At 2:17 PM +0800 12/5/99, Christopher Chase wrote:
>Regardless of the intention, his own argument says that
>since we can only ask one question at a time and not every
>situation can be addressed at once, then no situations can be
>addressed at all. Since every country is culpable no country
>at all can take action. Since Spain historically has an
>egregious human rights record under Franco, they have no
>legitimate basis to prosecute Pinochet for his human rights record
>in Chile.
>
>Absurd. How can anyone think this argument holds any water
>at all? It's just too bad that someone as insightful as
>Chomsky argued for this kind of absurdity.
I'm just a lurker ignoramus shooting off his mouth -- but surely,
given that this is the foucault list, the issue isn't about
addressing every situation at once or none at all, but why some are
addressed and others not? Who chooses who to address, or to bomb, or
not at all; just as when Chinese students demonstrate in China
against US-Nato, the media casts it as orchestrated, etc. but when
they demonstrate against the Chinese government, it's in aid of
freedom and democracy.
And, I may be wrong, isn't that Chomsky's point, both specifically
and generally? A point that he has repeated ad nauseam over the
years, because it won't go away, and because it seems so difficult to
get across?
By the way, US-England did some bombing in Iraq again today, in case
no one noticed.
KJ Khoo
>Regardless of the intention, his own argument says that
>since we can only ask one question at a time and not every
>situation can be addressed at once, then no situations can be
>addressed at all. Since every country is culpable no country
>at all can take action. Since Spain historically has an
>egregious human rights record under Franco, they have no
>legitimate basis to prosecute Pinochet for his human rights record
>in Chile.
>
>Absurd. How can anyone think this argument holds any water
>at all? It's just too bad that someone as insightful as
>Chomsky argued for this kind of absurdity.
I'm just a lurker ignoramus shooting off his mouth -- but surely,
given that this is the foucault list, the issue isn't about
addressing every situation at once or none at all, but why some are
addressed and others not? Who chooses who to address, or to bomb, or
not at all; just as when Chinese students demonstrate in China
against US-Nato, the media casts it as orchestrated, etc. but when
they demonstrate against the Chinese government, it's in aid of
freedom and democracy.
And, I may be wrong, isn't that Chomsky's point, both specifically
and generally? A point that he has repeated ad nauseam over the
years, because it won't go away, and because it seems so difficult to
get across?
By the way, US-England did some bombing in Iraq again today, in case
no one noticed.
KJ Khoo