Rosa Parks earned her place in American iconography for refusing to go to the back of the bus. But at least she would have been permitted to remain on the bus, which would have been more than is being allowed for three Saint Paul school children who were kicked off a bus, they were initially told, because they were no longer good enough to ride the bus because they spoke English.

According to a KSTP.com titled ‘Kids kicked off a bus for speaking English”, bus service along the route in question was now reserved for students other than those speaking English because of the importance of keeping the non-English speaking pupils together.

Illegals are often of the mind now that since they supposedly pay into the tax system, that should somehow earn them a slot at the government trough. But what about boring, run of the mill citizens born here and who don’t get special holidays and entire months set aside celebrating what they happened to be upon emerging from their mother’s birth canal, aren’t they just as deserving of the services they are having increasingly high taxes taken from and assessments levied against them to pay for?

While media outlets carped and whined about a perceived conservative slant to the hit television series “24” as reported by NewsBusters here, here, here, here, here, and here, none seemed interested in asking the opinion of the star of the show who also happens to be the executive producer.

In fact, all of the hyperventilating left could have just watched the Charlie Rose Show on PBS on January 12 to find out the truth, assuming of course that this is important. If they had, they would know that Kiefer Sutherland believes he "[leans] towards socialist politics."

How's that for a kick in the head? Confused? Well, you won't be when you read Sutherland's response to Rose's question, “What are your politics?” (this is where all of the "neo-con" conspiracy theorists must pay particular attention if they dare):

Friday the special South Dakota senate committee investigating allegations of sexual abuse by a Democrat senator voted 6 to 3 to recommend censure by the full Senate.  Senator Dan Sutton will probably keep his job, but he will probably be reprimanded for his actions.  Sioux Falls TV station KELO, which has several satellite stations around the state, reported, "The senate committee didn't believe either side enough to expel or clear Sutton. Instead it was decided he should be reprimanded."

My original post on the subject noted than an AP story carried on FoxNews.com laid out the basic facts of the story, but failed to point out that Sutton was a Democrat until the last sentence.  KELO's story cited above identified Sutton as a Democrat with the very first word.  The online article from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader posted shortly after the vote took 9 sentences, or roughly half the article, to mention the party.  KDLT, the Sioux Falls NBC affiliate, failed to mention party at all in their censure story.

In response to my earlier post today on NPR reporter David Folkenflik's report featuring Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, Beck e-mailed me a statement late this afternoon to clarify that he in no way was criticizing Limbaugh in his interview:

"After conducting a 30 minute interview with me on the supposed topic of 'does conservative talk radio reach across party lines, and if so, how?' NPR chose to take a quote from me and use it completely out of context. The quote was not about Rush Limbaugh, which is how it was made to look in the story, it was in response to how the country is dangerously divided along party lines and how that division may be the death of us all.  I was also commenting about my disdain for the breed of talk radio hosts whose sole AGENDA is get people elected; they are contributing to this division.   

"As Rush said in the story, his goal is to attract the largest possible audience, and that's my goal as well. Rush and I are not "rival" talk hosts, as the story states, since my show precedes him on the same network, and we both work for the same company. I was disappointed to see how NPR chose to make it look like I was insulting Rush, which is something I would never do.”

A week after NBC News reporter Jane Arraf conceded that life in Iraq “isn't entirely what it seems” from the constant media focus on bombings, the Friday NBC Nightly News gave rare voice to soldiers in Iraq disturbed by criticism of the war back home. Embedded with the Army's Stryker Brigade's Apache Company (the Fort Lewis, Washington-based 1st Battalion of the 23rd Infantry Regiment; newspaper story) in Hurriya, Richard Engel relayed how “troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for. Twenty-one-year-old Specialist Tyler Johnson is on his first tour in Iraq. He thinks skeptics should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing." Johnson asserted: “You may support or say we support the troops, but, so you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me."

Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun directly took on the spin of war critics, complaining that “one thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way." Engel soon powerfully concluded: "Apache Company has lost two soldiers, and now worries their country may be abandoning the mission they died for.”

Video clip (1:10): Real (2 MB) or Windows Media (2.3 MB), plus MP3 audio (400 KB)

In the topsy-turvy world of CNN, Tom Tancredo's call to end racially-exclusive congressional caucuses might make him a racist. His call for an end to segregated caucuses might make him a segregationist.

As reported here, in the wake of a Dem congressman who represents a 60% black district being excluded from the congressional Black Caucus because he's white, Tancredo today said:

"It is utterly hypocritical for Congress to extol the virtues of a colorblind society while officially sanctioning caucuses that are based solely on race . . . If we are serious about achieving the goal of a colorblind society, Congress should lead by example and end these divisive, race-based caucuses."

View video here.

If you've been student of politics on the internet for more than a few years, you've no doubt seen variations on what your political ideology is. With Democrats recently having taken control of congress and the Right wondering where to head after big losses in 2006, I think it's time to break down what I think defines a person's political ideology. The following is my attempt to do this:

Moral: Religion, censorship, science, and sexuality.

Social: Race, regulation, the welfare state

Foreign policy: America's cultural place in the world, military interventions

Fiscal: Taxation, spending

Organizational: Unionization, regulating politics

Tell me if you think I've missed any broad topics that should be in here. Then, head over to the Pew Center's political Typology Test and see where you fit in. I have a poll at the bottom of the sidebar where you can say which group you're in. I did notice two flaws in the poll, though: It skews your results if you say which ideology you think you are.

Hollywood types speak gauzily of their "art," even if nothing seems to fit the definition of some of this "art" better than "films almost no one wants to watch." Robert Redford became a hero of the "art" film world by founding the Sundance Institute in 1981, based on the call for "creative risk-taking" and "nurturing the diversity of artistic expression." But the search for risk-taking-cum-creative diversity is a hopeless free-fall into the abyss, and all too often, and too predictably, results in creative perversity. What Mapplethorpe brought to the photograph, Redford’s festival is now bringing to the silver screen.

The 2007 Sundance festival has reached a new low with a strange, yet highly publicized film called "Zoo." No, it isn’t about giraffes and hippos. "Zoo" is about "zoophiles" – you know, humans who like sex with animals. The documentary explores the activities of a group of men in the Pacific Northwest who engaged in bestiality. To be precise, they engaged in sex with Arabian stallions – until a man died from a perforated colon in 2005.

Appearing on Thursday’s "Colbert Report," former "60 Minutes" anchor Mike Wallace mostly discussed innocuous subjects such as the joys of smoking. However, after being prompted by host Stephen Colbert to share his "doubts about our system of government," Wallace segued into an odd digression about how a parliamentary system would give Americans an easier way to get rid of its leaders. In other words, don't wait for Bush to go back to Crawford, kick him out now:

Stephen Colbert: "Now, you say you, you have some doubts about our system of government. I agree with you. Should we get rid of the Congress or the judiciary first? What, what do you mean by that?"

Mike Wallace: " I'm not kidding."

Colbert: "Okay. I know you’re not."

Wallace: "Forget– Forget impeachment. What you– Forget impeachment? Good luck. The– The– A representative government in which you can vote no confidence in a president or the leader and get rid of him."

Colbert: "Well, that's Canada, sir. That's Canada!"

As NewsBusters reported here and here, most news organizations have been presenting a rather one-sided perspective of the brouhaha that has been ignited over former President Jimmy Carter’s recent book about the Israeli-Palestinian issue. For a change, someone chose to do an extremely well-balanced report on this subject. 

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell stated the following on the “Today” show Friday morning just before David Gregory interviewed the former president (video available here): “To millions, he is an icon, Nobel Prize winner for his Middle East peacemaking, best selling author of 21 books. But his latest, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, is creating a storm of criticism.”

