Perhaps my effort at sarcasm eluded you, or you took reference to LBO as somehow critical. Let me put it bluntly. The article you quoted reflects a kind of uncritical and vacuous reportage that passes for analysis that is fairly common in the pages of the PWW when it comes to the subject of labor or unions (especially union leaders). I merely suggested how a parallel treatment of political coverage might appear to make that point. I pointed, by contrast, to the value I DO place on what appears in the pages of LBO. Is that now clear? If not, then maybe I should just keep my hands in my pockets the next time I am tempted to respond too "creatively."
At 11:09 AM 7/8/98 -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
>Michael Eisenscher wrote:
>>["....The American electorate seemed puzzled why a system deemed to be
>>superior to any other in the world would continue to produce such blatant
>>corruption, inequality, scandal, malfeasance, racism, sexism, consumer debt,
>>homelessness....but they indicated their general confidence in the direction
>>the country was taking by reelecting Bill Clinton, the leadership of
>>Congress, and virtually any other incumbent whose palms had been properly
>>greased and who had provided value in return during their previous
>>term...."] Now there's incisive, critical journalism at its best,
>>reflecting a deep understanding of how labor institutions operate, how union
>>leadership perpetuates its reign, and how democracy works on the floor of
>>the UAW convention! With reportage like this, who needs the Wall St.
>>Journal? Well, at least I still have my subscription to LBO!
>Do you have a point here?