Most disturbing, however, is the Narconews accusation that our Zapatista piece calls for “a violent permanent solution in the war of extinction against Mexico’s indigenous community.” Nonsense! This is a shameless and slanderous as well as a blatant distortion of the article’s thesis, made even clearer by Giordano’s truly unacceptable manipulation of the piece’s content.

Again, I'll address these words to COHA's director.

PRIMERO: If it is "slanderous" then by all means sue me. Slander is a crime. And, hey, if you have a case, you could win my Dobro guitar that was so coveted by narco-bankers but which eluded their grasp (then again, you might not really want such a noisy and intemperate guitar!). I told the truth. I stand behind my story. I will continue to tell it and it will continue to ring like a bell these lame protests and their hollow claims.

SEGUNDO: Your essay fails to prove its claim, that I somehow manipulated your press release's content, and not just because I linked to your entire text.

You claim that the following words (your organization's) do not constitute a call for the Mexican state to use violence against the indigenous:

“If the situation does not change in the near future, the tensions will mount until confrontations with the Zapatista fighters become inevitable, offsetting Fox’s persistent efforts to make Mexico a stable and safe environment for investors… Fox may even conclude that an armed encounter with the Zapatistas might be a good thing for his image as well as for his legacy, once he steps down. Fellow Mexicans might be prepared to say (according to Fox’s way of thinking), that the president was willing to preserve Mexico’s sovereignty and cohesiveness at any cost… if Mexico wants to be perceived internationally as a country that is prepared to compete against economic heavyweights China and India in international trade, it will need to resolve the EZLN issue with dispatch.”

What part of your own press release don't you understand?

Your press release states as fact that "confrontations with the zapatista fighters (will) become inevitable." The characterization of the Zapatistas, who have not fired a shot since 1994, as "fighters" in this context is a loaded gun. The statement's prediction - that open warfare in Chiapas is "inevitable" - has absolutely no basis in reality. It was written to frighten.

In the same paragraph where you defined the Zapatistas as "fighters," Mexican President Vicente Fox is defined by his supposedly "persistent efforts to make Mexico a stable and safe environment for investors… " Right. Vicente Fox. Man of stability, peace and prosperity juxtaposed with those scarey brown-skinned "fighters." The set up is duly noted.

Immediately following the set up of the reasonable Fox in contrast with the fighting Zapatistas (again, this fantasy comes from your word processors, not ours), your press release stated: "Fox may even conclude that an armed encounter with the Zapatistas might be a good thing for his image as well as for his legacy, once he steps down. Fellow Mexicans might be prepared to say (according to Fox’s way of thinking), that the president was willing to preserve Mexico’s sovereignty and cohesiveness at any cost."

So now, according to the picture painted by your press release, Fox is not only a reasonable man of stability and peace on an "inevitable" collission course with these fighters, but he might choose to do something "good... for his image as well as for his legacy." You don't mince words as to what that "good thing" is: It is, according to your press release, "an armed encounter."

Your press release states as a fact that Mexico has "sovereignty and cohesiveness" that Fox is "willing to preserve... at any cost."

TERCERO: You seem unaware of how bonechilling and cold your press release's words are received by, say, friends of the late Trinidad Cruz Pérez, a Tzeltal indigenous man from the jungle town of Roberto Barrios with whom I (and others) used to break bread. On a day in March 1998, five months after I last saw him, Trinidad walked alone into his cornfield to do his work. Two paramilitary leaders ambushed him there, raised their machetes, and chopped, whacked, and slashed Trinidad to a bleeding pulp, and he died soonafter in the hospital of his wounds. (Is that what you meant by "sovereignty and cohesiveness"?)

Now you hide behind academic qualifiers in your statement such as "Fox may even conclude" and "in Fox's way of thinking" to protest that you didn't mean what your statement clearly said. That's lame because, among other problems with the statement, there is absolutely no reality in the claim that Fox thinks the way your statement claims he thinks. Nor is there any reality in the statement that his "fellow Mexicans" would cheer him for chopping more Trinidads into pieces.

