FW: re Chomsky fundraiser Van

[Craven, Jim]

for your own info, and you may want to pass this on to Chomsky, the NDP,
whom I believe he'll be speaking at one of their fundraisers have
committed great human rights violations against indigenous people in
this province.

UPCOMING EVENTS IN SUPPORT OF INDIGENOUS SOVERIGNTY

1) picket in honour of gustafsen lake defenders
2) forum with gustafsen lake defenders and movie screening
3) down with delta

for more info:

NYM Secwepemc Chapter: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NYM Vancouver Chapter: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No One is Illegal Vancouver: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Native Solidarity Network: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anti Poverty Committee: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


<><><><><><><><><><>
ORPHEUM THEATHRE
SAT MARCH 20 @ 6:30 PM
(Smithe at Seymour)

*** INFORMATIONAL PICKET ***
<><><><><><><><><><><>

It is time for all those opposed to the Canadian colonial system to
support, through tangible actions, those struggling for land, life,
dignity and soverignty.

The statement below will be presented on March 20 at a NDP fundraiser at
a ticketed event in Vancouver. Several Gustafsen Lake defenders will be
converging in Vancouver on that night to speak about the injustices at
Gustafsen Lake.

(SEE END OF MESSAGE FOR STATEMENT AND ENDORSEMENTS)


<><><><><><><><>
FORUM WITH GUSTAFSEN LAKE DEFENDERS
AND MOVIE SCREENING "ABOVE THE LAW"
Palestine Community Centre
Sunday March 21st @ 4:45 PM
1874 Kingsway (cross street Victoria)
suggested donation: 2-5$ no one will be turned away
for more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<><><><><><><><><

Several Gustafsen lake defenders will be speaking out about the
injustices at Gustafsen Lake. After close to one decade since the
military siege, we cannot allow ourselves to forget this history of
indigenous struggle.


<><><><><><><>
DOWN WITH DELTA
Thursday, March 25 @ 4pm
Gather at Victory Square
* with food, speakers, drummers
<><><><><><><><

This picket of Delta Hotels is being coordinated in Kamloops, Vancouver,
Toronto, and Montreal on March 25.

Sun Peaks Resort and Delta Hotels is built in Secwepemc territories,
land which has never been ceded, released, nor surrendered. The Canadian
and British Columbias governments harassment of Secwepemc people is a
continuation of colonial practices that have robbed Indigenous people's
of their self-determination by usurping the land of Indigenous peoples
and destroying Indigenous people's livelihoods. We stand in support of
the Secwepemc people and in their fight in defense of the land in
maintaining their livelihood.

__

* If you are able to endorse the demand below: please email
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

IN HONOUR OF THE GUSTAFSEN LAKE DEFENDERS !!!
IN SUPPORT OF INDIGENOUS SOVERIGNTY! !!

We are gathered here today to remind everyone about the role of the NDP
government in the largest paramilitary operation in Canada. The NDP
launched a full assault on indigenous defenders asserting their inherent
and legal rights to self-determination on unceded territories of BC.

In honour of the Gustafsen Lake Defenders, in memory of Dudley George
and the millions who were and continue to be victims of the colonial
regime, we aim to expose the hypocrisy of "progressive" politicians.

"I am unable to support the call for a public inquiry... my New
Democratic colleagues and I will continue to support the treaty
negotiation process in BC, including the recently concluded Nisga'a
treaty. This process, while often painstakingly slow and difficult, is
certainly preferable to taking up guns and violence, as occurred in the
summer of 1995," said Svend Robinson.

"And We do further strictly enjoin and require all Persons whatever who
have either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any Lands
within the Countries above described, or upon any other Lands which, not
having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are still reserved to the said
Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove themselves from such
Settlements." -Royal Proclamation Act, 1763.

"Kill this Clark, smear the prick and everyone with him." -Dennis Ryan,
RCMP Gustafsen Lake Crisis Management Team, Sept. 1995. Disclosed during
the Gustafsen trial.


BACKGROUND

In 1995, after a long history of peaceful attempts to have Shuswap
sovereignty respected, indigenous people from the Shuswap and other
nations and a few non-indigenous supporters took a stand on sacred
Sundance lands at Ts'Peten, aka Gustafsen Lake. People came to the
Sundance grounds after a call for help went out, in response to threats
made by a local rancher; one ranch hand  pulled out a bullwhip and said:

'This is a good day to string up some red niggers.' " (Defenders' press
release, June 19/95) Shortly afterwards the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police(RCMP) surrounded the Ts'Peten Defenders and held the people there
under siege. On June 19, Counsel Dr. Bruce Clark confirmed that "as a
matter of strict law, you are acting within your existing legal rights
by resisting the invasion." Over the next month police, politici

Re: Chomsky favours Kerry

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Chomsky fears "the people around Bush are very deeply committed to
dismantling the achievements of popular struggle through the past
centuryŠthe present group in power is particularly cruel and savage in this
respect."
The people around Bush are cruder and franker about their intentions
to dismantle the achievements of popular struggle than the Democratic
Party, so they have been less successful and will be voted out of the
White House in November.
On 90% of the issues the Republicans are worse than the Democrats,
but, on the rest, the Democrats manage to deliver bigger blows
against workers than the Republicans.  The tragedy is that the
impacts of the issues on which the Democrats outdistance the
Republicans in the rightward movement are often more devastating than
the others on which they are better than the Republicans.  Moreover,
if the liberal elite manage to help elect John Kerry by neutralizing
the main left-wing electoral alternative to the Democratic Party and
allowing Kerry to run to the right of Bush, e.g., on fiscal
discipline, the occupation of Iraq, etc., they can move both the
Democratic and Republican Parties to the right -- just imagine what
Democratic and Republican candidates we will face in 2008, 2012, and
later!
--
Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! 
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
,
, & 
* Student International Forum: 
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: 
* Al-Awda-Ohio: 
* Solidarity: 

Re: chomsky

[Louis Proyect]

Dan Scanlan wrote:
> Collateral Language
>
> An Interview With Noam Chomsky
> David Barsamian
>
> 
> It also led to the rise of the public relations industry. It's
> interesting to look at the thinking in the 1920s, when it got started.
> This was the period of Taylorism in industry, when workers were being
> trained to become robots, every motion controlled. It created highly
> efficient industry, with human beings turned into automata. The
> Bolsheviks were very impressed with it, too. They tried to duplicate it.
No big surprise here. Chomsky misses the essential class difference
between the USA, where Taylorism originated, and the USSR. Standing
behind time and motion studies was the lash of unemployment in the west.
If you can't fire a worker, it is very difficult to discipline her or
him. Later on, after the rise of Stalinism, discipline is enforced
through the threat of prison. But in the early 1920s--in other words,
when Bolshevism was still in power--nothing like this went on.
> There is nothing negative about propaganda, he [Laswell] said. It's as
> neutral as a pump handle. You can use it for good or for evil. And since
> we're noble, wonderful people, we'll use it for good, to ensure that the
> stupid, ignorant masses remain marginalized and separated from any
> decision-making capacity.
>
> The Leninist doctrines are approximately the same. There are very close
> similarities. The Nazis also picked it up. If you read Mein Kampf,
> Hitler was very impressed with Anglo-American propaganda.
Chomsky does not believe in governments, so naturally he would oppose
all government-sponsored messages. It is all the same. Cuba promoting
volunteer literacy brigades or the USA promoting war with Iraq.
--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: Chomsky on imperial instruction

[Sabri Oncu]

Chris:

> Can France afford to isolate itself by the threat of a
> futile veto in the Security Council? That is the only
> question left now before the start of war if we are to
> read the messages the Bush administration appears to
> wish to send.

My bet is:

No!

Welcome to the internationally broadly supported "preventive" war
against Iraq.

