FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com
Right Intention: April 2005

Saturday, April 16, 2005

Women Tired Of Metrosexuals- Er, I mean- Democrats

I love this column.

According to a recent Washington Times report, American women are pig sick of the oversold and dandy metrosexual male imago. It seems as if the ladies are tired of dating, mating and watching these candy asses and, once again, are looking for a man whose masculinity is not in question.

It's about time.

God bless the women who are doing the Sadie Hawkins for guys who are low maintenance and easy going. Yeah … fine American lasses are righteously refusing the low yield, reflexively irate fops Hollywood has tried to cram down our culture’s collective throat. The girls have spoken and have said, No thanks, to the eye-brow- tweaked man. They have sent the metrosexual male back to Europe where he belongs, and, predictably, they have embraced the Marlboro Man.

Isn't it nice that someone is finally saying these things out loud?

Now, for all you Backstreet Boys who are wondering if, if, you are one of these metrosexual males from whom women, men and small animals are running, I’ve concocted a little test to help you shed your proclivities toward abnormality and begin to saddle up and ride in a more masculine direction. Are you ready? If you start to hyper-ventilate, just take a break and control your breathing. Here we go.

You might be a metrosexual if …
• You use more than three words when ordering your Starbuck’s,
• You’re still into rollerblading,
• You put on cologne to go to the gym,
• You have an Armani Exchange or Banana Republic credit card,
• You Tivo Sex in the City and/or Will and Grace,
• You watch Friends with a note pad,
• You have panic attacks (look, either have a real heart attack or cut the crap. That feeling you’re feeling is not death; it’s called responsibility and most everybody feels it. So … suck it up, drink a Guinness and get a life),
• You shave any part of your body except your face or skull,
• You buy your shampoo at a salon instead of a grocery store,
• You take more than two, that’s two, minutes to fix your hair,
• You think Ben Affleck, Colin Farrell, and Orlando Bloom are really, really good actors,
• You think you have a feminine side to get in touch with, and/or
• You must have Evian and only Evian for hydration (Hey, thongmeister. What’s Evian spelled backwards? That’s what you are).


When you think about it, this explains how Bush materially closed the gender gap in the last election. Most women want men, not wimps. Democrats have become the party of wussy metrosexuals, and for some reason, are proud of it.

Just take a look at this manly picture of John Kerry in a bunny suit. Or check out the studly John Edwards combing his hair for an hour. Contrast those displays of testosterone with this picture of Bush or this one of Cheney.

Is it any wonder women are turning to Republicans? Men wearning bunny suits don't inspire confidence when the country is at war.

Tuesday, April 05, 2005

The Mother Of All Media Bias Posts

This is awesome. I'll never put this much energy into a post. Thankfully, other people do:

Bias in the MSM/DNC takes many forms. I am forced to compare these forms each time I catalogue another "lie" for the 2005 list. Much of the MSM/DNC behavior constitutes mere spin or bias, slanted headlines or failure to report opposing points of view. Those items, while reprehensible, do not constitute "lies." For the sake of clarity and so that we can more easily discuss the tactics of the MSM/DNC, I have categorized here some of those MSM/DNC tactics:

Read the whole thing.

(Thanks, Polipundit)

Lefty Academics

This doesn't surprise me:

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.


This study was based on 1999 data. If another survey was taken today, the results would almost certainly be less pronounced. Not because the professor's beliefs are different. If anything, they are probably more left today than in 1999. It's because a lack of intellectual diversity on college campuses is becoming an issue, and faculties are sensitive to that. Fewer will want to identify themselves as liberal so as to escape criticism.

When asked about the findings, Jonathan Knight, director of academic freedom and tenure for the American Association of University Professors, said, "The question is how this translates into what happens within the academic community on such issues as curriculum, admission of students, evaluation of students, evaluation of faculty for salary and promotion." Knight said he isn't aware of "any good evidence" that personal views are having an impact on campus policies.

"It's hard to see that these liberal views cut very deeply into the education of students. In fact, a number of studies show the core values that students bring into the university are not very much altered by being in college."


Where have we heard this argument before, boys and girls? Why, it's the standard response given by journalists defending liberal media! Journalists want you to believe that, even though they are statistically far to the left of the US as a whole politically, that their thoughts, opinions and attitudes are never ever reflected in their news presentation. Similarly, liberal academics want you to believe that even though they are Trotskyites at heart, these opinions never, ever make it into the classroom. Few believe this journalist claim- hence the popularity of Fox news-, and few will believe academics.

