Again, please read The Nation's editorial "Democracy's Dilemmas." Now maybe you'd prefer to be played or misled, if so continue reading the likes of Toad and avoid The Nation. (An entry on The Nation and two other magazines disappeared from the site last night. Thanks to a UK member, it's been rescued and is back up.)
Let's note that Naomi Klein has an article in the latest edition of The Nation. It's entitled "Can Democracy Survive Bush's Embrace?" and will also provide you with perspective.
Computer problems prevented us from dealing with the urge to sell out on reproductive rights.
We'll tackle that tonight.
Martha e-mails about an online petition, "To Air America, Bring Back Lizz Winstead:"
Bring back Lizz! Rachel and Lizz were great together and we got alot of friends listening to Air America because of THEIR show. Air America has lost more than a few listeners now. When the news is so grim, it certainly is nice to swallow it with some humor. The way Liz and Rachel played off each other was great and it kept us tuning in. Unfiltered had a brilliant formula,of sucking the listeners in with humor and getting in plenty of important information too. Lizz was the most fun person to listen to at Air America. The back and forth between Rachel and Liz was relaxed, playful, and entertaining. Unfiltered was fun. Was. Past tense. We the listeners demand: Bring Lizz Back NOW!
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
Check out the petition online.
Friday, March 11, 2005
Democracy's Dilemmas must read editorial from The Nation
If you caught Katrina vanden Heuvel on The Majority Report last night, you learned that an important editorial was being posted at The Nation's web site (and will be in the latest issue). It's entitled "Democracy's Dilemmas" and it's a must read. For those tired of the ahistorical "news analysis" by the likes of the Time's Toad Purdum and hype that overlooks reality, you'll enjoy enjoy this editorial from The Nation.
Here are the first three paragraphs, but use the link to read the entire thing:
In what is being called the "cedar revolution," demonstrators in Beirut brought down the pro-Syrian government at the end of February and forced Damascus to announce the withdrawal of its 14,000 troops from Lebanon. This and other developments of recent weeks--municipal elections in Saudi Arabia and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's announcement of plans for competitive elections--lent support to the view that there is a new democratic opening in the Middle East. This is indeed welcome news. But it would be wrong to ignore the complexities of the situation, especially in Lebanon (where the prime minister who had just resigned was set to be reappointed) or to credit the Bush Administration's war on Iraq for the encouraging signs, as Beltway triumphalists are doing.
Pressure for elections and democratic reform has been building in many Arab societies for more than a decade. Just a few years after the low point reached in 1991, when elections were effectively canceled in Algeria, the cause of democratic reform got a boost in 1996 with the first Palestinian Authority elections in the occupied territories and with the Iranian elections the following year, which brought a reformer to power. Jordan, Kuwait and Morocco followed suit with parliamentary elections of varying degrees of openness. In Egypt and other Arab countries, democratic reform has become the major concern of a new generation of activists.
Official Washington was so preoccupied with Iraq and Islamist extremism during much of this period that it missed the signs of stirrings and lent them very little, if any, support. Then, too, many activists avoided any identification with Washington, fearing it would compromise their legitimacy. Even today, they doubt the Bush Administration's sincerity in its new emphasis on freedom and democracy, believing it may be a stalking-horse for further US attacks on any government deemed a potential threat to Israel.
Here are the first three paragraphs, but use the link to read the entire thing:
In what is being called the "cedar revolution," demonstrators in Beirut brought down the pro-Syrian government at the end of February and forced Damascus to announce the withdrawal of its 14,000 troops from Lebanon. This and other developments of recent weeks--municipal elections in Saudi Arabia and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's announcement of plans for competitive elections--lent support to the view that there is a new democratic opening in the Middle East. This is indeed welcome news. But it would be wrong to ignore the complexities of the situation, especially in Lebanon (where the prime minister who had just resigned was set to be reappointed) or to credit the Bush Administration's war on Iraq for the encouraging signs, as Beltway triumphalists are doing.
Pressure for elections and democratic reform has been building in many Arab societies for more than a decade. Just a few years after the low point reached in 1991, when elections were effectively canceled in Algeria, the cause of democratic reform got a boost in 1996 with the first Palestinian Authority elections in the occupied territories and with the Iranian elections the following year, which brought a reformer to power. Jordan, Kuwait and Morocco followed suit with parliamentary elections of varying degrees of openness. In Egypt and other Arab countries, democratic reform has become the major concern of a new generation of activists.
Official Washington was so preoccupied with Iraq and Islamist extremism during much of this period that it missed the signs of stirrings and lent them very little, if any, support. Then, too, many activists avoided any identification with Washington, fearing it would compromise their legitimacy. Even today, they doubt the Bush Administration's sincerity in its new emphasis on freedom and democracy, believing it may be a stalking-horse for further US attacks on any government deemed a potential threat to Israel.
Noting Jodi Wilgoren
We're going to note Jodi Wilgoren in her own entry.
Today's paper contains her "Electrician Says in Suicide Note That He Killed Judge's Family."
We had two people (only one a member, the other self-defined as a visitor) noting throughout Wilgoren's coverage that she wasn't going after Alan Hale enough. He's an easy target and the temptation was there for readers and I'm sure for Wilgoren. She refrained from temptation and reported the story not via hype but based on what was known each step of the way. When there was speculation, it was presented by her as speculation. And she didn't use clever techniques to create the impression that speculation was ever more than that.
We might find out tomorrow that Hale was responsible. As it stands now Bart A. Ross appears to be the person responsible. Maybe he was working by himself, maybe he wasn't. Maybe he's responsible, maybe he isn't.
The Times has had a problem with rushing to convict. I'm really glad that the majority of the members who e-mailed during Wilgoren's coverage were able to note that though they thought the signs indicated Hale's involvement, they were glad Wilgoren was not falling into the trap of using the press to prosecute.
I don't know what Wilgoren will do next. I don't know whether this was her becoming interested in the power of the press again or an odd phase she was going through or something else. But she presented what was known as being known and what was speculation as being speculation. She also refrained from hyping up the observational details and turning the whole thing into melodrama.
It was good, strong reporting. There may be a follow up on Saturday or it may be several days or weeks before we hear more. But as someone who has blasted her (and will again if she clowns), I think it's worth noting that she turned in strong reporting worthy of praise. We'll also not that Gretchen Ruethling and David Bernstein made contributions to this series as well.
Today's paper contains her "Electrician Says in Suicide Note That He Killed Judge's Family."
We had two people (only one a member, the other self-defined as a visitor) noting throughout Wilgoren's coverage that she wasn't going after Alan Hale enough. He's an easy target and the temptation was there for readers and I'm sure for Wilgoren. She refrained from temptation and reported the story not via hype but based on what was known each step of the way. When there was speculation, it was presented by her as speculation. And she didn't use clever techniques to create the impression that speculation was ever more than that.
We might find out tomorrow that Hale was responsible. As it stands now Bart A. Ross appears to be the person responsible. Maybe he was working by himself, maybe he wasn't. Maybe he's responsible, maybe he isn't.
The Times has had a problem with rushing to convict. I'm really glad that the majority of the members who e-mailed during Wilgoren's coverage were able to note that though they thought the signs indicated Hale's involvement, they were glad Wilgoren was not falling into the trap of using the press to prosecute.
I don't know what Wilgoren will do next. I don't know whether this was her becoming interested in the power of the press again or an odd phase she was going through or something else. But she presented what was known as being known and what was speculation as being speculation. She also refrained from hyping up the observational details and turning the whole thing into melodrama.
It was good, strong reporting. There may be a follow up on Saturday or it may be several days or weeks before we hear more. But as someone who has blasted her (and will again if she clowns), I think it's worth noting that she turned in strong reporting worthy of praise. We'll also not that Gretchen Ruethling and David Bernstein made contributions to this series as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)