Rest In Peace, Heath Ledger (and American Sensibility, too)

More of the same from both of my bloggers. While Meryl Yourish comments on and exposes the anti-Semitic content of the worldwide press, TAPPED continues to bereave the bickering within the Democratic Party while assailing the incompetent Republican candidates. I will have no more of this, at least not tonight. Something else lies on my mind... or should I say someone.

Heath Ledger.

Now before you assume anything and quickly skip to another issue, hold on a few seconds and let me speak (type).

Today, the leading story on the Yahoo!, MSN, AOL, and undoubtedly hundreds of other homepages was the death of American actor Heath Ledger. Today, on January 22, 2008, Ledger was found in a Manhattan apartment with sleeping pills near his body. Shocking to so many is how such a young life was ended with no obvious indications that this might happen.

Wake up, America! As we weep for the death of one actor who was little more than a publicity magnet, there are thousands of people dying worldwide, and we don't even care. The average life expectancy of Swaziland, according to the CIA Factbook, is 32.23 years, with fourteen other nations whose average life expectancy does not exceed 45 years. When is the last time Yahoo! or AOL featured something about the masses dying daily there? I wouldn't be too surprised if the answer is never.

"But that's all the way across the globe, and Heath Ledger was close to home, an Australian working in the United States who died in the Big Apple. This news hits close to home." Does it?

Today, the United States military lost its first soldier in the new Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) armored trucks that the Army has been outfitting itself with for heightened protection against roadside bombs, RPGs and other IEDs. Sure, this story was widely reported, but I quickly noticed that the death of this one soldier, who bravely served his country with his life and, chances are, died at a younger age than did Ledger.

"All right, all right. So we messed up once."

Once? Data recorded up to the middle of January 2008 put the US military casualties in Iraq at 3,940. Truth be told, I haven't seen much mourning in the media about them, unless it's for some political motives. A few months ago I saw a picture from an American outpost in Iraq that perfectly illustrates my frustration:

and in the tabloids."

Election 2008, According to Starr

TAPPED, "Could the Democrats Blow It Again?"

Today, TAPPED's editors weigh in on the Election '08 discussion that has essentially taken over more than half of the blog. Paul Starr, a co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect, the magazine with which the blog is associated, shares his latest analysis about the upcoming elections.

Starr leads off his article, "Until recently, like most liberals, I was convinced that 2008 was going to be a Democratic year." He explains that prior to the primary season, Democrats seemed to hold the higher ground in the upcoming election, with a passionate attitude towards both their candidates and change and against low White House approval ratings, an unpopular war, etc., ad nauseum. Clearly, Starr now thinks differently.

Immediately, he points to the cause of this apparent dissolution and discord within the Democratic Party - the beginning of primaries and caucuses. Starr notes that as the Republican Party seems closer and closer to zeroing in on a final candidate (in his opinion John McCain, who he fears would be a formidable opponent for the Democrats) and are thus gaining the edge in the election season, the Democratic Party is still plagued by a number of particularly troublesome obstacles when it comes to the two front-runner: Obama and Clinton.

Through this campaign, my immunity to pundit analysis has grown immensely, especially as I plunged into the blogosphere, where instant opinions abound everywhere from the left, to the right, and everywhere in between. Honestly, I see Starr's analysis as another honest attempt to understand the particularly confusing campaign that is leaving people of all political persuasions and allegiances wishing for some kind of certainty as November 4th approaches.

Blast from the Past: Propaganda on the March

Neither of my blogs updated today, so I just figured I'd post a link from a blog posting on Angry Conservative, dated August 09, 2006. It is very fitting for the topic of both propaganda and media manipulation. I personally was outraged by the story when I first read it shortly after its 2006 posting, but unfortunately, I could not say I was shocked at the time. I guess there's a little more of Meryl Yourish in me than I suspected.

The Fighter Controversy

TAPPED, “Iraqi Air Force Revisited”

Today, Robert Farley of TAPPED addresses the issue of the Iraqi Air Force. In his posting, Farley rebukes Noah Shachtman, another blogger, on his posting criticizing U.S. Air Force’s top commander for Iraqi operations, Lt. Gen. Gary North.

On January 15, 2008, North made a statement proposing that the Iraqi military have fighter planes by the year 2011. Shachtman contests that this idea is foolish, maintaining that while the Iraqi Air Force should be expanded to include more viable modern aircraft, fighter planes are absolutely unnecessary for fighting the insurgency against which the Air Force is currently employed: “Is winning dogfights really the priority here?”

