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:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
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.


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.


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
and Carroll. And by the way, your own abilities to convince others of
own positions, judging by your success on the list, is not so hot in
It's possible to disagree without being disagreeable, and that often
better than invective and hectoring.


Sent from my iPad

Michael Balter
Contributing Correspondent, Science
Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
New York University

Email:  [log in to unmask]

“Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there
no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."
                                                  --John Kenneth Galbraith