Not best,

Sabri

Re: RE: Re: Chomsky

[soula avramidis]

Go to an economic development textbook from the late seventies like Todaro's which has a table on income distribution and another development index. look at Iraq in the fifties and compare with the rest of world, as I recall, iraq was probably the worst. that was the period of british/hashemite rule in iraq. take the UNDP tables on development in the eighties and look at Iraq and you will see one small success story in development especially in socialized health and education and gains for women in what was similar before, that is the fifties, to Saudi Arabia regarding the treatment of women. then follow closely the political cycle in Iraq, in particular how it was cornered by turkey, shahinshah Iran and Saudi Arabia. in particular observe how the Iraqi Kurds armed with American weaponry fought the successive Iraqi regimes until the government capitulated in 1975- the Algiers accords, one in which the state relinquished so!
vereignty to its only waterway to Iran among many other losses. harassments continued up to 1979 by Iran’s shah at the behest of uncle Sam. come 1979 the theocracy in Iran upholds the shah's accords and even asks for more concessions, then of course, war but now with the real enemy, the Iranian state reborn in an Islamic Shiite gown. there was really no break in the state of the conflict of the post independent iraq; conflict in Iraq and particularly military conflict was almost always there. It is hard to build anything socialized or even hinting to social in the new world order middle east. It even appears to me that the US is comfortable with the Islamic fundamentalist because even if they win they are socially so backward that the arabs, the muslims and for that matter the third world will lose. The choice in the arab world may boil down to choosing quasi socialist dictatorships or despotic theocracies.
Ihave asked Samir Amin about the separation of the social from the political in the Arab world, and he says it was not a good idea. the islamist may have a good nationalist position but without a progressive social agenda they cannot win the war.
one Iraqi poet, actually the best Arab poet in my Arab friend's opinion, says: 
not a day has gone by in which Iraq did not witness misery or hunger. 
Badr Shaker alsayab
 "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 


Before the Kuwait war, Iraq had lots of oil bucks, so that Saddam could do a lot of good things for the people in order to build up his legitimacy without detracting from the all-important feathering of his own nest. (Saddam's politics are amazing similar to another oil critter, Dubya.)
JD 
> iraqi gov't, at one time, was among handful > that accepted principle of spontaneous > settlement(more commonly known as squatting) > in addressing housing issues... > > approach involved relatively low-cost > upgrading of 'shanties' with roads, sewer, electricity, > water...low rents & community > links were sustained while infrastructure > development created jobs...gov't would > offer people sites on which to build their > own residences (providing construction > guidance as well)...folks received tenure > security and protection against rent > inflation...  education and!
 health facilities > were built to service such areas... > > result was string of villages in which > residents could preserve/practice culture, > maintain/foster mutual help & support... > communities helped cushion people against > urban isolation/alienation *and* blocked > use of inappropriate western planning/ > zoning ideas...   michael hoover  an economic development text book from the late seventiesDo you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

Re: RE: Re: Chomsky

[soula avramidis]

 
Go to an economic development textbook from the late seventies like Todaro's which has a table on income distribution and another development index. look at Iraq in the fifties and compare with the rest of world, as I recall, iraq was probably the worst. that was the period of british/hashemite rule in iraq. take the UNDP tables on development in the eighties and look at Iraq and you will see one small success story in development especially in socialized health and education and gains for women in what was similar before, that is the fifties, to Saudi Arabia regarding the treatment of women. then follow closely the political cycle in Iraq, in particular how it was cornered by turkey, shahinshah Iran and Saudi Arabia. in particular observe how the Iraqi Kurds armed with American weaponry fought the successive Iraqi regimes until the government capitulated in 1975- the Algiers accords, one in which the state relinquished so!
vereignty to its only waterway to Iran among many other losses. harassments continued up to 1979 by Iran’s shah at the behest of uncle Sam. come 1979 the theocracy in Iran upholds the shah's accords and even asks for more concessions, then of course, war but now with the real enemy, the Iranian state reborn in an Islamic Shiite gown. there was really no break in the state of the conflict of the post independent iraq; conflict in Iraq and particularly military conflict was almost always there. It is hard to build anything socialized or even hinting to social in the new world order middle east. It even appears to me that the US is comfortable with the Islamic fundamentalist because even if they win they are socially so backward that the arabs, the muslims and for that matter the third world will lose. The choice in the arab world may boil down to choosing quasi socialist dictatorships or despotic theocracies.
Ihave asked Samir Amin about the separation of the social from the political in the Arab world, and he says it was not a good idea. the islamist may have a good nationalist position but without a progressive social agenda they cannot win the war.
one Iraqi poet, actually the best Arab poet in my Arab friend's opinion, says: 
not a day has gone by in which Iraq did not witness misery or hunger. 
Badr Shaker alsayab
 "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Before the Kuwait war, Iraq had lots of oil bucks, so that Saddam could do a lot of good things for the people in order to build up his legitimacy without detracting from the all-important feathering of his own nest. (Saddam's politics are amazing similar to another oil critter, Dubya.)
JD 
> iraqi gov't, at one time, was among handful > that accepted principle of spontaneous > settlement(more commonly known as squatting) > in addressing housing issues... > > approach involved relatively low-cost > upgrading of 'shanties' with roads, sewer, electricity, > water...low rents & community > links were sustained while infrastructure > development created jobs...gov't would > offer people sites on which to build their > own residences (providing construction > guidance as well)...folks received tenure > security and protection against rent > inflation...  education and!
 health facilities > were built to service such areas... > > result was string of villages in which > residents could preserve/practice culture, > maintain/foster mutual help & support... > communities helped cushion people against > urban isolation/alienation *and* blocked > use of inappropriate western planning/ > zoning ideas...   michael hoover  an economic development text book from the late seventiesDo you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

RE: RE: Re: Chomsky

[Devine, James]

Title: RE: [PEN-L:32803] RE: Re: Chomsky





 
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/04/02 11:20AM >>>
> Before the Kuwait war, Iraq had lots of oil bucks, so that 
> Saddam could do a lot of good things for the people in order 
> to build up his legitimacy without detracting from the 
> all-important feathering of his own nest.
> JD


 michael hoover says:
> i don't know much about iraq but individual emphasis of above 
> seems bit simplistic to me (i never cared much for great/evil 
> man stuff anyway)...


I agree. I was using short-hand. The fact is that no-one's power is absolute. Even Bush must rely on the various interest groups that endorse him and must compromise his program to keep or gain their support. 

JD

RE: Re: Chomsky

[Michael Hoover]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/04/02 11:20AM >>>
Before the Kuwait war, Iraq had lots of oil bucks, so that Saddam could do a lot of 
good things for the people in order to build up his legitimacy without detracting from 
the all-important feathering of his own nest.
JD
<<<>>>

i don't know much about iraq but individual emphasis of above seems bit simplistic to 
me (i never cared much for great/evil man stuff anyway)...

iraqi baath (which means revitalization or resurgence, i think) party came to power 
via '68 coup, one of a number of governments in region in 50s/60s - including 
algeria/eygpt/libya/sudan/ syria - denouncing traditional arab political leadership 
and advocating variant of 'arab socialism'...

above shared view generally prevalent in third world at time re. european/us 
imperialism, espoused continuing struggle against colonialism/neo-colonialism, called 
for pan-arabism, iniated new policies to alleviate plight of masses...

i think iraqi gov't commitment in '70s to improving life of majority was stronger/more 
substantive/more successful
than others (in part, no doubt, because of oil revenue)...  
this occurred when saddam hussein was deputy secretary in baath party, he didn't 
assume top position until '78 (if memory serves)...

saddam hussein consolidated power amidt nervousness of immediate aftermath of iranian 
revo...  iraqi baath party was secular to core, iraqi leadership was nominally sunni, 
shii make up 60%+ of iraqi population... 

there were uprisings in several predominantly shii cities, khomeini called saddam 
hussein an atheist and urged overthrow of iraq gov't... iraqi gov't responded with 
arrests/executions of iraqi shii political leaders who were accused of collaborating 
with iran...  saddam hussein
publicly "called out" khomeini, urged arab minority in
iran to revolt, and began mobilizing iraqi army in
state of emergency/readiness... 

as madison wrote in 1793, war is the true nurse of executive
aggrandizement...   michael hoover
 

Re: Chomsky by MP ref # 32766

[Doyle Saylor]

Greetings Economist,
I was sitting in a space ship cruising through space.  We sat in a darkened
deck, large picture windows looking down on earth.  It was a long time since
I had been home.

We headed toward atmosphere.  We plunged into the great halo of air and the
glowing particles of plasma flashed by on all sides.  Spectacular welcome
home.  Very dramatic.

I walked up to the front door and pushed it open.  A voice in the darkness
said hi Honey.  It was Louis.  I looked into his eyes, and swept him into my
arms and kissed him deeply.  He was a petite fella.  Wiry little thing.
Hard body for me to caress.

Louis had made dinner, but was going on about how little stimulation he was
getting.  I sat on the sofa, then reclined and invited him to come over so I
could have him sit in the hollow of my body.  I stroked his hair and looked
into his eyes.  He was pent up with things to talk about.  I suppose I was
ready for sex, but willing to listen to him for awhile rather than
impatiently go to bed and entwine myself into him.

He kept talking about,
What do you expect. Michael Perelman's mom was the infamous Fanny Goldstein
who organized the seamstresses at MGM in the early 1940s. When she wasn't
doing trade union work, she was marching around downtown Hollywood with
placards that said "Down with Mikado-Trotskyite Agents. Long the People's
Front. Desegregate major league baseball."

I was thinking about the whiskey in the cabinet.  Maybe I could pour some
drinks and get us loosened up.  I was running my hands up his neck and
feeling the short hairs at the nape of his neck, and dreamily listening to
him say,

"Yes, that got Michael thrown out of an Albanian formation called the
Communist Labor Party (Revolutionary) in 1977. That was when he was
colonizing an artichoke farm in Oxnard."

