More NYT hogwash

For those of you that still don't think that the main stream media is in Obama's corner, think again. The New York Times last week published an op-ed by Senator Obama about his policies on Iraq and Afghanistan. This week they refused a submitted article on the same subject by Senator McCain.

Click here to read the report about the NTY.

Click here to read the op-ed that the NYT blocked.

The irony (and hypocrisy) is found in the editor's reason for not publishing the piece. Davis Sharpley, NYT op-ed editor and former Hillary Clinton speechwriter, said that he would only accept a piece from McCain if it "mirrored Senator Obama's piece." No, Im' not distorting that quote. You read it right. He goes on to say, "The article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate." This is a real quote. I'm not kidding you. Mr. Sharpley plain and simple stated that they would only print McCain if he would lay out his plans the way Obama wants him to lay out his plans.

What's most hypocritical is that Obama's piece didn't offer any new information, nor did it set any "concrete" terms, timetables, or anything that Mr. Sharpley claims is required.

Click here to read Obama's piece.

Someone please tell me why I shouldn't be OUTRAGED at this!!

Democrats' Deep, Dark Fantasies

A lot of my inspiration for this post comes from an article in the Denver Post by David Harsanyi.

Democrats love that oil prices are so high. They can't say that, of course, because even union workers and environmentalists have to drive to work and heat their homes. But they love it. They see it as a prime opportunity to change the way we live, which they view as sinful, gluttonous, and arrogant.

The villians in this story, in the leftist view, are the big bad oil companies and the over-indulgant public. That shows in their energy reform proposals. First, they want to inplement a Jimmy Carter-style "windfall tax" on oil company profits, basically limiting how much oil companies can make and forcing them to spend their money the way Big Brother deems necessary for the common good. Next, they want to pursuade us all to turn down our thermostats, bike to work, and use one square of toilet paper per trip to the bathroom.

Al Gore himself said recently that complete transition to renewables could be done in ten years. Even if that number is right (which I highly doubt), isn't it the exact number of years that Dems claim it will take to get oil from ANWR or off the coasts of CA or FL? So we can wait 10 years for it if it's windmills and solar panels, but not if it's oil or nuclear?

The irony of the whole thing is that America agree with BOTH sides. It's really an easy equation. Drill+Renewable Energy Investment=Solution.

But the left has twotop priorities, and neither one of them include our well-being. Number one - protect the polar bears and carabou. (A polar bear has more rights in this world than a human fetus, and more protection.) Number 2 - punish the mean old rich guys who make WAY too much money for their own good.

And their priorities show through in their proposals.

Environmental Hysteria

Thanks again to Nikki for turning me onto this link. Here's a great example of the true effect environmentalism is having on Americans. (TJ, before you say it, I know that there are examples of this on the left and the right.) In this video a petitioner gathers signatures for a petition to ban water (disguised by the term Dihydrogen Monoxide). Take a look:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/013117.html