<div>Sunil et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I recommend everyone see "Manufacturing Consent," and if you have seen it before, watch it again. Or better yet, read the book of the same title, co-authored by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.zeitgeistfilms.com/film.php?directoryname=manufacturingconsent">http://www.zeitgeistfilms.com/film.php?directoryname=manufacturingconsent</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html">http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>I don't think Buckley would have "smashed" Chomsky in the face even if Chomsky had suddenly jumped up and down and went on a hysterical raging rant against Nixon and his war crimes in Vietnam. Most likely it was not meant as a literal threat. But it was a threat as it was worded, nonetheless, though conditional upon Chomsky's future behavior.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>What is a "direct threat?" Or a "bald faced threat?" If I say, "Sunil, if you get angry in my presence, I will smash you in the face," this seems direct enough... Do you mean the threat must have no conditions upon it at all? The threat must state "I am going to smash you in the face, period." <br>
</div>
<div>Anyway, I understand what you mean, I think...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Sunil Ramalingam <<a href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">sunilramalingam@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>Ted, <br><br>I sent my post out after watching the clip showing that discussion. I didn't mean 'whack' as in 'kill.' Rather, I meant to say that Buckley didn't simply and unconditionally threaten to hit Chomsky in the face.<br>
<br>Rather, it was a 'threat' conditioned upon Chomsky's possible loss of temper. So I took Buckley to mean that should Chomsky lose his temper, then Buckley would hit him in the face. I view that as different from a direct threat, and Chomsky didn't appear to take it as a direct threat, as he continued his discussion. It's been a long time since I've seen 'Manufacturing Consent,' and I don't recall how Chomsky took the comment.<br>
<br>Certainly my political views are far closer to Chomsky's than Buckley's, but I can't see this as a bald-faced threat.<br><br>Sunil<br><br><br><br>
<blockquote>
<hr>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:16:04 -0800<br>From: <a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" target="_blank">starbliss@gmail.com</a><br>To: <a href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com" target="_blank">sunilramalingam@hotmail.com</a>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] William F Buckley Jr.<br></div>CC: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="Wj3C7c"><br><br>
<div>Sunil et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In Chomsky's film "Manufacturing Consent," after showing a court case document "United States Of America vs. Noam Chomsky" dealing with Chomsky's arrest for protest over the Vietnam War at the Pentagon ("front mall," "refused to move," the court document indicates), which is followed by copy from the New York Times, June 27, 1973, shown listing Chomsky on a White House "enemies list," at 51:12 into the film, there is footage from Buckley's "Firing Line" from 1969:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Firing Line, 1969</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Chomsky, in reference to the Vietnam War:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Sometimes I lose my temper. Maybe not tonight.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Buckley:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Maybe not tonight. Because if you would, I'd smash you in the G*d d**ned face.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This exchange elicited low keyed laughter from both of them. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Buckley's words were clear. He threatened to smash Chomsky in the face, even if this was not meant literally. No one said Buckley said "I'm gonna whack you," which, according my understanding of this slang phrase, means kill someone.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br> </div>
<div><span>On 2/28/08, <b>Sunil Ramalingam</b> <<a href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com" target="_blank">sunilramalingam@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<div>Well, I don't know if I'd say he threatened to punch Chomsky in the face. He said he would if Chomskey lost his temper, but it wasn't a 'I'm gonna whack you ' by any means. At least not in that exerpt.<br>
<br>Sunil<br><br>> To: <a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com" target="_blank">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>; <a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" target="_blank">starbliss@gmail.com</a>; <a href="mailto:chasuk@gmail.com" target="_blank">chasuk@gmail.com</a>; <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> From: <a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com" target="_blank">thansen@moscow.com</a><br>> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:27:54 +0000
<div><span><br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] William F Buckley Jr.<br>> <br>> Buckley threatens to punch Chomsky in the face<br>> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEIrZO069Kg" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEIrZO069Kg</a><br>
> <br>> Seeya round town, Moscow.<br>> <br>> Tom Hansen<br>> Moscow, Idaho<br>> <br>> > Ted<br>> > I hadn't heard that about Chomskey. He did threaten to punch Gore <br>> Vidal, after Vidal<br>
> called hiim a Nazzi. He imediatly regreted it.<br>> > Roger<br>> > -----Original message-----<br>> > From: "Ted Moffett" <a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" target="_blank">starbliss@gmail.com</a><br>
> > Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:21:46 -0800<br>> > To: Chasuk <a href="mailto:chasuk@gmail.com" target="_blank">chasuk@gmail.com</a><br>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] William F Buckley Jr.<br>> > <br>
> > > William F. Buckley once threatened to punch Noam Chomsky in the face on<br>> > > "Firing Line" when Chomsky appeared as a guest. This is shown in <br>> Chomsky's<br>> > > film, "Manufacturing Consent."<br>
> > > <br>> > > Having said that, I miss "Firing Line," and I respected Buckley's <br>> principled<br>> > > and eloquent conservatism. He publicly stated that the Iraq War was a<br>
> > > failed policy, and opposed the war on drugs. Many think these <br>> positions are<br>> > > "left wing." Yet I think that both the Iraq War and the war on drugs<br>> > > promote a "liberal" big government/big spending approach, that should<br>
> > > inspire intense skepticism from anyone who advocates a general policy <br>> that<br>> > > big government intrusive tax payer burdening solutions to problems are <br>> to be<br>> > > avoided if possible.<br>
> > > <br>> > > I'm surprised by how many so called conservatives continue to insist <br>> that<br>> > > the invasion of Iraq was not a mistake, as the costs of the Iraq <br>> occupation<br>
> > > climb hundreds of billions upon hundreds of billions of dollars, and <br>> world<br>> > > wide terrorism continues, in part inspired by hatred of the USA,<br>> > > for occupying Islamic nations.<br>
> > > <br>> > > William F. Buckley writing on the Iraq War at URL below:<br>> > > <br>> > > <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200602241451.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200602241451.asp</a><br>
> > > <br>> > > CIA Bin Laden analyst Michael Scheuer on YouTube regarding Ron Paul's <br>> wise<br>> > > foreign policy views on the war on terror:<br>> > > <br>> > > CIA Michael Scheuer Binladin Expert: Only Ron Paul Gets It<br>
> > > <br>> > > <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOqXdbe7CVM" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOqXdbe7CVM</a><br>> > > <br>> > > ------------------------<br>> > > Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br>
> > > <br>> > > On 2/27/08, Chasuk <<a href="mailto:chasuk@gmail.com" target="_blank">chasuk@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> > > ><br>> > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:13 AM, lfalen <<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com" target="_blank">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > > ><br>> > > > > Flags should be flown at half mast today. William F. Buckley died <br>> this<br>> > > > morning at 82.<br>> > > ><br>> > > > I love William F. Buckley, but do you really think that he is such an<br>
> > > > American icon that he merits flags at half-mast?<br>> > > ><br>> > > > I wonder, is there any official, designating criterion for this <br>> honor?<br>> > > ><br>
</span></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>