[PEN-L:5005] Jim and Mike

[sawicky@xxxxxxxxxx (Max Sawicky)]

>
> Max, Louis wasn't trashing Mason. I read no _ad hominem_
against Mason
in Louis' comment. Rather, he was trashing IN THESE TIMES, saying
that a
publisher that ousted Mason for bogus reasons couldn't be trusted
to
dump Johnstone for good reasons. >

I could have mis-focused Louis' target, but Mason's personal
circumstances are nobody's business.  He relayed this information
in such a way as to suggest he did not disagree with the
decision.  Incidentally, I never said Johnstone should not be
trusted altogether.  I admit that it was not unreasonable to take
that implication from my brief note.  What I meant, and could
have said better, is that her testimony should not be accepted at
face value.  By contrast, in responding to one of Louis' news
accounts based explicitly on Serb sources, I was quite clear that
it should be rejected out of hand.

> This misses the point: Max is willing to quote approvingly from
an
_editorial_ of the WP but rejects Johnstone's reporting root and
branch.>

The editorial was a useful summary of reporting, some of which I
posted myself, but my main interest in it was not the factual
content but the judgement about it.

> The point is that the editorial staff of the WP is just as much
biased
as Johnstone, if not more so. (Max, it would be more appropriate
to cite WP news articles than their editorials.)>

I don't cross-post much.  I did in this instance in response to
other cross-posting which either conveyed an incomplete story, or
a Serb government story.

> And just because Jimmy Weinstein couldn't stand Johnstone
doesn't mean he was right. After all, he put up with John Judis'
right-wing nonsense for _years_. I haven't read ITT for years
either. Does Judis still get published there? >>

John Judis is a friend of mine.  He's smart, he's not right wing,
and he doesn't write nonsense, though I might take exception to
what he says from time to time.  Had lunch w/him today,
coincidentally.  I've had the opportunity to publish in ITT,
which I appreciate.  So you can understand why your argument in
this vein cuts no ice with me.

> Does that newspaper still exist? What's its position on the
war?)

Don't know.

> BTW, I think it's possible to glean useful information and
ideas from a
> variety of sources. As I've said before, even Milton Friedman
is right
> twice a day (like a stopped clock). Instead of rejecting
sources as _a
> priori_ wrong, we should treat _all_ sources (left, right, and
center)
> criticically, assuming that none of them are automatically
right or
> wrong.

I agree.  Truth in labeling would be helpful.

> Actually, Louis' method makes a lot of sense: if one can find
an article
in the ultraestablishmentarian NYT that makes the US, NATO,
and/or
capitalism look bad, that's worth much more than repeated citing
leftish
boilerplate, the preaching to the converted that we all do. >

That's true if what you're doing is propaganda or persuasion of a
predetermined point of view, not if you're trying to contribute
objectively to a rational, open-ended discussion.  Second, you
presume that any doubt cast on the NATO enterprise from something
like the NYT must be so because "they" are behind NATO, but there
is a fair amount of controversy over this policy at all levels,
so it is conceivable that the NYT decision to publish a news item
is not premised on whether or not it provides fuel for supporters
of the policy.

> It's upsetting to me that Max simply dismisses Johnstone's
reporting on
> the former Yugoslavia (seemingly without reading it), treating
her as what
> Nathan Newman called "ideologically nuts." He seems to be
saying "if
> it's in any way pro-Slobby, it's wrong." He doesn't argue
against her facts or her interpretation. He doesn't point to
facts she  leaves out or present an alternative interpretation
that fits the (valid) facts
> of her article.  No, he simply rejects her journalism 100
percent, armed
> with an _ad hominem_ attack on her, treating her the way the
McCarthyites
> and the more respectable Cold War liberals treated the "old
China
> hands" (who, BTW, turned out to be more right than their
critics).

Anyone interested can compare what I said re: Johnstone, in very
few words, to this gloss.  If you think the gloss is accurate,
then I fear our ability to communicate is very limited.

> In his previous missives, I've noted that Max has responded to
various
pen-l criticisms of the US attack on Serbia by suggesting or
implying
that people on pen-l were pro-Milosevic in some sense. In
addition to
applying the sectarian fallacy of "if you're not part of my
solution to the
Serbian problem, you're part of the problem" (to paraphrase
Eldridge Cleaver), this suggests that Max is treating all pen-l
views that
dissent from the US/NATO orthodoxy the same way he treats
Johnstone.>

"in some sense" leaves a lot to the imagination, both positive
and negative.  I've responded seriously to PEN-L views.  The
exchange on LBO has been much less civil.  I don't think I've
resorted to ad hominem much, if at all.  I don't know how else to
say you're wrong and contributing to a bad outcome, your good
intentions notwithstanding, if I believe that to be the case.

If anybody here thinks I've attacked them as persons, rather than
their bloomin' ideas, without provocation, please remind me of
what I said, and if I see it that way, I'll be happy to apologize
publicly.

mbs