Farley rebuts that doubtlessly, the United States cannot leave Iraq until the nation has a viable Air Force. He illustrates two excellent though concise arguments for the realization of North’s vision:
I. Jet fighters are symbols of modern, self-sufficient states.
II. Modern nations in conflict zones such as the Middle East require fighters where their potential enemies have fighter planes.

Essentially, Farley argues, notwithstanding his admitted skepticism that Iraq will receive fighter warplanes as long as their political situation remains unstable and their attitudes toward the United States’ other Middle Eastern allies, “as long as Iraq can't field a military capable of defending its borders (a project to which fighter aircraft are critical), it will always be a basket case and a quasi-colony.”

I frankly am not sure what to make of this entire situation. To be perfectly honest, I had not thought of the prospect of the Iraqi nation having a powerful Air Force, not even mentioning fighter jets. Have you see Osama bin Laden latest video warning “the great Satan and the treacherous Iraqi collaborators” about Al-Qaida’s powerful jet fighters? Neither have I. For that reason, I would initially fully oppose even the suggestion of giving the Iraqis jet fighters. Farley’s arguments, however, have definitely forced me to reflection and reconsideration. One thing remains certain in my mind, the United States should be very weary and cautious in providing any powerful weaponry to any foreign states until we can be certain to some degree that they will not simply turn around a few years later to use that weaponry against the ones who gave it to them.

Torah, Torah, Torah!

Meryl Yourish, “More Proof of Torah”

Today, Yourish tackles the topic of biblical archaeology. She focuses on the discovery of a 2,500-year-old stone seal that commemorates the ministry of one of the families that first served at the Temple in Jerusalem.

Yourish glories in this discovery for two reasons:

I. She sees the discovery of the seal as solid evidence for the accuracy of the Biblical record. The seal, which bears the name "Temech," confirms the account of both Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, which speak, among other things, of the family’s captivity in Babylon (see the article for more in-depth details, and if you’re looking up “Temech” in the Bible, you might want to try some different spellings, such as “Tamah” or “Temah”).

II. She sees this unearthing as evidence against the popular modern Palestinian argument that the Jews are “Judaizing” Jerusalem. With such pieces of the evidence as the seal, Yourish claims that the Palestinian accusations are but empty words. Archeological findings like this one confirm the Jewish historical right to the City of David.

I am personally amazed by biblical archaeology, and each finding I hear about fills me with wonder and amazement at the accuracy of the Holy Scriptures in which I place my trust. Such discoveries reinforce my belief that the Bible is not just a book of useful moral directions, but an accurate guide to history, culture, and a myriad of other facets of life.

Rumbling Romney and Mubarak’s "Cool" Ties

TAPPED, “Might Mitt”

Robert Farley poses an excellent question in today’s posting: “Why isn't Mitt Romney being treated as the overwhelming frontrunner in the Republican race?” As I read the posting, I realized that there is no reason, given Romney’s current primary record, why this is so.

In the interest of simplifying this case, I figured I’d make a little chart to show Romney’s dominance over the other Republican candidates.

_____________

Republican Primary Records, as of January 16, 2008

Candidates	First Place	Second Place	Third Place	Point Tally*	Est. Delegates**
Rudy Giuliani	–	–	–	0	1
Mike Huckabee	IO	–	NH, MI	5	22
Duncan Hunter	–	–	WY	1	1
Alan Keyes	–	–	–	0	0
John McCain	NH	MI	IO (tie)	6	15
Ron Paul	–	–	–	0	2
Mitt Romney	WY, MI	IO, NH	–	10	52
Fred Thompson	–	WY	IO (tie)	3	6

* For the “Total Point Tally,” I’m using a system similar to that of the Olympic scoring, where a first placing receives three points, a second two points, and a third one point.

** Estimated delegates from counts made by CNN.

_____________

Considering the data I tried to show here, in addition to the money Romney has raised, I really cannot discern why Romney isn’t being recognized, as Farley said it, as the overwhelming Republican frontrunner.

Meryl Yourish, “Cooler Ties in the Middle East”

Yourish gives her readers an entertaining blog entry about Egypt, Middle Eastern fashion, and US diplomacy. I appreciate a bit of humor from my bloggers every once in a while, though I suppose this is the first (intentionally) entertaining blog I’ve read from either Meryl or TAPPED.

