Why is everyone still only concerned about company bailouts when the 8th biggest country in the world (i.e. the economy of California) is failing and may soon finally be broke? It’s rated close to junk status, people.

Why don’t more people talk about the Russian-American relations as one of the major future concerns for world stability? Their meeting was a catastrophe. America will be facing its first true tests of its new ways, not just in Iran. And if it’s all “Barack by himself”, they are going to go down.

Why does no one give a sh*t about Muslims and Han Chinese killing each other in the street? Oh, sure, the graduate students and professors believe all is well in China. Well, then, no reason to worry, right? No reason to listen to the man who spent years roaming the country. Because, you know, things obviously are very simple.

What about the United Nations? They are not only not helping anywhere in the world, especially with South Korea and Iran – what with all their ridiculous “condemnations” and such -, they are even actively obstructing progress.

This “world governance” is obviously outdated and not up to today’s tasks of dealing with lots of crooks. John Bolton was probably right about the UN after all. There is a case to be made that it just wouldn’t matter if the building were to be scrapped by half. Have you ever been to any UN convention center and looked at the names of the conventions going on there? It’s astonishing. Hey everyone, the 4th conference on the 2nd proposal of the 11th commission on world peace is coming to town!

Only so many people do not mistake the superficial for the meaning of things. And they are astonished by what this world is coming to on so many levels. Sure, there is lots of hope. But there is also a lot of hypocrisy in this world, which makes people numb and indifferent to more important issues. Thankfully, there are still people, like David Rothkopf, who at least tell the world about some issues the mainstream is not aware of.

I know, just talking about it is second rate. First rate is doing something about it..

Eight months later, a report to the UN about Hariri’s assassination outlined a plot of astonishing complexity: a mysteriously reduced security detail, remarkably detailed intelligence on his movements and the moving of the truck into position just one minute and 49 seconds prior to the convoy passing by – all of this bore the hallmarks of a government-sponsored assassination. It implicated if not Syrian President Bashar Assad directly, then at least his inner circle.

The violent death of a charismatic figure created a huge hole in Lebanese politics – just at the time when there was a rising backlash in the country against Syrian influence in the region and its own territory.

There has been an endless meddling with investigations by the UN – its International Independent Investigation Commission is a farce and most probably a disguise for a politically-agreed “blame scenario” to settle the issue and to further Syria’s standing in the peace process.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise though, that there seems to be a “breakthrough” in tribunal investigations as new evidence – obtained by Der Spiegel, a German magazine – seems to point to Hezbollah as being behind the Hariri murder.

This quite obviously reeks of a political cover-up by the UN commission.

An intact Syrian leadership may be needed to further the Middle East peace process – so it may be deemed inappropriate to implicate it in a murder of such prominence.

Whatever the reasons behind “new” evidence being discovered and dispersed among the press, it sure is surprising that Hezbollah is coming up as the villain for the first time ever.

Then why are obvious questions not being asked? Why are journalists contend to write about a “breakthrough“, when it just reeks of a cover-up and the explanation for Hezbollah’s involvement is far-fetched?

The UN has failed time and time again – just think of the Oil-for-Food Programme, Kofi Annan’s questionable role in it etc – to provide truthful statements about areas of conflict and dispute and has confined itself to obscuring the truth and giving in to political meddling in too many instances.

If someone gets payed, as journalists do, to ask at least the obvious questions and to go beyond face-value and to report about the conclusions they draw, and by all means fails in that respect, then I am not willing to pay money – and more importantly respect – for that kind of journalism anymore.

Consider me utterly unconvinced, dear Spiegel, of your reporting standards.

If a murdered Prime Minister doesn’t seem to call for your highest standards of diligence in reporting, then what does?