Warner Todd Hudson over at Blogger News Network has identified a clear case of media bias, but not just from one angle. It’s not just that a Republican was dealt with unfairly, but that the same Associate Press reporter, in the same set of circumstances, treated a Republican and a Democrat quite differently.

On October 4th, I had a previous piece displaying the “reporting” of one Chet Brokaw, Associated Press Writer, who gave us a little tale about a state Senator from South Dakota who is accused of sexually molesting a legislative Page. One tiny aspect of the facts of that particular story seemed to slip by old Chet Brokaw, Associated Press Writer and that would be that the accused legislator is a Democrat.

So, go ahead… ask. What would old Chet Brokaw, Associated Press Writer, do if he should be assigned a story where the eeeeevil sex offender was a Republican lawmaker? Come on, I know you are dying to ask.

Follow the link to see the details. In less than a month, Mr. Brokaw and his editors manage to display their double standards and break official AP guidelines. At worst this is blatant bias, and at best it makes the case for getting some (any?) diversity of thought in the editor’s office to avoid unintentional bias.

Technorati Tags: Associated Press, media bias, Chet Brokaw, Warner Todd Hudson

Sanctions — so the story goes with the anti-war Left — should’ve been allowed to work in Iraq, and the invasion should have been a last resort. OK, let’s put aside for the moment that the sanctions weren’t working, were instead enriching Hussein, and were being actively undermined by our “allies” France and Russia. Let’s just focus on sanctions in and of themselves. You’d think that installing sanctions on organizations that the US has labelled terror groups would meet with approval by this crowd.

You’d think wrong.

Several Democratic presidential candidates, though not front-runner Hillary Clinton, said they were worried the White House had begun a march to war.

“I am deeply concerned that once again the president is opting for military action as a first resort,” said Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd, a long-shot Democratic candidate.

How much of a long-shot do you have to be to require labelling sanctions “military action”? How desperate must you be to find something, anything, to complain about that you stoop to this level?

Perhaps as desperate as a Russian President.

It is the first time the United States has sought to take such punitive measures against another country’s military. Russia and some other U.S. allies believe dialogue rather than more punishment or military action is the way forward.

“Why should we make the situation worse, corner it, threatening new sanctions?” Putin said in Lisbon.

Sure, because dialogue has made things so much better already, with Iran utterly ignoring the sense of the international community. They know they’ll at least have France and Russia on their side, eh?

What military options there are must be considered, as a last resort, because to not consider them does two things. First, it catches us off guard if we turn out to need it and have not prepared for it. Second, it shows that, during such dialogue, we are serious about what we are saying. Any country not willing to back up its words with actions, and to prepare for those actions should they become necessary, will simply not be listened to by any rogue state. Instead, said rogue state will simply keep the international community at the “bargaining table” until such time as they’ve done what they wanted anyway.

Which is the course this is taking already. Iran has showed no signs whatsoever that diplomacy is working on them. Think it’ll be easier to bargain with an Iran backed by a nuclear bomb? But in the meantime, the anti-war Left is whining about sanctions being put in place. I’ll bet if this was a Democrat doing it, they’d be extolling the diplomatic process.

UPDATE: The Captain points to another article on the subject that finds more whining against sanctions.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) said in a statement yesterday that Bush’s action “not only echoes the chest-pounding rhetoric which preceded the invasion of Iraq in 2002, but also raises the specter of an intensified effort to make the case for an invasion of Iran.”

Technorati Tags: sanctions, Iran, Revolutionary Guard, Vladimir Putin, Christopher Dodd

Republicans in California are trying to change the way electoral votes from California are distributed.

Veteran GOP consultants said Monday that they were relaunching a drive to change the way California allocates its electoral college votes, aimed at helping the 2008 Republican presidential nominee capture the White House.

Political strategist David Gilliard said he was taking over the ballot initiative campaign, along with strategist Ed Rollins and fundraiser Anne Dunsmore. Consultant Mike Arno will oversee the signature-gathering effort.

“Our budget is going to be whatever it takes to make the June ballot,” said Gilliard, who played a key role in getting the recall of Democratic Gov. Gray Davis onto the 2003 ballot.

The proposed initiative would change California’s method of allocating its 55 electoral votes from a winner-take-all basis, which favors Democrats, to a congressional district-based approach. Republicans hold 19 congressional seats, so presumably the GOP nominee could win a similar number of electoral votes.

Amazingly enough, Markos Moulitsas, the Daily Kos himself, is thrilled with this development.

The move is brilliant. For one, every state should allocate EVs in this manner. Maine and Nebraska already have some variation of proportionate EV allocation, and it would force the parties and candidates to pay attention to swing regions unlucky enough to not reside in a swing state. There are more than 18 states in the union, but you wouldn’t know it from the way this campaign will be waged.

