Print

Print


Kamran:

After all these exchanges of words and feelings, pithy works best:
priceless.

Thanks,

Larry

From:  Kamran Nayeri <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:  Science for the People Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
Date:  Thu, 11 Aug 2011 07:21:27 -0700
To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:  Re: Please apologize, and soon

MIchael B wrote: 
I do have fears, including the fear that the old
generation of leftists will die out still not having learned from the
experiences of the past decades, and thus unable to impart much wisdom
to younger generations of activists.
Do you mean "lessons" that you choose to draw or those that are entirely
their own? 

Michael: why do not you relax. The world will still be here even when you
one day long in the future cease to tell it how to live.

Kamran


On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mandi Smallhorne <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> In my experience, younger generations of activists largely find their own
> way and think that, just as they were the first to discover sex, they are
> the first to fight the establishment. After about 10 or 15 years of
> activism, they finally discover history and get terribly excited about the
> unbelieveable fact that there were people who went down this route before
> them. (I am a prime example of this myself - I began discovering my
> forebears in the anti-apartheid struggle about ten years after 1976!)
> Mandi
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Science for the People Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Balter
> Sent: 11 August 2011 06:04 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Please apologize, and soon
> 
> Herb promises us "facts" instead of speculation, and then proceeds to
> immediately engage in the most rank speculation of his own: That
> 20-30% of the voting population would be prepared today to vote for a
> socialist party. And what is this based on? An opinion poll finding
> that 29% (not 36% as Herb states) of the subjects polled have a
> positive reaction to the word "socialism".
> 
> This is quite a leap of logic for a man of science. It would mean that
> the 29% are ready to translate an abstract sympathy for socialist
> ideas into an action that would, at least in many peoples' minds,
> guarantee a Republican president from here to eternity. All the
> socialist party needs is enough campaign funds and election monitors
> to make it happen.
> 
> I suppose that a pretty high percentage of people would have a
> positive reaction to the term "bunny rabbit", but I think it likely
> that many fewer would want one for a pet, or want to eat one for
> dinner.
> 
> Herb is certainly right that this 29% figure is encouraging and
> something to build upon. But until socialists shed their
> self-deceptions and fantasies, they will never be able to figure out
> how to do it. And while Carrol is wrong to say that I have a phobia
> related to all this, I do have fears, including the fear that the old
> generation of leftists will die out still not having learned from the
> experiences of the past decades, and thus unable to impart much wisdom
> to younger generations of activists.
> 
> MB
> 
> On 8/10/11, herb fox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > I hate to upset all this speculation
>> > with facts.  Apparently if the
>> > system weren't rigged and require
>> > great scads of money to buy
>> > elections, we could very well have a
>> > Socialist Party today with anywhere
>> > from 20% to 30% of the vote.  That
>> > would be a decent base to build
>> > from.  Of course the hard core
>> > supporters of capitalism would try
>> > to paint the U. S. Socialists the
>> > color of Stalin or whomever; but if
>> > the ability to reach the public did
>> > not depend on immense resources, the
>> > New Socialist Party would have a
>> > chance to flesh out a program based
>> > on the needs and expectations of the
>> > U. S. working class.  If you don't
>> > trust PEW, try Gallup:
>> >
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/socialism-viewed-positively-americans.aspx
>> > Gallup's poll is entitled *Socialism
>> > Viewed Positively by 36% of
>> > Americans**.
>> > *
>> > What needs to be emphasized is that,
>> > in spite of long standing propaganda
>> > against socialism and  continuous
>> > discrediting of it by relating it to
>> > repressive regimes and painting
>> > those regimes as evil as possible by
>> > the main stream press and others, it
>> > still is viewed positively by a
>> > substantial portion of the
>> > population.  Just imagine what kind
>> > of support it would have if we had
>> > democracy instead of
>> > corporatocracy.  Anyways, i didn't
>> > need these polls.  Working with the
>> > foreclosure movement, youth doing
>> > street theater and other art forms,
>> > and organizing adjuncts (in spite of
>> > being an old fart) i find a majority
>> > consider that capitalism has failed
>> > them.  They want an alternative and
>> > have some pretty well defined views
>> > of what some of its attributes
>> > should be.  They don't seem to be
>> > bothered by calling it socialism and
>> > hardly ever refer to other countries
>> > that use that word.  Unlike older
>> > persons like Michael Balter they
>> > don't even know who Stalin was and
>> > what it felt like to be part of a
>> > weirdo group like PLP.  As a matter
>> > of fact what they do know about Cuba
>> > and Venezuela is the cool music that
>> > comes out of there.  They definitely
>> > are tired of our being permanently
>> > at war and the government not having
>> > money for other more essential
>> > things.  I will admit they generally
>> > are not too happy with China, mostly
>> > because the Chinese work for such
>> > low wages that  they take our jobs
>> > away  So their negative view of
>> > Communism is of a nation full of
>> > economic opportunity for dudes with
>> > cash and hell for the workers, and
>> > with a government that lies and is
>> > not a government of, by, and for the
>> > people--sort of like the United States.
>> > Sweet dreams,
>> > herb
>> >
>> > Pew Research Center for the People &
>> > the Press
>> >
>> >
>> >   "Socialism" Not So Negative,
>> >   "Capitalism" Not So Positive
>> >
>> >
>> >     A Political Rhetoric Test
>> >
>> > May 4, 2010
>> >
>> > "Socialism" is a negative for most
>> > Americans, but certainly not all
>> > Americans. "Capitalism" is regarded
>> > positively by a majority of public,
>> > though it is a thin majority. Among
>> > certain segments of the public --
>> > notably, young people and Democrats
>> > -- both "isms" are rated about
>> > equally. And while most Americans
>> > have a negative reaction to the word
>> > "militia," the term is viewed more
>> > positively by Republican men than
>> > most other groups.
>> >
>> > These are among the findings of a
>> > national survey by the Pew Research
>> > Center for the People & the Press
>> > that tests reactions to words and
>> > phrases frequently used in current
>> > political discourse. Overall, 29%
>> > say they have a positive reaction to
>> > the word "socialism," while 59%
>> > react negatively. The public's
>> > impressions of "capitalism," though
>> > far more positive, are somewhat
>> > mixed. Slightly more than half (52%)
>> > react positively to the word
>> > "capitalism," compared with 37% who
>> > say they have a negative reaction.
>> >
>> > A large majority of Republicans
>> > (77%) react negatively to
>> > "socialism," while 62% have a
>> > positive reaction to "capitalism."
>> > Democrats' impressions are more
>> > divided: In fact, about as many
>> > Democrats react positively to
>> > "socialism" (44%) as to "capitalism"
>> > (47%).
>> >
>> > Reaction to "capitalism" is lukewarm
>> > among many demographic groups. Fewer
>> > than half of young people, women,
>> > people with lower incomes and those
>> > with less education react positively
>> > to "capitalism."
>> >
>> > The survey, conducted April 21-26
>> > among 1,546 adults, measured
>> > reactions to nine political words
>> > and phrases. The most positive
>> > reactions are to "family values"
>> > (89% positive) and "civil rights"
>> > (87%). About three-quarters see
>> > "states' rights" (77%) and "civil
>> > liberties" (76%) positively, while
>> > 68% have a positive reaction to the
>> > word "progressive."
>> >
>> > Reactions to the word "libertarian"
>> > are evenly divided -- 38% positive,
>> > 37% negative. On balance,
>> > Republicans view "libertarian"
>> > negatively, Democrats are divided,
>> > while independents have a positive
>> > impression of the term. "Militia"
>> > elicits the most negative reaction
>> > of the nine terms tested: Just 21%
>> > have a positive reaction compared
>> > with 65% who have a negative response.
>> >
>> >
>> >       Partisan Divide over "Socialism"
>> >
>> > The most striking partisan
>> > differences come in reactions to the
>> > word "socialism." Just 15% of
>> > Republicans react positively to
>> > "socialism" while 77% react
>> > negatively. By more than two-to-one
>> > (64% to 26%), independents also have
>> > a negative impression of
>> > "socialism." However, Democrats are
>> > evenly divided -- 44% have a
>> > positive reaction to "socialism"
>> > while 43% react negatively.
>> >
>> > "Capitalism" elicits a less partisan
>> > reaction. About six-in-ten
>> > Republicans (62%) react positively
>> > to "capitalism," compared with 29%
>> > who have a negative reaction. About
>> > half of independents (52%) have a
>> > positive impression while 39% react
>> > negatively. Among Democrats, 47%
>> > react positively to "capitalism"
>> > while nearly as many (43%) react
>> > negatively.
>> >
>> > There is a substantial partisan
>> > divide in views of the word
>> > "progressive." However, majorities
>> > of Democrats (81%), independents
>> > (64%) and Republicans (56%) have a
>> > positive reaction to "progressive."
>> >
>> > More than four-in-ten independents
>> > (44%) react positively to the word
>> > "libertarian," while 32% have a
>> > negative reaction. Democrats are
>> > nearly evenly divided (39% positive,
>> > 37% negative). However, Republicans
>> > on balance have a negative
>> > impression of this term (44%
>> > negative, 31% positive).
>> >
>> > Majorities of Democrats (70%),
>> > independents (66%) and Republicans
>> > (59%) react negatively to the word
>> > "militia." Nearly twice as many
>> > Republicans (27%) as Democrats (15%)
>> > have a positive view of this term.
>> >
>> >
>> >       Young People Lukewarm Toward
>> >       "Capitalism"
>> >
>> > Young people are more positive about
>> > "socialism" -- and more negative
>> > about "capitalism" -- than are older
>> > Americans. Among those younger than
>> > age 30, identical percentages react
>> > positively to "socialism" and
>> > "capitalism" (43% each), while about
>> > half react negatively to each. Among
>> > older age groups, majorities view
>> > "socialism" negatively and
>> > "capitalism" positively.
>> >
>> > People ages 65 and older have a
>> > particularly negative reaction to
>> > "socialism" -- 73% have a negative
>> > impression of the term compared with
>> > just 14% who are positive. But those
>> > 65 and older are no more likely than
>> > those ages 30 to 64 to have a
>> > positive reaction to "capitalism"
>> > (56% vs. 55%).
>> >
>> > More than twice as many blacks as
>> > whites react positively to
>> > "socialism" (53% vs. 24%). Yet there
>> > are no racial differences in views
>> > of "capitalism" -- 50% of African
>> > Americans and 53% of whites have a
>> > positive reaction.
>> >
>> > Those with a high school education
>> > or less are evenly divided over
>> > "capitalism" (44% positive vs. 42%
>> > negative). Among those with some
>> > college experience, 49% react
>> > positively to "capitalism" as do 68%
>> > of college graduates. Those with a
>> > high school education or less are
>> > more likely to express a positive
>> > view of "socialism" than do those
>> > with more education.
>> >
>> > People with family incomes of
>> > $75,000 or more are the only income
>> > group in which a clear majority
>> > (66%) reacts positively to the word
>> > "capitalism." Views of "socialism"
>> > also are much more negative among
>> > those in this income category (71%
>> > negative) and among those with
>> > incomes of $30,000 to $75,000 (64%
>> > negative) than among those with
>> > incomes of less than $30,000 (46%
>> > negative).
>> >
>> > Conservative Republicans stand out
>> > for their overwhelmingly negative
>> > reactions to "socialism" (84%
>> > negative) and highly positive
>> > reactions to "capitalism" (67%
>> > positive). No more than about half
>> > in other political groups, including
>> > moderate and liberal Republicans
>> > (51%), have a positive impression of
>> > "capitalism."
