<DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> And I've said many times that I don't like the practice of jailing dissidents and suppressing freedom of speech, but I don't know how any remotely progressive government can defend itself against the U.S. and still respect civil liberties. It's a very profound problem, and critiques of authoritarianism that don't ackonwledge its profundity are evasions of any real discussion too. * * * It's a problem, and one that I for one acknowledge, but the alternatives have not been properly explored by progressive govts. Clearly, any govt as open as Nicaragua under the Sandinistas will not only get no credit for that from the pro-US liberals (right Brad?), but will also find that the US takes advantage of its openness to destroy the govt by fair means and foul. However, it doesn't follow that the only alternative is a single party state, censorship, long prison sentences for dissent (disguised as being for various crimes), the death penalty, etc. A progressive govt might have free multiparty elections funded entirely by public money; it might ban the use of foreign money in media or politics, with the penalty being confiscation, electoral disqualification, and fines rather than long prison sentences. Obviously measures like thus could be open to abuse, but they would a lot better than what Castro does. I see no problem whatsoever with jamming Radio Marti and its equivalents. If dissidents, whether they were genuinely pro-democracy or were US tools, were limited to their own resources, and were not punished for their views, the progressive govt would be more legitimate. Of course it would be pilloried as a Stalinofascist dictatorship in the US press no matter what it did. jks</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><hr SIZE=1> Do you Yahoo!? <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com">The New Yahoo! Search</a> - Faster. Easier. Bingo.