Activism Change

Noam Chomsky on the Endurance Contest Crusade

Question:

$ $ $ why does anyone believe a moron like Noam $ $ It’s quite understandable realy; he is educated, knowledgable, $ well-informed, well-read. The alternative is to believe your; and the $ media’s, and the governments Moronic, illogical, ignorant, and un-american $ rants. Noam is positivily brilliant, No  and an american patriot no  in $ comparisson (he speaks truth, something you CHOOSE to ignore)! Actually he is a USA hating, communist apoligists. A discredited left wing hack with a cult like following. I have seen his comments since 1978 and they are groundless. Then again all your posts are left wing propaganda.

Response:

why does anyone believe a moron like Noam

It’s quite understandable realy; he is educated, knowledgable, well-informed, well-read. The alternative is to believe your; and the media’s, and the governments Moronic, illogical, ignorant, and un-american rants. Noam is positivily brilliant, and an american patriot  in comparisson (he speaks truth, something you CHOOSE to ignore)!

Response:

$ $ Noam Chomsky on the Endurance Contest Crusade $ $ Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn’t Fit $ $ $ Znet – http://www.zmag.org $ $ Michael Albert Interviews Noam Chomsky… $ $ $ with typical left -wing bias: $ $ I sent six questions to Noam Chomsky. His answers, by email, are $ below. $ $ (1) There has been an immense movement of troops and extreme use of $ military rhetoric, up to comments about terminating governments $ $ bullshit, Bush has said REPEATEDLY that we are not in this to nation $ build. $ $ , etc. $ Yet, to many people there appears to be considerable restraint…what $ happened? $ $ reality. Bush is not the asshole so many think he is, and has the common $ sense to know that bombing a buch of innocent people is not going to do $ any good for any body. but read how Nim Chimpsky gives the credit to $ anyone but Bush: $ $ $ $  From the first days after the attack, the Bush administration has $ been warned by NATO leaders, $ $ really?  then why did they enact article 5? $ $  specialists on the region, and $ presumably its own intelligence agencies (not to speak of many people $ like you and me) that if they react with a massive assault that kills $ many innocent people, that will be answering bin Laden’s most fervent $ prayers. $ $ Or maybe they knew that already . $ $ They will be falling into a "diabolical trap," as the French $ foreign minister put it. That would be true — perhaps even more so $ — if they happen to kill bin Laden, still without having provided $ credible evidence of his involvement in the crimes of Sept. 11. He $ would then be perceived as a martyr even among the enormous majority $ of Muslims who deplore those crimes, as bin Laden himself has done, $ for what it is worth, denying any involvement in the crimes or even $ knowledge of them, and condemning "the killing of innocent women, $ children, and other humans" as an act that "Islam strictly $ forbids…even in the course of a battle" (BBC, Sept.29). $ $ that’s why he bombed the WTC in 1993? and embassies in Africa in 1998? $ $ $ His voice will continue to resound on tens of thousands of $ cassettes already circulating throughout the Muslim world, and in $ many interviews, including the last few days. An assault that kills $ innocent Afghans — not Taliban, but their terrorized victims — $ would be virtually a call for new recruits to the horrendous cause of $ the bin Laden network and other graduates of the terrorist networks $ set up by the CIA and its associates 20 years ago to fight a Holy War $ against the Russians, meanwhile following their own agenda, from the $ time they assassinated President Sadat of Egypt in 1981, murdering $ one of the most enthusiastic of the creators of the "Afghanis" — $ mostly recruits from extremist radical Islamist elements around the $ world who were recruited to fight in Afghanistan. $ $ After a little while, $ $ $ $ how about immediately?  like even before anyone said a word about it $ they already knew all this? $ $ the message apparently got through to the Bush $ administration, which has — wisely from their point of view– chosen $ to follow a different course. $ $ However, "restraint" seems to me a questionable word. On Sept. 16, $ the New York Times reported that "Washington has also demanded [from $ Pakistan] a cutoff of fuel supplies,…and the elimination of truck $ convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to $ Afghanistan’s civilian population." Astonishingly, that report $ elicited no detectable reaction in the West, $ $ right and wisely so, after all, who do you think would have actually $ received those supplies? the Afghani’s or the Taliban?  