I enjoyed the piece a lot and didn't mean to knock it in any way, nor suggest that you're a spring chicken when it comes to dealing with the mainstream media, always a tricky proposition. One of the things the Post piece accomplished, in my opinion, is it humanized anarchists - made them/you less "other" in pomoese - for certain Post readers, so if (when?) the DC cops riot, these readers will be less likely to side with the cops. Earlier Carrol had written,
>One of the things we were unable to protect
>ourselves sufficiently against in the '60s was the enemy choosing our
>leaders for us. (Jerry Rubin being a case in point.) And even choosing
>(or coining) our slogans (don't trust anyone over 30, bra-burning, etc.)
thereby arguing that the so-called enemy had "chosen" Klein in order to thwart the left, or possibly he was simply noting something the left should be wary about. I'm still wondering about his theory on Rubin.
So I was just suggesting it was silly to think that the "enemy" had "chosen" you as a leader for malicious purposes by writing an article. I went on to argue that a better tactic for the corporate media, in my opinion, would be to ignore the left - then again maybe an effective strategy would be to focus the spotlight on talented, young leaders so that in turn they will be denounced as media darlings by other leftists until they're thoroughly demoralized. The last statement (at the top) was sarcastic, suggesting as it did that we're in a revolutionary situation where the state deeply cares who's leading the left. Not one of my better posts.
Peter