>> >
>> > Perhaps surprisingly, opinions about
>> > the terms "socialism" and
>> > "capitalism" are not correlated with
>> > each other. Most of those who have a
>> > positive reaction to "socialism"
>> > also have a positive reaction to
>> > "capitalism"; in fact, views of
>> > "capitalism" are about the same
>> > among those who react positively to
>> > "socialism" as they are among those
>> > who react negatively (52% and 56%,
>> > respectively, view "capitalism"
>> > positively). Conversely, views of
>> > "socialism" are just as negative
>> > among those who have a positive
>> > reaction to "capitalism" (64%
>> > negative) as those who react
>> > negatively (61% negative).
>> >
>> > There are some differences in the
>> > relationship between these terms by
>> > demographic groups, although the
>> > association is not particularly
>> > strong among any group. For
>> > instance, among college graduates,
>> > 71% of those with a positive
>> > reaction to "capitalism" have a
>> > negative reaction to "socialism." By
>> > contrast, among college graduates
>> > who have a negative view of
>> > "capitalism" a smaller proportion
>> > have a negative view of "socialism"
>> > (51%).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 8/10/2011 12:28 PM, Kamran Nayeri
>> > wrote:
>>> >> Kamran, I'm out of posts today,
>>> >> but perhaps you would care to post my
>>> >> response to yours which is below.
>>> >> That will be my last post for today.
>>> >>
>>> >> thanks, Michael
>>> >>
>>> >> ---------- Forwarded message
>>> >> ----------
>>> >> From: Michael Balter
>>> >> <[log in to unmask]
>>> >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>> >> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:20:30 +0200
>>> >> Subject: Re: Please apologize, and
>>> >> soon
>>> >> To: Science for the People
>>> >> Discussion List
>>> >> <[log in to unmask]
>>> >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>> >>
>>> >> When it comes to Marxist analysis,
>>> >> I'm an amateur and so is nearly
>>> >> everyone here, although it would
>>> >> be refreshing if they would admit it.
>>> >>
>>> >> But more incisive analysts than us
>>> >> have thought and written about
>>> >> false consciousness (Stanley
>>> >> Aronowitz and many others) and
>>> >> sought to
>>> >> explain the clear fact that it is
>>> >> not just the working class being
>>> >> badly led or mean capitalist
>>> >> crackdowns a la Reagan that are to
>>> >> blame,
>>> >> but the consciousness of the
>>> >> working class itself which has turned
>>> >> away decisively from socialist
>>> >> values over the decades. Or does
>>> >> anyone
>>> >> here want to argue that the
>>> >> workers are just stupid and subject to
>>> >> threats and suggestions and unable
>>> >> to make up their own minds about
>>> >> anything? The problem is that they
>>> >> HAVE made up their minds, and the
>>> >> job of socialists is to change
>>> >> them. But JOB ONE has to be to
>>> >> convince
>>> >> workers that socialism doesn't
>>> >> mean Cuba, Chavez, USSR, Chairman Mao,
>>> >> etc. Is anyone other than David
>>> >> Westman actually going out into the
>>> >> street and trying to sell
>>> >> socialist or Communist
>>> >> publications? I did
>>> >> it for years, and this is the main
>>> >> argument I had to deal with every
>>> >> time. Try it today, you will get
>>> >> the same response.
>>> >>
>>> >> MB
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:25 AM,
>>> >> Michael Balter
>>> >> <[log in to unmask]
>>> >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>     Kamran, I'm out of posts
>>> >>     today, but perhaps you would
>>> >>     care to post my
>>> >>     response to yours which is
>>> >>     below. That will be my last
>>> >>     post for today.
>>> >>
>>> >>     thanks, Michael
>>> >>
>>> >>     ---------- Forwarded message
>>> >>     ----------
>>> >>     From: Michael Balter
>>> >>     <[log in to unmask]
>>> >>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>> >>     Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011
>>> >>     18:20:30 +0200
>>> >>     Subject: Re: Please apologize,
>>> >>     and soon
>>> >>     To: Science for the People
>>> >>     Discussion List
>>> >>     <[log in to unmask]
>>> >>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>> >>
>>> >>     When it comes to Marxist
>>> >>     analysis, I'm an amateur and
>>> >>     so is nearly
>>> >>     everyone here, although it
>>> >>     would be refreshing if they
>>> >>     would admit it.
