Weekend Reading Assignment

Here’s your over-the-weekend reading list:

Sharpton the Sleazeball:

A slow news weekend so let’s begin by having some fun. Former FBI informant, full-time hustler and… oh yes… former presidential candidate, the Reverend Al Sharpton gets richly corn-holed once again by his long-time nemesis, Village Voice investigative reporter Wayne Barrett.  Turns out that Sharpton conspired with a black Republican jillionaire in 2001 to take down the Other Reverend, Jesse Jackson, so that Reverend Al could replace him as America’s leading ‘civil rights leader’ [sic].  Says Barrett:

Harold Doley Jr., David Brand, Yuri Tadesse, and Reverend Wyatt Tee Walker, all top associates of Al Sharpton, participated in a news barrage against Jesse Jackson in early 2001 that elevated Sharpton to a new national status. With the illegitimate-baby story spawning an array of other, mostly financial scandals, Sharpton, The New York Times Magazine reported, "offered himself up as Jackson's first defender" while "sources close to him were disparaging Jackson."

The prime instigator was Doley, a black Republican millionaire who supported Sharpton financially, giving to the National Action Network and even subsidizing the family while Sharpton served out his 90-day jail term that spring. The first black with a seat on the New York Stock Exchange and a linchpin in Jackson's creation of the Wall Street Project, Doley told the Voice: "I said to Sharpton, 'I'm going to bring Jesse down and make you the man.' Al said, 'I'm ready.'

Natch, you guessed it. Turns out that Big Al has his own little Love Nest problem as Barrett details it in his companion piece. Make sure you read this account in full and learn how Al prefers $4000 a night hotel suites and what class of gifts show up in the hands of his girlfriend top female staffer.  Meanwhile, the Washington Times reports that Al received more than $87,000 in payments for his “work” on behalf of the Kerry-Edwards campaign. You might ask, why bother with Al? Simple answer: you can’t believe the number of liberal friends I have who were willing to consider him as some sort of opposition voice within the Democratic Party. Opposition to ethics, maybe.

Chavez the Censor:

Venezuelan con man, Bolivarian Revolutionary, Great-Thinker and sitting President Hugo Chavez has just returned home from a tour of showcase democratic countries including Cuba, Iran and Libya. Chavez dropped in on Colonel Ghadafy, by the way, to pick up his prize as this year’s winner of the Ghadafy Human Rights Award. No, I’m not making this up.  Seems that Chavez had to rush home to enact a new press censorship law. This one’s no laughing matter—drawing a rebuke from Reporters Without Borders and Human Rights Watch among others.  Randy Paul, as usual, has all the dope.  No question that the Bushies don’t like Chavez. Hardly reason, though, for the rest of us to like this clown or, worse, apologize for his continuing thuggish deportment. Nice  going, Randy.

Rudy the Red-Cheeked Brown-Noser

Looks like much of the collateral damage from the Bernie Kerik blow-up is settling around his mentor, protector, business-partner, former limo passenger, and top promoter, Rudy Giuliani. The Teflon has finally has cracked. Giuliani Time, indeed.

 

Ralph's Rant:

I think Ralph Nader's presidential campaign made no sense this year (though, reviewing Kerry's performance with hindsight maybe Ralph wasn't completely off-base.)  I did, however, defend his right -- and anyone else's-- to run. Michael Moore, on the other hand, was among those who publicly pleaded with Nader not to put himself on any ballot. Now Nader is extracting some delightful revenge. Check out this searing open letter that Nader has published calling Moore "the Court Jester of the Democratic Party."  Yum-Yum!

Comments

[GMRoper]

Marc, Masterful handling of Ahmed. Well Done.

[Randy Paul]

Rich,

I didn't say Chávez was a dictator, but I do believe he has a strongly dictatorial side.

[steve]

the press law will be used to gag his noicy and often unprincipled opposition. Not tolerable, pal. Not accetable.

--I wonder about that, isn't the media in Venezuela almost entirely run by the opposition. It'd be kind of like imagining the Wash Post, NYT, WSJ, Wash Times, LA Times, ChiTribune...all owned and directed by Rush Limbaugh...in addition to CBS, NBC, ABC,...all likewise owned by Sean Hannity. I'm sure a Chavez has his own obvious powerbase securing motivations for doing so, but how much should the far right be allowed to own a national media? Although I doubt the question will be taken seriously, I do mean it that way. What would be the alternative to the laws passed in this instance to deal with the problem at hand?
Also, I'd note that Henwood actually is exactly one of those thinkers that is constantly questioning and requestioning his assumptions [no less than, say, our good mutual friend Lembcke]. His comments are hardly representative of a 'totalitarian' edge in any serious sense of the word.

