[lbo-talk] NYT editorial pro -Occupy Wall Street (!)

[shag carpet bomb]

not really. carrol's point was that sometimes people argue that, if
the NYT is against it, then we should be for it (and vice versa).
Carrol says that's not such a good idea. If the NYT is in favor of
OWS, then there's no reason to oppose it. I assumed he'd made a typoc
based on the context of the rest of what he'd said.

Sometimes reading the stuff that one comments on helps one avoid being
left way out in the left field.

lol


> Carrol: "I haven't read this post, but I presume it is a strongly
> negative critique"
>
> [WS:] Actually, it is a quite favorable review.  Sometimes reading the
> stuff that one comments on helps one avoid being left way out in the
> left field.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>> I haven't read this post, but I presume it is a strongly negative
>> critique
>> of Occupy all Street. But I do not believe that Mao's proposition
>> (Oppose
>> Whatever Our Enmies Support) is true in this case. It's true that
>> the NYT is
>> fairly consistent in its strong support of the might of Capital, but
>> it can
>> misjudge, so I reject Charles's argument that we should oppose the
>> Occupy
>> 'movement simply because the NYT thinks it has positive  features.
>> Nevertheless, the editorial should be interpreted by the people
>> occupying
>> Wall Street as a sort of "Heads Up," a caution to consider their
>> actions
>> carefully.
>>
>> Carrol
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

-- 
http://cleandraws.com
Wear Clean Draws
('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)