>>> >>
>>> >>     But more incisive analysts
>>> >>     than us have thought and
>>> >>     written about
>>> >>     false consciousness (Stanley
>>> >>     Aronowitz and many others) and
>>> >>     sought to
>>> >>     explain the clear fact that it
>>> >>     is not just the working class
>>> >>     being
>>> >>     badly led or mean capitalist
>>> >>     crackdowns a la Reagan that
>>> >>     are to blame,
>>> >>     but the consciousness of the
>>> >>     working class itself which has
>>> >>     turned
>>> >>     away decisively from socialist
>>> >>     values over the decades. Or
>>> >>     does anyone
>>> >>     here want to argue that the
>>> >>     workers are just stupid and
>>> >>     subject to
>>> >>     threats and suggestions and
>>> >>     unable to make up their own
>>> >>     minds about
>>> >>     anything? The problem is that
>>> >>     they HAVE made up their minds,
>>> >>     and the
>>> >>     job of socialists is to change
>>> >>     them. But JOB ONE has to be to
>>> >>     convince
>>> >>     workers that socialism doesn't
>>> >>     mean Cuba, Chavez, USSR,
>>> >>     Chairman Mao,
>>> >>     etc. Is anyone other than
>>> >>     David Westman actually going
>>> >>     out into the
>>> >>     street and trying to sell
>>> >>     socialist or Communist
>>> >>     publications? I did
>>> >>     it for years, and this is the
>>> >>     main argument I had to deal
>>> >>     with every
>>> >>     time. Try it today, you will
>>> >>     get the same response.
>>> >>
>>> >>     MB
>>> >>
>>> >>     On 8/10/11, Kamran Nayeri
>>> >>     <[log in to unmask]
>>> >>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>> >>     wrote:
>>>> >>     > Would you perhaps consider
>>> >>     (1) the timing of the decline
>>> >>     in membership (does
>>>> >>     > it not coincide with the
>>> >>     anti-union push beginning with
>>> >>     Reagan attack on air
>>>> >>     > traffic controllers strike),
>>> >>     (2) inability /lack of
>>> >>     interest of union
>>>> >>     > leadership to fight back
>>> >>     (due to the rise of labor
>>> >>     aristocracy and labor
>>>> >>     > bureaucracy that have more
>>> >>     in common with the employer
>>> >>     class than with
>>>> >>     > rank-and-file workers, in
>>> >>     addition to the crimes of
>>> >>     Stalinism?
>>>> >>     >
>>>> >>     > It is my observation (others
>>> >>     can correct me if I am wrong)
>>> >>     that Michael B.
>>>> >>     > typically blames "socialist"
>>> >>     and "anti-imperialist"
>>> >>     currents for much of
>>>> >>     > what is wrong with the
>>> >>     world. This is a serious
>>> >>     theoretical and
>>>> >>     > methodological error that
>>> >>     share nothing with Marx's
>>> >>     heritage if that is what
>>>> >>     > he aspires to follow.
>>>> >>     >
>>>> >>     > Kamran
>>>> >>     >
>>>> >>     > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:48
>>> >>     AM, Michael Balter
>>>> >>     > <[log in to unmask]
>>> >>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>wrote:
>>>> >>     >
>>>>> >>     >> Thanks to Carrol and Herb
>>> >>     for taking my digs with humor,
>>> >>     and to Herb
>>>>> >>     >> for responding to them in a
>>> >>     thoughtful way. Better
>>> >>     responses than that
>>>>> >>     >> of our moderator, who
>>> >>     insists on silly apologies.