[Randy Paul]

Steve, you get more voices by creating more voices, not by stifling the ones that exist and this places you on the precipice of a slippery slope. That's the very definition of dictatorship. I'll defer to the judgment of RSF, HRW and the IAPA, thanks.

Regarding Giuliani, it appears that some of his biggest fans come from outside New York. That speaks volumes to me.

[RobF]

I think you guys are way of base in your american bubble. Chavez just doesn't want to support the US on it's way down by giving up all it's oil that you so sorely need. As for the remarks about the journalist suppression, I am positive it is because the media right wing bias in his country is out of control. The owners of those channels are all extremly wealthy and have been kissing american toes for years. I think that there is a lot of misunderstandings in the world today, cuba and venezuala being two of them.

I mean how free are you in the US compared with the citizens of Cuba and Venezuala, and let me ask you, are a million people smarter than one?

[steve]

"I'll defer to the judgment of RSF, HRW and the IAPA, thanks."

I'm not entirely in disagreement with that principle, but when the whole media system is virtually owned and run by Rush Limbaugh...I'm just asking what are the alternatives, and I ask that in a serious way. Is it possible to have a free press or many voices when the far right in the country have a virtual monopoly over the media?

[dsquared]

Randy, Marc: I think that people actually do have a point in that I don't think that you operate a consistent standard when talking about Chavez. In particular, you appear to be much more keen to believe the worst of him than of his opponents, when recent historical experience has given no real basis for doing so. I think it was pretty bad in particular for Marc to have given so much airtime to vote-rigging conspiracy theories in the context of Venezuela and then to treat similar theories about Ohio as intrinsically laughable when they were based on exactly the same underlying mathematics. I would draw an analogy with the kind of people who always bang on about bad things that the Israelis are doing without providing any context or balance. In particular, although this law has the potential to be abused, it is a disservice to your readers to leave them without any background on Globovision; you really can't assume background knowledge, and the absence of context makes Chavez' actions look much worse than they are.

Finally, I do rather have a problem with the pair of you making any "a plague on both your houses" type claims when you were both loudly in favour of the antichavista side in the referendum, despite the fact that this campaign was dominated by the same people who were responsible for the caracazo. I didn't accuse you of "apologising for thugs" then, even though the people who were benefiting from your support were much worse than thugs, and I'd ask for the same courtesy to be extended in return. I've asked the pair of you a couple of times what alternative government you were expecting to arise from a "Si" victory, and I don't feel I've ever got a satisfactory response.

[Marc Cooper]

Dsquared.. get real, buddy. The Anti-Chavistas were "benefitting" form blog postings by me and Randy? You are kidding, right? Or did they download our postings and show them to undecided slum dwellers? Do those who refuse to speak out explicitly against Castro's jailing of no violent dissidents "benefit" him? (Well... maybe they do!)./
Now to some more serious points:
My position wasn't plague on both houses. My position was to vote to unseat Chavez. What kind of government would follow you ask? Most likely a very imperfect, superficially democratic regime completely dominated by Venezuela's discredited wealthy elite. Perhaps a few unions in the mix, perhaps a few civil scoiety organizations. Do I think that it is better than Chavez? Maybe marginally. It would provide more space for debate, for divergence and greater possibilities that ONE MAN would not find ways to stay in power....oh say... for the next 20 or 30 years. The miserable plight of the average Venezuelann would remain more or less miserable. I doubt of it would be worse than current conditions.
Im glad we agree that the analogies between Ohio and Caracas voting patterns are "laughable" though we think so for very different reasons, opposite reasons in fact.
Yes, I know what Globovision is. And therefore what? A biased media monopoly should now be subjected to what? Gagging by a biased arm of a one party state? What's that going to fix? We'll get Chavista propaganda intead of anti-Chavista propaganda. Or do you think that the Press Gag Law is going to create a more open, more fair playing ground? If so, Id love to know how...
What strikes me is that you are full of questions (which is fine) but no conclusions. So I will assume the following:
1) if you were a Venezuelan you would vote for Chavez.
2) You would condemn the anti-democratic opposition but be comfortable with Chavez' anti-democratic stacking of the courts, his use of plebiscites to create a state apparatus dominated by his one party, his attempt to come to power thru a violent coup when he was still in the army, the arming of Bolivarian lumpen groups in the shanty towns.
3) You would condemn GW Bush for being a blithering idiot but you would sit transfixed by the profound public oratory of Senor Chavez.
4) In a complicated globalized economy in which Venezauela has some but few cards to play you would prioritize your intl relations with Libya and Iran.
Now, I understand that many of these assumptions might be wrong-- because they are only assumptions. But I infer from what you've said that I have to be at least 70% correct.
What I dont get about folks like u dsquared is how you can be so terribly opinionated and well informed on world afairs but get all tongue tied and mealy mouthed when it comes to denouncing the imperfections -- or the thuggery-- of your enemy's enemies.Clear your throat and speak up and stop playing this silly, dead end game that one can never criticize the left because in so doing it benefits the right. My experience is the opposite.. in the long run, the more that clowns like Chavez are giving legitimacy as some sort of leftist symbol, the more lefitst ideas will become discredited. Why.. heavens.. I remember back in the 70's when some doltish leftists were trying to convince me that Mr. Mengistu was the socialist redeemer of Ethiopia. Same folks who got weak in the knees talking about Comrade Mugabe. That all worked out pretty well, didnt it?

