The Continuing Atrocities in Lebanon

There have been some interesting developments in regards to the situation in Lebanon.

Firstly, as of this posting, there is no mention of Lebanon on Reuter's home page or international page. Because of the latest terrorist fiasco, suddenly what merely a week ago was a humanitarian disaster is now a marginal issue of little interest. Your point of view has been subsumed to the major media corporations.

Secondly, although the draft text of the resolution under consideration before the UN Security Council isn't available on-line (if you find, please e-mail me), there are some interesting statements that have come out in opposition. Dan Gillekin, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, has come out against the 72-hour ceasefire proposed by Russia saying, ">a ceasefire of this type would serve only one purpose, to allow Hezbollah to regroup and recover." In the same article, John Bolton said of the Russian proposal, "I don't think it is helpful to divert attention, we are seeking to get a permanent, sustainable solution based on the approach that we and the French have been taking." The Arab League is so vociferous in its opposition to the draft resolution that the body's foreign minsters took the journey to New York to directly address the Security Council. Perhaps the most interesting part of this discussion is the way that Israel tries to characterize its target as "terror," rather than protecting its sovereignty, which can lead one to believe that their true objectives are much broader than simply eliminating Hezbollah as a threat.

Lieberman/Lamont Results and the Aftermath

First of all, I may be a amateur political pundit (which means that I don't get paid to do it, not that I don't have as much education as some of those who are put in front of a camera), but there are several comments floating around the internet about the results of the recent Connecticut primary results.

Firstly, I would like to address the comments made by Dick Cheney and Tony Snow. In pressing the opinion that electing someone that might have a policy disagreement with the establishment would invariably weaken our national security is inherently flawed, and it hardly needs to be addressed here. However, there is one thing that I would like to mention: last time I checked Dick Cheney and Tony Snow were Republicans. Maybe I've missed something being in China for the past few months, but I seem to recall that there are two distinct different parties in the United States. Despite how much Lieberman was pandering to the Republicans' interests, he was a Democrat. Why, then, does the Republican media machine feel the need to comment on a race that has absolutely nothing to do with them? Furthermore, why does the national media feel that their opinions on the subject are newsworthy? Admittedly, they have more of a relationship with the matter than most of the talking heads, in that they are actually involved in politics, but they are still not Democrats, and therefore should not be involved in internal Democrat affairs.

Moving on, there was another interesting post from David Brooks (subscription required) in the New York Times, where in he states: "There are two major parties on the ballot, but there are three major parties in America. There is the Democratic Party, the Republican Party and the McCain-Lieberman Party." Perhaps he describes a situation I've long agreed with better than I can. There are some serious problems in the United States governmental system. In the nuanced world of numerous policy issues and more numerous opinions on those policies, there is just no more room for the Democrat/Republican dichotomy, it has long outlasted its usefulness in representing the interests and viewpoints of the American people. (*cough* If, indeed, it was ever designed for that particular purpose. *cough*) Of coure, with the rest of his op-ed piece, I vehemently disagree. For instance, his characterization of the results as reflective of "emotional tribalism" is a little short-sighted, not to mention simplistic. And, more to the point, what is so "extremist" in being completely against the War in Iraq? (If someone could post a comment to explain this to me, I would be grateful.) After wistfully imagining the party platform of this supposed McCain-Lieberman party (as if those two would agree on enough issues to form a coherent political platform), Mr. Brooks leaves off with an interesting pointed barb: "But amid the hurly-burly of the next few years — the continuing jihad, Speaker Pelosi [Editor: Why does he specifically mention Speaker Pelosi?], a possible economic slowdown — the old parties could become even more inflamed. Both could reject McCain-Liebermanism." I know Mr. Brooks isn't any kind of "professional journalist," but it's still unseemly for even a pundit to engage in this kind of subjective fortune-telling.

The Daily Show commented admirably on the election results, with Samantha Bee helping to provide context.