http://www.publiceye.org/frontpage/911/reactions.html
Hi, Chip! Here are some suggestions and comments on parts of your online article.
>>How the U.S. Political Right Reacted to 9/11
and the Crises in the Middle East
By Chip Berlet
May 5, 2002<<
I would suggest two articles here: one, how they reacted to 9-11 and two, how they reacted to the crisis in the Middle East. Of course the two are related at the institutional policy level, but you are dealing with the issues more as causes to effects in right wing discourse.
>>The horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, the
U.S. bombing and invasion of Afghanistan, and the
collapse into violence of peace talks between
Palestinians and Israelis has had a dramatic
effect across the political spectrum, including
right-wing social and political movements in the
Unites States.<<
An overly long sentence just begging to be cut down and made into at least three clear sentential thoughts. I suppose you meant to say ALL HAVE HAD effects, but you see how easy it is to lose your train of thought when overloaded box cars pile up into each other?
>>Conspiracism
Widespread conspiracism has afflicted some debates over 9/11 and the crises in the Middle East. Some of these theories are from the political right; others claim to be from the left, others represent a fusion of left and right viewpoints.<<
I thought 'conspiracism' was more than just a bunch of theories. But then again, I was never sure what the term is supposed to mean in your little world.
Could you give some examples of the last type--the left-right fusionists?
>> One theory claimed that remote control devices
flew the planes into the World Trade Center and
the Pentagon. Another claimed that all the
buildings were actually destroyed by bombs hidden
inside the structures, and one variation asserted
that no plane hit the Pentagon at all.
Progressive analysts David Corn, Norman Solomon,
and Bill Weinberg have led a progressive
challenge to this type of conspiracism. <<
Corn's article was crap, a waste of space, a total ripoff of a crap article that had appeared earlier in the mostly crap New Statesman--though at least NS put X-Files babe, Gillian Andersen, on its cover.
>>Tasks for the Left
Given that there are clearly several issues where
right-wing and left-wing rhetoric appears to
coincide, it is imperative that progressive
sociologists help left activists make clear the
different solutions for these problems
articulated by the left. Three tasks stand out:
<<
Wow, you just said a mouthful there, but ask yourself, could it possibly make sense to anyone but the person who wrote it?
>>1). Encouraging some type of dialectical
materialism or power structure research versus
rampant conspiracism;<<
Well, some of us just want to go after the shits who sit atop US national security and defense for the overpaid incompetents they are.
>>2). Delineating the difference between calls
for Palestinian rights versus historic
antisemitic stereotyping;<<
Huh? Couldn't two sentences with their own action verbs have helped out here? Unpack your thoughts, my freshman comp. instructor might have said.
>> and,
3) Differentiating between progressive
internationalism versus xenophobic right-wing
nationalism as solutions for imperial marauding
and transnational corporate greed. <<
As THE SOLUTION you mean. You do like clear-cut dichotomies, don't you? One problem is that the US political spectrum doesn't include very much 'progressive internationalism', so you've got a lot more work cut out for you than classifying 'xenophobic right-wing nationalists' and guiding left activists.
Also, might I suggest you get a good editor (or just an attentive reader) to read this stuff before you put it up?
Charles J
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com