On Saturday's Religion page in The Washington Post, they highlighted the typical secular liberal reporter in his natural habitat -- tremendously skeptical of letting religious people play a role in public policy. In a box highlighting the "On Faith" Internet feature of The Washington Post and Newsweek, the magazine's Christopher Dickey was visibly disturbed in answering the question "Do you think the world's biggest problems -- poverty, disease, homelessness -- can be cured by well-intentioned religious believers?" The Post featured this grab:

“Well-intentioned religious believers”? That phrase, I confess, makes me deeply uneasy. In practice the selflessness of such people can be awe inspiring. In horrible conditions, their powerful faith gives them the strength to endure, to comfort, to heal. But at a policy level when they see practical problems through the narrow prism of dogma the results can be shocking.

Last week, NewsBuster Geoffrey Dickens introduced readers to Maureen Faulkner, the wife of a Philadelphia police officer killed in 1981 by former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal.

As Dickens reported, Faulkner was rudely treated by NBC's Matt Lauer on last Thursday's "Today" show as the host seemed to take the side of Mumia supporters who to this day avow his innocence.

One week later, Faulkner was WOR radio host Steve Malzberg's guest, and took the opportunity to not only air her feelings about Lauer's performance, but also to address a reporter that spit on her leg outside of a courtroom in 1982, as well as others that shouted things out at her like "We're glad your pig husband is dead."

After an introduction and some background, Malzberg asked his guest (eleven-minute audio available here):

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. gestures during the Des Moines Register Democratic Presidential Debate in Johnston, Iowa, Thursday, Dec. 13, 2007.

Whose decision was it to let the "scandals of the year" bit run, especially with the lede being the rest room stall signals implicating the gop! I refuse to click on it as I am relatively sure it is aimed mostly at conservatives.

A supposedly sensational climate change pact was agreed upon in Bali on Saturday with the United States and the Bush administration finally capitulating to international demands to stave off the bogeyman known as global warming.

Yet, much as the media completely misinterpreted what came out of the G-8 summit in Germany six months ago, press outlets today are applauding an agreement that fell far short of what global warming alarmists were hoping to achieve, and much like what transpired in June, resulted in absolutely no specific international carbon dioxide emissions cuts.

Not surprisingly, this isn't how the news is being reported here as demonstrated at CNN.com in an article hysterically titled "U.S. Agrees to Bali Compromise" (emphasis added):

Gail Collins might not be as crude as Billy Shaheen. But in her own Grey Lady way, the NY Times columnist has recycled the insinuation that transformed Shaheen into an ex-Hillary co-chair.

Let's first have a look at Shaheen's statement, as reported by the Washington Post:

"The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use." Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

Compare and contrast with this paragraph from the end of Collins's column of today, "Barack’s Blast From the Past" [emphasis added]:

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Is Hillary's air of inevitability fading faster than one of her husband's campaign promises?

She was a disciplined candidate atop a polished campaign, but Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is now mired in the most serious crisis of her 11-month bid for the White House, as a rolling series of missteps threatens to topple her as the Democratic front-runner.

The large crowds that once came to see her have thinned. Trusted campaign surrogates have veered wildly off message. And a campaign operation that had built seemingly impregnable leads over the summer appears to be faltering, prompting former President Clinton to amp up his role as a public spokesman and campaign advisor.

Is this a blip? Is this intentional to focus attention on Obama? Is this a serious roadblock for her candidacy, or something she and hubby will easily navigate?

It's official: Time magazine hates Dick Cheney.

Last week, I noted here that two of Time's Top 10 Editorial Cartoons of 2007, including it's # 1 pick, took shots at the Vice-President. This morning, two Time editors turned up on the Today show to discuss more picks from Time's collection of 50 Top 10 lists. And speaking of taking shots . . . .

View video here.

Today weekend anchor Amy Robach's guest was Time's Arts & Entertainment Editor Belinda Luscombe [pictured below]. After discussing the Top Song of the year ["Rehab" by defiant druggy Amy Winehouse] and Top Gadget [iPhone], talk turned to the Top Magazine Cover.

Des Moines Register Editor Carolyn Washburn takes a shot at Republicans with an obviously false statement in her piece summarizing the recent Iowa debates which she moderated:

By and large, the Republicans say they can get us to smaller government and lower taxes with economic growth and government efficiency. They don't ask Americans to make terrible sacrifices. About half wanted to tackle global warming and about half chose not to talk about it. They want local control and choice in education.

Chose not to talk about it!?! Not only did one Republican ask to talk about it, as opposed to raising his hand, Washburn wouldn't let them talk about anything other than what she had pre-scripted in her mind. From the transcript: see rest of pertinent part below the fold. Everyone there that was permitted to talked about it until she changed the subject. She also defends inviting Keyes and not Kucinich using criteria that's been pretty much debunked.

I wasn't aware that Michael Hirsh of Newsweek magazine was a writer of such biting satire but after reading his latest titled, "Why Isn't Al Gore Running?," I found myself marveling at his wit... or sad for his intellectual incuriosity should he be serious for an Al Gore candidacy for president in 2008. Unfortunately, my hope that he was displaying a Swiftian penchant for satire is easily overcome by the impression he is, indeed, seriously touting another Gore run for the White House. You Lilliputians be damned because Hirsh's Goreliver stands astride the country -- nay the world -- like a colossus of Brobdingnagian proportions. And that is really, really big you should know. Not bad on Goreliver's part for a drop out of divinity school, eh?

At his blog Political Punch, ABC News reporter Jake Tapper stirred up angry Hillary supporters by suggesting Sen. Clinton was exaggerating when she claimed in Thursday’s Democratic debate that "I passed" a law requiring the head of the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) to have emergency experience. "But knowledgeable Senate sources say that is not what happened," Tapper reported. "Clinton never ‘passed’ the legislation to do this."

His post began:

One of the knocks on Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, by her opponents is that she takes credit for things she shouldn't -- say, the myriad successes of her husband's administration (and few of its failures).

Those inclined to wonder about this quality may have gotten more fuel for the fire yesterday.