Shawn, Shame on me for letting you sucker me into clogging Warner's blog with the arguement.

It belongs here.

If you needed a better example of the hypocrisy involved in Nobel Laureate Al Gore's global warming hysteria, read this delicious segment from an article just published by the British Sun (emphasis added throughout):

The man who is now as much part of the Hollywood Establishment as he was a political player with the Democratic Party is very careful not to upset any of his celebrity friends.

He wouldn’t dream of suggesting that their lavish jet-setting and gas-guzzling lifestyles could be reined in for the good of the environment.

Imagine that. But that was only the beginning of the hypocrisy:

So, you think Hillary's toast? Not so fast. The following video demonstrates just how easy a road the former first lady has right to the Democrat presidential nomination (h/t Allah):

Interest in the presidential election should be driving up ratings for the Big Three networks' evening news shows, right?

Wrong. Here is how evening news viewership at ABC, NBC, and CBS for the two most recent available weeks compares to the analogous weeks of 2007 (From Media Bistro's TV Newser: April 7, 2008; March 31, 2008; April 9, 2007; April 2, 2007):

Honestly, this is one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen.

The DVD and music-sharing website World Star Hip Hop is currently featuring a video of what appears to be an elementary school student threatening to kill President George W. Bush.

I have absolutely no interest in embedding this video, and strongly caution readers about excessive vulgarity, as well as almost unthinkably offensive content; although curiosity will likely get the best of you, please think twice before clicking on that link above.

As Ed Morrissey reported at Hot Air moments ago:

On Wednesday, the Washington Post reported results of a new poll it undertook with ABC News wherein Hillary Clinton's unfavorable rating skyrocketed to its highest point ever.

In the same poll, her husband Bill's unfavorable rating rose above 50 percent for the first time since August 1998 when he was embroiled in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Although some media outlets other than the Post did report this news, given the ongoing Democrat presidential campaign, and the elections less than seven months away, this clearly didn't get the kind of attention one would have expected.

First, the details as reported by the Post:

To the New York Times there is only one issue in America: the war.

To show how pathetic The New York Times and John Broder are at analyzing the current political climate, all one has to do is read "Gore-Lieberman: A Hyphen Apart? Try Poles." Here the Times clearly reveals that they see but two types of American politician: the good guys against the war, and the evil ones for it. That's it. To the Times there is no other issue, no other divide, no other substantive thought, no other thing that separates our leaders one from the other. There is only the war and nothing else.

In this empty piece, the Times posits that should Al Gore had won in 2000 instead of George W. Bush, the second Gore administration would have seen a dump Lieberman movement that would have resulted in a different Gore vice-president in 2006.

Today's Chicago Tribune carries a frontpage article titled, "Michelle Obama's mission: Show voters humble roots." Mrs. Obama's recollections of how she and her husband not so long ago were deluged with bills and calls from collection agencies have become a major component of the campaign, designed to demonstrate that Senator Barack Obama understands financial difficulties and the folks encountering them. He feels their pain.

The Drudge Report is highlighting a Los Angeles Times story on protests by supporters of communist China demanding CNN's Jack Cafferty be fired. David Pierson reported:

The protesters lined Sunset Boulevard from Cahuenga Boulevard to Wilcox Avenue chanting "Fire Cafferty" and "CNN liar" and singing the Chinese national anthem and other patriotic songs.

"Patriotic songs" are apparently sympathetic when they are sung in support of Red China. Doesn't Pierson or the Times consider it noteworthy that this kind of protest wouldn't be permitted inside China? Or that the Chinese national anthem is loaded with irony? It's called "March of the Volunteers," and begins "Arise, ye who refuse to be slaves!" What a joke.

Instead, Pierson spotlights a protester who says he was in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, and now China is so vastly improved:

For months, NewsBusters has been warning readers of the likelihood that media will adopt the 1992 Clinton playbook of regularly depicting the economy as being far worse than it really is.

On Sunday, the Democratic National Committee released a new television advertisement attacking GOP presidential candidate John McCain with economic statistics that don't measure up to even the slightest scrutiny.

With this in mind, will press outlets this campaign season investigate the economic claims being made by the candidates and their supporters, or allow inaccuracies present in this ad (embedded video to the right), and likely others in the months to come, to go completely unchallenged?

Consider the following written statement in this ad supposedly answering the question "Are Americans better off than they were 8 years ago?":

For years, NewsBusters has made the case that foreign press outlets do a far better job of covering both sides of the manmade global warming debate than American media.

Friday was a perfect example as New Zealand television's "Nzone Tonight" broadcast an interview with Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University, Queensland, Australia.

As you watch the video embedded to the right, notice the respect and courtesy Carter is given by host Allan Lee as he calmly and methodically explained the position of climate realists without being insulted or referred to as a "denier."

Compare that to the disgraceful job ABC's Dan Harris did last month when he interviewed Dr. S. Fred Singer on "World News" in a segment entitled "Welcome to 'The Denial Machine'" that actually began:

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: The Pope visits Ground Zero (paragraph break removed):

On Sunday, the final day of his trip, Pope Benedict XVI will visit Ground Zero to honor those who died on 9/11. Family members of several victims will join the pope for the private service at 9:30 a.m. Praying at and blessing the sacred ground at the World Trade Center site is being called the 'emotional high point' of the pontiff's visit to the United Sates [sic].

What does this visit to the former location of the Twin Towers mean to you? Might this act as a final closure for those who lost family and friends on 9/11?

In general, what does the Pope's visit to America mean to you?

While Democrats often complain that Travel Office firings or cattle-futures bonanzas or old church sermons or old illegal drug use aren't relevant issues to a presidential campaign, The Washington Post splashed across its Sunday front page today a 1992 squabble on Vietnam policy between Sen. John McCain and Sen. Charles Grassley to illustrate how some feel McCain's "volcanic temper" is "disqualifying" for the presidency (so says conservative former Sen. Bob Smith of New Hampshire to the Post).

It is unclear precisely what issue set off McCain that day. But at some point, he mocked Grassley to his face and used a profanity to describe him. Grassley stood and, according to two participants at the meeting, told McCain, "I don't have to take this. I think you should apologize."

McCain refused and stood to face Grassley. "There was some shouting and shoving between them, but no punches," recalls a spectator, who said that Nebraska Democrat Bob Kerrey helped break up the altercation.

You can bet money this will take off as a Sunday and Monday news topic. 

Just in time for the third anniversay of Pope Benedict XVI's election to the papacy, Time magazine's Tim Padgett penned a positively-intentioned yet patronizing defense of why he's "still a Roman Catholic." Suffice it to say Padgett's reasons don't ring with theological clarity or a sense of faith-filled awe at the central and essential claims of Catholicism.

No, Padgett made clear in his April 19 article that his Catholicism is one of personal preference, holding aloft not the Church as herald of the Truth, but its "quieter value" as a community in which to mark life's milestones from cradle to grave (emphasis mine):