Oh, sorry. Got my links mixed up. This is his reaction to when Colorado was going to change its electoral vote distribution. If you click here, you’ll see his reaction to the California effort, which he considers election stealing, compares to a “bad horror movie”, and calls it an attempt to “game the system”.

What’s the difference? Well, if you know your netroots, you won’t be surprised. For the Colorado effort, this would benefit Democrats.

But on a more immediate tactical level, this initiative will force Republicans to spend a great deal of money in Colorado when they hoped to completely ignore the state and take its nine EVs for granted. Despite all the talk of Colorado being in play this year, Kerry still has a ways to go before he pulls the state in play.

But the effort in California could give more votes to the Republican nominee. True to form, what Kos thinks is good or evil is entirely, exclusively a case of how its politics fall. He was for electoral vote reallocation before he was against it.

For the record, I was against the Colorado effort, and I’m against this one. Click here for why, but it boils down to the idea that the Electoral College favors broad support over the most support in close races. Whether or not you agree with this is one thing, but for one’s support for the system to be utterly devoid of an understanding of its principles is partisanship at its blindest.

Technorati Tags: California, Colorado, electoral votes, Electoral College, David Gilliard, Ed Rollins, Anne Dunsmore, Mike Arno, Markos Moulitsas, Daily Kos

They couldn’t win in the courts, so the Left is attacking the Boy Scouts any other way they can. Sometimes the Scouts win, but sometimes, as in this case, the Left gets cities and organizations to back out of agreements.

Prompted by opposition to the Boy Scouts’ rule disqualifying homosexuals as troop leaders, Philadelphia has forced the city’s local chapter to pay fair-market rent of $200,000 a year for its city-owned headquarters.

As WND reported in June, Philadelphia’s city council voted to renege on a 1928 ordinance allowing the Cradle of Liberty Council to have its headquarters in a building on a parcel of public land “in perpetuity” for $1 a year.

The city argues it can’t rent public property for a nominal sum to any group that discriminates.

City officials in San Francisco and Boston have made similar decisions displacing the Scouts because of the group’s behavior code.

Fairmount Park Commission president Robert N.C. Nix announced this week the Cradle of Liberty Council must pay the $200,000 rent if it wants to remain in the building after May 31.

This is not to say that cities and organizations can’t decide to do whatever they want with their property; they certainly can. But what it does show are the lengths to which the Left will go to destroy something they have a disagreement with. Not content to battle ideas (because they’d lose that battle with the public), they put pressure on the economic side of things, in hopes that they can ruin them financially.

The whole “live and let live” pathos that homosexuals allegedly just want to live by is shown to be the lie that it is; the “let live” part is apparently only supposed to apply to others, not themselves.

This also highlights the differences in conservative and liberal ways of dealing with problems. Instead of letting ideas compete, liberals wish to use the government’s heavy hand to quash anything that they disagree with. The Scouts are simply one of the more higher profile groups they have their sights on.

There is no right to belong to a private organization. There are other organizations that will take homosexual leaders. No one is being denied anything. Free association is still legal, at least for the moment. Therefore, this campaign should be opposed by anyone who still believes in a free country.

Technorati Tags: Boy Scouts of America, Philadephia, Cradle of Liberty Council, homosexuals, free association

No, not that D.A.R.E. I’m talking about Democrats Against Renewable Energy.

The Cape Cod Commission in Massachusetts Thursday denied Cape Wind’s application to bury electric cables needed to connect its proposed 420-megawatt offshore wind farm in the Nantucket Sound to the state power grid.

Cape Wind said in a release that it would challenge the Commission decision. The Cape Cod Commission is a local organization created by the state in 1990 to manage growth and protect Cape Cod’s natural resources.

Sen. Ted Kennedy and many residents who own coastal property from where they could see the wind turbines on a clear day oppose the project along with some environmental groups concerned about disrupting the patterns of migratory birds and the potential effect on local sea life.

The project’s supporters, who include other environmental groups, meanwhile claim it would provide renewable energy, improve air quality, lower electricity costs and increase the reliability of the power grid.

This has been going on for years, with other Leftists such as Walter Cronkite, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. opposing it, and indeed coming out in favor of “Big Fish” (if I may coin a term). I covered it back then (here, here and here), and apparently nothing has changed in 4 years. They want you to support renewable energy, but don’t put it in their backyard, or in their view.

Thanks for the example in “liberal leadership”, guys.

Technorati Tags: energy, global warming, conservation, Ted Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Walter Cronkite, Nantucket Sound, Cape Cod, Cape Wind, wind farm, Massachusetts

Shire Network News #106 has been released. The feature interview is with two ex-Muslims – Sheila (not her real name for reasons which are probably obviuous) who lives in the United States, and Adil Zeshan from the United Kingdom. They talk about why they left, and why the fear the reaction from their former compatriots.. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary segment.

