In the mail this morning...
I typically enjoy reading The Stranger as it represents an alternative perspective to mainstream press. That said, I am troubled to say the least at the absence of any coverage whatsoever regarding the looming Syria debacle. One would think that the prospect of yet another preemptive war with an oil state would merit some kind of comment by writers at the Stranger.
Given the typically progressive slant of your paper it begs the question, why so silent about this issue? Certainly the Syria story merits at least as much coverage as the DOJ's recent policy change regarding marijuana—which earned a multi page write up praising the President. Wouldn't you agree?
Must there be more US bombs falling in the Syria before you acknowledge our Democrat President is clamoring for more war?
I've already noted why I'm not writing about Syria—my support for the Iraq war forever disqualifies me from having opinions in public about wars here, there, or anywhere (I wouldn't listen to me on the subject—why would anyone else?)—but I not sure why my colleagues, most of whom were right about Iraq, have had so little to say about Syria. Maybe they're all in the tank (still) for Obama? Maybe they're all high? Or maybe it's that they're busy putting out a weekly paper with a city focus and a quarterly arts publication? (Massive twerking fail video... which seemed appropriate to this post... via Gawker.)
UPDATE: Dom points out that Syria has been getting regular and prominent play in the "Morning News" posts on Slog.