Blogs

By Ken Shepherd | April 12, 2013 | 1:14 PM EDT

Last November I noted an excellent post by Trevin Wax of the Gospel Coalition entitled "10 Questions a Pro-choice Candidate Is Never Asked by the Media." Well, Wax has hit the nail on the head again with an incisive April 12 post "8 Reasons for the Media Blackout on Kermit Gosnell."

"To put the Kermit Gosnell trial in perspective, consider other famous cases of child-killing. From Susan Smith to Andrea Yates, and most recently the horror of Newtown, we are accustomed to 24/7 news coverage of these types of tragedies," Wax noted in his April 12 post, , yet, "[n]ot so with Dr. Gosnell." You can read the full list here, but I thought reasons 5,6, 7 and 8, which I've excerpted below, are particularly spot on, especially as pertains to MSNBC, which was the leading standard bearer in the "war on women" meme and which is constantly playing the race card against conservatives:

By Tim Graham | April 9, 2013 | 8:16 AM EDT

If anyone was going to dance in the streets when Margaret Thatcher died, you could reliably find a Daily Kos blogger with two turntables and a microphone.

"Ollie Garkey" protested that Thatcher's economic policies were "the greatest case of international larceny in history...far harsher than even Ronald Reagan's economic policies. Thatcher destroyed whole industries in places like Wales and Scotland just to be rid of the unions supported by those industries."

By Tom Blumer | April 7, 2013 | 12:56 PM EDT

I guess Byron Tau thought he had to make it look like Big Labor is really, really mad at President Barack Obama and the White House so he could make Obama look like he's a moderate on economic and fiscal issues. Thus his Sunday morning post's headline: "Labor targets Obama over proposed benefit cuts."

Of course, they aren't "cuts" at all, though they are being portrayed as such. All Obama has done, according to information which appears to have been conveniently leaked (perhaps in hopes of killing the idea) to the New York Times ahead of his very late President's Budget, is "propose a new inflation formula that would have the effect of reducing cost-of-living payments for Social Security benefits, though with financial protections for low-income and very old beneficiaries, administration officials said." Despite the weakly descriptive language at the Times, monthly Social Security and other checks would continue to increase under the proposal each year inflation occurs -- just not by as much.

By Tom Johnson | April 5, 2013 | 11:37 PM EDT

Kossacks aren't merely pleased that same-sex marriage is growing in popularity; some also feel the need to at least malign its opponents and, in one jaw-dropping case, wish severe physical pain on them.
 
As usual, each headline is preceded by the blogger's name or pseudonym.

 

By Tom Blumer | April 4, 2013 | 10:20 PM EDT

Well, we can stop worrying about the economy now. Write it down. Chris Rugaber at the Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press, tells readers today that the business cycle has been repealed. That's right. As of now, "Gone are the fears that the economy could fall into another recession."

Even giving him the benefit of the doubt that he only meant to refer to the short- or intermediate-term, it takes a mountain of chutzpah to make such a declaration after a quarter during the which the economy grew at an annualized 0.4%, i.e., an actual 0.1%. It's doubly hard to take because the press, led by the Associated Press, feared that a recession was around the corner virtually every month or quarter from the time I began blogging in early 2005 until mid-2008, when the National Bureau of Economic Research defied the normal person's definition of recession (i.e., two consecutive quarters of contraction) and decided that a recession began in December 2007, seven months before it really did.

By Tim Graham | April 4, 2013 | 9:51 PM EDT

For a long time now, it’s been apparent to social conservatives that the gay-marriage lobby is not a movement of tolerance. It won’t be satisfied with Supreme Court-imposed homo-nuptials in 50 states. If groups like GLAAD are the rule, they work to ban the social conservatives out of the “respectable” circles in the media, and make “homophobia” a hate crime.

But you can’t make this argument at the Daily Kos, where “LeftHandedMan” responded to this argument with a “GFY” and a rant about how conservatives should all bend over and “fist” each other with spiked gloves:  

By Tom Blumer | March 31, 2013 | 9:03 PM EDT

At the Weekly Standard's blog today, Daniel Halper relayed a pool reporter's notes from the Easter service President Barack Obama and his family attended this morning. The highlights from the Rev. Dr. Luis Leon's sermon" included the following statement: "It drives me crazy when the captains of the religious right are always calling us back ... for blacks to be back in the back of the bus ... for women to be back in the kitchen ... for immigrants to be back on their side of the border."

What follows the jump is the report on the event from Stacy A. Anderson at the Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press (produced in full for fair use and discussion purposes):

By Tom Blumer | March 31, 2013 | 7:46 PM EDT

The latest estimate of economic growth for the final quarter of 2012 published by Uncle Sam's Bureau of Economic Analysis on Thursday told us that the economy grew at an annualized rate of 0.4%. Not annualized, that means it actually grew by 0.1%. A $100,000-a-year business doing that "well" during a quarter would have seen its sales increase by $25 (.001 times $100,000 divided by 4).

CNNMoney.com was so happy with that revised result that it presented the following headline and graphic to its readers:

By Tom Blumer | March 29, 2013 | 12:37 AM EDT

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is at it again, telling us peons that we're not deserving of our full measure of yet another freedom, this time to express ourselves.

As reported by Dana Rubenstein at CapitalNewYork.com (HT The Blaze), "As it turns out, Bloomberg, the highest-profile cheerleader for New York City's burgeoning tech scene, doesn't really like the social media revolution upon which much of it is premised." Excerpts after the jump reveal that Bloomberg wants tech, but only on his terms:

By Tom Blumer | March 26, 2013 | 7:58 PM EDT

Sometimes one learns interesting things perusing stories at tech web sites.

A report by Michelle Maisto at Eweek about Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer has one nugget of information which has been out there for a while, and another which I believe hasn't been and still isn't widely known about both Mayer and her former employer Google. Both items indicate to me that Mayer as a woman and the two tech companies involved are getting free passes from the press which a male CEO and non-tech would likely not receive. Excerpts follow the jump (internal link is in original; bolds are mine):

By Tom Blumer | March 24, 2013 | 10:31 PM EDT

Searches at the Associated Press, New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times done at 9:30 p.m. on "Obama Arafat" (not in quotes) returned nothing relevant to the matter I am about to note. A Google News search on the same term (sorted by date) returns only about a half-dozen relevant items (another very recent one is missing, and I'll get that one in a later post this evening).

On Thursday in Ramallah, as Daniel Halper at the Weekly Standard blog noted, U.S. President Barack Obama "addressed the assembled journalists while standing under a Yasser Arafat banner." Arafat is rightly considered the “father of modern terrorism.” Since U.S. establishment press coverage is non-existent, I'll take readers to an outraged Nile Gardiner at the UK Telegraph to express how utterly offensive Obama's silently condoning Arafat's legitimacy really is:

By Tom Blumer | March 24, 2013 | 9:33 AM EDT

In a brief item Friday at Politico, Donovan Slack reported that President Obama has withdrawn his nomination of Caitlin Halligan for the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Concerning Republican senators' opposition to her nomination, Slack said it was "because they said she had a record of advocacy and an activist view of the judiciary" without citing specifics. It's almost as if Slack knew he had to write something, but wished to keep a rare Republican success at stopping an objectionable court nominee as vague and quiet as possible. In early March, the folks at Eagle Forum compiled a useful list of how awful Halligan would have been had her appointment made it through the Senate (bolds are mine throughout this post):