I said that about Israel because they do have more candid and open opinions about their politics at a higher level than what we have in this country. More diverse opinions are heard and discussed in their press and in their government than what we get in America; for all of our media, there's an echo chamber effect that serves to narrow, and not broaden our popular opinions. But maybe diversity in opinion in Israel is because the Israelis have to, in order to survive -- we have the luxury being the sole superpower of the moment, of two oceans protecting us, and no enemies next door (or do we? Cue Chertoff's Gut Feeling ominous music).

I don't agree with our policy in the region (obviously), and I definitely object to Israel's approach to the Palestinians, but similarly, I think the wafer-thin (and wobble-averse) continuum of permissible political opinion in "serious" politics in the US pales before what gets discussed in Israel.

That Beltway folks would even slag Obama for his "We need to talk to everybody" stance is indicative of that wafer-thinness. That's really my main point in that -- that the often-invoked "Arab Democracy" doesn't exist in the region (and I doubt any of our longest Arab allies in the region would pass even a McCainian sniff test on democracy), and that the US doesn't want democracy there at all, inspiring rhetoric aside, and that it's absurd for Obama to be called out for being, well, sensible, in world matters.

While we're talking about enemies real and unreal and "wobbly" foreign policy, the Nation just posted a good piece by Robert Scheer on the abominably wobbly military aid package the Bush League are eagerly foisting on American taxpayers...

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070813/truthdig

This is my favorite line from it...

To complete the circle of madness, White House officials tell reporters that the hope of the latest arms sale program is that the Saudis will be so thrilled with their new weapons that they will stop funding the Sunni insurgents who are currently killing Americans. The absurdity of this position is that it makes the Saudis the big winners in the war on terror and yet expects them to cut out behavior that has played so effectively to the kingdom's advantage. The nation that was most directly responsible for spawning the original al-Qaida attacks on the US, and which has since helped finance the violence in Iraq, is now being rewarded with a long-sought weapons modernization package. Thus, a new generation of deadly toys finds its way into the volatile Mideast.

My hope is that Salon runs hard on this military aid package insanity. It's ripe for being attacked. It's like Bush is throwing one last drunken orgy of spending while he can, to try to stir the hornet's nest a little more, so the War on Terror can go on forever and ever, amen!

I prefer to see it as a joyous hubbub that insulates us all from dependence on any one source for guidance or instruction. Look how the mighty have fallen, and rejoice. We don't need the mighty. Trust the masses.

Good piece, Mr. Leonard, and I couldn't agree more with the above sentiment. I think it's kind of great that Murdoch got the Journal, frankly, for a variety of reasons.

One is that it's amusing to see a herald of capitalism get eaten up by it -- the Invisible Hand has throttled the WSJ at long last.

Second, the WSJ's genuinely good reporting has served as a fig leaf for its abominable editorial page -- sort of like the candy coating around the poison capsule of its bilious ideology. People who might have not liked the editorial page would still buy the product for the quality reporting. If Murdoch is true to form, he'll eventually gut the news division and cause the WSJ to lose that place of prominence it held, and it'll start bleeding money, like all of his papers. So, the pundits and editorial dragoons of the WSJ will eventually find they aren't getting the attention they felt they deserved -- maybe they'll bolt for Fox. A perfect place for them.

Third, as you pointed out, there are a wealth of other information sources out there, so when Murdoch prostitutes the WSJ, there will be plenty of other quality venues out there for people interested in good business information. I don't think Murdoch's own reactionary preferences will take that into account; maybe he won't care.

Finally, I think that the good reporters at the WSJ will ideally flee for other papers of repute when they see the Murdochification of the WSJ, which will help journalism as a whole by getting that talent spread out where it can do more good work.

So, it's all good, I think. The editorial mouthpieces who've ridden the WSJ journalistic coattails for years will find themselves further vulgarized and exposed for the cultural carpetbaggers they are, and the good reporters will have an excuse to write their tickets elsewhere. Win, win!