<!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> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dennis writes:</FONT></P> <P>No, and I don't think you can compare Noriega to Milosevic. Not even close. But, if one signed a petition that touted Noriega's little regime as "patriotic" or some such tripe, then, yes, I suppose you'd be seen as pro-Noriega. <BR></P> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>--according to Bush Noriega was certainly as evil as Milo, evil enough to merit an invasion and the murder of a thousand some odd civilians by our military.  .....In any event,i'm not sure, especially since context does seem relevant. I might not like Noriega as my kind of patriot, ok, but if a group opposing the US invasion of Panama and arrest of Noriega by the US, I might be able to sign a petition that didn't require me to accept Noriega's politics-world view.   I've signed petitions that I don't entirely agree with, religiously laden petitions against war, nukes, and the like, which, if *you* found them on the web could be used to prove that Steve Philion believes in Christ and is fond of biblical quotes.  </FONT></P> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </P> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dennis writes:</FONT></P> <P>--No. My beef with Chomsky had to do with his deplorable behavior after 9/11, when, suddenly, the murder of thousands didn't stir him to anger, only to dry and desperate topic shifting. Plus, I don't think Hitch ever said Chomsky was a "Taliban supporter," and if he did, that would be ridiculous. </P></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>--you mean you are of the political line that contends that had Chomsky blubbered angrily his critique of Bush's bombing of Afghanistan and the Bush adm.'s manipulation of the 911 terror with plainly ulterior motives would have been made accessible to the American public on CNN, NYT, WP,etc.?  </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>You're right, Hitch was claiming people like Chomsky and Rosa Parks were admirers of Al Qaeda...</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>----------------------------------</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dennis wraps up:</FONT></DIV> <DIV> <P>Well, yes you were. But you are free to choose your dinner mates. And I don't think you could "ruin" the "anti-war" movement any more than the lunatics organizing the demos already have. But, again, you are free to march under the banner of your choosing. <BR></P> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>--I doubt lunatics have ruined much of anything.  Those who have nothing better to offer in the way of organizing do more damage really.  In Hawaii for example, it's a real drag that RCP alligned profs do the organizing of rallies and other anti-war activity in my book, their tactics are lame and ineffective, not to mention downright silly at times.  On the other hand, those who could do a better job in Hawaii (or at least on the UH campus), and there are not a few of them, don't step up to the plate and do it...*That* is a problem, a real one, and one worth correcting.  Mike Larkin has it right, the RCP types do the organising right now...when the movement picks up steam, it won't continue to be their baby...</FONT></P> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>If we take the Central American solidarity movement as a paradigm, from one other vantage, the lesson of organizing consequences is the opposite of that that people like you and Todd Gitlin, Cooper, draw.  During the 80's, the solidarity movements' biggest weakness was that it alligned itself too closely with 'moderate' types who wanted the movement to rely more on lobbying congress than on direct action strategies....the constant and pathetic obsession with making a message pallatable to the mainstream overlooks that actually the mainstream is much more anti-war than we give them credit for...which leads then to an idea that the only way an anti-war message can be made acceptable is to water it down...a softer pro-war position ends up being the main message of the 'anti-war' soft leftists (soft left is Max's term...)...</FONT></P> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </P></DIV></BODY></HTML>