[Ahmed]

Marc says

So much time is psent worrying if a Walzer or a Cooper or a Gitlin has spent too much sympathy on an Israeli, or a Christiam or some dumb White Man

What a characature. The late Edward Said wrote a masterful and eloquant critique of Walzner on Israel and I don't at all think it could be summed up as a kneejerk anti free thing reaction. As for Gitlin please, his condencending, tired granfatherly warnings about the "old left" and the "hard left" are not only exhausting to read but also intelectually stale. Marc, don't fetishish any "outside the box" left thinking as neccesarilly profound, you fall into a different sort of trap then you intend. The Walzner thing was a joke, when an lbo'er said he had a "Walzner moment" Doug replied with a humorous description. And, by the way if WWP types should be loathed for their wretched defence of North Korea's ruling thugs, or the Tianemmen Square maccascre, should people like Walzner not be taken to task for his apologetics and evasion on behalf of the occupation? I will agree with you that too much time is spent in some of the left defining who is and isn't a class traitor, but i hardly believe the comtemporary left is devoid of free thought, marvellous debate and brilliant minds as you seem to imply.

With your method of argument and denonciation, the clown title might be better suited to yourself, Marc

[steve]

"In a complicated globalized economy in which Venezauela has some but few cards to play you would prioritize your intl relations with Libya and Iran."

That sounds like a massive exaggaration. Is it really a big 'priority' or just one in a series of cards played? As for the 'doltish' leftists' who supported the Ethiopian dictator, I'd love to hear names. Even one prominent leftist who you would say took that stance? That'd be enough to convince me that there was a significant presence among the American left that adored that dictator.

[Randy Paul]

Daniel,

I get raked over the coals by anti-Chavistas and pro-Chavistas all the time. As far as I'm concerned, that tells me that I'm probably maintaining a clear-headed, non-Kool Aid drinking point of view.

I don't know how many times I have stated that if the opposition finds fault with Chávez then they need to realize that he didn't occur in a vacuum. If they expect to avoid this type of leader in the future they need to consider carefully how their society helped create the circumstances that resulted in the situation coming to the point it has.

But your comment is ignoring a couple of important points. First, Chávez is the one in power: he and his party control congress, the majority of the municipalities the governorships and he controls the courts. Accordingly, his actions have a far greater impact on the state of affairs in Venezuela then the feckless opposition. Second, the way someone leads when they have power is as important in my mind as what they are attempting to accomplish. Don't you think that some of the criticism of George Bush results not only from his policies, but also the arrogant and imperious way he has chosen to implement them? If you think that I cannot object to Hugo Chávez for the same reasons because he is helping the poor, then I just find that to be mind-numbingly sheeplike. To quote Lillian Hellman of all people, "I will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fashion."

I was never "loudly in favour of the antichavista side in the referendum" and if you would bother to read this comment of mine in jeanne D'Arc's blog (http://bodyandsoul.typepad.com/blog/2004/08/not_surprisingl.html#comments) here's what I actually wrote:

"I'm not sure. If they had an option to leave your vote blank (which they have in Brazil) I might have done that, but I probably would have voted yes the same way I voted for Bill Clinton: with fingers planted squarely on my nose."

