Friday, October 11, 2002

WEDDING TIME: Posting will be limited over the weekend, and probably non-existent. I'm going to be attending my cousin's wedding in Provincetown, Cape Cod. I can't wait!

Posting should resume next Monday though. We'll see.
A ROYAL FISKING: Meryl Yourish fisks two Harvard professors within an inch of their lives. Yourish does a fantastic job showing the moral bankruptcy of the anti-Semitic left. I don't think I will ever understand why the left is so god damn obsessed with Israel and exposing it as the great evil power in the world. Obviously it's not perfect, but it's policies are all clearly aimed at self-defense, not aggression. And yet it's the same old song and dance everyday from academic elites such as these pricks.

I don't get it. I really don't get it. Someone please explain.

Wednesday, October 09, 2002

THE ELITIST LEFT: A very typical argument by the elitist left by singer Harry Belafonte of all people. Belafonte said in a recent radio interview that Colin Powell had sold out and likened the former general to a plantation slave who had sold out his principles "to come into the house of the master."

Such is the ways of the elitist left, particularly those who remain from the civil rights movement of the 60's. To them, any African American who aligns himself with the Republican party, is nothing more than an Uncle Tom, or worse yet, a slave.
Here's more of Belafonte's inane comments:

"There's an old saying, in the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and were those slaves that lived in the house," Belafonte said. "You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master ... exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him."

Or perhaps Mr. Powell is a member of the administration because he is a highly educated man with expertise in foreign policy and a cognizant realization of the effects that his actions will create. Belafonte decided to go the entertainment route. Perhaps Belafonte and many others of his kind, (Susan Sarandon anyone?) should, pardon my French, but shut the hell up?

Entertainers entertain. Leaders lead. Let's leave it at that.
SOUTH PARK AND THE RIGHT: Stephen Stanton, a young contributing writer for Tech Central Station has a dead on piece about South Park Republicans. Just what is a South Park Republican? Mr. Stanton explains much better than I could, so take a look at the article. He dispels the myth that all Republicans are old rich religious white folks. As Stanton says, if this were true, how could it be a majority?

One thing is for sure: I am definitely a South Park Republican, (meaning I'm probably much more liberatarian than Republican but you get the idea.)
DC SNIPER UPDATE: Here's an update on the DC Sniper as the suspect is being called around here. Apparently the sniper thinks he or she is God. How lovely.

Anyways, some friends and I were recently at the location of the most recent DC shooting without even realizing it. As we passed by what seemed to be an endless supply of police cars, we saw an officer pull out his shotgun and head into a forrested area...about 5 feet from our car. Good times were had by all.

Monday, October 07, 2002

MORE TIMES BIAS: The New York Times is at it again. Despite a two thirds majority of Americans in favor of the war, the Times does absolutely everything in its power to quash any pre-emptive action in Iraq. You'd think such an important poll regarding our national security would head a newspaper column. Instead, the poll is buried near the bottom of the page, and placed between contradicting statements. The highlighted area.

In addition, in a handful of competitive races, Republican candidates are seeking to use the issue of acting against Iraq as a way to undercut Democratic opponents.

Two-thirds of Americans say they approve of the United States using military power to oust Mr. Hussein. A majority of Americans say that Mr. Bush has a clear plan to deal with Iraq; by contrast, a majority say the White House does not have a clear plan to deal with terrorism at home.

But there are signs of ambivalence.

With Mr. Bush pushing for quick action against Baghdad, nearly two-thirds of respondents said they wanted to give the United Nations more time to try to send weapons inspectors into Iraq.

First of all, the first paragraph is at worst, an outright lie, and at best, an unsubstantiated opinion. Republicans are not using Iraq as a political tool; believe it or not, they actually care about the nation's security. The Times might find this hard to believe.

Secondly, how exactly does Mr. Bush have a clear plan for Iraq, but the White House does not? Doesn't Mr. Bush's plan come from the White House?!? It is his administration after all.

And finally, in what dimension is waiting for a United Nations resolution construed as "ambivalence"? Apparently in the New York Times bizarro world where playing it safe means you don't really give a damn.

I think it's time the New York Times referred to all of its articles as op-eds because the facts always seem to be missing these days.