Thursday, November 28, 2002

Letters: Alterman, The Lightning Rod

Below are some reader responses to a couple of articles from Press Action that CounterPunch agreed to publish on its website. The level of feedback I received is testament to the hard work of Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn in developing a great newsletter and in building a robust presence on the Web.

Here’s a sample of the feedback to my rant on Eric Alterman’s most recent column in The Nation:

Green actions paying dividends
Nov. 23, 2002
I much enjoyed your skewereing of Alterman in Counterpunch.

Maybe its Nader-hater Alterman who should take note: Gore’s adoption of Nader/Green position on Single Payer system probably wouldn’t have happened if not for Greens presences. Although I voted for Gore (lesser evilist am i) the green dividends — pushing dems to left— have started to arrive. — J.M.


Ph.D. candidacy irrelevant
Nov. 24, 2002
I am writing to express agreement with your views on Eric Alterman published on the Counterpunch website. As an admirer of Alterman’s book on the American ‘punditocracy,’ I formerly held this writer in high regard. However, his obtuse remarks in relation to Cockburn, Chomsky and Vidal left me fuming, and I am glad that someone saw fit to challenge this rubbish in public.

What it comes down, I think, to is that Alterman is a liberal, but also a Zionist. He doesn’t like what’s happening in America today, but he doesn’t like anyone criticizing U.S. foreign policy, which is of course rabidly pro-Israel. Anyone who remarks on that fact in a critical spirit is, in his view, simply ‘unbalanced.’

However, I am not sure that Alterman’s candidacy for a Ph.D. is very relevant to your argument. — J.P., Ph.D (!)


No riches in alternative journalism
Nov. 24, 2002
Bravo.

Though I love Cockburn’s column in the Nation, and occasionally Greider and Patricia Williams, I stopped subscribing to that rag two years ago, when they tried to one-up the NYT in Green-Nader-Third-party bashing. Then that Hitchens buffoon decided it might be a good idea to bomb Afghanistan in order to...uh...something… But I was already outta their liberal chic chateau by then.

What happens to people? If they want fame or money, why did they go into “alternative” journalism/scholarship in the first place. Is Bill Blum a rich man? Edward Said? Cockburn? St. Claire? Zinn? Chomsky himself, the lone “celebrity” of the left (why, it might take someone like Tom Friedman a whole week to sell as many books as Chomsky has in his fifty-year career as a linguist/political scientist; of course, the people who read Chomsky’s books will pass them on to their friends, family and children and perhaps change their relationship to the world. Step One: cancel subscription to NYT; Step Two: sell all Tom Friedman books on Ebay or Amazon.com).

Excellent and much needed article. — A.E.


Foaming at the mouth
Nov. 24, 2002
In the middle of an exceptionally good edition of Counterpunch, I found your column disappointing. I had already read and been somewhat impressed by Alterman’s column. You took one part of what he said and simply attacked him for it. You don’t mention that after picking three peaceniks, he later gave props to 45 worthwhile liberal writers and politicians. And, regarding the peaceniks (alas) he’s right.

I took a political science class from Chomsky when I was at M.I.T. He is brilliant and has done a great deal of investigation and thinking about the state of America and the world. No one on the right has even attempted to address any of his most basic arguments, and if they did I am sure he could eviscerate them with all of his logic and facts. After all, when he was a young turk he took on a whole room of the old guard professors, threatened by his new ideas about linguistics, and was the last man standing. But he does foam at the mouth a little and, like Nader, will never speak to more than a small minority.

You, too, foam at the mouth a little. Half of your column is just ad hominem smearing (inferiority complex, bratty teenybopper). I’ve looked at your website, and seen that you can write better, though not as well as Alterman — his piece is better reasoned, more interesting, and far more balanced than yours. Indeed, the tone of your Alterman piece makes you sound like an underdog ugly duckling, desperate to be recognized for her beauty and wit. — B.I.


