Just to Clear THAT Up

We [see] that Chomsky justified Faurisson's Holocaust-denial, we [find] Chomsky publishing his own books with neo-Nazi publishers, we [see] him writing for a neo-Nazi journal, we [see] that the neo-Nazis promote Chomsky's books and tapes together with the works of Joseph Goebbels.

- Werner Cohn, "Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers"

What? Noam Chomsky, the Zionist Jew, allied with Holocaust deniers and Neo-Nazis, or even a Holocaust denier himself? Say it ain’t so, Noam!

Well, it ain’t so. What Cohn is referring to is the notorious Faurisson Incident, in which literature professor Robert Faurisson wrote a book claiming the Holocaust didn’t happen. Not surprisingly, there was a substantial uproar. Faurisson was suspended from his post and sued for defamation.

This is where Chomsky comes in. He wrote an article entitled 'Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression', in which he says that we shouldn’t legally prosecute people for publishing historical fallacies, no matter how grave. So far as Chomsky is concerned, this is entirely a free-speech issue. Of course, this put him in the unfortunate position of being positively linked to a Holocaust denier. Things became even hairier when Faurisson used that same essay as the preface to his next book (WITHOUT Chomsky's permission). Guilt by association, and so, Cohn’s book.

Werner Cohn then went on to accuse Chomsky of both writing an article with ‘historical revisionist’ (read: another Holocaust denier) Paul Guillame and using revisionist publishing house Ville Taupe for the French edition of his works. In this letter, Chomsky crankily notes that he has never written anything with Paul Guillame, and that he takes no notice of who publishes his works in translation.

Chomsky ends the letter in characteristic style:

That Cohn is a pathological liar is demonstrated by the very examples that he selects. Knowing nothing about him, and caring less, I am in no position to comment further on what may lie behind this odd and pathetic behavior.

Sincerely yours,
Noam Chomsky

Hard Rain Is Gonna Fall

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/2860759.stm

http://www.iacenter.org/du_forum504.htm

We’re dropping DEPLETED URANIUM all over Iraq???

What kind of weapon is it when you poison a country with radioactive material that leads to all kinds of terrible birth defects and cancer? Chemical, biological, nuclear? I say all three. And a WMD for sure.

This is not the way to win hearts and minds. You cannot expect a country to be grateful about something like that. Iraqis are not ignorant savages without knowledge of science and history. The know exactly what’s happening to them, and reacting in a predictable way.

It doesn’t matter whether you support the war or not, using depleted uranium is an act of indiscriminate, criminal barbarity. I remember what John Kerry said in his 1971 testimony, in reference to the napalm and Agent Orange we were using to douse Vietnam: “We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater.”

I fail to see how using DU is saving a single American life or advancing our cause one bit. What say you, hawks?

And don't say I hate America.

Hugo! Hugo! Hugo!

Hugo Chavez Embraces Socialism

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/02/25/venezuela.chavez.reut/

CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Friday embraced socialism as his ideology of choice in a political statement that sharpened his antagonism against the United States.

Chavez, a firebrand nationalist who has governed the world's No. 5 oil exporter for six years, has persistently declined to define the precise ideology of his self-styled "revolution."

But, addressing an international meeting on poverty in Caracas, he said Western-style capitalism was incapable of solving global economic and social problems.

"So, if not capitalism, then what? I have no doubt, it's socialism," said Chavez, who also rebuffed U.S. criticism of his left-wing rule in Venezuela and denounced U.S. President George W. Bush as the "great destabilizer of the world."

Now, while honesty about one's ideology is always welcome, I'm getting a littled worried. Let's hope ol' Hugo doesn't turn into another Castro, and shut off democracy. I don't think he will, because Venezuela has a long democratic tradition which was totally unknown in Cuba. Even so, it's something to look out for.

Outflanking Dissent

This week, President Bush is meeting German Chancellor Gerard Schroeder. Beyond the strangeness of Bush being friendly to someone who's the head of the 'Red-Green Alliance', there's the issue of where this meeting will take place. Not in Berlin, not in Frankfurt, not in Hamburg, not in Bonn or any other major German city, but in Mainz. Previously, he met Russian Vladmir Putin not in Moscow or St. Petersburg, but in Slovenia.

Why? Simple: to avoid protestors. He's learned his lesson after showing up in London. Bush wasn't afraid of getting hurt, but he didn't want the news media covering the idea that people other than Hollywood celebrities and Communists don't approve of what the US is doing. He needn't have worried; the American media treats anti-war, anti-corporate protests with a mixture of contempt and amusement.

This is typical for Dubya; it's more the rule than the exception. That's why his rallies were closed, his 'town hall' meetings are invitation only, and any cabinet offical who disagrees either gets marginalized or kicked out.

The Bullet vs. the Ballot

I suppose the biggest policy disagreement today centers on how to make the world a peaceful, free place in places where peace and political freedom are virtually unknown.

Conservatives generally support charging in, tearing down the old system, and putting Jeffersonian democracy in it's place.

Liberals support spreading democracy around the world, but via methods other than invasion. Most despotic countries have strong democratic movements which are supressed by the government, often with support and aid from the US government. Liberals would prefer to suspend aid to dictatorial regimes and let countries choose their own fate rather than impose a foreign ideology.