Living in The Twilight Zone

Some days I read the op/ed page of the New York Times and just shake my head and chuckle. Where are these people coming from? Are they as foolish as they sometimes make themselves appear?

Today's glowing example: Putting Last Things First

We had hoped, when Mr. Bush was re-elected, that he'd rethink his goals once the next campaign was no longer an issue.

They must be kidding. President Bush ran on a platform that was diametrically opposed to everything these people espoused, won handily, but was expected by them to change his ways and start governing the way they presumed John Kerry would. Is this a joke?

There are so many critical problems facing the nation. But the president seems determined to ignore the biggest challenges and to home in on politically charged side issues.

Let's see. the president is attempting to solve the ever-growing problem with social security - a problem that every president since Jimmy Carter expressed concern about but none did anything to fix. He's fighting a war on terror that began in the Bill Clinton years but was conveniently ignored, only because it was "politically charged." He's transforming the Middle East as no president before him has. He's working to gain energy independence from foreign countries. And he's fighting to have the tax code simplified, and maybe provide us with much-needed tax relief in the process.

I don't remember reading this kind of complaint when Bill Clinton was chasing Monica Lewinsky around the Oval Office with his pants down around his ankles. "Ignore the biggest challenges" indeed.

When we look at problems that cry out for White House involvement, one that leaps out is our dependency on foreign oil. That not only leaves us hostage to some of the shakiest and most unappetizing oil-producing nations around the globe, but also threatens the entire economy over the long term, given that rising oil prices make the trade deficit even bigger and the dollar even weaker.

Watch for these same geniuses to start howling about the fact that the president has put forth a proposal to solve this problem, solutions for which include our drilling for oil in ANWR (finally) and for the construction of new nuclear power plants. Not only is their complaint disingenuous on its face - the president is working on the problem - they don't really - in their heart of hearts - want him doing anything about the energy problem. Every viable solution ignores their desire for windmills and solar panels.

Another huge economic threat, at least for some agricultural regions, is the growing international pressure to end our irrational subsidy program for crops like cotton.

What? A huge economic threat? Stop. A political problem to be sure. But a threat? Please stop.

Here's my take on this. This piece is so silly, so poorly considered, so detached, that I can come to only one conclusion. Affirmative action, as you are probably aware, has been a "pressing issue" at the New York Times for many years. We are witnessing here the obvious - and inevitable - results. When a company starts hiring people for positions based on their skin color or on the reproductive appendages they possess, or on their sexual perversions, rather than on their talent and capability, they end up with what the New York Times has ended up with.

Gail Collins and her crew are incompetent and are - as exemplified by this article - totally out of their league.