How to change the academic environment? Why not use a tried and true lefty tactic against them and sue? Let's have an affirmative action program for non-socialist professors on campus. I'm not sure what all the legal hurdles are, but over time I'm confident they can be overcome. The lack of intellectual diversity is clear discrimination, and documenting it can't be too hard. Also, I can't imagine it would be that difficult to find an activist judge willing to create a law out of thin air on this issue. Why not? It might be the only way to end this nonsense.

Answer Is Obvious, But Dems Won't Do It

Polidata is a firm that collects precinct level election data and publishes it. Surprisingly, they seem to be the only firm that does this nationwide. Anyway, it doesn't look good for the Democrats. Here's the key quote from an article in the Opinion Journal:

It's no accident that Mrs. Clinton, who will be running for re-election in New York next year before she launches her presidential campaign, is talking about the importance of religious faith and reaching out to moderate voters. "She pores over political data as carefully as Bill Clinton ever did," says New York Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf. A close look at the Congressional district results from last year is convincing many Democrats that a move to the middle may be more than a smart media strategy. It may be a matter of political survival.

After reading the article, it will be obvious that the Democrats need to move to the middle. Unfortunately for the party, and for the nation, they won't. If Democratic politicians move to the middle where we normal humans reside, they will lose their hysterical, screeching, socialist base, which is a considerable portion of the party. There is no way the Democratic Underground, Moveon.org, Hollywood lefties and their ilk will let this happen. A party that hates the likes of Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman is not concerned with those of us in the middle.

Here's another article worth reading. It's a review of a book titled "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy".

It was several months before Election Day. George W. Bush and John Kerry had pulled to a statistical dead heat, and the pundits were poring over the polls in an effort to divine the reasons for the latest shift in public opinion. But MoveOn.org had more pressing concerns. It was moved to ask its network of true believers: "Why aren't we talking about a landslide in November?"

Such groundless conviction "was not at all unusual in the world of MoveOn," writes Byron York in "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy." The triumphalism flowed, he notes, from a deceptively simple rationale. Feeling a passionate contempt for the president and his policies, the MoveOn rank-and-file labored under the illusion that they represented the majority of the American people.

Saturday, April 02, 2005

Sandy Berger Gets Away With Crime...

..more of less, anyway. For those who don't know the story, of which there are many because of the liberal media blackout, Sandy Berger stole a bunch of highly classified documents from the National Archive and destroyed most of them. Reportedly, he stuffed many of the documents in his socks. When confronted with the crime, he lied and claimed the theft and destruction was all a big misunderstanding. Oh, one more thing, the documents were all related to Clinton era efforts to combat terrorism.

The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil.

Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost. It remains unclear whether Berger knew that, or why he destroyed three versions of a document but left two other versions intact. Officials have said the five versions were largely similar, but contained slight variations as the after-action report moved around different agencies of the executive branch.


So what was the punishment?

Under terms negotiated by Berger's attorneys and the Justice Department, he has agreed to pay a $10,000 fine and accept a three-year suspension of his national security clearance. These terms must be accepted by a judge before they are final, but Berger's associates said yesterday he believes that closure is near on what has been an embarrassing episode during which he repeatedly misled people about what happened during two visits to the National Archives in September and October 2003.

Okay, let's run through this again. Lest we forget, 2003-04 was one of the most insane, partisan atmospheres I've ever seen. The administration was getting beaten up on a daily basis by things like the "I Hate George Bush" book of the week club; the silly, partisan, theatrical 9/11 hearings; blame coming from every corner of the liberal establishment that somehow Bush was personally responsible for the 9/11 attacks; accusations were flying about how the administration "outed" a CIA agent (Wilson/Plame scandal); fat filmakers were making farcical "documentaries" to discredit the administration; accusations that Bush lied about WMDs; Iraq was a failure; Bush is the anti-christ, etc.

It was at this time that Sock Stuffin' Sandy stole documents related to Clinton anti terrorism efforts and destroyed most of them. And there was nary a word from the media. Can you imagine the primal screams of outrage from the media and Democrats if a Republican had done this?

And all SSS gets is a nominal fine and loses his security clearance for three years? Apparently his crime was so well done that the Justice Department figures this is the best they can do. Amazing.

SSS is getting a mild slap on the wrist for a serious, serious crime. Remember this the next time the Democrats are screaming for an investigation of an alleged Republican wrongdoing.