[lbo-talk] Why are the US-ers such assholes?

[B.]

Yeah, there's a definitely a line you can cross --
didn't Nader invest in the Magellan fund, or
something, which had some shady connections? Someone
who owns a ton of shares in Wackenhut but rails
against "the police state" is definitely suspect. But
for a lot of right wingers, that really doesn't matter
it's icing on the cake of a dislike they'd have
anyway. It's like hating MLK because he "cheated on
his wife," which is the b.s. reason a lot of
conservatives say they dislike him. Not because he was
anti-racist -- no, no! It's because he cheated on his
wife -- what a hypocrite!

 
Similarly, it seems like if folks of that ilk dislike
Chomsky or someone like that, they say, "His books are
carried in that uber-capitalist enterprise, Barnes &
Noble," etc. What a hypocrite! But that has nothing to
do with why they really hate him, really.

Also, there is a suspicion of success among the left,
and that has sometimes-unfortunate counterparts in the
punk community. When a band becomes too popular, folks
start jumping ship. The band MUST have done something
to sell out to get as popular as they did. There's a
similar dynamic with Noam Chomsky. He's "too popular,"
which is a bizarre problem in the left. Better-knowing
folks have "moved beyond" him. Someone gets too
popular, fuck'em, they have sold out somehow. A ohase
to go through before getting to the *real* stuff. Yes,
there are things maybe Chomsky, et. al., could do
better in their personal lives. Yes, he owns a
vacation home and isn't vegetarian, which some folks
dislike. Etc. But focusing on that sort of stuff is
really weak, unless it's something glaring, like he
invests 10% of his portfolio in Lockheed. There are
always things everyone, including you and me, could
probably be doing better.

-B.

Michael Pugliese wrote:


>   Nothing prevents Michael Moore from investing in a
, "socially
>responsible, " mutual fund.
>http://www.progressive-asset.com/
>