After a brief quote from Carter’s speech at Brandeis University Tuesday evening, Mitchell continued: “The controversy starts with the book's title, deliberately provocative. But critics say the word 'apartheid' is a smear against Israel.”

Later, Mitchell addressed what most in the media have mysteriously shied away from in their reports on this subject:

If you’re a Democrat having public relations problems, there is probably no better place to go than NBC’s “Today” show. With that in mind, former President Jimmy Carter, in desperate need of a sympathetic voice to act as a magic elixir, spoke to NBC’s David Gregory Friday morning (video available here).

At first, it appeared that Gregory was actually going to take the former president to task for statements made in his controversial book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”:

Let's get right to the heart of this matter and that one sentence that Andrea Mitchell referred to from the book…'It is imperative,' you wrote 'that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the roadmap for peace are accepted by Israel.' You've since said that that sentence was improper and stupid. Well, so what did you mean exactly?

Great question. Amongst other things, the former president replied:

Original caption:

U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) speaks as he is interviewed by moderator Tim Russert (R) during a taping of 'Meet the Press' at the NBC studios in Washington, January 21, 2007. Sen. Kennedy spoke on U.S. President George W. Bush's new strategy on the war in Iraq.

It's no secret many in the media feel that global warming is a settled scientific controversy. But even some scientists who agree that humans cause global warming think Gore's all wet when it comes to his dire predictions. Even so, The Washington Post showcased a Seattle-area teacher yesterday who was at a loss when it came to finding critics of Al Gore's brand of climate pseudo-science.

See my article at BusinessandMedia.org for more.

Portraying an angry parent as an enemy of sound science, reporter Blaine Harden shared with Washington Post readers the story of Federal Way, Wash., science teacher Kay Walls and her struggle to show “An Inconvenient Truth” to her students.

The New York Times ran a story this morning that details how liberally minded school administrators are seeking ways to circumvent affirmative action bans that have been put on the books by voters in three states.

This is modern day liberalism at its naked best. They are not content to accept the fact that voters of all races have rejected attempts by these educators to apply a racial preference as a means test for admission to public schools. The following lead appeared in this morning’s liberal death star.

With Michigan’s new ban on affirmative action going into effect, and similar ballot initiatives looming in other states, many public universities are scrambling to find race-blind ways to attract more blacks and Hispanics.

First of all the above statement is a lie. Any effort to attract one race over another is not race-blind. The activists at the New York Times may want to characterize it that way but in reality it is just another cute attempt to create the perception of racial neutrality.

Comment on topics of your choosing.

The lead story on Friday’s Today, in a surprising and uncommon move, featured all Republicans. Of course, all of these Republicans are opposed to the president’s plan in Iraq. NBC’s Chip Reid profiled the sponsor of one of the resolutions opposing the surge, Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia.

Reid high lighted Warner’s service in both World War II and Korea, then played a sound bite of Senator Susan Collins of Maine, another Republican opponent, stating "when a distinguished veteran like John Warner speaks out on this issue, and cautions us to take another look, it matters." Reid then played a sound bite from Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, perhaps the fiercest Republican opponent of surge and of course emphasized that he’s a Vietnam War veteran. In this story, Reid did not devote any time to Republicans that actually support the surge, including its strongest supporter, former Vietnam prisoner of war, Senator John McCain. 

Predictions?

How did President Bush's kindness and respect in front of the nation alter Pelosi's disdain for him?

So why is she in Iraq?

U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, an outspoken critic of U.S. President.

George Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq, arrived in Baghdad on Friday for talks with U.S. and Iraqi officials.

Pelosi, a key player in the Democratic takeover of Congress, has helped lead opposition in Washington to Bush's retooled Iraq strategy which envisages sending 21,500 reinforcements to help quell raging sectarian violence, especially in Baghdad.

She has accused Bush, a long-time foe, of playing politics with soldiers' lives and said after his State of the Union address to Congress this week that he had ignored the concerns of the American public over the unpopular war ...

National Public Radio media reporter David Folkenflik has done a very unusual thing: brought the king of commercial talk-radio to the 700-plus affiliates of NPR. As part of a series on their evening show All Things Considered on "Crossing the Divide," Folkenflik profiled Limbaugh as an example of someone who declares he has no interest in compromise. Limbaugh was rebutted, in part, by radio/TV talker Glenn Beck, who worried about divisive talk radio: "I truly believe it's going to be the death of us. It's going to be the death of our industry, and the death of our country, if we don't stop dividing ourselves like this. It's not right." Later, he seems to contradict that a bit.

Folkenflik also relied on to former L.A. Times/Newsweek reporter Tom Rosenstiel, the usual Chairman of the Mainstream Media Party (with the Project for Excellence in Journalism), who unfolded the old smear that talk-radio hosts have no interest in accuracy, unlike the more professional guardians of the public interest in the liberal media elite:

Whoever produced GMA's segment on Hillary's prospects in Iowa is no big fan of the junior senator from New York. Among other things, the decidedly downbeat piece [from Clinton's perspective] reached back to 2003 for a clip of Hillary, campaigning in Iowa in 2003, screeching "it begins in Iowa and ends on Pennsylvania Avenue!" Not quite "sick and tired" screechy, but not a pretty sight by any means.

We were also treated to a clip of pre-makeover Hillary [shown here] campaigning in the Hawkeye State for her husband in 1992.

In contrast, a telegenic John Edwards was shown posing for a photo with a female admirer, and we were told that he "has been all over Iowa, winning the early popularity contest heading into the caucuses a year from now." Next, a clip of a younger woman-in-the-street saying "I like [Edwards'] grass-roots campaign, how he's connected to the people."

Then, as the narrator observed that Sen. Barack Obama "drew huge crowds last fall while supporting congressional candidates" a clip was shown of Obama making his way through a crowd with rock music blaring in the background. Subliminal message: rock music for the rock star of the Dem party.

We clearly have some of the best minds here, let's define in detail what our path to victory looks like?

1. Define the end goal.

2. Define the intermediate goals required to get there.

3. The specific plans to reach each of those intermediate goals.

Sometimes, you have to read all the way to the end of an article to find that Time is still asking, like their famous 1966 cover, "Is God Dead?" At the end of its January 29 cover story (or cover essay) by Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker, the academic drops the typical bomb: religion "devalues life on earth," and the "most famous practioners" of belief in God in our time "hijacked the airliners on 9/11."

In the closing section, titled "Toward A New Morality" (that would be "post-religious morality"), Pinker sought to rebut author Tom Wolfe. He asserted:

...few scientists doubt that they will locate consciousness in the activity of the brain. For many nonscientists, this is a terrifying prospect. Not only does it strangle the hope that we might survive the death of our bodies, but it also seems to undermine the notion that we are free agents responsible for our choices -- not just in this lifetime but also in a life to come. In his millennial essay "Sorry, but Your Soul Just Died," Tom Wolfe worried that when science has killed the soul, "the lurid carnival that will ensue may make the phrase 'the total eclipse of all values' seem tame."

As the 2008 campaign heats up, members of the mainstream media are having trouble deciding between their old favorite (Hillary) and the new flame (Obama). Both CNN and ABC leapt to the defense of Senator Barack Obama after he was accused of attending an Islamic madrassah as a child. (Of course, ABC once devoted an entire episode of "Nightline" to murky allegations that George W. Bush did coke as a younger man.)

But perhaps Obama should be a little worried. The "Early Show" demonstrated exactly why Hillary is still the media’s favorite. Over on MSNBC, Chris Matthews told Hillary Clinton that "ideologues on the right" were responsible for the death of her famous health care plan.

ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos asked another 2008 candidate, Bill Richardson, if, as president, he would please just raise taxes.

It's not uncommon for an interviewer to tell