Here's something else I said:

"My position has been consistent: a plague on both Chávez and the opposition. I don't drink the Kool-Aid from either side. I will give Chávez this, however: his gesture towards the opposition to meet with him was encouraging and their rejection of this was boneheaded."

Please don't manufacture things about me, okay, even if you feel a need to do so to bolster your argument. As for what may have arisen from a Si victory, I don't know, but it doesn't follow that I have to accept the devil I know, either.

As for the new media law, I repeat my argument that I made to Steve: what is needed is more media and not to restrict that which exists. I'd rather see an additional "Air America" than shut down Five Fox News Channels.

[steve]

"I get raked over the coals by anti-Chavistas and pro-Chavistas all the time. As far as I'm concerned, that tells me that I'm probably maintaining a clear-headed, non-Kool Aid drinking point of view."

Is it possible you presume that people are "Chavistas" when in fact they might just be critical of the role of the US govenment/business interests in Venezuelan politics and economy? It seems an odd predisposition of those who want to take when analyzing what is happening in Venezuela that presumes that those who disagree with them are perforce 'Chavistas'. For example, I don't think that you or Marc are taking the positions that you do because you wish to see the power of the Bush or US foreign policy making establishment succeed in their quest to transform all Latin American economies into privatized ones that submit to the will of international credit institutions above all else. Why the presumption of malfeasance, then, about those that disagree with you from the left?
And I do ask that question seriously, I don't see the need for the automatic move both you and Marc so frequently make.

[Randy Paul]

Steve,

I'm referring to people who have said, for example, that I should cut Chávez some slack despite some questionable human rights practices because he's trying to help the poor. If these people are not Chavistas, then fine, I should not characterize them as such. It's not a presumpition of malfeasance, but it is a presumption of bias.

But if you read the comments section that I referenced above in Jeanne D'Arc's blog, you'll see that many of those who disagree with me are either downplaying documented examples of human rights abuses by the government or otherwise seeking to rationalize them. I have condemned the attempted coup and have criticized the opposition for conducting the strike. Those who disagree with me and have supported Chávez, do not seem to be making much of any effort to criticize him.

Nevertheless, you raise a good point and I will try to be more aware of this. Nevertheless, if Daniel has a problem with my "plague on both of their houses" argument then my advice to him is to get over it. Those IN power always have a greater responsibility to be just than those who are OUT of power, because their strength derives from their being in power. I don't countenance abuse of their power from anyone, wehtehr their name is Bush, Chávez, Cisneros, Murdoch or Limbaugh.

[dsquared]

What I dont get about folks like u dsquared is how you can be so terribly opinionated and well informed on world afairs but get all tongue tied and mealy mouthed when it comes to denouncing the imperfections -- or the thuggery-- of your enemy's enemies

Because in the case of Chavez there was (and is) no credible alternative. The Venezuelan upperclass opposition weren't just "discredited" - they contained people who had instructed soldiers to fire on unarmed demonstrators. They were running on a platform of stopping land reform, making no commitment to continuing education, no free milk, no healthcare and no bricks. They were, visibly, based on their publicly advertised manifesto, worse than Chavez. And you and Randy would have voted for them.

There is a credible alternative to Bush who would not be much worse for the American working class. There is also a credible alternative to Tony Blair. There is no such alternative to Hugo Chavez, so I tend to not lend my support to people trying to get rid of him, because I think they would be much worse.

[Randy Paul]

"They were running on a platform of stopping land reform, making no commitment to continuing education, no free milk, no healthcare and no bricks."

Did they say that in so many words or are you saying so simply because they opposed Chávez?

Also, IIRC the vote was an if a then b sort of vote. In other words, if the referendum had resulted in Chávez being removed, then a subsequent election would have taken place for his replacement. Unless you are gifted with clairvoyance you don't know if all the statements you are ascribing to them would have taken place. In fact, you don't even know if someone from the opposition would have been elected to replace CHávez.

BTW, David Holiday who is a blogger based in El Salvador spoke highly of a member of the opposition named Enrique ter Horst in this post: http://davidholiday.com/weblog/2004/08/auditing-vote-in-venezuela here's something he said about ter Horst

"I should also mention that I knew Ter Horst when he was head of the UN mission here in El Salvador in the mid-1990s, and he's a very level-headed guy. So it probably is worth listening to his perspective."

