>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."
Ah, ok. Sensitive fellow that I am, I perceived a criticism.
You're right about the PWW coverage. You can learn stuff by reading that paper, but the analysis is crap. The first is what distinguishes it from most party papers, but not the second.