Of Palestinians rejoicing

[Phil Wise]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mackin" <paul.mackin at verizon.net>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: Of Palestinians rejoicing


> In the spirit of biparticismship let me clarify if necessary that my
> warnings against relying principally on (nonprintbased media) Internet
sites
> for one's information apllies not only to peace activism and
> anti-globalization sites but equally to anti-Bill&Hillary sites and
> gun-rights sites.

Yes.  A well-developed bullshitometer is absolutely essential for anyone
when touring the web.  It needs to be especially clever when you are reading
things your instinct is to agree with.  I find that it is also,
unfortunately, necessary half the time I'm reading stuff from mainstream
sites or sites of respected print organs.

>
> The point of the highly selected "facts" deseminated on this type site is
> not to provide generally applicable information but to advance  specific
> partisan views. Nothing wrong with that in itself but let the buyer
beware.
> The New York Times and Washington Post depite criticisms one might make
have
> of their inclusions and ommisions DO in any case provide generally useful
> informaton with which to think about things

>
> And about going back and checking the transcritpt of the 60 Minutes
program
> one would especially want to see if Madeline Albright in any way shape or
> form assented to the implication in the secondary reporting that the
actions
> she said might have been necessary were the principal cause of the
> diplorable outscomes described.

It is also possible that such an exercise will show nothing or both - that
she may have misinterpreted/misheard the question and produced such an
answer or she may have just forgotten herself and produced such a (true)
answer (sort of like a Freudian slip).  What you see could justifiably
support either, so that you're no closer to anything difinitive.  Although
that would remain to be seen.  But, yes to the above.

phil
>
> P.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Wise" <philwise at paradise.net.nz>
> To: "Paul Mackin" <paul.mackin at verizon.net>; <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 5:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Of Palestinians rejoicing
>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Paul Mackin" <paul.mackin at verizon.net>
> > To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 8:29 AM
> > Subject: Re: Of Palestinians rejoicing
> >
> >
> > > I'd love to see bin Laden turned into a martyr and the sooner the
> better.
> > > However the thing I appreciated most about Mark's post was that he
> > bothered
> > > to point out how much  misleading caca appears on the Internet. The
> > greatest
> > > source of disinformation the world has ever known. But that's OK, it's
a
> > > free country as they say. Since Mark asked for our opinions, mine on
> using
> > > nuggets gleaned from cyberspace as sources for points we are trying to
> > make
> > > would be--don't do it unless the material also appears somewhere in
> print
> > > preferably in something someone actually are willing to pay to read..
> > Well,
> > > that's going too far of course but some people, it seems to me,  have
> been
> > > far too undisciminating. Oh hell continue on as you were. A little
> > > disinformation is good for keeping your defenses up.
> >
> > Well, since Otto posted the date of the 60 minutes broadcast, it would
be
> > quite possible to go back and find the context of the remark, provided
you
> > can find the episode.  May 12, 1996.  I presume that recording is in the
> > public domain somewhere...
> >
> > There's lots of malarki on the internet, and tons of truth.  Was the
quote
> > Otto posted, with a citation, malarki?  Was the material Calbert quoted,
> > apparently from an official website, the entire truth?  Probably no to
> both
> > questions - both are spinning, but both will have nuggets of truth in
> there
> > somewhere.  Is Saddam Hussain an inhuman monster who is responsible for
> the
> > suffering of his population?  Undoubtedly.  Did the US/UN commit war
> crimes
> > in the region, which are continuing?  Seems likely.  Does any of it
> > "justify" murdering yet more civilians, in New York, Washington,
> > Afghanistan, or elsewhere?  Bloody hell no.  Do the US have the right to
> > find and deal to the perpitrators of this terrible crime?  Bloody hell
> yes.
> > Should they expand this to eliminating existing terrorist organisations
in
> > the world?  If they do it well, they'll be doing the world, including
the
> > middle east, a big favour.  Should they emply any method to do so?  No,
> > because that'd be repeating the mistakes of the past.  Should they own
up
> to
> > the unsavoury aspects of that past and determine to act more responsibly
> in
> > the future?  Absolutely.  To actually achieve this could make Bush a
great
> > president.  Should Chomsky and Fisk and co balance their analysis with a
> > recognition of the complexity of the picture (e.g. that the States has
> also
> > offered generously an enormous amount to the world, that some of the
> > policies in the middle east, at least, were driven by impossible choices
> in
> > utterly polarised situations)?  Yes.  Is there some truth to what they
> say,
> > however?  It would seem so.  What should be done?  Damned if I know.
> >
> > phil
> >
> >
> > >
> > >     P.
> > > .
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>