I flicked a bit of dandruff off his collar and smelled his odor.  A little
sweaty.  I put my hand on his stomach and gently rubbed it a couple of
times.  He was angry with me for interrupting his thoughts and he said,

"Yes, that's true. We do need to combine slogans like "No War in Iraq" and
"Saddem Hussein Drowns Puppy Dogs For Entertainment"."

I looked at his lips and slowly rose to meet them.  I parted his lips with
my tongue and pulled him down to me.  It was just too much to try to
concentrate on his thoughts right then.  The bed was calling.  I unfastened
his belt and unzipped his pants.  He pushed my hands away and said,

"I think everybody should grow up. Me, I am a lost cause."

Ha Ha I laughed, my Lou still made me laugh, I threw my head back and pulled
him tightly to me.  He was lying on top of me.  I chewed on his eyebrows.
He rubbed his face on my mine and held my face in his hands and looked
deeply in my eyes.  He whispered in my ear,

"Of course. I am a dyed-in-the-wool Bukharinite. Peasants, enrich
yourselves!"
thanks,
Doyle Saylor

Re: Chomsky by MP

[Louis Proyect]

Hari wrote:

Whoa! Hell's teeth - a film "Made the case that Pol Pot had to move the
people out of the cities in order to avoid starvation."
Gad! You people give Stalinism a bad name!


What do you expect. Michael Perelman's mom was the infamous Fanny Goldstein 
who organized the seamstresses at MGM in the early 1940s. When she wasn't 
doing trade union work, she was marching around downtown Hollywood with 
placards that said "Down with Mikado-Trotskyite Agents. Long the People's 
Front. Desegregate major league baseball."

Pol Pot was a fascist - & you are scrabbling around to find some
potential 'sense' to his actions?


Yes, that got Michael thrown out of an Albanian formation called the 
Communist Labor Party (Revolutionary) in 1977. That was when he was 
colonizing an artichoke farm in Oxnard.

Steve Diamond is absolutely right.


Yes, that's true. We do need to combine slogans like "No War in Iraq" and 
"Saddem Hussein Drowns Puppy Dogs For Entertainment".

Besides which _ I must also say that Carol is right. Somehow Good Old
buddy Louis is allowed the most virulent drippingly-'sarcastic'' (Y'all
know of course how LOW sarcasm is as a form of humour eh?) Anyone else
who try to drop a little "humour" is sternly told to piss off or grow
up.


I think everybody should grow up. Me, I am a lost cause.


And as for all this kick-another-reflex-anti-Stalin-shit - Well lets all
toe the party line- Eh? & finally the thought of Lou being a Stalinist
is perhaps the most sarcastic comment that one could make.


Of course. I am a dyed-in-the-wool Bukharinite. Peasants, enrich yourselves!


Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org

RE: Re: Chomsky

[Devine, James]

Title: RE: [PEN-L:32746] Re: Chomsky





Before the Kuwait war, Iraq had lots of oil bucks, so that Saddam could do a lot of good things for the people in order to build up his legitimacy without detracting from the all-important feathering of his own nest. (Saddam's politics are amazing similar to another oil critter, Dubya.)

JD


> iraqi gov't, at one time, was among handful 
> that accepted principle of spontaneous 
> settlement(more commonly known as squatting)
> in addressing housing issues... 
> 
> approach involved relatively low-cost 
> upgrading of 'shanties' with roads, sewer, electricity, 
> water...low rents & community 
> links were sustained while infrastructure
> development created jobs...gov't would
> offer people sites on which to build their 
> own residences (providing construction
> guidance as well)...folks received tenure 
> security and protection against rent 
> inflation...  education and health facilities 
> were built to service such areas...
> 
> result was string of villages in which
> residents could preserve/practice culture,
> maintain/foster mutual help & support...
> communities helped cushion people against
> urban isolation/alienation *and* blocked
> use of inappropriate western planning/
> zoning ideas...   michael hoover

Re: Chomsky

[Michael Hoover]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/03/02 22:39 PM >>>
To say that Iraq before the Gulf War had some success in developing health
and education does not make someone a supporter of SH.  All too often in
political discourse to say a positive word about any of today's demons,
makes one an agent of the devil.
Michael Perelman
<<<>>>

iraqi gov't, at one time, was among handful 
that accepted principle of spontaneous 
settlement(more commonly known as squatting)
in addressing housing issues... 

approach involved relatively low-cost 
upgrading of 'shanties' with roads, sewer, electricity, water...low rents & community 
links were sustained while infrastructure
development created jobs...gov't would
offer people sites on which to build their 
own residences (providing construction
guidance as well)...folks received tenure 
security and protection against rent 
inflation...  education and health facilities 
were built to service such areas...

result was string of villages in which
residents could preserve/practice culture,
maintain/foster mutual help & support...
communities helped cushion people against
urban isolation/alienation *and* blocked
use of inappropriate western planning/
zoning ideas...   michael hoover

 

Re: Chomsky

[Steve Diamond]

The Germans had a word for such movements of entire populations out of the
cities, Michael, I think they called it "das endliche losung" - and, just
think, they were fed and clothed during the entire ride.



- Original Message -
From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:38 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:32741] Chomsky


> I thought that Jim, Thiago, and Max answered Steve quite well.  Chomsky
> was not concerned about defending Cambodia, only trying to show the
> hypocracy of the US.  Once in France, I saw a very interesting Yugoslavian
> documentary on Cambodia.  It made the case that Pol Pot had to move the
> people out of the cities in order to avoid starvation.  It did not defend
> the massacres, nor would anyone on this list.
>
> To say that Iraq before the Gulf War had some success in developing health
> and education does not make someone a supporter of SH.  All too often in
> political discourse to say a positive word about any of today's demons,
> makes one an agent of the devil.
>
>  --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

Re: Re: Chomsky

[dave dorkin]

Wow-that was clever!  Give it a rest-please (I sense
maybe the Faurrisson affair is next on your to do
list?)

 



--- Steve Diamond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Germans had a word for such movements of entire
> populations out of the
> cities, Michael, I think they called it "das
> endliche losung" - and, just
> think, they were fed and clothed during the entire
> ride.

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Re: Re: RE: Chomsky: A man of "great integrity"?

[Louis Proyect]

Stephen Diamond:

that Chomsky ever stated that he was wrong in 1977.)   The failure of the
left to establish a credible independent foreign policy opposed to the
politics of both the U.S. government and those of regimes like Hussein's,
Castro's, Lee Kuan Yew's, and Kim il Jung's is a tragedy marked by the swing
of erstwhile colleagues such as Christopher Hitchens to an open alliance
with the U.S. government.


Interesting how some countries have governments and other countries have 
regimes. When was the last time the NY Times referred to the regime in 
Washington? Hmmm.


Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org

Re: Re: RE: Chomsky: A man of "great integrity"?

[topp8564]

On 4/12/2002 11:53 AM, "Steve Diamond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The remarkable thing is how exactly this mirrors the approach of the U.S.
> Government when it chooses facts to fits its politics - as it so shamefully
> did in the case of Rwanda.  (By the way I can find nothing that suggests
> that Chomsky ever stated that he was wrong in 1977.)   The failure of the
> left to establish a credible independent foreign policy opposed to the
> politics of both the U.S. government and those of regimes like Hussein's,
> Castro's, Lee Kuan Yew's, and Kim il Jung's is a tragedy marked by the swing
> of erstwhile colleagues such as Christopher Hitchens to an open alliance
> with the U.S. government.


What madness! This is utter falsification: it is either lazy or irresponsible. 
Who in the left supports Hussein (!), Lee Kuan Yew (?!?) and Kim il Jung, let 
alone their foreign policies? Maybe the Stalinists that Chomsky has 
consistently denounced since the very first thing he ever published, an article 
about the spanish civil war back in 1936. 

As I understand it, since Chomsky's central point has been, since 1977, that 
the US press treates 'approved' genocides with the full aparatus of shock and 
horror whilst eliding genocides not endorsed by the Dept. of State, he has 
absolutely nothing to retract. He has been right all along - whatever the facts 
may have been in Cambodia. 


Thiago



-
This mail sent through IMP: www-mail.usyd.edu.au

Re: RE: Chomsky: A man of "great integrity"?

[Steve Diamond]

Max,

As you note, Chomsky and Herman admit there were "sharply
conflicting assessments" at the time.  The question is why they chose to
disparage those assessments that suggested a genocide was underway.  I would
suggest it is because doing so was consistent with their politics - which
still today in the case of Chomsky consist of an approach that states that
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" when it does not slide all the way over
into political support and admiration for authoritarian "left" regimes.

