Pro-democracy means anti fascism

by Crap Sat Sep 29, 2007 16:41

The thing is too vast, it is excorable to condemn a society because the leadership is in effect a military junta with a democratic mask.
The issue is thrown onto the newswire under the guise of Mediabite without adequate analysis or critique, It opens up an incitement
to generalise the direction of a nation without exploring the issues in microscosm, or how for many years people have been
resisting the political direction of the office of the Presidency. It did not start within fifty years and probably began in the inter-war
period. it is both lazy and irresponsible to reduce the issue to an essay or piece by Cindy and then to label it with some vague
directionless comment. Open out the issue of crisis in democracy, the Juggernaut State, the simplistic and lethal interferences
of the CIA in other cultures by all means, but the article above does nothing but take the words of a respected activist and rebrand
them in a vague undirected manner. It avoids argument , by sandwiching Cindy's Arguments within a first line and attempt at a
paragraph. Again, a C+P and an operating link would have sufficed. Or embedding Cindy's argument and piece within a wider
contextualised piece.Its branding , not creative commons.I remember discussions on the Juggernaut State from the 50's and
60's which had more bite. It is not new, but it is irresponsible.

http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml

by Crap Sat Sep 29, 2007 12:34

One of the things about 'collective activity' is that its collective. This is Cindy's opinion and
I support her assessment though consider that it is naive and does not go back far enough
in exploring the juggernaut State, be it in the Former USSR or the Current US military
Regime. What I do not like is the delicate hands off approach by 'Media-Bite', nor the
headliner on the article. It refuses to look at what Cindy says , while platforming her opinion
with a label on. Not good enough. Is it because critical assessment requires an iota of
understanding that Capital is a failure and that that many warned of the growth of Juggernaut
Nations in the inter-war periods? Many warned that it was the USA or the USSR that would
grown to global dominance and they were right, I do not understand what compels Media
Bite to label a Cindy Sheehan link and refuse to assess or critique the actual link.
Why was it not just put up anon without the fanfare and names?
Did Media -Bite contact Cindy and ask if they could disseminate her links on the Independent
Media Networks and under what terms. it would have been far better to just put it up anon
with an explanatory paragraph or quick assessment.