this whole apocalyptic kind of lecturing - 10/10/2008

From Brent on October 10th, 2008:

Ok, before I finish reading this and respond to everything else (you've gotten a bit ahead of me here!) you need to read this so that you will believe what I've said with regard to Hamas' constitution: http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/17738.htm

I did believe you, I don't think I ever said that I don't...

C'mon, this is so one sided! This is against the founding principle of our party, the thing that the two of us are in total agreement, there are two sides to a story, and usually, both sides are to blame.

I don't send this stuff to you to try and say, "this is the way it is" ... I send it along to you to hear your opinion and take on it. You should feel proud that I'm asking you to respond to such material, as I really take your opinion seriously.

I don't know too much about the Palestine/Israel conflict either (this is why I'm exploring it), but I should mention that Chomsky is Jewish himself, and grew up in a "somewhat Jewish ghetto" in Philadelphia.

Have more to write but must leave office now. Talk to ya later!


From Buck on October 10th, 2008:

Haha, well I guess I came off a bit more aggressive then I intended. You know us crazy neo-cons!

What I remember was you in response to me saying that Hamas had in their constitution that Israel needed to be wiped off the face of the planet and that Israel was willing to withdraw settlements if they would take that part out. Then what I remember you said (and there's a very good chance I might be wrong, or just misunderstood) was that it was ridiculous that someone could say that, or that it was a ridiculous notion, who would say that? Something along those lines. But anyway, you can see from that link what's playing a big part in mucking up the peace making process. Actually, there has been a lot of ground made up in deals with Fatah, the other major Palestinian political group, but they're the ones that got kicked out when Hamas won, so that doesn't matter much.

So yeah, and with the founding principle of the party stuff, guess I came across too strong with that one. I think on the one hand, I was a little resentful of Chomsky, this intellectual guy who was saying everything that's wrong with the world with such authority and superiority, stating things so matter of factly and yet missing crucial parts of the stories. So I was more trying to explain what I take issue with Professor Chomsky on rather than with you. I don't know if I'm really explaining myself well, I don't know quite how to explain it. But it's just this whole apocalyptic kind of lecturing as he looks down on the human race without any practical solutions of his own, only saying "well this is all we have to do, the U.S. has to admit how evil they are, forget about making money and the world will be saved." but of course all you learn in economics is how the environment doesn't matter as long as we're all making money... haha there I go again. So yeah, sorry if i came off like that, I am proud that you want to hear my response and I definitely know that you don't send stuff saying "this is the way it is." I'm a big fan of these kinds of conversations, as you know

I look forward to your full response!