Still creepier is your press release's statement, in direct context to the "armed encounter" scenario that "if Mexico wants to be perceived internationally as a country that is prepared to compete against economic heavyweights China and India in international trade, it will need to resolve the EZLN issue with dispatch.”

So now Fox is given, by COHA, a laundry list of reasons to aid in "Fox's way of thinking": for the sake of his image, his legacy, his country's sovereignty, his country's cohesiveness, the love of his fellow Mexicans, and "to be perceived internationally" as a power in "international trade" (before those pesky Chinese and Indians from India beat him to it, is the implication), that he must do this "good thing" called "armed encounter" against the indigenous of the Mexican Southeast.

CUARTO: The final academic qualifier your press release uses to claim it never said what it clearly said is this little gem:

"However, developments this week may point to a more open dialogue between the Zapatistas and the federal government, presenting the EZLN [with] the possibility of participating in Mexico’s political life as an official political party.”

That is simply stupid. As anyone who has read a single Zapatista communiqué knows (and as those who proclaim themselves as "analysts" and experts on the theme ought to know), the Zapatistas have always stated emphatically and unequivocally that they will not ever form or join "an official political party."

Your statement protests: "As a fair reading of the entire text would illustrate, Lozano clearly believes that a peaceful resolution to the recent conflict is possible and desirable; the outlandish accusation that COHA advocates genocide in Mexico is an outrageous tormenting of language."

And what is his advocated peaceful solution? That the Zapatistas form "an official political party." Right. And the solution to the Middle East peace problem is, likewise, for the Israelis to eat pork and for the Arabs to drink booze. Not joining or forming "official political parties" is as strong a tenet in the Zapatista canon as exists. (You seem unaware of this fact even after 12 years of their repeating it constantly: Go back to the books and do some research.) To paint that as the one "peaceful" option they have, or else here comes the dreaded "armed encounter" that everyone else has been trying to avoid is the "disingenuous" act here, not my blowing the whistle on such violent fantasies.

No, you and I both know that your accusation of "slanderous" is knowingly false, and that you just threw it out there as another smokebomb to distract from the merits of the discussion, and that you will not be suing me (as anyone who truly believed they had been "slandered" would do - especially with such a coveted guitar to be won).

Come to think of it, there's another reason why you and the narco-bankers and others seem to desire that noisy and intemperate guitar so much: It was once strummed by the late Trinidad Cruz Pérez, when at the request of the autonomous village authorities, we composed, collectively, "El Corrido del 9 de Febrero" as the town song.

QUINTO: Yes, as you can see, fine temperate and quiet sirs and madams of Washington, there are some people who may freely strum that guitar whenever they like... While the rest of you just sit at your desks and fantasize about "Fox's way of thinking" and "armed encounter" and "slander" lawsuits and other scams to possess what eludes you: dignity, justice, freedom, truth, love, solidarity, perhaps a few beans and tortillas fresh from the comal, and a guitar passed from hand to hand, and a word passed from voice to voice, an authentic song, so far from the din and distractions and careerists of Connecticut Avenue NW and "the power from above."

We can tell that you feel wounded by our word, that you are still trying to sort out your feelings, which fluctuate between "do the right thing" and "kill the messenger." But the messenger is unkillable, because the message is the truth. "Le duele," as we say down here. "You're in pain." Yeah, here's a Kleenex. We're used to hearing these sobs from behind desks.

But what you experience as "pain" is not what my late friend Trinidad knew as pain. Get some perspective. As Gandhi said, "there is a way out of hell." The path comes from below. Someday, maybe, you might walk it with us. We get the sense you would like to, but it is very hard, perhaps impossible, to find the path from below when you are fixated upon the power from above and walking the lines it sets to restrict you, to keep you "temperate" and "quiet," to get your name quoted in the New York Times.... Maybe if you're lucky we'll compose a corrido about your inner struggle. Health and a hug,

Al Giordano