Cal Thomas had the line of the night on this evening's Fox News Watch. Here's how the conservative commentator explained Americans' dissatisfaction with progress in Iraq:

"Part of the problem here is we have Desert Storm with the 100-hour war. Everybody came home. There were victory marches, General Schwarzkopf leading. The press was full of stories: 'we finally got the Vietnam monkey off our back.' Now we're used to the very quick action. It's not going to happen, except thank goodness Jack Bauer is coming back to make it happen on '24' - that's what we're waiting for."

Lifesite had the report that early Thursday morning’s edition of NBC's "Late Night With Conan O'Brien" displayed a character called "the homophobic country western singer." Conan O’Brien introduced him: "Our last new character's heart is in the right place, even if he's a complete idiot. Please welcome the homophobic country western singer." The singer began to play a guitar and sing a song warning Jesus Christ not to make a gay pass at him:

Oh I love you Jesus
But only as a friend.
You touched my heart but I hope
That's where the touchin' ends.

You're always lookin' over me
When I need a higher power.
But you better look at somethin' else
When I'm in the shower.

Tim Rutten writes a weekly column for the Los Angeles Times called "Regarding Media." We have reported on his anti-conservative bias in several past posts, including here, here, here, here, and here.

Today's column (Sat. Jan. 13, 2007) addresses issues surrounding Gov. Mitt Romney's Mormonism. While the overall motive of the article may be well taken, Rutten presents a seriously faulty view within his piece. Rutten asserts that America's "social sanity" and "sensible accommodation" are being "undermined" by the "demands of social conservatives." Begins Rutten,

You can take the man out of CNN - and stick him in Congress - but you can't take the CNN out of the man. As per this Robert Novak column, Steven Kagen, a Democrat elected in November to represent a Wisconsin district in Congress, recently bragged of having insulted First Lady Laura Bush, President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and Karl Rove at a White House function for new members.

The details of Kagen's insults, set forth below, boggle the mind. What kind of person would do something like this? The kind of person that CNN would hire to be a consultant. A quick Googling uncovered the fact that, as per the Democratic Congressional Committee's official web page, Kagen, a doctor, "for seven years was the Allergy Consultant for CNN."

Here is Novak's description of Kagen's vulgar and unseemly actions.

"Newly elected Rep. Steven Kagen, a rich allergist who self-financed his campaign in Wisconsin, by his own account taunted President and Mrs. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and presidential adviser Karl Rove during a White House function for new members of Congress in December.

"Kagen told a group of activists that after he found himself in the restroom with Rove, he blocked the White House deputy chief of staff's departure by holding the door closed. According to Kagen, he then said: "You're in the White House and you think you're safe. . . . My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass."

It’s the weekend, and I wanted to share a video that I’ve been watching over and over again because…well, just because.

As reported at the website of a Florida television station (hat tip to Drudge), an African lion at a Columbian animal shelter is so enamored with the person who saved him years ago that he actually hugs and kisses the woman (astounding video available here):

On Thursday, NewsBuster Mark Finkelstein wrote about “Hardball’s” Chris Matthews stating “Cheney, of course, who always wants to kill” on Don Imus’s radio program. On Friday, the Fox News website featured this exchange in a “Bias Alert.”

As reported by TVNewser:

Fox News is taking Bill O'Reilly's campaign against "NBC's turn to the far left" to FOXNews.com. The number three story on the home page this afternoon says: "Bias Alert: Which NBC Biggie Said, 'Cheney ... Always Wants to Kill'?"

According to the article, this was a multiple choice question:

I've long been amazed at just how easy it is to see the liberal slant to the media...simply by watching the Google article counts. I was interested in the latest round of coverage about Pelosi's Tunagate, and noticed there was, as of this morning, only a paltry 26 references to Pelosi's bill excluding American Samoa from the wage hike. You can easily browse the source of the articles, and will note that NO liberal source will cover it (online at least).

CNN? Nope. NY Times? Nope. San Fransico Chronical? Nope. Seattle Times? Nope.

I've always casually noticed this, but wish that I had created a log of this. Any time there is anything positive about President Bush, conservativism, or the Republicans, it the Google news counts are slim. Any time there is a scandalous story about the Democrats or liberals, there are the same paltry story counts.

Free Republic, a conservative website familiar to many at NewsBusters, is normally not in the business of breaking news stories. FR's raison d'etre is to serve as a gathering place for conservatives to post and comment on stories found elsewhere in the media - including at NB.

