http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/op...mp;oref=slogin
What strikes me is how he can catalogue how ineffective and detrimental his policies were to the children in paragraph one, they go on to continue advocating them in paragraph two. How does the author manage this cognitive dissonance.
Paragraph 1:
"On a warm winter afternoon in Guangzhou, I accompanied Chinese police officers on a factory raid in a decrepit tenement. Inside, we found two dozen children, ages 8 to 13, gluing and sewing together fake luxury-brand handbags. The police confiscated everything, arrested the owner and sent the children out. Some punched their timecards, hoping to still get paid. (The average Chinese factory worker earns about $120 a month; the counterfeit factory worker earns half that or less.) As we made our way back to the police vans, the children threw bottles and cans at us. They were now jobless and, because the factory owner housed them, homeless. It was “Oliver Twist” in the 21st century. "
Paragraph 2:
What can we do to stop this? Much like the war on drugs, the effort to protect luxury brands must go after the source: the counterfeit manufacturers. The company that took me on the Chinese raid is one of the only luxury-goods makers that works directly with Chinese authorities to shut down factories, and it has one of the lowest rates of counterfeiting.
Where exactely does he think these kids are going home too? Assuming they even have a home, its probably worse in rural china then where they were.