Hi, this is Doug Payton for Shire Network News, asking you to “Consider This”.

“A chicken in every pot, and a car in every garage.” That was the slogan of Republican Herbert Hoover in his campaign for President of the United States. His promise of prosperity likely helped propel him into the Oval Office. Well, it looks like Hillary Clinton has taken that same promise and updated it for 21st century Democrats.

Her first trial balloon was the idea that the government would give each child a $5000 US Savings Bond when they were born. More than just a chicken in every pot, this would be a bond for every baby. But unlike Hoover’s promise of prosperity, which came with the assumption that people would earn those chickens and cars due to a healthy economy, Clinton is doing what liberals do best; giving “free” money away and taxing the growth out of the economy to pay for it.

But this trial balloon was made of lead. Apparently the legality of vote buying is not in question with most Americans. And so, with this attempt at pure, unadulterated socialism put back in the vaults of the Democratic Party, no doubt to be brought back out again in the fullness of time, Mrs. Clinton tried something less brazen.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed tax cuts of up to $1,000 a year on Tuesday to encourage millions of working-age families to open personal 401(k) retirement accounts. The New York senator said the program would be paid for through higher estate taxes.

Now this is ironic on any number of levels. Let’s start with the obvious one; using “tax cuts” and “Democrat” in the same sentence. OK, OK, she does wind up trading one tax for another, but to not just seem to be giving away “free” money must have really hurt.

And what tax is she trading with? The estate tax! Otherwise known as “The Second Tax on The Stuff You’ve Already Been Taxed On When You Earned It”, it’s assessed on your estate when you die, hence a third, more well-known term, “The Death Tax”. Do you see the circle of life here? She gives you a tax break for retirement that she takes back from your heirs when you die. It’s the political equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. And it’s just as illusory. Or you could look at it as a forced loan from your children. Now there’s compassion.

And consider this; what she’s essentially doing is (get ready for this) partially privatizing the handling of retirement benefits! She’s not talking about a $1000 boost in your Social Security benefits, she’s talking about your own, personal 401(k). You gotta’ give her credit for coming around, even a little bit. But again, we’re swimming in irony here..

And yet, it still really just is vote buying, if clothed in privatization. If at first you don’t succeed, buy, buy again.

So whatever happened to Hoover’s promise? Well, a scant 7 months into his administration, the Great Depression dashed all his plans for prosperity, proving once again that no matter the promises a presidential candidate makes, the future isn’t always perfectly predictable. (Just ask George W. Bush about the first September after he took office.)

The best a President or Prime Minister can do is make economic conditions as favorable as possible, so that if stock markets or buildings come crashing down, you will be in the best position to recover. Redistributing wealth through an inefficient bureaucracy isn’t the way to do that.

I’ll leave you with a quote talking about the state of the republic:

Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions – everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses

No, not our republic. This poet was talking about the Roman empire of the first century, but the results of relying more and more on government rather than ourselves are the same regardless of your time period. If Mrs. Clinton is elected President, perhaps we would need to update this observation just a little. The People may now be anxiously hoping for bread, circuses, and 401(k)s.

Consider that.

Technorati Tags: Shire Network News, Adil Zeshan, Herbert Hoover, Hillary Clinton, socialism, Social Security, bread and circuses

…for a strained definition of “peace”.

Former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for their work to raise awareness about global warming.
…
During its announcement, the Nobel committee cited the winners “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”
…
“Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming,” Ole Danbolt Mjoes, chairman of the Nobel committee, said in making the announcement.

“Thousands of scientists and officials from over 100 countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming.”

The Nobel committee praised Gore as being “one of the world’s leading environmentalist politicians.”

He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted,” said Mjoes

What this has to do with peace is not even hinted at by the CNN report. For that we have to go to the official Nobel Prize site press release. In the 5 paragraph statement, there is but one line about how this has anything to do with advancing peace.

Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth’s resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world’s most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

The bold part is the one line of strained connection to peace, while the italicized “may”s chart the path the Nobel folks take to get there. “A just might happen, and then perhaps B could take place, and that means that people might fight about it.”

To top it all off, Gore hasn’t actually done much to stop global warming (certainly not in his own home); he got the award, in the Nobel committee’s words, for his efforts “to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.” In other words, he’s been zipping around in private jets telling the rest of the world to slow down.

Well, if simply calling attention to something that might, given a certain set of circumstances, lead to fighting, may I start the nomination process for 2008?

The Voice of the Martyrs is a non-profit, interdenominational organization with a vision for aiding Christians around the world who are being persecuted for their faith in Christ, fulfilling the Great Commission, and educating the world about the ongoing persecution of Christians.

