[Marxism] My 'pal' Warren [was: A word of cauition (was: Key Obama Backer...)]

Joaquin Bustelo jbustelo at gmail.com
Thu Apr 9 16:16:14 MDT 2009


S. Artesian writes: 

"And.. I note Mr.  Bustelo is on a first name basis-- referring to 'Warren'
as if he were a good friend, a bit misquided perhaps in his career choice,
but a man of honor." 

I did a search, both in the copies in my sent items folder, and on the
version on the 100 latest messages, of the two posts dealing with Warren
Buffett that I had written before S Artesian wrote his, and could not find
where I referred to "Warren" only, "as if he were a good friend."

And having just now, after writing that sentence, repeated the search of the
two posts thrice, the first time examining all occurrences of "Warren"; the
second looking at every time the two letter combination "wa" appears, and
the third hitting the three letter combination "ren" (the last two in case
perhaps I had mangled the spelling), and then re-read both items one more
time, I  can state with a high degree of confidence that S Artesian's
impression about my referring to "Warren" is mistaken.

Thus it is all the more ... annoying ... that on the basis of this
counterfactual assertion S. Artesian says I view Warren Buffett as "a bit
misquided perhaps in his career choice, but a man of honor." 

And it is especially annoying because NOT ONLY did I NOT say what S Artesian
claims I said that led him to draw that conclusion. I ALSO left absolutely
no ambiguity that "a man of honor" is not a description I would apply to
Buffett: 

"It is one thing to denounce capitalism as an unfair, unjust, an
outrageously
criminal and even murderous system, qualities that then would obviously be
shared by the chief players therein," I wrote. "It is quite another to
impute to
individuals among these players specific actions or schemes that violate the
law."

And again, "Warren Buffett's promotion of the TARP rescue ... is, as S
Artesian and others have pointed out, the sort of thing most people would
consider immoral and even criminal, although there may be no law against
it."

And this is an illustration of the problem that I have discussing this
--and, frankly, some other matters-- with S Artesian. Despite his assertions
that such and such a thing is in the public record, my experience with S
Artesian has been that his accuracy cannot be taken for granted, and
sometimes I also have doubts about his probity. 

Be that as it may, I already went through the exercise of running to ground
one inaccurate claim that was made about Warren Buffett on Marxmail. I
explained why I consider this important, both from the legal and the
editorial/political point of view. I have no desire to be promoted to the
position of chief fact checker, and certainly not of S. Artesian's
prodigious output. And I do not want to place myself in the position of
discussing and in the process repeating some claim about some event or
circumstance that is not true.

I know there is no chance anyone is going to get in trouble legally or in
terms of having their editorial integrity questioned for something posted
here, but nevertheless, I am not comfortable not holding myself, at least,
to the standards of accuracy and fairness that I was trained in when I was
much younger.

Joaquin





More information about the Marxism mailing list