Humanitarian Shield

Meryl Yourish, "'Humanitarian Aid' to the PA: Two Tons of Explosive Material"

In this posting, Yourish reports yet another attempt by Palestinian terrorists to smuggle explosive materials into the Gaza Strip, territory that Israel gave returned to the power of the Palestinian Authority in late 2005. The seizure of two tons on Monday, January 14, 2008, by security personnel of the Israel Airport Authority comes after a similar incident this week and only a few weeks after Israeli security discovered six and a half tons of explosive potassium nitrate.

Both of the major attempts to smuggle the crucial ingredient to Qassam rockets, which are among the choice weapons Palestinian terrorists use to attack the Israeli populace (more than 1600 Qassams were fired at Israel in 2007), were masked as humanitarian shipments. The two-ton shipment was hidden within a shipment of alleged humanitarian equipment and goods, while the six-and-a-half-ton shipment was concealed in an EU shipment, in bags marked as sugar.

In her typical fashion, Yourish once again voices her skepticism about the media’s objectivity, as she concludes, “Hands up, those of you who think this news will make the wire services. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?”

Of course, this is a difficult situation for those among the Israelis and the Palestinians that genuinely desire peace. The Israelis on one hand need to defend themselves against terrorist aggressions, but on the other hand need to protect their own international image (envision this New York Times headline: “Israelis Delay Humanitarian Aid to Gaza Strip, Hundreds of Palestinians Starve”). For the Palestinians, this presents another kind of problem. I think a terrible thing happens when a people are held as political hostages by the militants who claim to represent them. Many of them in their current state and have to rely on the humanitarian aid coming through Israel largely due to the militant activity that forces Israel to take appropriate defensive measures.

As to Yourish’s media distrust, after reading her posting, I searched Google to see if even one of the major media sources dared mention this incident. Don’t worry, I won’t keep you guessing. I’ll just tell you straight off, not one of them mentioned it.

Pundits Never Die

TAPPED, “What’s at Stake in Michigan”

In his January 14, 2008, posting Paul Starr does a little bit of speculation about the upcoming January 15 primary election and the rest of the primary season.

On the Republican front, Starr proposes that if McCain wins Michigan and then South Carolina, he might easily snatch the nomination come Super Tuesday. On the other side of the political spectrum, Starr seems certain that Fortuna’s Wheel will continue to spin and the fates of Clinton and Obama will remain dubious until long after February 5 and even, as he suggests, “into March and beyond.” He seems dismayed by this fact.

Frankly, at this point of the article, I thought, “Good, who cares?” I thought most pundits had learned their lessons in New Hampshire with Clinton about making speculation on speculation, and I was accusing Starr of incorrigibility.

However, Starr supports his assertion with something of a logical buttressing. He notes that if his hypothetical McCain victory streak occurs and the Democrats linger too long with their choice, there will be insufficient time for the Party to rally around a candidate bruised and battered by his or her same-party opponents on the search for the nomination.

Unfortunately, he, like too many other Internet pundits and bloggers, makes the fatal error of giving no examples in support of his claim. Similarly to some of the comments left on the blog by other readers, I feel that this dreadfully damages his case, essentially making his seemingly abstract-based interpretations of current political happenings just another brick in the wall.

Nasrallah to Israel: Peace on Earth and Goodwill to... Aw, Fogetaboutit

Meryl Yourish, “Nasrallah the Anti-Racist”

Apparently, there is a trend for terrorist losers to whisper from hiding their ideological persuasions to the world. Such is the case with Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of terrorist organization Hezbollah, who claimed victory after the 33-day day war between Hezbollah and Israel and then promptly went in to hiding. While some may say his hiding was a move made from fear of the Israeli army, which just having crushed Hezbollah would likely eliminate him quite quickly, I suggest that his move was very likely an honest attempt to escape the attention and fame of being a war hero.

But I digress. Yourish reports about a video that the bold Seyid Nasrallah released in light of President Bush’s recent visit to Israel. Ynet reports, “According to Nasrallah, Bush views Israel ‘as a Jewish state, that is, racist...its existence is premised on race. Israel aspires for a racially pure existence.’” The rest of Narallah’s tirade is on the abov-linked Ynet page.