The remarkable thing is how exactly this mirrors the approach of the U.S.
Government when it chooses facts to fits its politics - as it so shamefully
did in the case of Rwanda.  (By the way I can find nothing that suggests
that Chomsky ever stated that he was wrong in 1977.)   The failure of the
left to establish a credible independent foreign policy opposed to the
politics of both the U.S. government and those of regimes like Hussein's,
Castro's, Lee Kuan Yew's, and Kim il Jung's is a tragedy marked by the swing
of erstwhile colleagues such as Christopher Hitchens to an open alliance
with the U.S. government.

As an antidote to this kind of thinking I would highly recommend the work of
E.P. Thompson including any of the material that he and others produced
during the European Nuclear Disarmament movement of theh 1980s and his
collection of essays The Poverty of Theory.

Stephen F. Diamond

RE: RE: Chomsky: A man of "great integrity"?

[Devine, James]

Title: RE: [PEN-L:32730] RE: Chomsky:  A man of "great integrity"? 





MS concludes:
>One should not judge the morality of NC's statements at the time by
how well they accord with what is known retrospectively, in light of
the reality that the sources on genocide were not trustworthy.
Untrustworthy sources can be right on occasion, but it is not
smart to depend on them.  You would have to show the availability
of a fount of information from unbiased sources to conclude that NC
ignored evidence he ought not to have ignored.


>SD's post is unfair.<


If you read their book, it's very clear that Chomsky & Herman are almost entirely focussed on the official "Western" press (the NY TIMES, etc.) Their main point is that the official press damns the "bad" killings (e.g., the Khmer Rouge) while downplaying the "good" ones (e.g., in Indonesia), where it is the US State Department that decides what bad and good are. If a group is seen as "bad" by State, the official press rushes to condemn it, while the truth about the "good" massacres come out later, sometimes several years later. 

As one who leans toward anarchism, NC is no apologist for the KR, a horribly statist organization. 


(BTW, given the chaos created by (in rough order of importance) the US bombings and invasions, the Vietnamese use of the territory as a staging ground, and the precipitous collapse of the Lon Nol government, the Hobbesian "nasty, brutish, and short" nightmare threatened. So a cynic might say that the KR was exactly the Leviathan that Dr. Hobbes ordered, forcibly creating lawnorder. But the victory of the KR was not inevitable.) 

JD

RE: Chomsky: A man of "great integrity"?

[Max B. Sawicky]

I checked one item in this post against the text (which is
here:  http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/7706-distortions.html

"The "slaughter" by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York Times creation."


The context for the statement is not, as is implied by the
extract above, a general denial of mass murder, but a specific
claim which NC claims is not adequately documented.  Most of
the article is in a similar vein -- noting the lack of evidence
presented in news accounts.  SD does nothing to rebut his
argument.  Noting that genocide took place is not a rebuttal.

NC's conclusion, along similar lines:

"We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply
conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial
points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted
version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge
atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and
indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered. Evidence that focuses
on the American role, like the Hildebrand and Porter volume, is ignored, not
on the basis of truthfulness or scholarship but because the message is
unpalatable."

My conclusion:

One should not judge the morality of NC's statements at the time by
how well they accord with what is known retrospectively, in light of
the reality that the sources on genocide were not trustworthy.
Untrustworthy sources can be right on occasion, but it is not
smart to depend on them.  You would have to show the availability
of a fount of information from unbiased sources to conclude that NC
ignored evidence he ought not to have ignored.

SD's post is unfair.

mbs

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chomsky in the news

[ALI KADRI]

I should have added that a moral hazard framework
works here. ie 
us maximises its welfare which is a function of its
output minus disruptions caused by the third world
 subjest to third world minimizing its discomfort from
seepage and leakages abroad etc. we get a price vector
which establishes an equilibrium level of democracy>
the Borsch condition 
--- ALI KADRI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "the appropriate level of democracy": that answers
> it.
> --- Ian Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Michael Perelman"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 3:25 PM
> > Subject: [PEN-L:20114] Re: Re: Chomsky in the news
> > 
> > 
> > > Ali's question is fascinating.  When the country
> > gets too corrupt
> > and too
> > > chaotic, that is inconvenient.  When the country
> > gets too
> > democratic, that
> > > too is dangerous.
> > >
> > > Maybe we could construct a mirror of Robert 
> > Barro's estimation of
> > the
> > > appropriate level of democracy.
> > 
> > ==
> > Brian Barry's "Democracy, Power & Justice" has a
> > chapter titled "Does
> > Democracy Cause Inflation" that might be a good
> > place to start and
> > link it with Minsky's claims about the fiscal
> > sector/gdp ratio a la
> > the socialization of investment
> > 
> > Ian
> > 
> 
> 
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting,
> just $8.95/month.
> http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

Re: Re: Re: Re: Chomsky in the news

[ALI KADRI]

"the appropriate level of democracy": that answers it.
--- Ian Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 3:25 PM
> Subject: [PEN-L:20114] Re: Re: Chomsky in the news
> 
> 
> > Ali's question is fascinating.  When the country
> gets too corrupt
> and too
> > chaotic, that is inconvenient.  When the country
> gets too
> democratic, that
> > too is dangerous.
> >
> > Maybe we could construct a mirror of Robert 
> Barro's estimation of
> the
> > appropriate level of democracy.
> 
> ==
> Brian Barry's "Democracy, Power & Justice" has a
> chapter titled "Does
> Democracy Cause Inflation" that might be a good
> place to start and
> link it with Minsky's claims about the fiscal
> sector/gdp ratio a la
> the socialization of investment
> 
> Ian
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

Re: Re: Re: Chomsky in the news

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message -
From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 3:25 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:20114] Re: Re: Chomsky in the news


> Ali's question is fascinating.  When the country gets too corrupt
and too
> chaotic, that is inconvenient.  When the country gets too
democratic, that
> too is dangerous.
>
> Maybe we could construct a mirror of Robert  Barro's estimation of
the
> appropriate level of democracy.

==
Brian Barry's "Democracy, Power & Justice" has a chapter titled "Does
Democracy Cause Inflation" that might be a good place to start and
link it with Minsky's claims about the fiscal sector/gdp ratio a la
the socialization of investment

Ian

Re: Re: Chomsky in the news

[Michael Perelman]

Ali's question is fascinating.  When the country gets too corrupt and too
chaotic, that is inconvenient.  When the country gets too democratic, that
too is dangerous.

Maybe we could construct a mirror of Robert  Barro's estimation of the
appropriate level of democracy.

On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 08:53:54AM -0800, ALI KADRI wrote:
> I have asked once on the list about the role of
> imperialism in social development in the third world.
> so here i ask again:
> put bluntly does the us benefit more from a third
> world country with a socially regressive agenda or
> from one with a socially progressive agenda?
> 
> depending on where you stand on this question then it
> is possible to say that US kills people, schools,
> hospitals, etc because it is better for its interests
> or not, no!
> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > from Microsoft's SLATE on-line newsmagazine:
> > 
> > Chomsky Speak
> > 
> > By Inigo Thomas
> > 
> > Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2001, at 3:25 PM PT 
> > 
> > In Pakistan to promote the view that the United
> > States sponsors terrorism, Professor Noam Chomsky
> > told an audience of 1,500 people that the 1998
> > bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory
> > (wrongly believed by the CIA to be an al-Qaida
> > chemical weapons plant) may have resulted in the
> > deaths of several thousand people. (Other reports
> > say that one or maybe two people died at the factory
> > after it was hit by U.S. cruise missiles.) This
> > instance of U.S. terrorism, Chomsky says, is an
> > indication of what will happen in Afghanistan.
> > "Coalition forces [meaning American and British
> > forces together with their proxy, the Northern
> > Alliance] are making plans to further destroy the
> > hunger-stricken country. The consequences of their
> > crimes will never be known and they are quite
> > confident about that. And that is the enormous
> > outcome of the crime of the powerful …"
> > 
> > Chomsky is famous for his analysis of U.S.
> > government actions and the language used by
> > officials to blind the citizenry from the truth, yet
> > in this speech the MIT professor comes close to
> > adopting the language of distortion he abhors.
> > Chomsky implies that the Afghan famine is a result
> > of U.S. and British military action, although an
> > Afghan farmer might say that a lack of rain in
> > recent years as well as the Taliban regime were more
> > directly responsible for the dearth. Moroever, and
> > contrary to what Chomsky says, the United States and
> > its allies are not planning to "further destroy"
> > Afghanistan, although they do hope to destroy the
> > Taliban, whose willful destruction of their own
> > country has created a humanitarian calamity.
> > Finally, what truth is there in Chomsky's remark
> > that the "consequences of their crimes will never be
> > known and they are quite confident about that"? The
> > implication is that the Americans and the British
> > are getting away with murder in Afghanistan, but if
> > th!
> > e consequences of previous American actions have
> > been revealed, and Chomsky offers some examples in
> > the very same speech, why is he so sure that the
> > consequences of these so-called "crimes" will remain
> > a mystery? What's so special about Afghanistan? Of
> > course, you could also be led to believe that no
> > "crimes" have taken place in Afghanistan, in which
> > case there will be different consequences.
> > 
> > 
> > comments?
> > Jim Devine
> > 
> > _
> > The simple way to read all your emails at ThatWeb
> > http://www.thatweb.com
> > 
> 
> 
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
> http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
> 

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Re: Chomsky in the news

[Brownson, Jamil]

agreed, but an addenda, US-UK "proxy" is plural, as it includes Pushtun
factions, which over time will grow to be more distinctly different from NA,
not only in terms of ethnicity, but a a more likely poppwer base for US
interests, which include reforming Pakistan & bring it back into line with
US policy & prior cold war relationship of proxy in the line of Soviet
containment.  