>>>>> >>     >>
>>>>> >>     >> The decrease in union
>>> >>     membership can probably be
>>> >>     traced to a number of
>>>>> >>     >> factors, and anyone here
>>> >>     who tried to explain it would
>>> >>     probably just
>>>>> >>     >> be guessing. My guess is
>>> >>     that it is a combination of
>>> >>     increasing
>>>>> >>     >> disenchantment with the
>>> >>     possibilities of socialism
>>> >>     beginning in the
>>>>> >>     >> 1950s with Hungary, the
>>> >>     1960s with Czechoslovakia, the
>>> >>     1970s with
>>>>> >>     >> China, and the 1980s with
>>> >>     the fall of the Soviet Union,
>>> >>     along with
>>>>> >>     >> capitalism's increasing
>>> >>     ability to satisfy the major
>>> >>     needs of an
>>>>> >>     >> increasing number of people
>>> >>     (a big middle class despite
>>> >>     poverty and
>>>>> >>     >> increasing wealth gaps.)
>>> >>     Certainly the fall of
>>> >>     Communism, which many
>>>>> >>     >> on the American left have
>>> >>     yet to come to grips with, has
>>> >>     made
>>>>> >>     >> socialist goals farther
>>> >>     away than ever for both
>>> >>     leftists and the
>>>>> >>     >> people they might organize.
>>>>> >>     >>
>>>>> >>     >> But good to know that my
>>> >>     remarks have generated a
>>> >>     discussion, that's
>>>>> >>     >> encouraging. I will keep on
>>> >>     truckin.
>>>>> >>     >>
>>>>> >>     >> MB
>>>>> >>     >>
>>>>> >>     >> On 8/10/11, Mitchel Cohen
>>> >>     <[log in to unmask]
>>> >>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>> >>     wrote:
>>>>>> >>     >> > At 10:54 AM 8/10/2011,
>>> >>     herb fox wrote:
>>>>>>> >>     >> >>Apparently either unable
>>> >>     or unwilling to investigate
>>> >>     what actually
>>>>>>> >>     >> >>is the political practice
>>> >>     or position of those whom he
>>> >>     judges, he
>>>>>>> >>     >> >>cavalierly invents their
>>> >>     views.
>>>>>> >>     >> >
>>>>>> >>     >> > Putting words in the
>>> >>     mouths of one's opponents is
>>> >>     an old
>>>>>> >>     >> > tried-and-true tactic.
>>> >>     Sooner or later, some of that
>>> >>     will inevitably
>>>>>> >>     >> > stick, tho' we never know
>>> >>     beforehand which ones.
>>>>>> >>     >> >
>>>>>>> >>     >> >>in 1952 (when this old
>>> >>     fart's eldest son was born)
>>> >>     21.6% of the
>>>>>>> >>     >> >>workforce was organized
>>> >>     and popular support was at
>>> >>     75%.  Today about
>>>>>>> >>     >> >>half, around 11% is
>>> >>     organized and popular support
>>> >>     of unions is below
>>>>>>> >>     >> >>50%.  Explain that M. B.
>>>>>> >>     >> >
>>>>>> >>     >> > Similarly, let me put
>>> >>     Michael Balter's inevitable
>>> >>     one-note response
>>>>>> >>     >> > in his mouth. Why should
>>> >>     Michael have all the fun?
>>> >>     Michael says: No
>>>>>> >>     >> > doubt 10.6 percent of the
>>> >>     workforce withdrew support
>>> >>     from labor
>>>>>> >>     >> > unions because they were
>>> >>     disgruntled with the Soviet
>>> >>     Union. And Cuba.
>>>>>> >>     >> >
>>>>>> >>     >> > Isn't it obvious?
>>>>>> >>     >> >
>>>>>> >>     >> > :-)
>>>>>> >>     >> >
>>>>>> >>     >> > Mitchel
>>>>>> >>     >> >
>>>>>> >>     >> >
>>>>>> >>     >> >
>>>>>> >>     >> >
>>>>>> >>     >> >
>>>>>> >>     >> >
>>>>>> >>     >> >
>>>>>> >>     >> > http://www.MitchelCohen.com
>>>>>> >>     >> >
>>>>>> >>     >> >
>>>>>> >>     >> > Ring the bells that still
>>> >>     can ring,  Forget your perfect
>>> >>     offering.
