i have posted on this numerous times before, but this article in the seattle post on harris is newly relevant for two reasons. first, like moore's 911 and the corporation, it revisits issues and events that have been bouncing around the news for years and compiles them into a tight package. this seems especially important nowadays with the media doing such a poor job differentiating important from non-important and fact from allegation. and second, it reminds me of an ongoing discussion about peta and "what is the role of extreme activists?" since we've entered a time where conservative/incumbent positions are (in my opinion) quite extreme (in contrast to moderate/centrist positions), we seem to need equally extreme views far to our own left to bring the dialog back to a balanced the center. not, mind you, that i find any of harris' conclusions even remotely extreme. the conflicts of interest she sees are stunningly glaring. but perhaps not really any more shocking than scalia and cheney's private hunting trips.

0 Comments
Leave Comment...