Of course, Yourish does not allow herself to even waste her one iota of her time and energy (think “carpal tunnel syndrome”) to repudiate the accuracy of Nasrallah’s foolish statement. Another thing Yourish does not allow is let Nasrallah get away so easily with the context of his extremely coy and subtle statement. Reaching back a bit, she asks if indeed this statement was coming from the same egalitarian terrorist who said these things:

“…if [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”

“If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli.”

No! It can’t be; not our peace-loving buddy Nasrallah, the activist so incensed by racism and prejudice of any kind.

Reader, indeed it’s true. Even peace-mongering terrorists like Nasrallah sometimes contradict themselves.

Abortion: Could I Have Some Lies With That?

TAPPED, “Republicans Lobby for Abortion – In Israel.”

In this posting, Sarah Posner reports on the trip of three United States’ Republican Congressmen – Frank Wolf (VA), Chris Smith (NJ), and Joseph Pitts (PA) – to Israel, where the trio is lobbying for a ban on abortion in the Holy Land. Posner, at best, seems to disapprove of this move.

Yet Posner objects not only to the actual trip but also to Ynet News’ reporting on it. She notes, “Israeli press coverage of the visit did not mention Smith's 2004 comparison of abortion to the Holocaust.” This might have been a valid point… if it were true. A quick trip to the link she supplies proves her claim feeble and nit-picky. Speaking at the 31st annual March for Life, Smith had stated, “Americans want the abortion holocaust to end.”

Past the connotation of the word, there is no other evidence that would support Posner’s claim that Smith was likening the slaughter of around 50 million innocent lives to the Nazi Holocaust, which claimed the lives of 12 million. Though perhaps such a comparison would be generously kind to the likes of Planned Parenthood.

For those of her readers who enjoy bonus deception, Posner adds in her concluding remarks, “But just like here [in the United States], this [that abortion is murder] is a minority view; according to a recent poll, only 30% of Israelis believe that abortion is murder.” Well, I checked the site she suggested and boom, there it was: 30%. My doubts were quenched… that is, of course, until with a lingering suspicion I checked US statistics to see if Americans agreed with the Israelis about the morality of abortion. Guess what I found. In the year 2000, 57% of those surveyed by the LA Times agreed that abortion is murder. For those one you, who, like Sarah Posner at numerologically disinclined, that’s almost twice 30% and any percentage over 50% is called a majority.

New York's Own: Pinocchio on Campaign

TAPPED, “RUDY!MENTUM”

Scott Lemieux of The American Prospect lays it out there, pure and simple:

Don’t get fooled by Giuliani’s excuses. Rudy totally bombed in New Hampshire.

Lemieux targets Giuliani’s claims that his extremely poor showing in New Hampshire is the result of his proportionate campaigning policy – that is, he did not focus either his time or money on small states like Iowa or New Hampshire, but rather turned his resources to delegate-rich states where he would reap more for what he had sown.

Yet Lemieux points to an article that shows quite the opposite. In fact, “he spent more time and money there than anyone except Romney… mak[ing] his barely finishing ahead of Ron Paul especially embarrassing.”

Lemieux concludes by striking Giuliani out of the race, leaving McCain, Huckabee, and his money’s bet, Romney in the running for the Republican Party nomination.

Like Lemieux, I have written off the Rudynator a while ago, on both grounds of personal political preference (chiefly on social policy) and electability, and frankly, I think the two reasons overlap when it comes to the primary electorate.

It is no political secret that when candidates are trying to win the party nomination, they must shoot for their party’s ideological wing. If they can successfully appeal to the wings, then likely they will do well in the primaries, probably securing the nomination. That’s why over the past few years, we’ve seem Romney, no doubt dreaming of the GOP nomination, scrambling to ameliorate some of his more liberal views, particularly on abortion, to appeal to the Right.

The trick next for the two major Presidential candidates, of course, is to shift their views from the wings of the party to appeal to the general electorate, which is much more moderate than the primary electorate. This must be done skillfully enough so as to avoid catching the sticky title of “flip-flopper” that Kerry seemed to wear so well in the 2004 elections.

Which brings me to my point: Giuliani was either A) unable to master the art of altering his views to appeal to both the primary electorate with the knowledge that he would later have to refocus his campaign to appeal to the moderates, or B) he was too honest to change his views for the sake of victory.

If you ask me, his outright, boldfaced lying about his campaign’s commitment to victory in New Hampshire give me good reason to eliminate choice B.

Blacksmiths for Edwards '08

TAPPED, “Lightning Round: The (BS about Hillary Clinton’s) Crying Game.”