But today comes some interesting investigative reporting at Free Republic, billed as an FR Exclusive. As reported by FReeper Howlin, CNN has recently signed a deal to provide poll data for the '08 prez contest with a polling firm controlled by an avid Clinton supporter.

Free Republic article here.

Too often, individuals equate executions to murder.  This is patently false and incongruent with God's teaching.  Ultimate vengeance is in God's realm, and in His alone.  However, valid executions are neither a province of murder nor of vengeance.  The abysmal lack of understanding of this fact evidences false teaching and widespread ignorance.

Few Americans are conversant with the Bible's original languages.  The Hebrew and Greek - tongues in which the Old and New Testaments were written, respectively - employ more precision because of their extensive vocabulary than do later English translations.

As might be expected, the New York Times is trying its unlevel MSM best to portray Iraqi reaction to President Bush's recently-announced proposal in the most negative possible light. But the Gray Lady has already been forced to acknowledge that it blatantly misrepresented a key fact in its recent article on the matter. Now, new doubts have arisen about its characterization of Iraqi reaction.

In its article of January 11th, unsubtly entitled In Baghdad, Bush Policy Is Met With Resentment, the Times claimed that the Iraqi government had "offered only a grudging endorsement" of President Bush's proposal and that its response was "tepid."

As supposed evidence of the alleged "resentment," the Times claimed that "the Iraqi leader, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, failed to appear at a news conference," suggesting that he had spurned a scheduled appearance. This notion was reinforced by the legend appearing beneath the Times' photo [displayed here]: "Iraq’s prime minister sent a spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, to address President Bush’s latest policy."

There was only one problem with the Times depiction of PM Maliki having failed to make a scheduled appearance: it wasn't true. The press briefing was a regularly-scheduled weekly event with Government of Iraq spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh and the Prime Minister was never scheduled to appear.

The Times was forced to acknowledge its misrepresentation in a correction published today:

In his culture column this week, Brent Bozell unveiled a new study from the Parents Television Council (cleverly titled "Dying to Entertain") that found that the 2005-2006 TV season was the most violent in recent history. In fact, there has been a 75 percent increase in prime-time TV violence since the 1998 season. Some of the examples of creepiness and gore are pretty extreme. The other inspiration for the column is the debut of "The Sopranos" on basic cable at a price to A&E of 2.5 million smackers an episode:

The latest landmark (or landfill) in the TV world is the arrival of HBO’s pay-cable mob drama “The Sopranos” on the basic-cable channel A&E, where now virtually anyone with cable can watch. How carefully is this show with mature-themed sex, violence, and profanity vetted for general audiences? TV critics wailed that any snip is messing with the “artistic integrity,” but the Hollywood Reporter reassured fans that “a few judicious snips to a series can be made without snuffing its profane soul.”

What is it about the Washington Post where they can't even do reviews of TV shows without attacking some Republican or another?

This time it is the TV series 24 that gets used as a platform to attack the Bush administration, namely in the target of choice, Vice President Dick Cheney.

In a review that is mostly a light hearted take on the adventures (and implausibilities therein) of Jack Bauer and the constant threat to national security -- that always seems to happen only in Los Angeles -- The WaPost slips in a shot at Dick Cheney.

Tick Tock Shock

The surprise after five full seasons is that "24" can still surprise. Its theme -- that tough times require unpleasant choices -- remains relevant and compelling (although the series does tend to resolve its national security questions in a way that would please Dick Cheney). More important, its multilayered story lines ripple with suspense; its twists still shock and satisfy.

(My bold for emphasis)

I needn't remind everyone that Vice President Cheney has been under NO indictment for the outrageous and anti-Constitutional sort of proposals that the WaPost imagines for him. In fact, the whole charge against the VP has no provable grounding and is but partisan carping and assumptions.

This is the kind of gratuitous, but sadly prosaic, shot that is meant merely as an expression of the Post's hatred for the administration, adding nothing salient to the piece in question.

I report you just sigh.

By now you've heard about Sen. Barbara Boxer's inflammatory remarks to Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice at yesterday's hearings (Thursday, January 11, 2007).

Considering that Boxer is from California, it would be interesting to see how the Los Angeles Times reported the Senator's outrageous words. Like I said, it would be interesting to see. There is not a syllable about the exchange in today's paper (Friday, January 12, 2007). Rather, when Boxer's "emotional confrontation" in the hearings was mentioned in today's front-page article, the Times focused on how Boxer "recalled Rice's erroneous prediction to the committee in fall 2005 that the Iraqi army's increasing capabilities would soon permit a drawdown of U.S. troops." Ugh. There was no mention of Boxer's verbal attack at all.