VOM is doing something about violence that is going on now, not simply raising awareness of something that might happen. For all their talk of hating torture, I’m sure the Left in this country could rally around this as much as for Gore. The Nobel folks already have the precedent of sending a political message with their choices, as they did with Jimmy Carter’s prize, and this would send an anti-torture message. How about it?

Yeah, well, hold not thy breath. The Nobel “Peace” Prize has become just another Leftist accolade. They’d give it to the late Yassar Arafat before VOM.

Oh yeah. They did.

Technorati Tags: Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore, United Nations, IPCC, The Voice of the Martyrs, torture, global warming, environment, Ole Danbolt Mjoes, Christianity, persecution

The Democrats won’t put themselves in front of Fox News for a debate, but Republicans willingly subject themselves to blatant bias an unprofessionalism in debates hosted by the liberal media.

Chris Matthews has been fairly sedate and even-handed throughout the afternoon, but he just gave conservatives some ammunition by offering an editorial comment about an extended answer Fred Thompson gave on whether the feds should step in on a labor dispute.

Thompson initially just responded “no,” but then explained why he would not support a government intervention.

“You should’ve stopped at no,” Matthews told Thompson.

“Well, that’s your opinion, Chris,” Thompson shot back.

Ammunition, indeed. I’d say a bold admission of bias. As “sedate and even-handed” as he may have been at other times, this sort of pot-shot should never have happened.

But what’s really telling is what he said to Joe Scarborough that morning.

However, I do have one sensitive point and that is, I don’t mind being wrong — I try to be right. I don’t mind somebody saying I’m not fair — I try to be fair. … If someone says I’m not independent, it’s going to be very hard for me to bite my tongue. …
For twenty years I’ve paid the price of indepdendence. I’ve taken it from everybody … every night of my life for the past twenty years. …

If they accuse of me of being partisan, I’ll go rip! …

Sounds like he “ripped” before they accused  him of anything.  But that’s the liberal media for you; they don’t see their own bias as bias.

Technorati Tags: Chris Matthews, liberal media, Fred Thompson

It appears that too many on the Left are willing and eager to accept Jon Stewart at face value, forgetting that his show is, y’know, not an actual news show.

“Idiots are now convinced that Dubya doesn’t know Nelson Mandela is still alive,” writes Abu Wabu. “What has in fact died, and what a miserable, stinking death it was, is real intellectual rigor on the idiot left.” As made evident by followers of Daily Show host Jon Stewart, “a voice for democratic ideals and the noble place of citizenship”, at least according to Tom Brokaw. Pity, then, that Stewart’s idealistic nobility is wasted on an audience of morons:

Thursday’s episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Oh my God. How funny was it? And for a very wrong reason indeed. I’ve already shared it with others. George W Bush thought Nelson Mandela is dead? Dude! How wrong could he possibly be!

Hat tip to Tim Blair, who has a host of other examples. And, of course, if these Nuance Nabobs would take a look at the context, they’d see that Stewart’s hack job just fed them plastic red meat, that they gobbled up. This wouldn’t be so scary if “The Daily Show” weren’t so many people’s primary news source.

It’s a comedy show, folks. Treat it with way more skepticism than your average nightly news program.

Technorati Tags: The Daily Show, Jon Stewart, Nelson Mandela, Tom Brokaw, George W Bush, liberal, media, comedy

The appearance of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia University was trumpeted by portions of the Left as a big win for “free speech”. I’m reminded of the saying used quite often; an open mind, like an open window, still needs a screen to keep the bugs out. Just because our republic isn’t going to collapse if we let an evil man speak doesn’t mean we should offer up a forum for him.

But apparently, the Left has its own version of the screen. If the speech exposes the dirty laundry of the Left, it should be screened out.

Early this summer, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign for president learned that the men’s magazine GQ was working on a story the campaign was sure to hate: an account of infighting in Hillaryland.

So Clinton’s aides pulled a page from the book of Hollywood publicists and offered GQ a stark choice: Kill the piece, or lose access to planned celebrity coverboy Bill Clinton.

Despite internal protests, GQ editor Jim Nelson met the Clinton campaign’s demands, which had been delivered by Bill Clinton’s spokesman, Jay Carson, several sources familiar with the conversations said.

GQ writer George Saunders traveled with Clinton to Africa in July, and Clinton is slated to appear on the cover of GQ’s December issue, in which it traditionally names a “Man of the Year,” according magazine industry sources.

And the offending article by Atlantic Monthly staff writer Josh Green got the spike.

Wasn’t it supposed to be George W. Bush that participated in this kind of stifling of dissent?

Technorati Tags: Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, GQ Magazine, George Saunders, Josh Green, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, free speech, liberal media