Today on TAPPED, Sam Boyd pours out a slew of recent political news, much of which is related to the 2008 Presidential Race. Among the ten bulleted points, Boyd briefly mentions John Edwards’ criticism of Hillary Clinton’s emotional display at one of yesterday’s New Hampshire campaigning events, commenting that Edwards’ move seems like an attempt “to throw away all the good will he's generated in his campaign.”

I tried to hold back from commenting on Hillary’s tears. I really did. And in fact, I might even succeed. As I go forth from this point on, I will do as little as possible to mention Clinton’s tears/whimpers/passionate sighs/whatever-you-want-to-call-‘ems.

Let’s talk about Edwards for a bit. His campaign has reaped surprising crops in his second place finish at the Tall Corn State primaries on January 3rd. Yet, polling data on a national average places him in third place with 18.0% of the vote, with Obama ahead with 29.3% and Hillary in the lead with 37%. Moreover, his chances in New Hampshire today are slim at best, with an average polling of 18.3% of the state’s Democrats supporting his candidacy, with Obama polling at 38.3%, Clinton at 30.0%, and Richardson in last with 5.6%.

Edwards, at his moment of desperation, tries a particularly sneaky, though not quite well thought out ploy. Though I doubt any of his advisers approached him and cried, "Strike while the iron is hot!" Edwards' words might as well have stemmed from that axiom. He opportunistically sprang at the first chance to criticize Hillary before New Hampshire in order to make the public doubt her ability as a candidate and potential leader of the free world: "'I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business."

Dear Edwards,

Whoever agreed with what you said already agreed with you before you opened your mouth. All you did is tarnish your own image and step on the sensibilities of any undecided Democratic voters who were trying to test the tactfulness of the remaining candidates. Sometimes, silence is golden, worth much more than some blunt, misshaped instrument banged out of hot iron.

Sincerely,
Brother Benjamin

Close Encounters of the Third Kind: Iran on the High Seas

Meryl Yourish, “Iranians threatening U.S. ships”

Today, Yourish tackles the newest incident in a string of intensifying tensions between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. She notes that, according to a Pentagon report, a number of Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats made threatening maneuvers against three United States Naval vessels: the USS Port Royal, the USS Hopper, and the USS Ingraham. Yourish’s entry delves more into details of the apparent provocation, more of which will likely continue to come out over the next few hours and days, as her posting was based on one of the earliest reports of the incident (the Guardian Unlimited article Yourish cites was released 9:46 AM EST, while BBC didn’t report the incident until 12:40 PM EST).

As I first read this posting, two different images began developing in my mind. Side by side they stood, the USS Cole burning in the port of Aden in Yemen and American destroyers firing barrages at supposed Vietcong gunboats in the Gulf of Tonkin. Harbor those images in your mind, and I’ll return to them shortly.

An unnamed source at the Pentagon paraphrased a message that the US ships received from the Revolution Guards boats: “We’re coming at you and you’ll explode in a couple minutes.” Not to leave any of their words in obscurity, the Iranian units allegedly began charging the group and dropping packages into the water around the three naval vessels.

Back to the images now…

First of all, the Iranian “harassment” (as the AP phrased it with the utmost sensitivity and political correctness) was an attack against American sovereignty, not unlike the strike on the USS Cole. True, no lives were lost and all American vessels are still floating on the world ocean, but only a margin of seconds prevented the encounter from escalating into a fiery battle.

This brings in the second image. Perhaps the Iranians were trying to create their own sort of Tonkin Bay, in which the “American war machine” tried to invade the sovereign waters of the Iranian Republic (as their propaganda would surely proclaim). Then, when the heroic Revolutionary Guard, the bastions of Iranian liberty and solidarity, tried to warn the Western invaders that they were in danger of violating their waters, the American aggressors callously and maliciously opened fire in a symbolic declaration of war and martyring the valiant defenders of Iran (for this reason, at least, I am grateful that our soldiers showed restraint in firing off the shots that would have put the Revolutionary Guard boats at the bottom of the strait; the less material Ahmadinejad has for his inflammatory, anti-American addresses the better).

Surprisingly, the Iranian government confirmed the incident soon after the press released the story. As was expected, however, they denied any hostile or aggressive actions or messages against the US Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz. The government, cheeky as usual, claimed their reckless taunts over the radio and their threatening actions did not happen; rather, the government claimed the Iranian vessels were doing a routine inspection and left the incident ground as soon as they recognized the American vessels.

