If they won't join you, beat them.

Okay. I've got a major presentation tomorrow (disparities in women's health in Korea—always a crowd-pleaser) but I just couldn't let this one go. 

The good folks at the Wall Street Journal would like to turn business students at this esteemed university into good Republicans and conservatives, so they distribute free copies of their paper in the Business Administration Building (really, couldn't they think of a more creative name than that? Really?). 

On the theory that me taking even just one paper will prevent some impressionable sophomore from picking up that rag, I take a bullet every Tuesday and Thursday by nabbing a copy of the paper. Later that day, if I find myself sitting down somewhere for more than five minutes—in today's case, McDonald's—I might actually peruse the Journal, like some slippah*-wearing, long-haired hippie-looking businessman. 

On the Opinion Page was a screed by one Bret Stephens, who writes the "Global View" column. Like much of the WSJ staff, he's not happy about retired General and former Secretary of State Colin Powell's endorsement of the junior senator from Illinois for president of these United States. 

Rather than explain why the esteemed Mr Powell is wrong, or why McCain still represents a better choice, Mr Stephens proceeds to tear down Mr Powell. He's at fault for not speaking up on time against the war in Iraq (a fair point), for not resigning before being "let go," for the Valerie Plame case, etc. 

It's actually an interesting read that makes some valid points, but it underscores more and more why I feel there's no there there with McCain: so few people can talk about why McCain would be a better choice, only the bunch of niggling and nit-picky reasons why Obama should not be chosen.

Anyway, what really set me off was the picture Stephens and/or the WSJ chose to include with the article:

I shit you not. This was the picture attached to the serious and angry op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. 

The caption in the print version simply reads "Colin Powell," but in the online version there is no caption. 

What does the picture have to do with NBC, "Meet The Press," George Bush, Valerie Plame, the Iraq War, Obama, McCain, his talk at the United Nations, Foggy Bottom, or anything else even remotely connected with the article? 

Whiskey Tango Fuck! What is up with this? 

Nowhere in the article does it mention that Powell and Obama are both Black, but boy, oh boy, does Stephens and/or the Wall Street Journal want you to know just how "Black" pale-faced Powell really is. And if Powell and Obama are both Black, you know just why that endorsement came about, right? Wink. Wink. Nudge. Nudge. 

How hard would Stephens and/or the WSJ have had to look to find that picture amongst the many thousands upon thousands of pictures of Mr Powell in their archives and files. 

I still don't know if I'm going to vote for Obama or do a protest vote because of what he has said Korea and Japan vis-à-vis trade, but boy, oh boy, when November 4 rolls around and we elect our first (half) Black president, some people's heads are going to explode. Not to be gory, but it will give new meaning to "red state." 

* slippah = flip-flops. Yah, that's the way we talk on the island, yeah.