[PEN-L:8301] Re: Re: Peter Dorman's letter appeared in

[sawicky@xxxxxxxxxx (Max Sawicky)]

>> The last sentence was the important one, making
the main political point (about democracy) and needling the Times for
the implicit bias in their coverage.  *They never received my permission
to print this revised version.* . . . "

The Post is the same way.  You're at the mercy of
the letters editor, their biases, politics, preferences,
and space constraints.  I wrote a letter once trashing
George Will and they printed most of it, but w/o some
of my choicest insults.  My sense is that criticism of
the paper's policies and ad hominem remarks about their
writers have a low probability of finding their way
into print, which should not be surprising.

If you insisted on a verbatim reprint, you would
disqualify your letter from consideration.  Them's
the rules.  The man w/the gold makes 'em.

In any case, getting most of the letter in is an
accomplishment for which congratulations are in
order.

As a political matter, I would have emphasized
more the absurdity of the language about economic
liberalism in light of the laughable adherence to
such principles by the U.S. and the EU, to name a few.
Then the implicit proscriptions against market socialism
have even less moral standing.

EPI makes it a practice to assist colleagues in
writing and placing op-eds on issues of mutual
interest (economics, trade, and aid, but not
foreign policy).  This includes feedback on
drafts, and pitching the piece to newspaper
editors.  Interested parties can e-mail me
off-list for details.

mbs