Trusting The Redcoats:
How many independent-minded Americans actually rely on the BBC (specially the World Service
) for accurate coverage of American politics? Not to mention The Guardian
. Is it a strictly an elitist, liberal/left-wing phenomenon? What does it mean? What does it say about better-informed liberal newspapers and media of the U.S.? If so, why aren't like-minded Europeans just as cosmopolitan and, say, pay the same attention to news sources like The New York Times, NPR and others, rather than stolidly sticking to their own national staples?
posted by MiguelCardoso
on Jan 14, 2004 -
Well, ha ha ha, and yah, boo
said Christopher Hitchens to those who would oppose the war on November 14. At this time, of course it was assumed by Hitchens and his ilk that we had won, all that remained was to install "our sons of bitches", and rub the peacenicks faces in it.
Now it seems very far from over and Hitchens and others with similar views have articulated their thoughts in the Guardian. It makes interesting reading.
As does this article
on how it is possible to love the U.S but not George Bush.
posted by Fat Buddha
on Mar 20, 2002 -
Limp Liberals - Aintchasickovem?
A really fine left liberal answer to Berkely and all the faint hearts. And it fits right in with my own thinking. It's time we stood up and got counted for human rights against any "culture" or "religion" that denies them. Polly Tonybee writes an excellent and timely piece. Liberals too, should not "go wobbly" out of a plain cowardly "respect" for reactionary strains of Islam, Christianity or Judaism. What do you think?
posted by terrymiles
on Oct 10, 2001 -
Archer sentenced to 4 years...
This may not mean much to those from outside the UK but there will be celebrations in much of England tonight as the 'Teflon Tory' finally takes fall. Sometimes justice is
done, even to politicians with immense arrogance, money and no apparent morals. The scale of the web of deceit is fascinating and the ending
posted by Mr Ed
on Jul 19, 2001 -
"You don't have to burn books now," says Thomas. "You just press the delete key."
Two unabashedly partisan reports
of the Bush administration's clandestine campaign to "tighten up" anything from online government sources dealing with the development of Alaskan mineral resources.
We've done the debate on Alaska, but what about the ability to amend online records? The old administration's sites are meant to be preserved by law, but plenty appears to have been deleted in the name of "polishing":
"We changed value-laden words like 'destroy' to 'impact.'"
Newspeak in action? Should government-run sites be required to carry a Changelog?
posted by holgate
on Apr 14, 2001 -
'The deadliest threat facing democracy today?'
Noreena Hertz thinks that governments' steady withdrawal from running their own countries' affairs and the concessions made to big business are leading to a society which has lost faith in the political process. I guess there are a few people in California at the moment who'd agree.
posted by Markb
on Apr 9, 2001 -
"Missing you already..."
A great column from the Guardian
on the Clinton legacy: "Today America is choosing between two half-Clintons. They can have a version of his smarts, in Al Gore, or a version of his warmth, in George W Bush. Clinton wants the voters to choose Gore, of course, to protect his legacy. But if America picks Bush, that will be a kind of compliment, too."
posted by holgate
on Nov 6, 2000 -