Perhaps the overriding characteristic of academic and non-academic coverage of the anti-globalization movement is its focus on movements and protests seen generally as sympathetic, with the odd critical reference to the street violence practised by a minority. Major political phenomena of contestation such as ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ are simply categorized elsewhere, filed under ‘global terrorism’ or some other self-contained category. In North America we have the so-called Patriot movement which has millions of followers who all see the ‘new global order’ as the main enemy. Yet these currents are not seen as in any way part of the anti-globalization movement for reasons that amount, it seems, to political taste. The question that comes to mind is whether we can, or should, seek to distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ social movements. It might be more consistent to simply take social movements for what they claim to be rather than us trying to find their ‘true’ meaning.