wake up Chumpsky $ $  a grim reminder of the $ nature of the Western civilization that leaders and elite $ commentators claim to uphold, yet another lesson that is not lost $ among those who have been at the wrong end of the guns and whips for $ centuries. In the following days, those demands were implemented. $ $ On Sept. 27, the same NYT correspondent reported that officials in $ Pakistan "said today that they would not relent in their decision to $ seal off the country’s 1,400- mile border with Afghanistan, a move $ requested by the Bush administration because, the officials said, $ they wanted to be sure that none of Mr. bin Laden’s men were hiding $ among the huge tide of refugees" (John Burns, Islamabad). $ $ According to the world’s leading newspaper, then, Washington demanded $ that Pakistan slaughter massive numbers of Afghans, millions of them $ already on the brink of starvation, by cutting off the limited $ sustenance that was keeping them alive. Almost all aid missions $ withdrew or were expelled under the threat of bombing. Huge numbers $ of miserable people have been fleeing to the borders in terror, after $ Washington’s threat to bomb the shreds of existence remaining in $ Afghanistan, and to convert the Northern Alliance into a heavily $ armed military force that will, perhaps, be unleashed to renew the $ atrocities that tore the country apart and led much of the population $ to welcome the Taliban when they drove out the murderous warring $ factions that Washington and Moscow now hope to exploit for their own $ purposes. When they reach the sealed borders, refugees are trapped to $ die in silence. Only a trickle can escape through remote mountain $ passes. How many have already succumbed we cannot guess, and few seem $ to care. Apart from the relief agencies, I have seen no attempt even $ to guess. Within a few weeks the harsh winter will arrive. There are $ some reporters and aid workers in the refugee camps across the $ borders. What they describe is horrifying enough, but they know, and $ we know, that they are seeing the lucky ones, the few who were able $ to escape — and who express their hopes that "even the cruel $ Americans must feel some pity for our ruined country," and relent in $ this savage silent genocide (Boston Globe, Sept. 27, p. 1). $ $ Perhaps the most apt description was given by the wonderful and $ courageous Indian writer and activist Arundhati Roy, referring to $ Operation Infinite Justice proclaimed by the Bush Administration: $ $ "Witness the infinite justice of the new century. Civilians starving $ to death while they’re waiting to be killed" (Guardian, Sept. 29). $ $ (2) The UN has indicated that the threat of starvation in Afghanistan $ is enormous. International criticism on this score has grown and now $ the U.S. and Britain are talking about providing food aid to ward off $ hunger. Are they caving in to dissent in fact, or only in appearance? $ What is their motivation? What will be the scale and impact of their $ efforts? $ $ this question is redundant and simply allows Chimsky to elaborate on the $ misinformation offered in the first question. $ $ The UN estimates that some 7-8 million are at risk of imminent $ starvation. The NY Times reports in a small item (Sept. 25) that $ nearly six million Afghans depend on food aid from the UN, as well as $ 3.5 million in refugee camps outside, many of whom fled just before $ the borders were sealed. The item reported that some food is being $ sent, to the camps across the border. If people in Washington and the $ editorial offices have even a single gray cell functioning, they $ realize that they must present themselves as humanitarians seeking to $ avert the awesome tragedy that followed at once from the threat of $ bombing and military attack and the sealing of the borders they $ demanded. "Experts also urge the United States to improve its image $ by increasing aid to Afghan refugees, as well as by helping to $ rebuild the economy" (Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 28). $ $ Even without PR specialists to instruct them, administration $ officials must comprehend that they should send some food to the $ refugees who made it across the border, and at least talk about air $ drop of food to starving people within: in order "to save lives" but $ also to "help the effort to find terror groups inside Afghanistan" $ (Boston Globe, Sept. 27, quoting a Pentagon official, who describes $ this as "winning the hearts and minds of the people"). $ $ The New York Times editors picked up the same theme the following $ day, 12 days after the journal reported that the murderous operation $ is being put into effect. $ $ On the scale of aid, one can only hope that it is enormous, or the $ human tragedy may be immense in a few weeks. But we should also bear $ in mind that there has been nothing to stop massive food drops from $ the beginning, and we cannot even guess how many have already died, $ or soon will. If the government is sensible, there will be at least a $ show of the "massive air drops" that officials mention. $ $ (3) International legal institutions would likely ratify efforts to $ arrest and try bin Laden and others, supposing guilt could be shown, $ including the use of force. Why does the U.S. avoid this recourse? Is $ it only a matter of not wishing to legitimate an approach that could $ be used, as well, against our acts of terrorism, $ $ gee Mr. Albert, your not just a little biased here are you? $ $  or are other factors $ at play? $ $ $ $ all the drivel that follows is moot since today ALL NATO nations are $ convinced that the evidence against Bin Laden is incontrovertible. $ $ $ Much of the world has been asking the US to provide some evidence to $ link bin Laden to the crime, $ … read more »

Response:

Noam Chomsky on the Endurance Contest Crusade Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn’t Fit Znet – http://www.zmag.org Michael Albert Interviews Noam Chomsky…

with typical left -wing bias: I sent six questions to Noam Chomsky. His answers, by email, are below. (1) There has been an immense movement of troops and extreme use of military rhetoric, up to comments about terminating governments

bullshit, Bush has said REPEATEDLY that we are not in this to nation build. , etc. Yet, to many people there appears to be considerable restraint…what happened?

reality. Bush is not the asshole so many think he is, and has the common sense to know that bombing a buch of innocent people is not going to do any good for any body. but read how Nim Chimpsky gives the credit to anyone but Bush:  From the first days after the attack, the Bush administration has been warned by NATO leaders,

really?  then why did they enact article 5?  specialists on the region, and presumably its own intelligence agencies (not to speak of many people like you and me) that if they react with a massive assault that kills many innocent people, that will be answering bin Laden’s most fervent prayers.

Or maybe they knew that already . They will be falling into a "diabolical trap," as the French foreign minister put it. That would be true — perhaps even more so — if they happen to kill bin Laden, still without having provided credible evidence of his involvement in the crimes of Sept. 11. He would then be perceived as a martyr even among the enormous majority of Muslims who deplore those crimes, as bin Laden himself has done, for what it is worth, denying any involvement in the crimes or even knowledge of them, and condemning "the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans" as an act that "Islam strictly forbids…even in the course of a battle" (BBC, Sept.29).

that’s why he bombed the WTC in 1993? and embassies in Africa in 1998? His voice will continue to resound on tens of thousands of cassettes already circulating throughout the Muslim world, and in many interviews, including the last few days. An assault that kills innocent Afghans — not Taliban, but their terrorized victims — would be virtually a call for new recruits to the horrendous cause of the bin Laden network and other graduates of the terrorist networks set up by the CIA and its associates 20 years ago to fight a Holy War against the Russians, meanwhile following their own agenda, from the time they assassinated President Sadat of Egypt in 1981, murdering one of the most enthusiastic of the creators of the "Afghanis" — mostly recruits from extremist radical Islamist elements around the world who were recruited to fight in Afghanistan. After a little while,

how about immediately?  like even before anyone said a word about it they already knew all this? the message apparently got through to the Bush administration, which has — wisely from their point of view– chosen to follow a different course. However, "restraint" seems to me a questionable word. On Sept. 16, the New York Times reported that "Washington has also demanded [from Pakistan] a cutoff of fuel supplies,…and the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan’s civilian population." Astonishingly, that report elicited no detectable reaction in the West,

right and wisely so, after all, who do you think would have actually received those supplies? the Afghani’s or the Taliban?  wake up Chumpsky  a grim reminder of the – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – nature of the Western civilization that leaders and elite commentators claim to uphold, yet another lesson that is not lost among those who have been at the wrong end of the guns and whips for centuries. In the following days, those demands were implemented. On Sept. 27, the same NYT correspondent reported that officials in Pakistan "said today that they would not relent in their decision to seal off the country’s 1,400- mile border with Afghanistan, a move requested by the Bush administration because, the officials said, they wanted to be sure that none of Mr. bin Laden’s men were hiding among the huge tide of refugees" (John Burns, Islamabad). According to the world’s leading newspaper, then, Washington demanded that Pakistan slaughter massive numbers of Afghans, millions of them already on the brink of starvation, by cutting off the limited sustenance that was keeping them alive. Almost all aid missions withdrew or were expelled under the threat of bombing. Huge numbers of miserable people have been fleeing to the borders in terror, after Washington’s threat to bomb the shreds of existence remaining in Afghanistan, and to convert the Northern Alliance into a heavily armed military force that will, perhaps, be unleashed to renew the atrocities that tore the country apart and led much of the population to welcome the Taliban when they drove out the murderous warring factions that Washington and Moscow now hope to exploit for their own purposes. When they reach the sealed borders, refugees are trapped to die in silence. Only a trickle can escape through remote mountain passes. How many have already succumbed we cannot guess, and few seem to care. Apart from the relief agencies, I have seen no attempt even to guess. Within a few weeks the harsh winter will arrive. There are some reporters and aid workers in the refugee camps across the borders. What they describe is horrifying enough, but they know, and we know, that they are seeing the lucky ones, the few who were able to escape — and who express their hopes that "even the cruel Americans must feel some pity for our ruined country," and relent in this savage silent genocide (Boston Globe, Sept. 27, p. 1). Perhaps the most apt description was given by the wonderful and courageous Indian writer and activist Arundhati Roy, referring to Operation Infinite Justice proclaimed by the Bush Administration: "Witness the infinite justice of the new century. Civilians starving to death while they’re waiting to be killed" (Guardian, Sept. 29). (2) The UN has indicated that the threat of starvation in Afghanistan is enormous. International criticism on this score has grown and now the U.S. and Britain are talking about providing food aid to ward off hunger. Are they caving in to dissent in fact, or only in appearance? What is their motivation? What will be the scale and impact of their efforts?

this question is redundant and simply allows Chimsky to elaborate on the misinformation offered in the first question. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The UN estimates that some 7-8 million are at risk of imminent starvation. The NY Times reports in a small item (Sept. 25) that nearly six million Afghans depend on food aid from the UN, as well as 3.5 million in refugee camps outside, many of whom fled just before the borders were sealed. The item reported that some food is being sent, to the camps across the border. If people in Washington and the editorial offices have even a single gray cell functioning, they realize that they must present themselves as humanitarians seeking to avert the awesome tragedy that followed at once from the threat of bombing and military attack and the sealing of the borders they demanded. "Experts also urge the United States to improve its image by increasing aid to Afghan refugees, as well as by helping to rebuild the economy" (Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 28). Even without PR specialists to instruct them, administration officials must comprehend that they should send some food to the refugees who made it across the border, and at least talk about air drop of food to starving people within: in order "to save lives" but also to "help the effort to find terror groups inside Afghanistan" (Boston Globe, Sept. 27, quoting a Pentagon official, who describes this as "winning the hearts and minds of the people"). The New York Times editors picked up the same theme the following day, 12 days after the journal reported that the murderous operation is being put into effect. On the scale of aid, one can only hope that it is enormous, or the human tragedy may be immense in a few weeks. But we should also bear in mind that there has been nothing to stop massive food drops from the beginning, and we cannot even guess how many have already died, or soon will. If the government is sensible, there will be at least a show of the "massive air drops" that officials mention. (3) International legal institutions would likely ratify efforts to arrest and try bin Laden and others, supposing guilt could be shown, including the use of force. Why does the U.S. avoid this recourse? Is it only a matter of not wishing to legitimate an approach that could be used, as well, against our acts of terrorism,

gee Mr. Albert, your not just a little biased here are you?  or are other factors at play?

all the drivel that follows is moot since today ALL NATO nations are convinced that the evidence against Bin Laden is incontrovertible. Much of the world has been asking the US to provide some evidence to link bin Laden to the crime,

which it has and if such evidence could be provided, it would not be difficult to rally enormous support for an international effort,

which it has under the rubric of the UN, to apprehend and try him and his collaborators.