>>>>>> >>     >> > There is a crack, a crack
>>> >>     in everything, That's how the
>>> >>     light gets in.
>>>>>> >>     >> > ~ Leonard Cohen
>>>>>> >>     >> >
>>>>>> >>     >> >
>>>>>> >>     >> >
>>>>>> >>     >> >
>>>>>> >>     >> >
>>>>>> >>     >> >
>>>>>> >>     >> >
>>>>> >>     >>
>>>>> >>     >>
>>>>> >>     >> --
>>>>> >>     >>
>>> >>     ******************************************
>>>>> >>     >> Michael Balter
>>>>> >>     >> Contributing Correspondent,
>>> >>     Science
>>>>> >>     >> Adjunct Professor of
>>> >>     Journalism,
>>>>> >>     >> New York University
>>>>> >>     >>
>>>>> >>     >> Email:
>>> >>     [log in to unmask]
>>> >>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> >>     >> Web: michaelbalter.com <http://michaelbalter.com>
>>> >>     <http://michaelbalter.com>
>>>>> >>     >> NYU:
>>> >>     journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/
>>> <http://journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/>
>>> >>     <http://journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/>
>>>>> >>     >>
>>> >>     ******************************************
>>>>> >>     >>
>>>>> >>     >> "Faced with the choice
>>> >>     between changing one's mind
>>> >>     and proving that there
>>>>> >>     >> is
>>>>> >>     >> no need to do so, almost
>>> >>     everyone gets busy on the proof."
>>>>> >>     >>
>>> >>                          --John
>>> >>     Kenneth Galbraith
>>>>> >>     >>
>>>> >>     >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>     --
>>> >>     ******************************************
>>> >>     Michael Balter
>>> >>     Contributing Correspondent,
>>> >>     Science
>>> >>     Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
>>> >>     New York University
>>> >>
>>> >>     Email:
>>> >>     [log in to unmask]
>>> >>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> >>     Web: michaelbalter.com <http://michaelbalter.com>
>>> >>     <http://michaelbalter.com>
>>> >>     NYU:
>>> >>     journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/
>>> <http://journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/>
>>> >>     <http://journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/>
>>> >>     ******************************************
>>> >>
>>> >>     "Faced with the choice between
>>> >>     changing one's mind and
>>> >>     proving that there is
>>> >>     no need to do so, almost
>>> >>     everyone gets busy on the proof."
>>> >>
>>> >>                        --John
>>> >>     Kenneth Galbraith
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>     --
>>> >>     ******************************************
>>> >>     Michael Balter
>>> >>     Contributing Correspondent,
>>> >>     Science
>>> >>     Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
>>> >>     New York University
>>> >>
>>> >>     Email:
>>> >>     [log in to unmask]
>>> >>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> >>     Web: michaelbalter.com <http://michaelbalter.com>
>>> >>     <http://michaelbalter.com>
>>> >>     NYU:
>>> >>     journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/
>>> <http://journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/>
>>> >>     <http://journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/>
>>> >>     ******************************************
>>> >>
>>> >>     "Faced with the choice between
>>> >>     changing one's mind and
>>> >>     proving that there is
>>> >>     no need to do so, almost
>>> >>     everyone gets busy on the proof."
>>> >>
>>> >>                        --John
>>> >>     Kenneth Galbraith
>>> >>
>>> >>
>> >
> 
> 
> --
> ******************************************
> Michael Balter
> Contributing Correspondent, Science
> Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
> New York University
> 
> Email:  [log in to unmask]
> Web:    michaelbalter.com <http://michaelbalter.com>
> NYU:    journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/
> <http://journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/>
> ******************************************
> 
> "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is
> no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."
>                                                   --John Kenneth Galbraith
> 
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 6366 (20110810) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> 
> http://www.eset.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 6366 (20110810) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> 
> http://www.eset.com
> 
> 
> 
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 6366 (20110810) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> 
> http://www.eset.com
>