David's CV is here (http://www.davidholiday.com/dhcv2004.html) so you can judge for yourself.

Let's turn this on its head, Daniel. You would have voted for a man dedicated to packing the courts with his supporters and thus threatening judicial independence, who has even banned the banging of pots in public demonstrations, is determined to limit media that is critical of him and whose national guard members have beaten and tortured opposition members as well as people who have had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You can read about it here:

http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=venezu

I'm not busy lauding the opposition. I also don't think that I need to defend my discomfort with them any more. Do you believe land reform free milk and bricks are worth all of the above?

[Marc Cooper]

Ahmed.. you switched the terms of the debate-- as expectec. I dont give a flip what Walzer's position on Israel. That's not the point. But let me make you happy anyway: I openly confess that there are "moments" when I think the hard-line Israeli position is defensible. Sorry.. I think all sorts of things that in the end I discard, revise or dont act on. The discussion here WAS about your asinine statement fearing I have Walzer moments and what I thought the implications of such a warning meant. Im bored with this sterile debate anyway.. you already made clear that Your World extends from Zinn on the Left to Gitlin on the Rights. That's a pretty narrow slice of reality.

Dsquared: You have made ur position clear... looks like my assumptions are wrong. Free milk, health care, bricks, education reform... wow... sounds like a paradise. Glad u believe it... we can get u a membershio in the Lincoln Steffens Club.

steve.. i refuse to engage you.. for the umpteenth time now you effectively call me a liar -- saying that unless I provide u with names of Mengistu supporters u are not going to accept my assertion. Who cares what you accept?

[steve]

"steve.. i refuse to engage you.. for the umpteenth time now you effectively call me a liar -- saying that unless I provide u with names of Mengistu supporters u are not going to accept my assertion. Who cares what you accept?"

No, I did not say you're a liar. I said that you exaggarate, surely that kind of criticism is allowed? It's rather tepid compared to the nasty things you or Totten throw around about Chomsky...no? I just asked if there were any prominent leftists that supported Mengistu, what's so wrong with that question? How does that equate with "Marc Cooper is a Liar"? sheesh.

[Josh Legere]

Ahmed,

So Gitlin is stale? Naomi Klein, Chomsky, Zinn, Cockburn are ripe? You got to be kidding me. Nothing could be more stale than New Lefties (and in Klein's case a 2nd generation new lefty) that have not learned a damn thing from there massive failures. Guess what, the New Left, Current Left, Hard Left, Leftover Left, are totally irrelevant these days. Voices in the Wilderness!

Gitlin (and Walzer) sound a much needed alarm bell to many on the Left that are soft on totalitarianism. They also are trying to push for a brand of Left wing politics that might possibly be relevant.

Keep following your hero's like Said (forever the victim) into the sunset of irrelevancy.

[steve]

"Guess what, the New Left, Current Left, Hard Left, Leftover Left, are totally irrelevant these days. Voices in the Wilderness!"

I don't know about that, everytime Gitlin predicted mass anarchist chaos at antiwar protests, predicted to be so great he cried out for everyone to stay home, hundreds of thousands showed up, marched peacefully, and made making war all the more difficult for the media and the politicians. Ya can't say that about the antiwar movement in 1965, the start of the last movement against a foreign military adventure.

[Josh Legere]

How about those 6,000,000 that Chomsky claimed were going to starve to death in Afghanistan??? He is allowed that breathing room.

Gitlin predicted a whole lot of self-righteousness and that is what we got in NYC. Why are you so ready to brag about a measly 500,000. 3.5 million showed up for the Red Sox parade.

Making war all the more difficult? We just leveled Falujah... God damn you live in an alternate universe where the Left and the anti-war movement are a relevant political force. The most recent protest in LA drew like 1000 people if that. Bush started the needless war with no plan and got re-elected. What on earth did that measly protest of kooks really accomplish? Made a lot of groovy puppets though.

[steve]

"How about those 6,000,000 that Chomsky claimed were going to starve to death in Afghanistan??? He is allowed that breathing room."

