Plan B, so what?

The majority of us are weary from hearing about the clashes of values and agendas between the pro-life and the pro-choice activists, and providing such extensive media coverage on Bush’s endorsement of the Plan B drug (a morning- after contraceptive drug, available over-the-counter to women over eighteen) is just adding more fuel to the already heated debate. This abortion related development shouldn’t be granted nearly the same significance and prominence as other pivotal issues such as terrorism, or gas prices; because while most people have an opinion on the abortion, it is only a minority that has an extremely rigidly fixed opinion and feels strongly affected by this development.
Also, although Bush has pledged to a specific political party, it doesn’t necessarily mean he is confined to their ways of thinking on every issue, but the outrage in the media seems to be implying we’d rather our leaders abandon intellectual honesty, in favor of politically bolstering themselves and acting upon what is most politically beneficial, and what will raise them in the polls. There is certainly nothing wrong with Bush compromising on a small scale with another set of values, especially since the two sets of values we’re dealing with are so greatly polarized, it is inevitable the government will have to find a way for both ends to be accommodated. Thus, Bush's endoresement of Plan B is receiving far more attention than it should. See this news story http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15390629.htm

I wanted to comment on an article in TIME magazine that I saw this past week featuring the aftermath of the Hezbollah and Israeli conflict. Like the rest of the media, TIME has always been very biased against Israel. In fact, in this conflict it has even gone as far as to equate Israeli forces to Hezbollah. In one issue it had a cartoon of two lobster-like, hideous looking creatures viciously going after each other in a jar, and labeled one Hezbollah and the other Israel. This is just an example how biased the media can be. For one thing, Israel doesn't target women and children, and if anything it has risked and even lost the lives of many of its soldiers’ in attempt to avoid harming civilians because Hezbollah uses its civilians as human shields. In addition, Israel is the defender not the agressor. What country in their right mind wouldn’t defend themselves, if they had undergone what Israel has? If anything they surely wouldn’t have put up with it for this long.

So after this war is over, why would anyone expect the media to deliver the news any less prejudiced than it has until now? Northern Israel is plagued with disaster; aside from the death tolls, many people are homeless, and schools, businesses, and stores have been destroyed. But in this weeks issue, TIME features an article discussing the aftermath of the war that discusses the war aftermath in Lebanon and neglects to mention any of the aftermath in Israel, conveniently evoking sympathy among its readers only for the Lebanese civilians. Why not mention the the millions of dollars of damage and devastation in Northern Israel, and its desperate need or financial aid and support? Because unlike Lebanon, Israel hasn't been recieving any.