WHAT OBJECTIVITY?

Nice turn of the trick there, Winston, with the Case vs. Murdoch involvement in the article cited. Really first rate - no joke. I just wonder how an organization that considers news a "full contact sport" can be taken at face value when they claim to be "fair and balanced"? This does not make CNN any better - it just calls into question the notion of objectivity in the first place.

The visceral reaction of liberals to FOX is a mirror of the indignant conservative reaction to CNN. Perhaps those interested more in truth than scoring short-term partisan points (or hearing the story told the way THEY want it told) will take to viewing both networks plus others and develop the ability to absorb news with a jaundiced eye, questioning the bias of any report, and ending the silliness about which news corporation is "objective". But then the previous sentence is based on what is probably a fallacy - that people (of either political stripe) want objectivity. The truth is that the vast majority of people who are interested in the news (which in itself is a minority) simply want to hear what they want to hear. American broadcasters are the best in the world and know when there is a market to be developed. Now both sides are served with their own filtered/spun version of events. Only the delusional are clinging to the untenable notion of objectivity.

UNFORTUNATE PRESS BIAS

From Fox News:

AOL Time Warner Chairman Steve Case on Thursday parried criticism from Republican lawmakers of his company's bid to buy U.S. satellite provider DirecTV and basked in praise from Democrats enamored with his liberal cable news channel.

Well, call me old fashioned, but I think its inappropriate for an obstensibly fair, balanced and objective news organization to refer to another one as a "liberal cable news channel". But there's more from the story.

Case dismissed suggestions by some Republicans and consumer advocates that AOL Time Warner could use its vast array of TV programming as a weapon against DirecTV's satellite and cable competitors.
. . . .
AOL Time Warner, DirecTV and its 11.3 million subscribers would provide a big platform to distribute the news and movie channels it owns, and complement its extensive cable news and programming operations in Europe and Asia.
. . . .
A few of the Republicans complained about the liberal tone of AOL Time Warner's CNN, the No. 2 cable news network, and accused it of being a "Bush basher." "Maybe we should make a lot more noise than we're making," Wisconsin Republican Jim Sensenbrenner told Case. "You scare the hell out of me." Case countered that CNN featured conservative as well as liberal commentators.

A shocking example of bias and ignorance. But to see the real world version of the above, see the Reuters story about News Corp.

JOHN EDWARDS' IMMUNITY

Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), presidential candidate and champeen fund-raiser, is making no head-way as a presidential candidate (his polling numbers are stuck) and is facing investigations over how his funds are raised (low salaried employees and life-long Republicans writing him checks for $2,000 because their plaintiff lawyer bosses are telling them to). Edwards learned early the importance of fund-raising during his Senate campaign when he swore he would not take PAC money and ended up having to fund his campaign out of his personal fortune. So, for his presidential run, he's taking PAC money (he even has his own PAC) and making sure that other people are writing checks. But now this scandal is about to ruin his immunity from allegations that he's just another ambulance chaser.

Although Edwards has been a personal injury lawyer for years, sharing in the huge bounties he receives for suing everyone under the sun when someone gets hurt (regardless of fault, of course), he's been immune to political attacks because of a high profile case represented a little girl whose intestines were sucked out by a drain in a baby pool. He could always point to that family with tears in his eyes and say how proud he is to have helped make her life a little better by making the manufacturer of a drain cover pay for not having a proper warning on the cover.

But now, he's making his trial lawyer status a liability again. Not because of the way he has operated (after all, the little girl!), but because of his associates. While Edwards had been immune from being infected by the generally poor reputation of his industry, he is now wallowing in the mud of the trial lawyers bar, proving by his fundraising that he is the candidate of those smarmy lawyers with the TV ads, the candidate of the ethically challenged shysters who will break the law to see one of their own get elected. And now Edwards, once the champion of the little injured girl, has become one of them.

The immunity is gone. If he actually gains in the polls, you can be sure that Kerry, Dean and Lieberman will exploit these trial lawyer connections.

GOING NUCLEAR

Senator Frist is going ahead with a plan to change Senate rules regarding cloture votes, consistent with a recent recommendation of Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga) and a 1995 plan put forward by Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Ct) and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Ia). Here's a chance for the Democrats to make a change that will decrease partisanship rancor over judicial nominations and will help the next Democrat president. If they think there will never be another Democrat in the White House, then it would be reasonable for them to resist the rule change.

TOP GUN GATE UNRAVELS DEMOCRATS

Matt Miller, columnist, former OMB official in the Clinton Administration and liberal, writes about the triviality of recent attacks on Bush for his USS Abraham Lincoln speech.

Every so often you come across evidence that a political party is losing its mind. Something like that is happening to Democrats over President Bush's fabulous "top gun" photo-op aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. It's a case study in how Bush and Karl Rove have left so many Democrats undone.
. . . .
Rep. Henry Waxman of California has asked the General Accounting Office to provide a full accounting of the landing's costs, since the event had "clear political overtones." Sen. Robert Byrd, who, as longtime appropriations czar, is in no position to throw stones over dubious uses of taxpayer money, lashed out at Bush instead for "flamboyant showmanship," saying the White House had no business using the carrier "as an advertising backdrop" for the president's speech. Democratic staffers are working overtime to gin up media interest in the "scandal."
. . . .
Isn't it obvious even to Democrats that, if you took a vote of the sailors on board, they'd have unanimously hailed the idea of a visit from their commander in chief to deliver the thanks of a grateful nation? It's a moment they'll cherish for the rest of their lives and tell their grandchildren about. Democrats, inspired perhaps by the trial lawyers who bankroll the party, are acting as if these troops are good prospects for a class-action suit.

How much will that GAO investigation cost, anyway?

