From New Haven With Love
The Unions have reached a new level of idiocy. They decided to engage in "civil disobedience" by standing hand-in-hand on one of the busiest intersections in New Haven, last week. The farce, however, was that they had asked the police beforehand to be arrested and were "booked" on the New Haven Green. They were handed blank citation forms signed by a police officer and told to go home. How pathetic.
Many YFP staffers counterprotested the event. Reportedly, one of the many pro-union ministers in New Haven in his sermon on the Green said something to the effect of, "There are counterprotesters there. Don't pay any attention to them, for we come with a message of love." I suppose, I was there with a message of hate: "I hate Yale unions."
Monday, September 30, 2002
Hatemongers
Yale professor Eric Tam calls Mark Steyn a (gasp, get ready for an insult you've never heard from a liberal!) hatemonger. Check out Steyn's response on FrontPageMag.com . Why is it that members of the political Left insist on stifling debate on serious issues by employing ad hominem attacks? Why is it that the Left thinks arguments are settled when they call conservatives evil, hatemongering racists? The logical answer is that liberals don't really care about anything besides villifying their political adversaries and spouting platitudes and cliches about their concern for the poor and downtrodden. Why debate the issues? It's much more fun to namecall, don't you think?
Yale professor Eric Tam calls Mark Steyn a (gasp, get ready for an insult you've never heard from a liberal!) hatemonger. Check out Steyn's response on FrontPageMag.com . Why is it that members of the political Left insist on stifling debate on serious issues by employing ad hominem attacks? Why is it that the Left thinks arguments are settled when they call conservatives evil, hatemongering racists? The logical answer is that liberals don't really care about anything besides villifying their political adversaries and spouting platitudes and cliches about their concern for the poor and downtrodden. Why debate the issues? It's much more fun to namecall, don't you think?
Wednesday, September 11, 2002
Friday, September 06, 2002
War Mongering
There's an even worse editorial in today's Daily than the one I just blogged about, this time by a Yale grad student. The column, which is entitled Looking for a quagmire in Iraq? Dial W. for war, does not have a single argument about why a war would lead to a quagmire. Instead, it is about why going after Sadaam would be dumb. It's too inane to deserve any quoting, but the arguments, if you can call them that, brought forth are pretty standard.
First: that our allies aren't with us. For the most part, we either don't need the whiny Europeans or they'll jump on the bandwagon once we look like we're serious.
Second: that we have no proof linking Sadaam to 9-11. Just because the Administration has not made all of their intelligence available does not mean it does not exist. Releasing our evidence to the public could expose our intelligence sources, which would be disastrous. More importantly, once the President clearly and convincingly makes the case, like all the doves want him to, we will be forced to immediately attack Iraq. Imagine this scenario, the President illustrates why Sadaam is a clear and present danger who must be eliminated, but can't until January because the Army isn't ready yet. This will make us look pathetic and give our enemies time to prepare. The administration is correct to publicly equivocate while building support privately until we're ready to put our hand on the table.
Finally: that we should fix the Palestinian situation first. Interestingly enough, toppling the Iraqi regime is the best solution to the Middle East problem. All of the other dictatorships will clean up their act because they know we're serious. The PLO will finally realize they have to deal because the Palestinians will see a rich, democratic Iraq while they live in squalor and tyranny because they were told they could have no better.
This is why the Iraqi regime must fall, and if you disagree, these are the arguments you must take issue with, not make ad hominem attacks against the president.
There's an even worse editorial in today's Daily than the one I just blogged about, this time by a Yale grad student. The column, which is entitled Looking for a quagmire in Iraq? Dial W. for war, does not have a single argument about why a war would lead to a quagmire. Instead, it is about why going after Sadaam would be dumb. It's too inane to deserve any quoting, but the arguments, if you can call them that, brought forth are pretty standard.
First: that our allies aren't with us. For the most part, we either don't need the whiny Europeans or they'll jump on the bandwagon once we look like we're serious.
Second: that we have no proof linking Sadaam to 9-11. Just because the Administration has not made all of their intelligence available does not mean it does not exist. Releasing our evidence to the public could expose our intelligence sources, which would be disastrous. More importantly, once the President clearly and convincingly makes the case, like all the doves want him to, we will be forced to immediately attack Iraq. Imagine this scenario, the President illustrates why Sadaam is a clear and present danger who must be eliminated, but can't until January because the Army isn't ready yet. This will make us look pathetic and give our enemies time to prepare. The administration is correct to publicly equivocate while building support privately until we're ready to put our hand on the table.
Finally: that we should fix the Palestinian situation first. Interestingly enough, toppling the Iraqi regime is the best solution to the Middle East problem. All of the other dictatorships will clean up their act because they know we're serious. The PLO will finally realize they have to deal because the Palestinians will see a rich, democratic Iraq while they live in squalor and tyranny because they were told they could have no better.
This is why the Iraqi regime must fall, and if you disagree, these are the arguments you must take issue with, not make ad hominem attacks against the president.
Racial Profiling Nonsense
Today, the Yale Daily news published an editorial by an alum who is prevented from pursuing his graduate studies at MIT because he lives in Lebanon. The first seven paragraphs are a sob story of how tragic it is for him to put his life on hold after graduating from one of the most prestigious universities in the world.
Fadi Kanaan grants that the US had ridiculously porous borders before 9-11, but complains that now they are unreasonable, without a hint of what a reasonable measure would be. He writes "Instead of only denying suspected terrorists entry, the current visa regulations indefinitely delay legitimate students from entering America" without a suggestion for how the FBI could determine who is a terrorist and who is a student. His only "argument" is that the FBI should contact Yale to find out he's Christian and well educated. It seems odd for someone decrying racial profiling to say that a Christian cannot be a terrorist. I guess profiling must be okay as long as he isn't being profiled.
Today, the Yale Daily news published an editorial by an alum who is prevented from pursuing his graduate studies at MIT because he lives in Lebanon. The first seven paragraphs are a sob story of how tragic it is for him to put his life on hold after graduating from one of the most prestigious universities in the world.
Fadi Kanaan grants that the US had ridiculously porous borders before 9-11, but complains that now they are unreasonable, without a hint of what a reasonable measure would be. He writes "Instead of only denying suspected terrorists entry, the current visa regulations indefinitely delay legitimate students from entering America" without a suggestion for how the FBI could determine who is a terrorist and who is a student. His only "argument" is that the FBI should contact Yale to find out he's Christian and well educated. It seems odd for someone decrying racial profiling to say that a Christian cannot be a terrorist. I guess profiling must be okay as long as he isn't being profiled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)