Nine Circles of Hell!: Sunday Morning Edition! Nine Circles of Hell!

FacebookTwitterEmail

The Nine Circles of Hell! – all the news that gives you fits in print – is posted each weekday. While we post nine hellish news stories Monday through Friday now at Noon (US central), our Sunday Morning Edition! features the best writing from the past week – including opinion pieces – by nine past guests on This is Hell!

Today’s Nine Circles of Hell!: Sunday Morning Edition! for Sunday, September 30, 2012, are:

Dean Baker, “Debt Worries: Economists Fail Arithmetic, Again

Peter van Buren, “Ambassador Stevens in Libya: Just Wrong (CIA) Place, Wrong Time?

Michael Cohen, “The presidential debate myth: not the ‘game-changer’ you might think

Bruce Dixon, “Voting As A Constitutional Right: What A Real “Protect The Vote” Movement Would Look Like

Glenn Greenwald, “Five lessons from the de-listing of MEK as a terrorist group

Gary Leupp, “Inside The Anti-Japanese Protests in China

Paul Pillar, “Dark Days Ahead in Afghan War

Gareth Porter, “Iranian Diplomat Says Iran Offered Deal to Halt 20-Percent Enrichment

Rebecca Solnit, “The Rain on Our Parade: A Letter to My Dismal Allies

Come back tomorrow for the Nine Circles of Hell! now posted at Noon (US central), Monday through Friday.

FacebookTwitterEmail
Nine Circles of Hell!: Sunday Morning Edition!
0 votes, 0.00 avg. rating (0% score)

Comments

comments

  • Jen F

    I’m not sure why you included that insulting Solnit piece. Hopefully only to stir controversy rather than endorse her tantrum. That piece was mean-spirited and empty, like most of her writing…long flowery passages that add up to very little purpose but flatter the reader into thinking they are involved in complex thinking. Oh and then there is the constant name and scene-dropping that makes her “legit”. (She was at OWS!)

    She tells us to vote for Obama and quit complaining or at least quit bothering HER about it. If we sit out the election we are “naive” and our complaints are “rancid”. And if we disagree now with this article and her cries for self-censorship, we will be thin-skinned, proving her point further. She tricks you by allowing that she too disagrees with drone strikes, so it seems like she has put some thought into this essay. But that is small rhetorical bone she is throwing you; absent is any truthful discussion of neo-liberal policies, the futility of the US electoral process, how effective radical non-partisan direct action has been in stirring BOTH parties into action. She omits the grassroots activism that led to the ‘preexisting conditions’ rules in the Health Act that she so loves, and give Obama full credit for anything good in that bill. She brings up the CIW as an example of good activism but doesn’t tell you they have nothing to do with the Democratic party and don’t endorse them. She wants the left to not be divisive and proceeds to write a very insulting divisive piece that only makes me dislike Liberals even more.