Print

Print


Although i appreciate M. G.'s 
generous consideration of my and 
Carroll's feelings, i have to 
confess that my primary reaction to 
M. B.'s remarks is not to be 
insulted, but to be saddened at the 
inability of this apparently quite 
capable and bold individual to 
transcend an apparently obsessive 
attachment to the idea that the 
fundamental reason for (fill in the 
blank) is that a prior generation 
projected anti-democratic regimes as 
socialist.  Referring to his own 
youth that generation was, in his 
earlier obsessing, the evil cabal of 
his own generation that led him 
astray.  The focus has apparently 
now shifted to the generation of his 
father (or maybe grandfather).  
[Please note M. B. that i am not 
attacking your character nor denying 
the value of much that you do or 
say.  I am simply pointing out that 
your pre-occupation w/ one concept 
is attenuating your effectiveness.]

More specifically what saddens me is 
(1) M. B.'s remarks were entirely 
predictable.  (2) The poor fellow 
has lost his sense of humor, unlike 
the stupid old farts who are, 
according to him, running around 
telling everybody that repressive 
anti-democratic regimes are the 
model for the U.S.  (3) 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.

Lighten up M. B.  Stop playing 
Johnny one-note.  Check out what 
those with whom or about whom you 
want to communicate are actually 
doing and saying before jumping to 
confusions.

Now i do want to directly question 
MB's practice regarding how one 
approaches sociopolitical economic 
problems.  They are really 
difficult.   It takes a lot of 
study, investigation and insight.  
For example, 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.  I 
doubt that your one note is 
adequate.  (Remember: It takes ten 
fingers to play the piano.)

without animus and generally amused, 
i am
superannuated, politically 
fossilized, 
main-cause-of-all-that's-wrong, herb





On 8/10/2011 4:13 AM, Michael Balter 
wrote:
> But Michael G's message to me does reflect the biased, inconsistent,
> and ultimately hypocritical way that this list is moderated. Almost
> all of the many, many, many personal attacks on me have gone
> unremarked over the years.
>
> But if Michael G. intends again to put me on moderation, perhaps it is
> indeed time for a parting of the ways. I thought old dogs could learn
> new tricks, and I think some have, but not all.
>
> MB
>
> On 8/10/11, Michael Balter<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>> On list: Sorry, no can do. We need to be able to express ourselves
>> freely on this list. Sarcasm, irony, etc, as I have always said, is
>> political speech.
>>
>> MB
>>
>> On 8/10/11, Michael H Goldhaber<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>>> Dear Michael,
>>>
>>> (I'm sending you this off list.)
>>>
>>> Please apologize quickly on theSftP list for your gratuitous insults of
>>> Herb
>>> and Carroll. And by the way, your own abilities to convince others of
>>> your
>>> own positions, judging by your success on the list, is not so hot in
>>> itself.
>>> It's possible to disagree without being disagreeable, and that often
>>> works
>>> better than invective and hectoring.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> --
>> ******************************************
>> Michael Balter
>> Contributing Correspondent, Science
>> Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
>> New York University
>>
>> Email:  [log in to unmask]
>> Web:    michaelbalter.com
>> NYU:    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
>>
>