<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><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></HTML>