RIGHT WINGERS WANT AL SHARPTON

You may remember that in 1980, the Democrats were salivating to run against Ronald Reagan. They were sure they could beat him by painting him as an extreme right wing, doddering, old, war-monger. Republicans were glad that heavy-weights like Mario Cuomo and Bill Bradley didn't run in 1992. So, it is instructive to see who the right wants to see win the Democrat nomination in 2004. A poll on Free Republic, a popular right of center forum, favors Al Sharpton.

Al Sharpton	44%
Dennis Rodman	17%
Joe Lieberman	7%
Hillary Rodham Clinton	7%
Ramsey Clark	6%
Carol Moseley-Braun	5%
Howard Dean	2%
John Kerry	2%
Bob Graham	1%
Dennis Kusinich	1%

OK, I know that this would be a bit more instructive if Dennis Rodman weren't a choice and if John Edwards were. I also suspect that Lieberman ranks highly not because he would be easy to beat but because he is most palatable to the right.

INDIANA JONES AND THE DIGITAL VERSATILE DISK

It's not something to be taken lightly. No one knows its secrets. It's like nothing you've ever gone after before. But we can get it in November, finally.

MORE ON JOHNNY EDWARDS

Despite the months of punditry that the real race will come down to John F. Kerry (D-Heinz Estate) and Johnny Edwards (D-Primary States), it appears the competitiveness of John Edwards is only in fund-raising. In New Hampshire, a new poll has Kerry (of neighboring Massachusetts) and Howard Dean (of neighboring Vermont) tied at 23% each. Next is Lieberman (D-Nearby CT) at 9% and Dick Gephardt (D-Show Me) at 8%. Edwards, who figures to be the candidate who can prove his ability to win in the South, despite a 20% deficit to George Bush in his home state, trails the pack in New Hampshire at 1%, tied with Bob Graham (FL), Moseley Braun (can't even get reelected to the Senate) and Kucinich (D-Marx Legacy).

"But that's New Hampshire," you are protesting. "Of course Edwards will trail there. He's not a favorite son and there are 3." Gary Hart, who had 2% in New Hampshire, withdrew. Perhaps that should be Edwards' plan, considering a recent national poll by The Washington Post, in which Edwards trails even Moseley Braun who has zero chance of winning, and leads Al Sharpton by only 1%:

Joseph Lieberman 29
Richard Gephardt 19
John Kerry 14
Carol Moseley Braun 6
John Edwards 4
Al Sharpton 3
Bob Graham 3
Howard Dean 3
Dennis Kucinich 2

So why is Edwards still in the race? He's raised more money than the leaders (though not always legally) and has practically made Iowa and New Hampshire home, yet he can't seem to make a dent in the polls despite the media's constant push. I suspect he has a bigger agenda that involves resigning from the Senate and remaining in the race long enough to get something for getting out. But more on that later.

NEW AMERICAN OPTIMISTS

It appears the Edwards for President campaign has been accepting (and later, in one case, returning) illegal campaign contributions from lawyers and their staffs. So, paralegals and secretaries are giving $2,000 a piece to the senator's campaign and the Edwards campaign thinks there's nothing fishy about this. The Hill has the scoop:

On March 6, Stacy Kern contributed $2,000 to the Edwards campaign. Two associate attorneys and five of the firm's six partners also contributed the maximum amount. Los Angeles County records show that Stacy Kern is not a registered voter and has not previously voted or contributed to a federal campaign.

Her husband Robert, a self-employed travel agent, also gave $2,000 on the same day. Robert Kern was at one point registered to vote in Los Angeles, but after numerous unanswered letters since 1996 from the county registrar of voters, he was dropped from the voter rolls last year. As with his wife, Robert Kern has no record of having voted and made no previous federal campaign donations.

In 1998, Stacy Kern declared Chapter 7 bankruptcy in California, with assets of $7,925 and liabilities of $126,769. In 1994, California assessed her husband with a $33,254 state tax lien, active until 2004. The Kerns are not listed as property holders.

But campaign spokesbabe Jennifer Palmieri says "that the pattern of low-level employee contributions 'doesn't concern us'." Come on, you may not care where your money comes from, but it should be of some "concern" that the press knows about it. And the neo-Clinton campaign continues...

LIBERALS, PESTILENCE AND PROFILING

If you don’t know what SARS or “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome” is, you haven’t been watching or reading the news, or watching the Tonight Show, for the last month.

This highly infectious respiratory disease is causing fear and consternation throughout the world, and various officials have taken various measures to combat it, including officials at one of the most reliably liberal places in America.

Fox News is reporting that “The University of California at Berkeley will turn away new students from SARS-infected China, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong this summer in what is believed to be the first such move by a major U.S. university to prevent the spread of the virus.”

Let me get this straight: one of the most liberal colleges in America is basing decisions on who should or shouldn't attend classes because of the students' countries of origin? It’s judging who may be a threat to others’ safety based on ethnicity?

Isn’t that...racial profiling?

How is it different than airlines or federal officials basing decisions on who should or shouldn’t board airplanes because of passengers’ countries of origin? How is what Berkeley’s doing anything other than judging who may be a threat to others’ safety based on ethnicity?

Much like affirmative action, it looks like liberals don’t care about minority rights when the minority is Asian.

However, if I was an Asian student, I wouldn’t worry. There’s a sure-fire way to get into Berkeley, even if they have SARS.

They should claim to be gay.

After all, if twenty years of AIDS (re)education has taught us anything, it's that, no matter how infectious and deadly a disease is, if enough sufferers are homosexual, it would be wrong to discriminate against them.

So my advice to the students trying to get into Berkeley is this: paint pink trianges on your surgical masks and practice chanting “we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.”

You’ll be taking classes in no time