Misc Commentary For August 29th
— Does the New York Times give you the news straight and from an unbiased perspective or are they really just claiming to do that while they actually push a liberal agenda? Yeah, you know the answer and so do I. But if there are any doubters out there, then just take a gander at what Dick Morris said in this interview…
“Whenever you’d talk to a New York Times reporter there would always be a supposition to the story, and they eventually would trot out the supposition and get you to comment on it. If you affirmed it, you’d be in the article, and if you disagreed you wouldn’t be. Instead of just saying, “Tell me what the facts are about this situation,” the bias, the lean, the journalistic political purpose to the story was predetermined. And it’s a damn shame. The New York Times assumed the role of being the unbiased and detailed source for national and international news and then just basically gave it up.”
— Bustamante’s refusal to cut his ties to MEChA is turning into a HUGE story all across the blogosphere and on all of the big conservative pages. This issue isn’t going away and not only will it probably destroy Bustamante’s political career, it may very well have wider implications. This is going to be the first time that most Americans are going to be made aware that there are groups out there like MEChA who actually want to take part of the United States. If this issue continues to gather steam — and that’s entirely possible given the interest that the California election is drawing — this could turn into issue that might significantly effect the whole immigration debate. It’ll be interesting to see how it all plays out.
— A reader of the Spoons Experience asks…
I’ve read a few U.S. based blogs and was wondering why is it there seems to be such an anti-U.N. feeling. Is it purely to do with the U.N. refusing to liberate Iraq without war? Or is it a build up of things and that was the final straw.
I can’t say that my feelings about the UN changed significantly after the war. Before the war I thought they were a power hungry, sovereignty threatening, anti-American, chat club largely run by bureaucrats and utopian idealists and the war only confirmed my impressions. Victor Davis Hanson has a little more to add to that…
“Little needs be said about the U.N. After its decade-long impotence where it came to disarming Saddam, and the circus last winter concerning the American invasion of Iraq, its officials will now have no interest in seeing the United States create a just society when they themselves could not. Indeed, many U.N. members probably preferred the old regime anyway. That allegation is not bombast or a slur — given the prominence of Syria in U.N. deliberations, and the elevation of Iran and Libya on key committees.
The U.N. has simply ceased to be the liberal, Western-inspired utopian body that arose from the ashes of World War II with the promise that reasonable, civilized nations could adjudicate differences rather than killing each other over perceived grievances. Instead, it is a mobocracy, where majority votes reflect a passive-aggressive stance toward the United States — guiltily desiring our money and support, while still eager for a televised forum in high-profile New York to pose and showcase its cheap, easy defiance of America.”