Are you implying that the junta is unfairly represented in the
western media?

quihana --

No. I think that the bias is justified, but I think that many in the Western press tend to write to deterministically that the crisis today will weaken the junta and give protestors and opposition an opening. I hope I'm wrong, and I may be. But I tend to think that these kinds of disasters produce martial law, crackdowns, and a worsening of political conditions -- not improvement.

Perhaps this should be written differently as the bias is really about the tendency to think democracy will take root if the generals are thrown off balance...rather than a bias against the junta, which I share.

best, steve

Steve Clemens:

Thanks for clarifying that. I certainly agree that nothing good is
likely to result from this disaster. The SPDC has shown so little
regard for anyone not themselves that one can't imagine the
pressures of catastrophe would somehow produce a more
enlightened policy. I just wanted to be sure that I wasn't missing
your point.

Thanks also for the blog btw, it's on my short list for daily reading.

-quihana

I would agree with you on nothing positive coming from this.

But I was disgusted that Laura Bush is criticising the junta for not informing and working for it's people, when the bushies completely failed the people with Katrina...

This is so sad--what a huge tragedy.

Laura Bush in her statement used the older term "Burma" for the country, instead of Myanmar. Was that to make a statement, I wonder? Is that politically astute? politically correct? I don't know, it just stood out to my ear.

Amusing that the callous mishandlers of Katrina were so
immediate and vociferous in their condemnation of the Burmese
junta response.