No shit, really? However, that is no simple matter. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Even if bin Laden and his network are involved in the crimes of Sept. 11, it may be quite hard to produce credible evidence. As the CIA surely knows very well, having nurtured these organizations

… read more »

Response:

Fuck you and Chomsky, both. You’re both traitors. — "If I have one regret from my radical years, it is that this country was too tolerant toward the treason of its enemies within. If patriotic Americans had been more vigilant in the defense of their country, if they had called things by their right names, if they had confronted us with the seriousness of our attacks, they might have caught the attention of those of us who were well-meaning but utterly misguided. And they might have stopped us in our tracks. I appeal to those of you who are attacking your country, full of self-righteousness, who, like me, may live to regret what you have done." David Horowitz, 9/28/2001, Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-000077642sep28.story?coll=la%2… Dcomment%2Dopinions This time, middle America will not remain silent. Your propaganda snipped…

Response:

Noam Chomsky on the Endurance Contest Crusade Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn’t Fit Znet – http://www.zmag.org Michael Albert Interviews Noam Chomsky… I sent six questions to Noam Chomsky. His answers, by email, are below. (1) There has been an immense movement of troops and extreme use of military rhetoric, up to comments about terminating governments, etc. Yet, to many people there appears to be considerable restraint…what happened?  From the first days after the attack, the Bush administration has been warned by NATO leaders, specialists on the region, and presumably its own intelligence agencies (not to speak of many people like you and me) that if they react with a massive assault that kills many innocent people, that will be answering bin Laden’s most fervent prayers. They will be falling into a "diabolical trap," as the French foreign minister put it. That would be true — perhaps even more so — if they happen to kill bin Laden, still without having provided credible evidence of his involvement in the crimes of Sept. 11. He would then be perceived as a martyr even among the enormous majority of Muslims who deplore those crimes, as bin Laden himself has done, for what it is worth, denying any involvement in the crimes or even knowledge of them, and condemning "the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans" as an act that "Islam strictly forbids…even in the course of a battle" (BBC, Sept.29). His voice will continue to resound on tens of thousands of cassettes already circulating throughout the Muslim world, and in many interviews, including the last few days. An assault that kills innocent Afghans — not Taliban, but their terrorized victims — would be virtually a call for new recruits to the horrendous cause of the bin Laden network and other graduates of the terrorist networks set up by the CIA and its associates 20 years ago to fight a Holy War against the Russians, meanwhile following their own agenda, from the time they assassinated President Sadat of Egypt in 1981, murdering one of the most enthusiastic of the creators of the "Afghanis" — mostly recruits from extremist radical Islamist elements around the world who were recruited to fight in Afghanistan. After a little while, the message apparently got through to the Bush administration, which has — wisely from their point of view– chosen to follow a different course. However, "restraint" seems to me a questionable word. On Sept. 16, the New York Times reported that "Washington has also demanded [from Pakistan] a cutoff of fuel supplies,…and the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan’s civilian population." Astonishingly, that report elicited no detectable reaction in the West, a grim reminder of the nature of the Western civilization that leaders and elite commentators claim to uphold, yet another lesson that is not lost among those who have been at the wrong end of the guns and whips for centuries. In the following days, those demands were implemented. On Sept. 27, the same NYT correspondent reported that officials in Pakistan "said today that they would not relent in their decision to seal off the country’s 1,400- mile border with Afghanistan, a move requested by the Bush administration because, the officials said, they wanted to be sure that none of Mr. bin Laden’s men were hiding among the huge tide of refugees" (John Burns, Islamabad). According to the world’s leading newspaper, then, Washington demanded that Pakistan slaughter massive numbers of Afghans, millions of them already on the brink of starvation, by cutting off the limited sustenance that was keeping them alive. Almost all aid missions withdrew or were expelled under the threat of bombing. Huge numbers of miserable people have been fleeing to the borders in terror, after Washington’s threat to bomb the shreds of existence remaining in Afghanistan, and to convert the Northern Alliance into a heavily armed military force that will, perhaps, be unleashed to renew the atrocities that tore the country apart and led much of the population to welcome the Taliban when they drove out the murderous warring factions that Washington and Moscow now hope to exploit for their own purposes. When they reach the sealed borders, refugees are trapped to die in silence. Only a trickle can escape through remote mountain passes. How many have already succumbed we cannot guess, and few seem to care. Apart from the relief agencies, I have seen no attempt even to guess. Within a few weeks the harsh winter will