200+ MPG and the Idiocy of Leftist NY Times Op-Ed Contributors Read this article and tell me there isn't going to be a ton of money in modifying hybrid cars within the next 3-10 years. First one to patent the conversion and market it around populated areas is going to make a killing. It kinda makes me wish I wouldn't have traded in electrical engineering for the golf profession...
Whether or not you think there exists a bias amongst the contributors to the NY Times Op-Ed page, a quick survey of recent articles will lead you to the obvious conclusion that most of them disapprove of the handling of the war in Iraq. Frank Rich, Bob Herbert, and Maureen Dowd have all ripped the president in the past week for troop deaths, failing to help Iraqi women, and the expected mantra of "wrong war, wrong pretense."
It's not that I'm finding fault with these articles for disagreement, it's that there seems to be no consistency of position among them except that whatever the President does is the wrong decision. For example, take this recent post by Frank Rich. A white columnist, he ironically plays the race card in the first paragraph refuting the President's motto "We will stay the course" with the racially charged, logic heavy, "What do you mean we, white man?" I can't even begin to fathom what the term "white man" at the end of the sentence connotates. Is it just racial pandering? Is Frank Rich even aware that white males outnumber every other ethnicity in the military by at least a 4-1 margin? I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure "we" means, "I and the 98 senators who voted for the war, will not withdraw troops until a stable Iraqi government is in place."
Then, on the next page, apparently he forgets what he wrote just a few sentences ago and pens this truly amazing paragraph. I'll quote it-
Rich then blasts the president over troop deaths. I did some math on the troop deaths and found some startling results. Roughly 7/10,000's of a single percentage point of the US population has lost their life in Iraq, or roughly, less than one US soldier for every 40 Americans who died of degenerative kidney lesions, especially of the winding uriniferous tubules during the same time. Furthermore, 100% of all US troops killed volunteered to be in the military, whereas (I'm assuming) 0% of those killed by nephrosis signed up to get lesions on their pee tubes. Truly remarkable.
I know it's hard to follow, so in conclusion, I'll sum up all of their articles into this one, concise paragraph -
Whether or not you think there exists a bias amongst the contributors to the NY Times Op-Ed page, a quick survey of recent articles will lead you to the obvious conclusion that most of them disapprove of the handling of the war in Iraq. Frank Rich, Bob Herbert, and Maureen Dowd have all ripped the president in the past week for troop deaths, failing to help Iraqi women, and the expected mantra of "wrong war, wrong pretense."
It's not that I'm finding fault with these articles for disagreement, it's that there seems to be no consistency of position among them except that whatever the President does is the wrong decision. For example, take this recent post by Frank Rich. A white columnist, he ironically plays the race card in the first paragraph refuting the President's motto "We will stay the course" with the racially charged, logic heavy, "What do you mean we, white man?" I can't even begin to fathom what the term "white man" at the end of the sentence connotates. Is it just racial pandering? Is Frank Rich even aware that white males outnumber every other ethnicity in the military by at least a 4-1 margin? I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure "we" means, "I and the 98 senators who voted for the war, will not withdraw troops until a stable Iraqi government is in place."
Then, on the next page, apparently he forgets what he wrote just a few sentences ago and pens this truly amazing paragraph. I'll quote it-
"WHAT lies ahead now in Iraq instead is not victory, which Mr. Bush has never clearly defined anyway, but an exit (or triage) strategy that may echo Johnson's March 1968 plan for retreat from Vietnam: some kind of negotiations (in this case, with Sunni elements of the insurgency), followed by more inflated claims about the readiness of the local troops-in-training, whom we'll then throw to the wolves. Such an outcome may lead to even greater disaster, but this administration long ago squandered the credibility needed to make the difficult case that more human and financial resources might prevent Iraq from continuing its descent into civil war and its devolution into jihad central."So what side is he on? Should we stay there and circumvent "jihad central" or leave and circumvent "distraught parents outside the ranch" central?
Rich then blasts the president over troop deaths. I did some math on the troop deaths and found some startling results. Roughly 7/10,000's of a single percentage point of the US population has lost their life in Iraq, or roughly, less than one US soldier for every 40 Americans who died of degenerative kidney lesions, especially of the winding uriniferous tubules during the same time. Furthermore, 100% of all US troops killed volunteered to be in the military, whereas (I'm assuming) 0% of those killed by nephrosis signed up to get lesions on their pee tubes. Truly remarkable.
I know it's hard to follow, so in conclusion, I'll sum up all of their articles into this one, concise paragraph -
"Bush, an evil, elitist caucasian, took us to war when he shouldn't have, exploiting and causing the death of thousands of poor, urban youth so that he could gleefully listen to the tears of their mothers outside his ranch. In light of this, we, along with the majority of the population, are demanding that we pull out immediately. However, if he does (which he can't because he is too busy taking vacation and ignoring the rights of Iraqi women), we are also prepared to demand that he stay to protect those Iraqis not loyal to caliphate, so that our position of "whatever Bush does is wrong" is well protected and no cracks will appear in our impenetrable, reactionary fortress."Yup- that's basically it. I just saved you the hassle of reading the op-ed page for the next three months. Also, for the most unintenionally ironic blog on the web, visit here. Easily the funniest thing I read today.
posted by Justin at 2:58 PM 
6 Comments:
"Bush, an evil, elitist caucasian,"
I've been a caucasian my whole life, and I'm afraid that now I'm never going to live it down -- no matter what I do, I'll always have that looming over me. I knew at the time it was a bad idea... but hindsight, right?
Nice post.
Surprisingly, I sort of agree with you and sort of disagree with you.
Over at my blog, on August 10, I ripped into Maureen Dowd's stupid column. I made the point that I thought that everything she said was true, but that she said it in an elitist kind of dispassionate way that ticked me off. I could say some of the same things about Frank Rich. It's like they're saying that if Bush starts another completely ridiculous war they're going to write even more angry, snobbish and contradictory columns. Oh no! Here come the liberal columnists! They're wearing suits and they're angry! Etc.
On the other hand, I think Rich has his facts straight. So I hate his delivery but I think he's correct.
The white man thing? It's not Rich playing the race card, so calm down with your troop math. The full text is:
"Like the Japanese soldier marooned on an island for years after V-J Day, President Bush may be the last person in the country to learn that for Americans, if not Iraqis, the war in Iraq is over. "We will stay the course," he insistently tells us from his Texas ranch. What do you mean we, white man?"
It's a reference to the Japanese soldier who doesn't know that World War II is over--Bush is the white man who (in Rich's opinion) doesn't know that the Iraq war is over.
Nothing to do with black people.
It's an old joke, the Lone Ranger and Tonto are surrounded by Indians. The Lone Ranger looks at Tonto and says, "What are we going to do now?" Tonto says, "What do you mean 'we', white man?" It's from about forty years ago, Frank Rich would know it.
So I was wrong about my interpretation, but right that it had nothing to do with black people. 1 out of 2.
Yeah, and I was wrong assuming it was some kind of race card, but right in assuming that I didn't know what it meant. 1 out of 2.
yeah, I thought it was the tanto joke too. But I think it's in bad taste either way. What if he'd said, "what do you mean we, black man?" If there were jokes like that, we wouldn't tell them, and we certainly wouldn't quote them in the NYT.
I'd like to answer Rich: by we, he means America - the country that voted to go to war and is committed to making sure what we started finishes well, regardless of whether we should have started it or not. Are you an Iraqi?
Post a Comment
<< Home