Rubbish, you make that business up, you really have to stop taking David Horowitz so seriously, it does major damage for serious analytical skills.
Gitlin was wrong about self-righteousness, even CNN could acknowledge that much about the march. Ok, maybe you were watching O'Reilly's version of the march. In his, I think Gitlin's visions of anarchist mayhem came true!
The US did level Fallujah, but the antiwar movement forced the US to have to wait until spring to invade, something you and I know full well was not the original plan, weather considerations being key. The US occupation of Iraq was made all the more difficult as a result. That alone made it more difficult later for the US to legitimate its unilateral attack and occupation of a 4th world tinpot dictatorship. That in turn made it all the more difficult for the US to invade Syria or Iran, something that, given what we've seen happen to Iraqi civilians in the last 2 years, is no small matter to be thankful for. Had the US succeeded in Iraq, there's little question that invading Syria and Iran were soon to come.
For a Scoop Jackson Democrat like yourself that might be fine, but how the left can stand by and say, "go Mr. Bush/Kerry" bomb the heathens away! remains a dubious proposition.

[Josh Legere]

As stated many times. I will gladly send you the DVD where Chomsky makes the claim. It is Distorted Morality. For free big guy.

Watched it on Cspan big guy.

Wow. What a massive overstatement of the anti-war movement.

Like many of The New Left, you refuse to take backlash populism seriously. You fail to see that Liberalism has been on a steady decline since the glory days of 68. Nor can you see that the anti-war movement couldn't defeat Bush.

It says something about the Left when only 500,000 (that is generous) came out for the Bring Najaf to New York protests and 3.5 million Red Sox fans braved miserable weather to celebrate a pro-baseball team.

For gods sake Steve. What effect on the election did those 3.5 million Red Sox fans have?

Keep living in your little dream world guy and keep watching the Right gain more power.

[Marc Cooper]

Josh.. dont feed the machine-- it's pointless.. ur arguing with a Priest. Keep the comments to the topic of the thread.

[steve]

Marc, that's so lame, if I were a priest, Doug H, Lembcke, and others you tell us proudly you are friendly with would not treat me with respect, let alone carry on correspondences with me. Then again, maybe my having good relations with such people makes them "priests" also. If I were a priest, I wouldn't cite people like Zeitlin to argue against your arguments on why US labor has experienced rollbacks of their gains in the last few decades.
You know as well as I that the way Legere talks about Chomsky's arguments before the invasion of Afghanistan is distortion in the first degree. His arguments are emotional, often relying on things he's heard from Horowitz that are entirely mistaken, and filled with enough swearing to match a Padre on his worst days.

In any event, there is a big difference between Chomsky's stating what is a possibility and stating that that is the only possible outcome. How does your or Josh's distorting Chomsky's arguments lend to making your arguments against Chomsky more credible? If that's the best the Scoop Jackson liberals like Legere can do...that's something perhaps I should be encouraging actually instead of crticising.

[Ahmed]

Hey Josh- so Giglin is forward looking?- I haven't laughed that hard in a while. He keeps fighting tired old battles from the 1960's, and presumably for credibility purposes, insists on prefixing each point with mentioning his leadership in SDS over 30 years ago. I was once my grade 6 class president, but you don't see me constantly bringing it up.

Marc, the left when its flourished has not being only about theory and vague udeas, but rather a two way process of yes articulating abroader vision of the world, and also connecting to peoples actual lives and experiences. Dude, my world and view point is hardly defined by a Zinn to Gitlin barometer. To engage in politics doesn't mean having perfect, finite positions or finding some absolute truth with any differences or contradictions, equaling a heresy. Whether you can justify Israeli expasionism, David Duke or anything else in certain "moments" seems to me a psychological question which interests you, but i care about that topic not much. Like i said politics is not defined by who said what, and where so and so media pundit or intellectual is on any issue. Where i do take issue with you is your broad characteriation of the left as unthinking enforcers of exceptable thought. I mean the best of the intelectual left in my books is made up of people like adolph reed, robin dg kelley, eric foner, david bacon, paul buhle and others who will never fit your absurd category. Your characature may pass with others on this list unfamiliar with the multiplicity and richness of voices in the American left, but Marc to borrow your words: That dog doesn't hunt around these parts. Try it somewhere else, let me know how it works for you.

ps. Whats with Josh reducing Said's work to playing the victim. His vast writing contained an incredible intellectual breath and profound sense of humanism and solidarity. Josh "analysis" based on no evidence or arguments is not only crude, but intellectually insulting to boot. Funny that Marc hardly ever takes issue with posts like this one.

peace