
dictator. Including any committed by the US.<br>
<br>
Your statement was a cheap shot, aimed at discrediting a serious and
brilliant thinker, without providing any context to give balance or
fairness to Chomsky's views.<br>
<br>
But this is what dogmatic adherence to one political ideology in a
world of diverse political and economic systems tends to induce:
attacks on those who present intelligent and well reasoned refutations
of the "faith" utilizing hyperbole and out of context quotes. Chomsky
himself may be guilty of the sort of bias I suggest here, so I do not
uncritically follow Chomsky's thought.<br>
<br>
I think "political science" is an oxymoron. The ongoing experiment of
the human race in organizing our lives with a variety of economic and
political systems should be viewed as just that, an experiment in
progress that has not provided us with enough data to fully assess what
exact economic or political system is best. Furthermore, is it valid
to think we will find one system to be the "best" for all societies, or
to even try in the US to homogenize our political/economic system under
one ideological banner? Considering the diversity of cultures and
religions, etc., in our world, the widely differing value systems,
perhaps what is best is diversity: one nation to be mostly libertarian
capitalist, another nation to be more liberal socialist, another nation
to be governed according to a religious faith, another to follow a
benevolent (please don't quote me our of context here) dictator, and so
on. <br>
<br>
Indeed, I think that the diversity of types of political/economic
entities in the USA is a secret to our strength. I do not want
socialists to dominate our government anymore than corporate
capitalists, anti-corporate libertarians, anarchists, Marxist
communists or those seeking a theocratic state. I want power sharing
and disagreement. I want a US Congress with libertarians, capitalists,
anarchists, socialists, communists, Gaia worshiping environmentalists,
Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindu and Buddhists. I want diversity of
arguments and values and faith. I do not want a super efficient
government (again, please don't quote me out of context), for this
implies dominant control by one group able to push their agenda without
opposition, when opposition necessarily bogs down government efficiency.<br>
<br>
Chaos perhaps? Maybe.<br>
<br>
In the final analysis, any political or economic system where the most
powerful players are cruel and greedy will be undesirable, well, unless
perhaps you are the one benefiting. Even a democracy can vote to allow
the state to be a mass murderer. Should we thus abandon democracy?<br>
<br>
Ted Moffett</font></font></blockquote>
</body>
</html>