Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 12:40 AM 10/5/01 -0400, John K Clark wrote:
> > >Chomsky has contrasted the high-volume media coverage
> > >of the Khmer Rouge atrocities with the low-volume
> > >coverage of the atrocities committed in the same
> > >period by Indonesia's US-sanctioned invasion of East Timor.
> >All atrocities should be condemned but to do it by saying my holocaust
> >is worse than your holocaust shows a moral tone deafness that is
> >staggering to contemplate.
> Oddly, that's exactly Chomsky's point. He's noting not just the moral
> deafness of the major media (who effectively ignored the Timor atrocities,
> presumably on the grounds that they were someone else's holocaust), but the
> actual deafness thereby imposed on readers and viewers.
> Which is what John's cite from Jeff says.
While at the same time, Chomsky is one of those who can't worship
Clinton/Kennedy, et al enough in secret by refusing to consider their
baser motives (i.e. Clinton's Sudan attack on the day he was supposed to
be implicated in the Lewinsky affair). I seem to recall a Kennedy quote
about the likes of the Indonesians and other third world despotic
regiemes that allied with the west: "They may be sons of bitches, but by
God, they are OUR sons of bitches."
Chomsky also displays an utter inability to distinguish between the
foreign policy teams of the right and left in the US. While it is
plausible to say that each is beholden to different corporate blocks in
the US, it is not evident that both blocks have the same goals, thus
blaming one for the others atrocities is quite inappropriate.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:12 MDT