-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 9:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20083] Re: Chomsky in the news


Thomas is probably twisting words.  Certainly, the war is destructive for
Afgan.  The US is planning the war.  So, if Chomsky says that the US is
planning a war that will destroy , it is easy to twist to "the US is
planning to destroy."

Of course, no respectable news outlet would ever let Chomsky speak for
himself.  We, the unwashed, need expert interpreters so that we don't get it
wrong.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> from Microsoft's SLATE on-line newsmagazine:
>
> Chomsky Speak

> "Coalition forces [meaning American and British forces together with their
proxy, the Northern Alliance] are making plans to further destroy the
hunger-stricken country. The consequences of their crimes will never be
known and they are quite confident about that. And that is the enormous
outcome of the crime of the powerful ..."
>

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Chomsky in the news

[Michael Perelman]

Thomas is probably twisting words.  Certainly, the war is destructive for Afgan.  The 
US is planning the war.  So, if Chomsky says that the US is planning a war that will 
destroy , it is easy to twist to "the US is planning to destroy."

Of course, no respectable news outlet would ever let Chomsky speak for himself.  We, 
the unwashed, need expert interpreters so that we don't get it wrong.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> from Microsoft's SLATE on-line newsmagazine:
>
> Chomsky Speak

> "Coalition forces [meaning American and British forces together with their proxy, 
>the Northern Alliance] are making plans to further destroy the hunger-stricken 
>country. The consequences of their crimes will never be known and they are quite 
>confident about that. And that is the enormous outcome of the crime of the powerful …"
>

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Chomsky in the news

[ALI KADRI]

I have asked once on the list about the role of
imperialism in social development in the third world.
so here i ask again:
put bluntly does the us benefit more from a third
world country with a socially regressive agenda or
from one with a socially progressive agenda?

depending on where you stand on this question then it
is possible to say that US kills people, schools,
hospitals, etc because it is better for its interests
or not, no!
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> from Microsoft's SLATE on-line newsmagazine:
> 
> Chomsky Speak
> 
> By Inigo Thomas
> 
> Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2001, at 3:25 PM PT 
> 
> In Pakistan to promote the view that the United
> States sponsors terrorism, Professor Noam Chomsky
> told an audience of 1,500 people that the 1998
> bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory
> (wrongly believed by the CIA to be an al-Qaida
> chemical weapons plant) may have resulted in the
> deaths of several thousand people. (Other reports
> say that one or maybe two people died at the factory
> after it was hit by U.S. cruise missiles.) This
> instance of U.S. terrorism, Chomsky says, is an
> indication of what will happen in Afghanistan.
> "Coalition forces [meaning American and British
> forces together with their proxy, the Northern
> Alliance] are making plans to further destroy the
> hunger-stricken country. The consequences of their
> crimes will never be known and they are quite
> confident about that. And that is the enormous
> outcome of the crime of the powerful …"
> 
> Chomsky is famous for his analysis of U.S.
> government actions and the language used by
> officials to blind the citizenry from the truth, yet
> in this speech the MIT professor comes close to
> adopting the language of distortion he abhors.
> Chomsky implies that the Afghan famine is a result
> of U.S. and British military action, although an
> Afghan farmer might say that a lack of rain in
> recent years as well as the Taliban regime were more
> directly responsible for the dearth. Moroever, and
> contrary to what Chomsky says, the United States and
> its allies are not planning to "further destroy"
> Afghanistan, although they do hope to destroy the
> Taliban, whose willful destruction of their own
> country has created a humanitarian calamity.
> Finally, what truth is there in Chomsky's remark
> that the "consequences of their crimes will never be
> known and they are quite confident about that"? The
> implication is that the Americans and the British
> are getting away with murder in Afghanistan, but if
> th!
> e consequences of previous American actions have
> been revealed, and Chomsky offers some examples in
> the very same speech, why is he so sure that the
> consequences of these so-called "crimes" will remain
> a mystery? What's so special about Afghanistan? Of
> course, you could also be led to believe that no
> "crimes" have taken place in Afghanistan, in which
> case there will be different consequences.
> 
> 
> comments?
> Jim Devine
> 
> _
> The simple way to read all your emails at ThatWeb
> http://www.thatweb.com
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

RE: Re: Chomsky in the news

[Devine, James]

people may want to forward their comments to SLATE. 

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine



-Original Message-
From: William S. Lear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 8:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20071] Re: Chomsky in the news


On Wednesday, November 28, 2001 at 15:33:47 (+) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>from Microsoft's SLATE on-line newsmagazine:
>
>Chomsky Speak
>
>By Inigo Thomas
>...
>comments?

Aside from being sloppy and poorly written, it claims Chomsky "implies
that the Afghan famine is a result of U.S. and British military
action" and that he ignores the "lack of rain", etc.  But nowhere in
the quoted remark of Chomsky does he say anything about the cause of
the "famine".  Furthermore, from my reading of previous remarks of
Chomsky on this, he makes no such implication.  Widespread severe
hunger (perhaps truly a "famine", perhaps not) in Afghanistan was
clear prior to the US assault.  However, the hunger was being
addressed by the international aid organizations, the efforts of which
were halted due to the US attack.  Aid organizations condemned the US
bombing, noting the effects on the relief efforts; they also roundly
condemned the so-called humanitarian aid dropped from the sky as this
would tend to identify relief efforts with those raining down the
bombs and would make future relief much more difficult.

As to "plans to further destroy the hunger-stricken country", it is
hard to make out from the given quote exactly what is meant by this,
though Thomas seems to know somehow that this is not true, though he
provides no supporting evidence for this claim.

I am curious myself about the deaths due to the bombing of the
Sudanese pharmaceutical plant.  One would reasonably count direct and
indirect deaths due to this, e.g., those who died as a result of a
lack of medications, but I have not seen Chomsky's source for
this claim.

As to the final remark about the crimes being hidden, what Chomsky
clearly means is not that they will literally be unknown to anyone ---
clearly false and too blatantly stupid a notion to reasonably impute
to Chomsky --- but that they will be largely unknown to most
Americans, particularly those who tend to influence policy.

Finally, one might also question the claim that the Taliban has
engaged in a "willful destruction of their own country", which as far
as I know is not true.  Repressive religious "fundamentalist"
fanatics, yes; but from what I have read elsewhere, they brought a
measure of order to the constant warfare and real destruction that was
continuing prior to their ascent to power.


Bill

RE: Re: Chomsky in the news

[Max Sawicky]

Thomas just lies in the first graph, since Chomsky was clearly
referring to indirect deaths resulting from the lack of output from
the pharmaceutical plant.  Whether the latter is true I couldn't
say, but Thomas fails to even acknowledge it.  So he/she
is on that account untrustworthy in general.  In the Hitchens
exchange, Chomsky was persuasive on this count.

More important, however, is the curious claim that the U.S.
plans to "destroy" Afghanistan or cause untold mass deaths.
Without doubt innocent lives are and will be lost to hunger,
disease, and other injury as a result of the U.S. mission,
and all of that could be expected (and glossed over by
U.S. authorities) before the fact, but the accusation that
this is in and of itself an objective seems a huge slander.
Certainly the burden of proof for such an accusation is
on the source -- Chomsky -- but I have yet to see any.

Why resort to this sort of fairy tale?  Reality is
always bad enough.

mbs


. . . As to "plans to further destroy the hunger-stricken country", it is
hard to make out from the given quote exactly what is meant by this,
though Thomas seems to know somehow that this is not true, though he
provides no supporting evidence for this claim.

Re: Chomsky in the news

[William S. Lear]

On Wednesday, November 28, 2001 at 15:33:47 (+) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>from Microsoft's SLATE on-line newsmagazine:
>
>Chomsky Speak
>
>By Inigo Thomas
>...
>comments?

