<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 5.50.4916.2300" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>No no -- one can be critical of the Hague and not be a supporter of Milo. But the petition I referred to went beyond this, and called Milo and his murderous army "patriots." And, again, it was forwarded by Jared Israel, who is an outspoken supporter of Milo. </FONT><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>--again, not very important, I've seen Chomsky criticise Jared Israel and argue that Milo's trial was farcical, nothing inconsistent in that. Djilas would probably be of the same bend. I'm guessing that Carrol doesn't care much for Jared, in fact if i'm not mistaken Carrol has picked apart Jared's loopy conspiracy theory orientation.  I think you assume that Carrol's signing the petition was for the purpose of supporting Milo's patriotism or other such ideological notions. From what I know of Carrol as a Marxist, I find that unlikely.  </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>I had a beer with Chomsky at a small FAIR gathering in LA during the contra war, and he was angry about the war, as we all were. He wasn't huffing and puffing, but he was morally outraged. I admired that, especially in an academic of his standing. And I saw him speak during that time when he did show some emotion, usually through sarcasm, but there was barely concealed anger as well. So I know he has it, and didn't on 9/11.</FONT><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>--seems so picayune to me, i mean sitting around and having a beer and talking to journalists are quite different contexts. And again, big deal, if he blubbered and pounded his chest in anger like Todd Gitlin or Hitch, would the NYT then have given him space to make his critique of Bush's manipulation of 911, which Chomsky was predicting from the get go and later shown to be spot on about.  No, Gitlin, Hitch, would still have been getting the invites for contributions and Chomsky would remain smeared on a daily basis...How else could it be?  </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>I'm sure there were links -- CISPES was everywhere in those days. But I never saw them or any other Leninist/Marxist group working with the church folk I was dealing with in New England. There the Unitarians and radical Catholics held sway. And unlike the CISPES members I later met in NYC and DC, they were humane and truly committed to saving lives. </FONT><BR>--nah, they worked together, I saw plenty of it. You assume that demonstrations were not part of saving people's lives in El Salvador, but the priests and nuns who were working in El Salvador didn't view the matter in the same way.  I lived in NYC and saw plenty of interaction between CISPES folks and religious activists. Today you see that same kind of interaction between activists in religious groups and non-religious groups, it's not anything new or unusual, after all not every radical is religious or in some little sect.  Not that many people thought of CISPES as some little sect like Workers World or the like, in fact CISPES was quite different from WW or RCP in that sense. </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>