don't think he's asking to be taken "seriously" as a person
nor does the fact that's he obviously "maladjusted" and unable to "flourish" in american society (such that he fled to moscow) detract from his argument -- i.e., he makes klosterman a figurehead for all that is loathesome about modern-day america -- and he selects klosterman for this role based upon klosterman's writings, which, again, i'm unfamiliar with
but why should mark ames's trivial pursuits in russia make his attack on klosterman invalid?
(and yeah, i read a couple years back when he last attacked klosterman in print, that he had written some bizarre stuff about russian prostitutes or something)
mark ames could spend all this time begging for food and dimes and quarters on the street -- how does this bear on the validity of his attack?
klosterman's a relative big shot whose writings, apparently, are widely read -- i.e., on top of best-seller lists -- therefore, he's a legitimate target if he stands for the wrong things