Aside from being sloppy and poorly written, it claims Chomsky "implies
that the Afghan famine is a result of U.S. and British military
action" and that he ignores the "lack of rain", etc.  But nowhere in
the quoted remark of Chomsky does he say anything about the cause of
the "famine".  Furthermore, from my reading of previous remarks of
Chomsky on this, he makes no such implication.  Widespread severe
hunger (perhaps truly a "famine", perhaps not) in Afghanistan was
clear prior to the US assault.  However, the hunger was being
addressed by the international aid organizations, the efforts of which
were halted due to the US attack.  Aid organizations condemned the US
bombing, noting the effects on the relief efforts; they also roundly
condemned the so-called humanitarian aid dropped from the sky as this
would tend to identify relief efforts with those raining down the
bombs and would make future relief much more difficult.

As to "plans to further destroy the hunger-stricken country", it is
hard to make out from the given quote exactly what is meant by this,
though Thomas seems to know somehow that this is not true, though he
provides no supporting evidence for this claim.

I am curious myself about the deaths due to the bombing of the
Sudanese pharmaceutical plant.  One would reasonably count direct and
indirect deaths due to this, e.g., those who died as a result of a
lack of medications, but I have not seen Chomsky's source for
this claim.

As to the final remark about the crimes being hidden, what Chomsky
clearly means is not that they will literally be unknown to anyone ---
clearly false and too blatantly stupid a notion to reasonably impute
to Chomsky --- but that they will be largely unknown to most
Americans, particularly those who tend to influence policy.

Finally, one might also question the claim that the Taliban has
engaged in a "willful destruction of their own country", which as far
as I know is not true.  Repressive religious "fundamentalist"
fanatics, yes; but from what I have read elsewhere, they brought a
measure of order to the constant warfare and real destruction that was
continuing prior to their ascent to power.


Bill

Re: Chomsky in the news

[Justin Schwartz]

If only Slate would regularly subject the statements os government flacks 
and officials to this sort of analysis! jks

>
>from Microsoft's SLATE on-line newsmagazine:
>
>Chomsky Speak
>
>By Inigo Thomas
>
>Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2001, at 3:25 PM PT
>
>In Pakistan to promote the view that the United States sponsors terrorism, 
>Professor Noam Chomsky told an audience of 1,500 people that the 1998 
>bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory (wrongly believed by the CIA 
>to be an al-Qaida chemical weapons plant) may have resulted in the deaths 
>of several thousand people. (Other reports say that one or maybe two people 
>died at the factory after it was hit by U.S. cruise missiles.) This 
>instance of U.S. terrorism, Chomsky says, is an indication of what will 
>happen in Afghanistan. "Coalition forces [meaning American and British 
>forces together with their proxy, the Northern Alliance] are making plans 
>to further destroy the hunger-stricken country. The consequences of their 
>crimes will never be known and they are quite confident about that. And 
>that is the enormous outcome of the crime of the powerful …"
>
>Chomsky is famous for his analysis of U.S. government actions and the 
>language used by officials to blind the citizenry from the truth, yet in 
>this speech the MIT professor comes close to adopting the language of 
>distortion he abhors. Chomsky implies that the Afghan famine is a result of 
>U.S. and British military action, although an Afghan farmer might say that 
>a lack of rain in recent years as well as the Taliban regime were more 
>directly responsible for the dearth. Moroever, and contrary to what Chomsky 
>says, the United States and its allies are not planning to "further 
>destroy" Afghanistan, although they do hope to destroy the Taliban, whose 
>willful destruction of their own country has created a humanitarian 
>calamity. Finally, what truth is there in Chomsky's remark that the 
>"consequences of their crimes will never be known and they are quite 
>confident about that"? The implication is that the Americans and the 
>British are getting away with murder in Afghanistan, but if th!
>e consequences of previous American actions have been revealed, and Chomsky 
>offers some examples in the very same speech, why is he so sure that the 
>consequences of these so-called "crimes" will remain a mystery? What's so 
>special about Afghanistan? Of course, you could also be led to believe that 
>no "crimes" have taken place in Afghanistan, in which case there will be 
>different consequences.
>
>
>comments?
>Jim Devine
>
>_
>The simple way to read all your emails at ThatWeb
>http://www.thatweb.com
>


_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Re: chomsky

[William S. Lear]

On Thursday, October 25, 2001 at 13:22:33 (-0700) Rakesh Bhandari writes:
>i want to be clear that my characterization of the chomsky criticism launched 
>by hitchens-georgia rondas-andrew hagen-leo casey as misguided, cynical and 
>perverse in no way implies that i think chomsky is above crititism.
>
>*i don't think wm lear on pen-l was effective in rebutting the charge that 
>chomsky had misanalyzed what the costs were and who had borne them in the 
>Marshall plan. wm lear relied on marcello dececco to defend chomsky; it seems 
>to differ from the more defensible account in anthony tuo-kofi gadzey's 
>political economy of power. 

For the record, I believe I actually relied upon Eric Helleiner, not
De Cecco.


Bill

Re: chomsky

[Michael Perelman]

Rakesh, none of these people is here any more.

On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 01:22:33PM -0700, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> i want to be clear that my characterization of the chomsky criticism launched 
> by hitchens-georgia rondas-andrew hagen-leo casey as misguided, cynical and 
> perverse in no way implies that i think chomsky is above crititism.
> 
> *i don't think wm lear on pen-l was effective in rebutting the charge that 
> chomsky had misanalyzed what the costs were and who had borne them in the 
> Marshall plan. wm lear relied on marcello dececco to defend chomsky; it seems 
> to differ from the more defensible account in anthony tuo-kofi gadzey's 
> political economy of power. 
> 
> **i do think chomsky can be criticized for not probing into the limits of some 
> of the opposition groups or states to American empire. this is not his focus, 
> but how he frames events can be challenged, i believe. however, unlike 
> hitchens, i do not think chomsky ever apologized for milosevic or the 'serbs'--
> in fact, i think he said the milosevic was guilty of more and greater war 
> crimes than usually recognized. 
> 
> ***i tend to think that chomsky underestimates the political economic basis of 
> foreign policy; i found edward herman's real terror network to be more helpful, 
> and i think herman's contribution is underestimated. 
> 
> i look forward to learning more about chomsky's linguistics. unlike jim 
> farmelant whose opinion i respect, i think i will find c's critque of skinner's 
> behaviorism (and quine's philosophy insofar as it was influenced by skinner) to 
> be persuasive. but aside from that, i appreciate chomsky's scientific audacity
> in positing an unobservable structure to explain observed phenomena. such 
> scientific daring seems preferrable to me than a simple description of the 
> acquisition of language in a behaviorist mode. but i have no opinion on this, 
> and i suspect that i will be sympathetic to critiques of chomsky's innatism by 
> people like bickerton. 
> 
> chomsky is certainly not above criticism, but in my opinion it may have beneath 
> him to have responded to hitchens' and casey's grotesque criticisms. 
> 
> Rakesh
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Chomsky and his critics

[manuel resende]

Just one more comment, sorry. I couldn't resist.

Andrew: why Stephen Roach (Morgan Stanley) should apologize to the WTC victims.

[quoting from
http://csf.colorado.edu/pen-l/2001III/msg03255.html]

Stephen Roach:
>And, of course, the shocking events of recent days underscore
>what now seems to be the biggest threat of all -- mounting 
>geopolitical tensions. That, in my view, remains the ultimate irony
>of the post-Cold War era. Absent the standoff of two superpowers,
>there has been a distinct fragmentation of the world's political struggles.
>Whether it's the Middle East, Central Europe, or now Central Asia, 
>internal struggles in each of these regions have had profound spillovers
>into the broader global arena. Global terrorism is both an outgrowth
>of those struggles and a catalyst for new struggles. 

And then:

>What emerges from this mosaic is an inherent instability in the
>current wave of globalization that is strikingly reminiscent of
>forces that led to the demise of earlier efforts. Ever-widening
>income disparities underscore the plight of those who do not
>benefit from globalization. Periodic financial crises put pressure 
>on a similar disenfranchised segment of the world. These mounting
>economic tensions between the "haves" and the "have-nots" are a
>breeding ground for the social and geopolitical instability that
>always seems to have the final say on globalization. 

He is trying to explain the unexplainable: evil.


Manel



_
Sign up for FREE email from TimorLeste.net at http://www.timorleste.net

Re: Chomsky and his critics

[manuel resende]

I wrote this a long time ago, and hesitated a long time before sending it.

I think this thread is important, and that Andrew raises some crucial points that need 
an answer. One shouldn't discard it too easily. That's why I decided to send this post.


Andrew says:

>The chief lesson of the 20th Century is that evil can happen without a

>discernible cause. Evil sustained is a choice. When it happens, one

>must respond in an intelligent and brave manner, or it will not be

>stopped. In the case of many crimes, such as serial murders, there is

>no "reason" why they happen. Science has not given us a complete

>profile of what creates a murderer, and it never will. It can't. It is

>not immoral to recognize evil and to face it.


