> What's funny is that I believe Hitchens agrees with you and John Gulick
> concerning the "anti-globalization simpletons," as you call them. [Feel free
> to defend editor Peter Bienart of the New Republic from the swarming
> simpletons over at Plastic.com
> http://www.plastic.com/article.pl?sid=01/04/17/1453200&mode=thread
> You can use a handle [i.e. fake name] if you're too chicken to use your real
> name.]
>
> Here I think he's probably wrong, in a sense. I'd guess he'd argue that one
> should be radically anti-capitalist instead of merely "anti-trade" or
> "anti-sweatshop." I find this analogous to how in a recent New York Press
> column, Cockburn gently mocked the passage of campaign finance reform in the
> Senate by pointing out that as long as capitalism exists, corruption will be
> rife. Yes, but...
>
> Peter
****************
Still stuck in a Manichean binarism invented by the neoliberal comissars, eh? When
was the last time you saw or heard a green, a red a red-green or any other critic of
the Bretton Woods institutions say "yeah man I'm an anti-globalizer 'cause that's
hip."
This is the same pathetic game the press always plays when ordinary folks tell the elites to fuck off. We oughta know better, than to fall into the traps they set.
Ian