[WS:] I do not want to get into the personal aspect of it which, I admit, eludes me, but the above passage - even if true - is not a valid criticism of someone's work. It is not possible to write about every aspect of oppressive or dysfunctional social relations, or for that matter any social relations, at least not without operating at the level of platitudes and generalities. Therefore, any analytical writing requires making choices that ipso facto entail not addressing any other issue. So the fact that someone focused on a narrow issue and did not write on a different issue is not a valid criticism, because every work of substance necessarily does that. This is what being a "specialist" mean. This line of criticism is no different than criticizing someone who, say, specializes in EU issues for "ignoring" Latin America, even though both are "foreign countries."
The same pertains to your criticism of Amy Goodman show - it would hold only if it systematically excluded other points of view (as most mainstream media do), which I do not believe is the case.
Wojtek
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:50 AM, David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Berlet:
>
> "I have written about the dangerous views of the neocons and explained
> their
> role in promotiong neoliberalism and militarism.
>
>
> I write about the flaws of centrist/extremist theories and the way in which
> they
> demonize dissidents on the left and right.
>
>
> You claims here are false and malicious. They are personal attacks. I do
> not
> care if you are ignorant, lazy, a liar, or a provocateur. "
>
> DG:
>
> Mr. Berlet's publications, as listed and easily accessed at Wikipedia and
> publiceye.org, show no interest in neoliberalism or neoconservatism. They
> indicate no interest in the activities of the U.S. government. Their
> interest in
> the radical Zionist right is limited to Meir Kahane.
>
>
> Mr. Berlet, I don't care whether your activities stem from intellectual
> laziness, or megalomania. Your record speaks for itself. Everyone has a
> right to
> their peculiar political passions. Those passions should not, however, be
> represented as broadly analytically sound and politically productive unless
> they
> address fundamental issues of wealth, power, inequality, violence, and
> propaganda. Your work is, at best, of trivial and peripheral interest. At
> worst, it provides fodder for misguided apostles of "anti-hate" in the
> political
> establishment.
>
>
> My primary and initial concern, however, is not with you. I am concerned
> that
> someone like Amy Goodman turns to you for your views, instead of to those
> who
> have far greater contextual understanding of current events. I think it's
> symptomatic with general problems on the "progressive" left which I have
> written
> about on the ZNet website.
>
> There is also, as I have repeatedly stated and you have yet to seriously
> address, the problem of a double standard between Jewish and gentile
> haters. I
> would suggest that that is because Jewish haters are generally aligned with
> more
> respectable establishment views, which you are ideologically unable to
> criticize. A swipe at Steven Emerson does not change my general view of
> your
> proclivities in this regard.
>
> Your general analysis avoids addressing the sources of oppression in our
> society. That seems to be a pretty major problem with someone who, if not
> challenged, poses as some sort of leftist, at least on this list and on
> Democracy Now.
>
> David Green
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>