"I'm not writing things out of resentment at the creepiness of your weepy invitation to call on you for help at any time when you were mourning Gary Webb combined with the absolute lack of response when I did. I'm just pointing it as an example of your smarmy hypocrisy."

In the aftermath of Gary Webb's death, Al reached out to a lot of other journalists who he knew were overwhelmed with despair.  After reading the comments I had posted in the discussion's of Gary's death Al got in touch with me to make sure I was ok and offer some help and support.

Jules, I don't know you or the details of what went on with you and Al regarding his promise to promote your books or anything about what was going on in your life at the time.  But, frankly, I find it a bit creepy to impugn the sincerity of the words he wrote while mourning the death of a close friend.

I actually work for a living in what passes for the real world and I do not ask for or get any financial support for my political writing. The only financial grants I've ever received were for a total of $1,000 from a foundation devoted to emergency aid to indigent authors when I was crippled in 1974-75 and my only other income was the California welfare system. I don't use my website to beg for donations (although I did issue an urgent appeal when we were wiped out by Hurricane Wilma). I sell my work and my services. I am not a political operative. I am a totally independent journalist.

If you want to suck on the foundation titty, and troll for handouts from well-wishers, that's your choice,

I'm glad you've been able to find people willing to pay for your work and your services.  But I find your suggestion that working to track down and pitch donors and working through the endless red tape involved in writing grant proposals somewhat insulting.  Any one who has ever done serious fundraising knows that its not about just holding out your cup and waiting for it to fill with donations.  I don't see how selling services and products in a commercial market is any more or less respectable than working to find people willing to pay to ensure that those services and products will be available to anyone.

That's the side I'm on. I think you're on the side of anarchy. You've got a slick way of expressing yourself, and you've got all the political theory of class warfare down pat. But it's clear that you only pay lip service to democracy when it suits your current interest. You're on record as saying that the outcome of the election doesn't matter. So why would you care if one candidate or another won by fraud? It's all a fraud, as far as you're concerned. When it comes to voting and democracy, you're an opportunist. Your only interest seems to be to make sure that everyone knows that the election was a fraud.

I have no idea whether Al considers himself an anarchist or not, but as an anarchist let me say this: anarchism isn't about promoting chaos, it's about opposing hierarchy.  It makes complete sense for an anarchist to question the ways in which those who hold power use electoral fraud to hold onto power while simultaneously believing that real justice will never come through the ballot box.  I also think its possible to believe that electoral politics will never be sufficient to bring change, but to believe strongly in the right of people who choose to vote to have their votes counted . .  . and to believe that while the reforms a man of questionale politics like AMLO might bring won't address the roots of the major problems facing Mexico's poor, that the poor will be better off with AMLO than they would be with Calderon.  Taking a complex or nuanced position isn't necessarily opportunistic.

--