The Weasel Watchers have spoken

The anticipation was killing, but the Watcher’s Council results are finally in and I can say, with some confidence, that they are good.

On the Council side first place (again!) went to Big Lizards, this time for a stellar article pointing out that, at the NYT: Analogies Are Meaningless (Unless They Favor the Left). As you have no doubt grasped from the post’s title, the post addresses the shock and horror the Times experienced when President Bush not only had the temerity to reference the Vietnam War as a teaching guide for our current situation, but did so without using the words “quagmire” or “liberal professor from Harvard.” Yes, it is a very good post.

A well deserved second place went to Soccer Dad with another attack on the Times‘ peculiar inability to provide a level playing field in the religiously related stories it reports. In Separate But Unequal, Soccer Dad focused, not on Iraq and Vietnam, but on reports about a Muslim school in New York (“good” in Times-speak) and a Jewish school in Florida (“bad” in Times-speak). It takes a PhD in liberalism to understand the distinction the Times draws between the two schools, but suffice it to say I think it might have something to do with the difference between the school that represents the 1.6 billion Muslim victims worldwide and the school that represents the 13.3 million widely scattered, mostly assimilated Jewish oppressors world wide. (And yes, my tongue is firmly in cheek as I attach those adjectives.)

The offerings are just as good if you switch to the non-Council stuff. First place went to the screamingly funny (I mean that) Like a Suppository, Only a Bit Stronger, by The Dissident Frogman, a video with an important munitions lesson. Do watch it, if you haven’t already.

Second place was Confederate Yankee’s Misfire: AP’s Bogus Ammo Shortage Story, which (I’m seeing themes here) also gives a munitions lesson: this time a lesson in understanding that munitions actually exist — a concept that seems to elude the media.

At this point, everybody say with me: “Those are the winners but all the nominations were excellent. Do your brain a favor and take some time to read them.”


4 Responses

  1. “Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations’ mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.” – George H.W. Bush (Bush senior) and Brent Scowcroft in their 1998 book, A World Transfor

  2. And why would you think I would consider either Bush or Scowcroft good authority here? Had Bush acted with decision, and not appalling coward in 1991, I doubt we would have found ourselves perceived as the weak horses the Bin Ladens of this world believe us to be, and we would probably not have been on the receiving end of the worldwide Islamist aggression now aimed at us. If anything, Bush and Scowcroft sound as if they’re trying to justify a a bad decision. There’s no prescience here, just the avoidance of responsibility. I bet Bush, Sr., still goes to sleep at night haunted by the ghosts of the Kurds he abandoned to Saddams’ murderous thugs.

  3. Thank you for translating the NY Times into easy to understand terms! You have performed a true public service.

  4. David 13.3M vs Goliath 1.6B. Booooooooorrrrrrrrrrr . . . . . ing ! I prefer The Three Silly Billy Israeli Goats Gruff with the Arab troll under the bridge story. It’s more believable !

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: