WWP's *Deep Pockets* [!!snort!!]
stmcgraw at vt.edu
Sun Jan 26 14:31:37 MST 2003
At 03:28 PM 1/26/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>>So this is what sectarianism looks like. Yuck.
>What a juvenile comment.
>In fact, anybody who wants to see how Steve
>himself took part in the orgy of red-baiting
>on Henwood's list should go to
>http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/0301/1765.html. To show his ANSWER-bashing
>Steve added the following to a David Horowitz smear that
>somebody else had posted:
>"Not to give too much credit to horowitz, who is merely repeating what
>leftists already know, but I have been wondering about this myself. If
>they're as eager to smear the protesters as everyone seems to think, why
>aren't the networks and major papers making a bigger deal out of the
>leadership and their creepy politics? Could it be laziness? Bias? Honest
You got me.
In the spirit of fun, someone posted a David Horowitz article that
described the antiwar movement as part of an imminent communist takeover.
The subject line was "great news from david horowitz." The article turned
out to be his usual hysterical nonsense, but it made the obvious point that
media coverage of the antiwar movement has been unusually positive given
the easy, slow-moving target that is ANSWER. This organization fairly
screams "red bait me!" but the media have kept the red-baiting to a
minimum. Why? The LBO talkers had some interesting theories. Now that
you have posted this question from the LBO archives, maybe people on the
marxism list have some as well?
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism