Bydio

From this article, complaining about a conservative site that highlights bias (sometimes wrongly, in my opinion), they do the old bait and switch at the end.

Laura Bush complains that the media isn’t talking about the schools being built.  The LA Times has a piece about how students in Iraq are being targeted by terrorists.  This kostard puts the two together as if it’s proof that the schools are  not being built.

Wait, that’s too logical.  The person who wrote this article says nothing about the schools being built or not.  He/She/It puts these two stories together for the sole purpose of making someone think that building schools in Iraq is a failure because the students can’t go to school.  I’m guessing that this kostard points this out as a reason why building schools shouldn’t be talked about.

So the U.S. builds schools in Iraq, and terrorists threaten and kidnap students, so the schools are a failure?  You must be joking.  Seriously, how stupid are you if you believe that line of reasoning?  If a school was built here, and the KKK started threatening and kidnapping students, would you honestly say the school shouldn’t have been built and it proves that the people who built it failed in their job?  Hell no!  You’d say, “Let’s lynch us some KKK fuckballs and let these kids get back to school!”

You really have to be deranged to blame the U.S. for terrorists acting like terrorists.  Remember, they’ve been doing this shit for centuries, even before the U.S. was created, so don’t even pretend we caused it.

And to go along with the image in this post, I offer a song:

Men Without Hats - Safety Dance

In an article by Newsbusters.org on the disparity in coverage between Mel Gibson’s anti-Jew statements (shitloads of) and Michael Richards’ anti-black and anti-Jew statements (lots less coverage of), they decide to blame an anti-Christian bias of the L.A. Times.

Why the disparity is coverage? It seems pretty clear that the Times saw that they could use Mel Gibson’s episode to further a personal attack against Gibson. They openly sought to connect Mel’s tirade to his Passion of the Christ film. They used the episode to baselessly tar the Christian faith that Gibson openly professes. (See this post.) In doing this, the Times advanced the anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, and anti-conservative tone that pervades its paper. (We’ve posted about this in a number of places, including here and here.) The Times cannot advance any such agenda with Michael Richards, so one could readily conclude that the paper’s attitude is, “Why bother? Why make a Hollywood star look worse than he has to?”

Um… it couldn’t be because Mel Gibson is a huge star and a Hollywood mover-and-shaker, and Michael Richards is basically a D-list actor at best, with his only real claim to fame being his spot on Seinfeld, a show which ended years ago… noooo, it couldn’t be THAT… could it?

The Protocols of the Daily Kos

Personally, I don’t like the Daily Kos.  The blog is too left-wing fringe for me to take it seriously.  Their agenda in this post that LGF is commenting on is not something I agree with at all.  I think Israel is the only sane power in the region, and to not help them is to seriously hurt ourselves.  So when dKos talks about:

“But to me the biggest issue now is pressing for an open discussion on the State of Israel, and how the Israel lobby influences our elected representatives.”

I’m thinking he’s a complete moron.

*So you’re agreeing with LGF?*

Yes and no.

While LGF is against dKos on this policy, I’m with them.  However, saying dKos is antisemitic because he thinks Israeli politics have too much influence on our government isn’t really correct.  While dKos may be antisemitic, anti-jew and/or anti-Israel, he’s only commenting on policy.  I’m sure his opinion is heavily influenced by the disgusting misreporting from all over the Middle East, but he’s talking about policy, and just because it’s against Israel doesn’t mean he’s antisemitic.

Semitic is all arabs, anyway, and dKos seems to be pro-palestinian, so it’s incorrect.

I know, picky picky.  I’m just saying, accusing someone of antisemetism when it’s not technically true (a conservative ploy) is just as bad as accusing someone of racism when it’s not necessarily true (a liberal ploy).

That’s just the way I see it.

Update 20061118: From the article “Am I anti-semitic?“:

“When I read about the horrors perpetrated upon the people of Palestine, Lebanon, and elsewhere by Israel, I thank them for defining themselves as a race apart(heid) from myself, for making me Proud To Be A Gentile! Their abject cruelty towards and disregard for the non-Jews of the world is so far removed from my definition of spirituality that I don’t even wish to be in the same species classification as them. (Is the new classification of ‘homo rapiens’ in order?)”

My bad, total anti-semites.