Libertarian Librarian

Well, that sucked. I had a nice long post started about the two big issues John covered while I was gone—the Connecticut primary and the Israel/Lebanon war—and Blogger ate it. Bleck. Okay, here’s my attempt to resurrect what I had written:

The Connecticut Primary:

In regards to John and tc snarking at each other in the comments sections of John’s post, I will paraphrase Dan Ackroyd. John and tc, you ignorant sluts. To call Joe Lieberman either an ultra-liberal or a shill for Rush Limbaugh is ludicrous. Lieberman was a moderate Democrat who didn’t mind working with the other side and *gasp* would actually compromise with them to try and accomplish something. The fact that he voted Democrat is hardly confirmation of ultra-liberalism—he’s a Democrat. The fact that he actually talked to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity does not make him Michael Savage. Have we gotten to the point where even talking to somebody who has a different political viewpoint is enough to brand him unacceptable to the party he’s served for decades?

That said, Joe is acting like his senate seat is his by right, and his ill-considered independent run is classless and petty. On this I agree with tc—the voters made their opinion known, and that’s how democracy works. Time for Joe to pack it up and become an elder statesmen for his party ala Al Gore.

Before leaving this topic, however, let me throw this, from The New Republic, into the mix:

In a quick and dirty analysis of the difference between the Lamont and Lieberman voters based on income, education, and other demographic data from across Connecticut, Ken Strasma of Strategic Telemetry found that Lamont's strongest support came from areas with high housing values, voters with college or graduate degrees, and parents with children in private schools. Lieberman's votes, in contrast, came from the cities, renters, blue-collar and service-sector workers, and those receiving Social Security benefits.

If the CT primary was a true reflection of a “grassroots” uprising of the populace fed up with Bush’s war policies, wouldn’t this be the other way ‘round? That disconnect between perception and reality is highlighted in a different TNR article than the one above. To wit:

No twist in the Connecticut Senate race better captures this bizarre moment in American politics than a recent anti-Wal-Mart rally featuring Ned Lamont. The early-August rally was sponsored by WakeUpWalMart.com, a union-backed group seeking better pay and benefits for Wal-Mart workers, and Lamont took to the dais sounding like a regular Norma Rae. "This is about waking up Wal-Mart, and this is also about waking up corporate America," he told the crowd. "Corporate
America has to look out for its workers."

Pardon my class warfare, but what the hell was he talking about? Lamont is a wealthy cable executive from Greenwich whose great-grandfather once ran JP Morgan's global empire. Of his
estimated $90 to $300 million net worth, somewhere between $2,000 and $30,000 are invested in ... Wal-Mart. When later pressed on this point by Time, campaign manager Tom Swan revealed that Lamont doesn't hold the stock directly, but through a Goldman Sachs "Tax Advantaged Core Strategies" managed account. Ah, right. I think you get one of those with your afl-cio membership.

And, of course, it's not just Lamont whose rhetorical cruise missiles have a knack for honing in on his own economic interests. As a group, the bloggers and activists who powered his rise are overwhelmingly affluent and well-educated. According to a Pew Research Center survey in 2005, about 65 percent of activists and donors to Howard Dean's political organization, Democracy for America, make over $50,000 per year, versus about 36 percent for the general public.

Interesting, no?

Israel and Hezbollah

Sadly it’s pretty simple. Hezbollah won and the world is a much more dangerous place for it. The fact that the world cowtowed to terrorists who deliberately, and with calculated disregard for those they claim to protect and represent, hide their munitions and themselves amongst civilians and then claim savagery on the part of the other side when civilians die is nearly inconceivable to me. Hezbollah, despite being the direct cause of the deaths of thousands of Lebanese—above and beyond the hundreds of Israelis they killed—is now receiving adulation within Lebanon and throughout the Arab world.

I have no faith in the U.N. being able to keep the peace anywhere, much less in one of the most volatile and violence fraught regions of the world. And it makes me sad that thoughtful, educated people cannot see the distinction between death as a terrible and painful side effect of war and death as a terrible and painful effect of deliberately shooting rockets at civilian areas and then hiding amongst civilians when the other guy shoots back. Oh say, like this.

I don’t mean to pick on tc, and I’m pretty sure he is thick skinned enough to not be upset by it, but honestly, the stance that as long as the fighting has stopped it’s a good thing boggles my mind. Death is a tragedy and I hope I never have to know the sorrow of losing a child. But all of the death from the last month of fighting between Hezbollah and Israel now serves no purpose but to embolden Hezbollah. And Hamas. And al-Qaeda. And Iran. And on. And on. And on.

Sorry tc, but saying, "Always good when the killing stops, if even for a short while." is a nice sentiment and totally out of touch with reality. The key bit being "if even for a short while." Pop quiz: Is it better that the cease fire now means only about 1200 people died during the abbreviated war, but 5000 more will die in the next 5 year or that 3000 would have died if the fighting had continued until Hezbollah was eradicated and 500 more would have died in the next five years?

Enough blather from me. I’ll sum up in two quick hits—one a bit from Yossi Klein Halevi writing in The New Republic (registration is required, though it is free), and the other from Michael Rameriz who penned one of the most sublime and effective editorial cartoons I have ever seen.

Halevi first:

This is a nation whose heart has been broken: by our failure to uproot the jihadist threat, which will return for another and far more deadly round; by the economic devastation of the Galilee and of a neighboring land we didn't want to attack; by the heroism of our soldiers and the hesitations of our politicians; by the young men buried and crippled in a war we prevented ourselves from winning; by foreign journalists who can't tell the difference between good and evil; by European leaders who equate an army that tries to avoid civilian causalities with a terrorist group that revels in them; by a United Nations that questions Israel's right to defend itself; and by growing voices on the left who
question Israel's right to exist at all.

Now Rameriz:

Labels: Miscellaneous