Come on, Andrew! I find this very weird. "Evil can happen without a discernible 
cause"? What does that mean? Of course, evil _can_ happen without a discernible cause. 
But:


1/ That doesn't mean that evil _must_ happen without a discernible cause; I mean, evil 
_can_ happen with a discernible cause, too;


2/ There is not _a_ discernible cause for nazism (and no undiscernible cause, 
neither), nor BTW for Stalinism; but one can understand, or try to understand, why the 
social and political soil in Europe was ripe for Hitler and his friends (defeated 
revolutions; militias ramping around; depression; a woman cost a cigarette, a 
cigarette cost a heap of money; people got crazy because those were crazy times; the 
superego of the urban rabble blew up). To say that Hitler is irrational, and that for 
that reason (uhm), reason can't explain him, is to accept the irrationalist argument. 
But arguing of the irrationality of Hitler to explain (away) nazism is a double error: 
nazism was a political mass movement.


Those people that say that evil is a hidden devil that only waits in the foils of 
society to jump out at a unpredictable moment are disarming us to try and understand 
the roots of social phenomena in order to avoid the perils next time.


All things social are a blend of deep forces that compel humans with the actions of 
humans in that fields of forces. There is never _a_ cause but a bundle of complex 
actions and reactions.


Then you jump to individual murders: "science  has not given us a complete profile of 
what creates a murderer". Thank God, I say! We must have some mystery left… Today (27 
September) a Swiss broke into a canton legislature meeting, killed a lot of people and 
then killed himself.


http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010927/wl/switzerland_rampage_14.html


That was a crisis of folly. That was one individual murderer. But even here there was 
a social pretext.


But you have also those mass phenomena that  come and go by waves, and that you can 
trace down to certain social trends: hooliganism in England, outbreaks of violence in 
the French "banlieus", aso. Many reasons why each particular youngster turns into a 
violent kid have perhaps nothing to do with the social climate: perhaps he wants to 
kill his father and marry his mother, or he could possibly have been a gangster or a 
serial killer, in a more calm environment; [Then again, in other circumstances he 
could be a good polemist, or a boxer, or a cop, or a war hero. Who knows? they have 
been discussing the innate and the acquired for decades].


But, in this instance, the bouts of social violence, the form of the violence, its 
mass character _have_  certainly something to do with the general situation.


Am I justifying murder? Am I "appeasing"  the youth "with an unwarranted sympathy and 
understanding"? Well, I have been accused of  that during discussions with some 
otherwise gentle friends. Of course, when you risk being stabbed in the metro it is 
difficult to keep calm, reasoned and "reasonable". And it's very difficult to oppose 
people that think that a "thug is a thug" and one must reestablish  the death penalty. 
Because, you know, "there is no reason for the rebellion", "they are just little 
scoundrels" (rebels without a cause?) that must be fought in a brave and virile manner 
in order to save society.


Andrew says:

>Chomsky fails, however, to condemn terrorists and the governments

>sympathetic to them for not using those same channels to redress their

>grievances, however.


Chomsky has explained many times why he addresses his government and not the "other 
side": because the other side won't give a damn about what he says and anyway it has 
no effect. Imagine Chomsky writing an open letter to Bin Laden, or Kim il Sung, urging 
them to behave themselves…

He prefers to act in a manner that he can influence the politics of his country and 
his countrypersons.


In this case, I think he is right. Although in other instances, I am not so sure. 
Well, I don't know. He just is too parochially American, perhaps.


[You know, Chomsky is a very stubborn person. I am in a very good situation to know 
it, because as a translator I became interested in linguistics and read many 

Re: Chomsky must apologize

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Steve says:

>I read Chomsky as
>stating that the perpetrators of this crime were at one point funded by
>the CIA and that that is what makes it necesary to then analyze the
>relationship between US foreign policy and this incident.

If the perpetrators turn out to have been indeed associated with 
Osama bin Laden & Co., as the U.S. government & media have argued, 
the S11 bombings are classic instances of blowback (= "the unintended 
consequences of U.S. policies kept
secret from the American people," to use the words of Chalmers 
Johnson, though some who died at the Pentagon might have known about 
this fact intimately).

Yoshie

Re: Chomsky must apologize

[Chris Burford]

At 21/09/01 21:47 -0500, you wrote:
>I stand by what I've written.
>
>Andrew Hagen
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Yes it is presumptuous but I see some advantages to that. Certainly there 
must be serious debate within the left about the best way forward, even if 
it does not have to be totally united to be effective.

The trouble with Andrew's piece was that IMHO it did not really hit the 
mark - possibly because the web-site does not permit cut and paste so it is 
not easy to have direct quotes - all right Andrew did give one.  But 
certainly I read it to be a warning that the USA was highly likely to react 
with self-righteous revenge in a way that would actually be everything the 
terrorists would want.

The trouble with Chomsky as far as I understand him, is more difficult to 
pin down. Basically he comes over to me as a moral critic of the USA, a 
seer denouncing the evil of his own side. In the broadest terms, I agree if 
Andrew says, that Chomsky gives this impression. But it is not a very 
realistic basis for developing a real political movement in the USA. It 
tends to assume that it is better to be isolated and moral, in your own 
terms, than to work with others for a change, perhaps a very radical 
change, in the real world.

I do think Chomsky redeemed himself a year or two ago when he actually 
called on the USA to intervene somewhere - that was in East Timor. That 
gets more into the territory of what a massive global power, (Empire?) can 
and should do, somewhat to increase jjustice and peace in the world. That 
stand I saw as a materialist and realistic approach to morality.

People who know Chomsky far better than I, may be able to correct me. But 
despite the presumptuous of Andrew's challenge, I would like to see more 
open and explicit debate about what should be the main direction that the 
left should take.

My view is that it should make strenuous efforts to unite the peace 
tendencies with the anti-capitalist global tendencies that were fast 
developing before Tues 11th.

Chris Burford

London

Re: Chomsky must apologize

[Stephen E Philion]

Funny, your reading is totally different from mine. I read Chomsky as
stating that the perpetrators of this crime were at one point funded by
the  CIA and that that is what makes it necesary to then  analyze the
relationship between US foreign policy and this incident. Furthermore, his
argument is that if we don't face that issue, we will see many more of
these kinds of  horrifying attacks. Hardly something that a reasonable
grieving relative of WTC tragedy would need an apology for. Indeed, though
pro-war persons like yourself like to ignore or cover up, a number of
victims' relatives have  already publicly stated that thtey don't want
their grief to be used as an excuse for warmaking.  That  Chomsky
finds these organizations' actions repulsive is plain as day, I think
you're just looking for excuses to take on Chomsky. I think you've met
your match and then some...

Steve


 Stephen Philion
Lecturer/PhD Candidate
Department of Sociology
2424 Maile Way
Social Sciences Bldg. # 247
Honolulu, HI 96822

Re: Re: Chomsky must apologize

[Andrew Hagen]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 18:39:15 -0700, Michael Perelman wrote:

>pretty persumptious, don't you think?

I stand by what I've written.

Andrew Hagen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Chomsky must apologize

[Michael Perelman]

pretty persumptious, don't you think?