arrive. There are some reporters and aid workers in the refugee camps across the borders. What they describe is horrifying enough, but they know, and we know, that they are seeing the lucky ones, the few who were able to escape — and who express their hopes that "even the cruel Americans must feel some pity for our ruined country," and relent in this savage silent genocide (Boston Globe, Sept. 27, p. 1). Perhaps the most apt description was given by the wonderful and courageous Indian writer and activist Arundhati Roy, referring to Operation Infinite Justice proclaimed by the Bush Administration: "Witness the infinite justice of the new century. Civilians starving to death while they’re waiting to be killed" (Guardian, Sept. 29). (2) The UN has indicated that the threat of starvation in Afghanistan is enormous. International criticism on this score has grown and now the U.S. and Britain are talking about providing food aid to ward off hunger. Are they caving in to dissent in fact, or only in appearance? What is their motivation? What will be the scale and impact of their efforts? The UN estimates that some 7-8 million are at risk of imminent starvation. The NY Times reports in a small item (Sept. 25) that nearly six million Afghans depend on food aid from the UN, as well as 3.5 million in refugee camps outside, many of whom fled just before the borders were sealed. The item reported that some food is being sent, to the camps across the border. If people in Washington and the editorial offices have even a single gray cell functioning, they realize that they must present themselves as humanitarians seeking to avert the awesome tragedy that followed at once from the threat of bombing and military attack and the sealing of the borders they demanded. "Experts also urge the United States to improve its image by increasing aid to Afghan refugees, as well as by helping to rebuild the economy" (Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 28). Even without PR specialists to instruct them, administration officials must comprehend that they should send some food to the refugees who made it across the border, and at least talk about air drop of food to starving people within: in order "to save lives" but also to "help the effort to find terror groups inside Afghanistan" (Boston Globe, Sept. 27, quoting a Pentagon official, who describes this as "winning the hearts and minds of the people"). The New York Times editors picked up the same theme the following day, 12 days after the journal reported that the murderous operation is being put into effect. On the scale of aid, one can only hope that it is enormous, or the human tragedy may be immense in a few weeks. But we should also bear in mind that there has been nothing to stop massive food drops from the beginning, and we cannot even guess how many have already died, or soon will. If the government is sensible, there will be at least a show of the "massive air drops" that officials mention. (3) International legal institutions would likely ratify efforts to arrest and try bin Laden and others, supposing guilt could be shown, including the use of force. Why does the U.S. avoid this recourse? Is it only a matter of not wishing to legitimate an approach that could be used, as well, against our acts of terrorism, or are other factors at play? Much of the world has been asking the US to provide some evidence to link bin Laden to the crime, and if such evidence could be provided, it would not be difficult to rally enormous support for an international effort, under the rubric of the UN, to apprehend and try him and his collaborators. However, that is no simple matter. Even if bin Laden and his network are involved in the crimes of Sept. 11, it may be quite hard to produce credible evidence. As the CIA surely knows very well, having nurtured these organizations and monitored them very closely for 20 years, they are diffuse, decentralized, non-hierarchic structures, probably with little communication or direct guidance. And for all we know, most of the perpetrators may have killed themselves in their awful missions. There are further problems in the background. To quote Roy again, "The Taliban’s response to US demands for the extradition of Bin Laden has been uncharacteristically reasonable: produce the evidence, then we’ll hand him over. President Bush’s response is that the demand is non-negotiable’." She also adds one of the many reasons why this framework is unacceptable to Washington: "While talks are on for the extradition of CEOs can India put in a side request for the extradition of Warren Anderson of the US? He was the chairman of Union Carbide, responsible for the Bhopal gas leak that killed 16,000 people in 1984.  We have collated the necessary evidence. It’s all in the files. Could we have him, please?" Such comparisons elicit frenzied tantrums at the extremist fringes of Western opinion, some of them called "the left." But for Westerners who have retained their sanity and moral integrity, and for great numbers among the usual victims, they are quite meaningful. Government leaders presumably understand that. And the single example that Roy mentions is only the beginning, of course, and one of the lesser examples, not only because of the scale of the atrocity, but because it was not … read more »

Response:

Filed under: Activist Movement

Related Posts

• what is the AT?
• August 2, 1993: Never Forget, Never Stop Seeking Justice for Children
• OT-- Make Iraq a Sherman's March
• ECOTERRORISM?
• Multiple-use Trail Perspectives
• Khalid Muhammad kicks off
• Reactivate misc.transport.air-industry ???
• Larry Elder: Understanding the 'N' Word
• Hendrix Fuzz Wah
• Repost: Cathy Young Article on Fathers