Less than a year ago, Iranian Revolutionary Guard seized fifteen British sailors and marines in international waters. Until only recently, Atomic Mahmoud has been running his mouth against the whole civilized world about his nation’s peaceful nuclear ambitions that no one is allowed to see (trust me!). Today, they threatened United States Naval vessels and American lives, once again, in international waters, and then ran away like scared dogs in the last second before our soldiers could show the Iranians what kind of threats we are capable of making. I don’t know where Ahmadinejad wants to lead his Islamic Republic, but if you ask me, he’s heading right for the jaws of death.

Day Two: Huckabee - Dobson = Still Chugging

TAPPED, “Christian Right Grassroots Give Dobson the Finger”

TAPPED blogger Sarah Posner writes her latest entry about Mike Huckabee and his shot at the Republican nomination for the President of the United States. More specifically, she focuses at Huckabee’s continual rise and hitherto success without the support of some powerful names within the conservative Christian political movement, namely James Dobson. Then, Posner describes the new coalition of supporters within the Christian right that Huckabee has created around himself to replace the spot left unfilled by Dobson and some of his compadres.

Posner seems almost pleased with Dobson’s new “irrelevant[ce],” while at the same time warning her fellow left-wingers that Huckabee’s new coalition might form a cohesive and effective force in the primary season and perhaps even into the general election.

As a Huckabee man for the last year and a half, I can recall my surprise when I first heard that Dobson and company had rejected Huckabee at the 2007 Values Voters Summit. Only a year before that, I had first heard Huckabee speak at the Summit of September 2006, long before the tumultuous primary season began. I overheard two elderly women share sentiments about his speech: “I sure wish he would run for President!” Since that realization struck, I’ve stood behind Huckabee and am quite pleased by the various major supporters he’s managed to accrue thus far on the campaign trail.

Posner concludes almost sardonically, as if lamenting the continued survival of “the evangelical right.” She seems bitter about what she claims is “excessive media attention” given to the Christian right, and she hints with a belittling attitude at the evangelical right’s mission “to restore America, its government, and its culture to ‘biblical values’” (underlining not found in original, but quotes present).

Though the conservative evangelical community has in recent years blundered rather heavily and not always been consistent, to Posner I say but one thing: “Long live the Christian Right, and God bless America!”

Setting Sail: UN & McCain

The two blogs I have decided to cover are as follows:

- Meryl Yourish

- TAPPED

Meryl Yourish’s blog, which espouses conservative political views, is self-described as “cutting straight to the point,” while TAPPED is a blog sponsored by The American Prospect, a magazine committed, among other things, to “effective liberal politics.”

Meryl Yourish, “The UNnecessary world body”

Yourish begins the posting by slamming the United Nations for “long ago outliv[ing] its purpose.” Clearly angry, she reveals the cause: according to Yourish, the newly-appointed president of the UN Security Council, Libya, has already failed to treat Israel and its issues with the levity these issues deserve. Yourish claims that though Libya had sworn to “act fairly and without prejudice to all the nations in the UN, including Israel,” the governing seat on the Security Council has so far neglected the two separate hostage situations that Israel faces, as it gave only slight mention of one and ignored the other within its recent Middle East briefing.

In this posting, Yourish presents a classic pro-Israel, anti-United Nations position, pointing towards the inefficiencies and vices of the UN system, especially in dealing with Israeli issues. Yourish’s cynicism is by no means unfounded; historically, Libya was no great ally to the Israeli nation. In my opinion, though Yourish’s concern is certainly a valid one and one with which I mostly agree, I would not be as quick as she is to condemn fully the rusted and inefficient mechanisms of the UN. Maybe, for once, something miraculous will happen.

TAPPED, “The McCain Menace”

Prior to the outcome of the Iowa caucus results, Scott Lemieux posted his entry on the McCain campaign. Lemieux proposes, much to his own despair, that in the McCain-Romney matchup that he sees as the GOP race, McCain will likely win the Republican nomination for President. The reason for his anguish? In his own words, “a McCain win would be very bad for the Dem.”

Lemieux clearly shows concern about the formidable opponent that McCain would make for any Democratic candidate, especially for both Clinton and Edwards. As a heavyweight with a reputation of excellent military and political service, as well as an array of attractive positions, McCain would indeed be a powerful force that the Democratic candidate would have to reckon with if McCain became the GOP candidate.