Pathetic reasoning
Nov. 25, 2002
Thanks for that. It’s interesting that, in addition to feeling his oats taking on Chomsky, Cockburn and Vidal and dismissing the entirety of their commentary on America’s “role in the world,” he piles on the idiocy w/ the meaningless “they enjoy no discernible resonance in policy debates or electoral contests” — as though that, if true, has any bearing on the substance and quality of their commentary. Rather pathetic reasoning, if it can be called that at all. — J.M.


You’re no Eric Alterman
Nov. 26, 2002
As a longtime left supporter and reader of left-leaning magazines/literature, I fail to recognize your name. On the other hand, Mr. Alterman has written many, many great columns over the years supporting causes of the left. So great is his prestige among the hoi polloi, that you’ll find his name hyperlinked on all of the most popular websites at which people supporting left causes gather at e.g., Buzzflash, Democratic Underground, Bartcop, MediaWhoresOnline. Why attack other left-leaning journalists/editors in a day and age when a corporate controlled media make scarce the means for the purveyance of a left viewpoint? Finally, maybe Alterman will end up supporting Gore, but maybe it’s because he’s a realist about politics and not because he has sold out or is tainting himself ideologically; a taboo seemingly so great among some lefties that they will cheer on W. for four more years right after they pull the lever for Nader (Bush) one more time in ’04. Oh well. — M.S.


Liberals run for cover
Nov. 26, 2002
Thanks very much for the enjoyable, and prompt, piece on Master Eric. Funny how even the whiff of a new war has Nation liberals running for cover (Alterman, Corn) when they’re not fixing bayonets outright (Hitchens). Certainly many more of their ilk are preparing for the jump (see all the friendly talk about the UN inspector tripwire scam and silence about attacks ALREADY LAUNCHED against Iraq). Once the blood really starts flowing, I expect the trickle will become a flood, in the grand tradition of their Tonkin Gulf forebears. — P.A.


Taking the leap
Nov. 26, 2002
Liked it! Had enough of his crap and similar junk by the Adam Schatz types, dropping my subscription. Switching to Counterpunch. — N.W.


It’s Israel, stupid
Nov. 27, 2002
I enjoyed your article, but do you not realize, or do you choose to ignore it, that Alterman’s bleating about Vidal, Chomsky and Cockburn’s “anti-Western views” is pure bullshit? He, and many other Jewish pundits, both on the left and right, revile these men (especially Chomsky) because they speak out against Israel. Hello? It is the very same reason so many now despise the UN they previously adored: the UN finds fault with Israel. It has nothing to do with Sudan. It is perfectly fine with me if Jews want to be Zionists. That is their right, and while I disagree entirely with that ism, I wholeheartedly support their right to endorse it, however disgusting it might be. What I take exception to is the pretense that this is really about something else. And it especially galls me that people whose first allegiance is to a corrupt and arrogant foreign state should harangue others about being un-American. — M.J.


Here’s a sample of the responses to my piece on Wal-Mart and the War on Terrorism:

No anarchists at Wal-Mart
Nov. 21, 2002
Of course, in reality the Martian couldn’t buy Proudhon at Walmart. They are too busy stocking proto-fascist novels by Tim LaHaye and other bestselling crap. — E.L.


Library privacy a recent phenomenon
Nov. 21, 2002
I beleive that the history of libraries and librarians would say that the “tradition” of privacy of the patron is a fairly recent addition to the profession. Libraries have been around for a few hundred years and for most of that time, Librarians were there to protect the books and protect people from themselves and the literature that was not quality. I beleive that you will also find that privacy was not really an issue in those days and during previous wars, librarians were spying on patrons and turning them in. I am not saying that I agree with that policy, just pointing out that it is more of a tradition for Librarians to turn in patrons reading “subversive” materials than to protect them.

Mostly being nitpicky because the current stance of the ALA has only been in effect for some fifty years and people often beleive that it has been forever. — L.K.


Idiot nation
Nov. 28, 2002
Nice to know we are still a country that provides the freedom for idiots like you to spill their diarrhea. — Anonymous

(0) Comments • Comments (0)

Printer Friendly Format | Tell-a-Friend

Next: Hitchens: The Lesser of Two Evils -->

<-- Previous: Cockburn and the Workers World Party

Support Press Action