I'm not a big fan of Z Net. It's a website that advocates every far left cause you can think of and them some. Mumia Abu Jamal? Saints Jean-Bertrand Aristide and Hugo Chavez? Elogies to freedom fighters who kidnap and torture aid workers in Iraq or do suicide bombings in Tel Aviv? They're all there. I don't read Z Net much, because I find it very predictable and with the intellectual rigor of The O'Reilly Factor; I don't like tedious, flimsy essays even if I agree with the jist. But people who swear by Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore tend to love the site.
It purports to be an "alternative" site. Edgy. With loads of stuff you can't get in the mainstream or "corporate" media. But it can lapse into the same old, same old. When push comes to shove, much like The Nation, it can abandon its so-called edge and adopt the same tone as the Democratic establishment it normally loves to assail.
Take this screed by Stephen Shalom. It begins with the usual rant about stolen elections and the like, conveniently forgetting that both Democrats and Republicans tried to steal the 2000 election; only one could be successful.
The essay talks about alleged illegal disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida by Republicans. But then Shalom uses this ridiculous analogy: The hypothetical defense of Republican behavior in Florida is the actual defense used by Nader supporters to absolve themselves of responsibility for the outcome of the 2000 election. Of course, there is a world of difference between stealing votes and legally contesting an election, but the logic in the two situations is the same.
Of course, there's a world of difference between alleged illegal activity and a candidate fairly participating in the democratic process. Except that it's the same.
No wonder I don't waste my time on the site.
No comments:
Post a Comment