On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 09:30:24PM -0500, Andrew Hagen wrote:
> Noam Chomsky's position on the attack of September 11 was carried by
> B92, and reprinted in Counterpunch. 
> 
> http://www.counterpunch.org/chomskyintv.html
> 
> The initial question and its answer are striking. Chomsky is asked,
> "Why do you think these attacks happened?" In response, he engages in a
> long, predictable diatribe against US foreign policy. Bin Laden was a
> creature of the CIA, etc, etc.
> 
> Chomsky's analysis is non-responsive, fallacious, and contentious. I
> call for Chomsky to apologize to the families of the victims. Below are
> the reasons.
> 
> Chomsky's analysis is non-responsive. Chomsky never answers the
> question of why the attacks happened. He only speaks about the
> injustice that the US has perpetrated upon the world. Not explicitly,
> but by implication Chomsky sends the message that "we" deserved it. 
> 
> The meaning of "we" is unclear. It could mean the body politic of the
> United States. It could mean the people who actually died, many of whom
> were not political decision makers. For example, did the 300 fire
> fighters deserve to die because they were too uncritical of US foreign
> policy? 
> 
> Chomsky does not answer the question of why the attack happened. He
> only asserts that Muslims resent the United States. Yet, resentment
> does not generally lead to such atrocities. 
> 
> Why is there evil in the world? Let us leave that question to the
> philosophers and theologians. To answer the question that Chomsky
> leaves open, it happened because someone conceived of unleashing an
> attack of grand magnitude against the United States, and then put that
> idea into effect. In failing to address the question as put, Chomsky's
> analysis is non-responsive. 
> 
> It would behoove the Left to develop the reputation that its
> commentators answer questions in a straightforward manner. Chomsky's
> analysis is of no help in this regard.
> 
> Chomsky's analysis is also fallacious. The attacks were well
> coordinated, meticulously planned, and executed by agents who had to
> have received extensive training. Four airplanes were successfully
> hijacked, and no airplanes were targets of unsuccessful hijack
> attempts. The hijackers carried nothing more than short knives and
> boxcutters (comparable to x-acto knives). They made some bomb threats.
> The audacity of the attacks indicates either total idiocy on the part
> of the hijackers backed by the best luck imaginable, or extreme
> confidence backed by a masterful plan that was rehearsed over and over.
> As an inference drawn from several media reports, there is a real
> possibility that all of the hijackers were using stolen identification
> documents. All of these facts point toward a military operation,
> paramilitary operation, or "black ops" operation. 
> 
> Chomsky states that the attack occurred because America is resented.
> For the sake of argument, I grant that America is resented by the
> entire Muslim world. Nevertheless, it is a plain fact that the attack
> has NOT met with popular approval anywhere in the world, and no
> sustained popular approval in the Muslim world. While there were a few
> brief celebrations in the wake of the attacks in Palestine and
> elsewhere, those celebrations have subsided now that the truly horrific
> scope of the atrocity has become well known. From a population that
> resents us, it is striking how little approval the attacks have
> received. 
> 
> While many may resent America, the attack came from a relative few who
> did not ask for and have not received popular support for their action.
> Many Muslims resent America, but none except for a very few of the
> Osama Bin Laden ilk have publicly supported the attack. Thus, even
> widespread resentment of America by Muslims could not have generated
> these attacks. These attacks could only have been generated by a
> relatively small group of dedicated people who see resentment, and
> hence hatred, as tools to be sharpened, not as necessary preconditions
> for a successful attack.
> 
> It is a sad commentary on the state of what passes for intellectualism
> on the Left today that the best that such a leading commentator can do
> is parrot the mass media in searching for a reason "why they hate us,"
> restated as why they "resent" us. Popular resentment or hatred is mere
> background to this picture. 
> 
> Perhaps Chomsky would argue that the United States is so highly
> resented that an attack of this nature was inevitable. Maybe there is
> some cosmic justice in the sometimes menacing (Mossadegh, Allende) and
> often blundering superpower (Somalia pharmaceutical plant, Iranian
> airliner) finally getting a taste of what it dishes out.
> 
> Does Chomsky propose that there is some cosmic justice at work here? He
> often mentions the "cycle of violence." Is this a spiritual force that
> is wreaking a terrible justice on America? Perh

[PEN-L:10885] Re: Chomsky interviewed on East Timor

[Chris Burford]

At 17:27 11/09/99 -0400, you wrote:
>East Timor on the Brink 
>
>Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian KGNU, Boulder, September 8, 1999


Very interesting point about the skirmishing with China for potential
leadership in South East Asia:-


>One of the reasons why
>the U.S. is maybe hanging back, apart from the fact that Indonesia is a
>loyal, rich client and there are plenty of U.S. corporations operating
>there and they don't care one way or another about the Timorese, quite
>apart from all of those things, which have been operative for quite a long
>time, there's another problem looming right now. It doesn't get reported
>much. A couple of days ago the Chinese President Ziang Zemin was in
>Thailand. He made a very strong speech which got a lot of attention in
>Southeast Asia in which he condemned U.S. "gunboat diplomacy" and economic
>neocolonialism. He talked, not in detail, but he discussed security
>arrangements between China and ASEAN, the Southeast Asian countries.
>According to the limited press coverage from Southeast Asia, the Thai
>elites welcomed this because they are glad to see a counterforce to the
>U.S., which much of the world is very much afraid of now. China is clearly
>offering some kind of security arrangement in which it will be the center.
>That means also an economic bloc with the Southeast Asian countries or part
>of them, maybe Japan ultimately brought in, and North Asia, that would
>exclude or at least marginalize the U.S.

>You have to remember that the major concern of the U.S. in that region of
>the world since the Second World War has been to prevent that from
>happening. That has been the driving concern behind the remilitarization of
>U.S. allies, including Japan, the Indochina war, the U.S. clandestine
>operations in 1958 which tried to break up Indonesia, which at that time
>was neutralist and right on to the present. They didn't care much about
>Russia. They didn't have a Cold War connection. But it was a concern that
>the countries of the region might accommodate to China, as it was put in
>internal documents, and create a kind of an Asian bloc in which the U.S.
>would not have privileged access and control. I can't imagine that
>Washington policymakers aren't aware of this. Indonesian generals may be
>thinking of it, too, thinking that it offers them a certain degree of
>leverage against even mild U.S. pressures.


BUT 


> This is a place where the U.S. has plenty of leverage, can act to stop
>something which, if the U.S. doesn't act, might turn into a Rwanda, and
>that's not an exaggeration.

>
>DB: What suggestions would you make to ordinary Americans, listeners to
>this broadcast or readers of this interview, what can they do?
>
>NC: There is one last chance to save the Timorese from utter disaster. I
>stress "utter." They've already suffered enormous disaster. In a very short
>time span, in the next couple of days, probably, unless the U.S. government
>takes a decisive, open stand, this thing may be past rescue. It's only
>going to happen in one way, if there's a lot of public pressure on the
>White House. Otherwise it won't happen. This has been a horror story for
>twenty-five years. It's now very likely culminating, and there isn't much
>time to do anything about it.
>
>DB: Thanks very much.
>
>The number for the White House comment line is (202) 456-1414.


>From Habibie's statement today it looks as if the US has taken a "decisive
open stand" which may avert "utter disaster". It has also taken a stand
behind the scenes, and tried to talk Wiranto round, with some apparent
success.  

I think it is important in criticising imperialism convincingly, to see the
difference from the time of the coup by Suharto, when the US was openly
backing anti-democratic regimes in the name of anti-communism, to the 90's
when the policy is to call for maximum global economic freedom (for finance
capital) plus support for bourgeois democratic rights in all states. This
is a contradiction that has to be analysed dialectically. 

In terms of the rights of the East Timorese the US may now be progressive,
as they may in the case of Anwar Ibrahim, but in relation to the national
bourgeoisie and the people of Malaysia and other South East Asian
countries, they are oppressive.

The present outcome appears at least nominally to respect the United
Nations even though it has been achieved by massive financial threats
mainly from the US. It appears to have accommodated to the wishes of China,
and appears to have avoided an attack on the Indonesian armed forces. 

The fact that Clinton may have largely done what Chomsky has appealed for
him to do, signals  that the critique of US and British imperialism needs
to go deeper. The West has applied the stick of economic sanctions. They
have said nothing about a positive economic plan for the reconstruction of
the region and the promotion of mutual cooperation among the islands of the
archipelago. 

Even when there is a positive aspect to 

[PEN-L:3734] Re: Chomsky on free trade

[Jeffrey J Smith]

Now that Chomsky's laid out the problem, what's the solution? 
What will ignite the necessary popular movement? Would sufficient 
numbers rally around a "citizens dividend"?

--
SMITH, Jeffery J., President
The Geonomy Society; Seattle, Cascadia Bioregion; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A century before the French Revolution, Boetie implored: "You 
complain about the King. Yet you send your sons into his army, 

[PEN-L:4065] re: chomsky page

[Blair Sandler]

Institute for Global Communications also has a "progressive
directory" web page.  IGC runs Peacenet, Labornet, and Econet.
Their URL is: (I think)

http://www.igc.apc.org

There you'll find links to all kinds of progressive (if not
necessarily "left") net resources

Blair

[PEN-L:4059] Re: chomsky page

[R. Anders Schneiderman]

>This is the chomsky address.  By the way, is there -- certainly there should
>be -- a good compilation of left sources of information on the Web?

Not to toot our own horn or anything ( :) ), but the best source right now
is the Economic Democracy Information Network (EDIN) Gopher, which is run
by our Center.  In a week or so, we will have converted it to a web/gopher
site, which will include progressive info that's available only via web.

Anders Schneiderman
Center for Community Economic Research

P.S.  Our EDIN Gopher was cited as one of 29 "Highlights of the Internet"
by PC Computing Magazine back in Sept/Oct.

[PEN-L:4057] Re: chomsky page

[Doug Henwood]

At 3:07 PM 2/5/95, Michael Perelman wrote:

>By the way, is there -- certainly there should
>be -- a good compilation of left sources of information on the Web?

You can find it by starting with the Yahoo subject index:

 http://akebono.stanford.edu/yahoo/

Click politics, then you'll see something like "Progressive pages" or
something. You can also click "conservative" and find "The Right Side of
the Web," an utterly nauseating project that provides a gateway to the even
more utterly nauseating Newt Gingrich WWW Fan Club homepage.

Doug

--

Doug Henwood
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217
USA
212-874-4020 voice
212-874-3137 fax